Heading - New Scientist Environment Blog

An environment blog from  Heading - NewScientist Blogs

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Fred's Footprint: What price cotton?

If biofuels are so bad, why aren't we campaigning against cotton?

Biofuels are currently being accused of starving the world of food, by taking over badly needed land and water. But the fact is, cotton deprives food growers of much more water and good farming land than biofuels.

If we weren't already doing it, and somebody today came up with the idea of taking over the world's fields to grow clothes, there'd be a huge stink. So is it time for a reassessment of cotton and other non-food crops?

The charge list against cotton is long. Cotton drained the Aral Sea in central Asia. I have stood on the former shoreline at Muynak in Uzbekistan and looked out across the 100 kilometres of desert you'd have to cross to find the sea. No water gets down the rivers that once topped up the inland sea, because it is also taken to irrigate fields of cotton to make clothes for sale in our high streets and shopping malls.

It takes 25 bathtubs of water to grow enough cotton for one T-shirt. Cotton also helps empty the River Indus in Pakistan and the Nile in Egypt. Its cultivation uses up 35 million hectares of farmland, an area the size of Germany, and soaks up a tenth of all the world's pesticides.

We know that the corn needed to fill an SUV tank with bioethanol could feed an African for a year. But how many mouths could be fed with the land and water taken to grow my T-shirt?

And the geopolitics of cotton sounds not unlike the emerging geopolitics of biofuels. The globalisation of cotton production started with the British Empire, when vast areas in India, Egypt and elsewhere were turned over to cotton growing in order to feed Lancashire cotton mills. People starved in their millions as a result.

That is worth bearing in mind if you think the warnings being made today about the potential impact of biofuels on feeding the planet are far-fetched.

So my point is not that we can excuse biofuels because we have always been using precious resources to grow non-food crops. Rather, it is to wonder why those other crops still get a free ride.

Should we sacrifice our cotton T-shirts in order to allow people to eat? What about other fibres like flax and hemp? Or narcotics? Or timber? We all like natural forests, of course, but what about all those monoculture plantations growing wood for pulp?

Now, economists will argue that the world is simple: that rising prices for commodities, including food, stimulate production. We can have our cake and eat it, too. And to some extent they are right.

But in a world of empty granaries and rising food prices, this is a debate worth having. And, while biofuels need to be in the environmental dock, it is time we cottoned on to the fact that some of these other non-food crops should also be under interrogation.

Fred Pearce, senior environment correspondent

Labels: , ,

For teh most part a good article, just one nit regarding this statement:

'what about all those monoculture plantations growing wood for pulp?'

Most wood pulp is grown without irrigation, so the growth of wood pulp does not impact water supplies; the question is only one of how to balance land use for wood pulp vs food vs cotton.
This is a very good point, and I understand why cotton has been picked on here, because of its vast use of resources.
But people do need clothing.
Tobacco however, is a very different story.
By Anonymous Anonymous on June 18, 2008 4:54 PM  
Just to play Devil's advocate, Would we be having issues balancing land use if we did not have a global population issue?...

I hate to bring up "peak oil", but perhaps we are beginning to reach peak population, the decline of which will be much more unpleasent for many of us...

On a lighter note, who wants to go T-shirt shopping :-)
By Anonymous Anonymous on June 18, 2008 5:30 PM  
Industrial hemp has many advantages over cotton: It requires NO pesticides or herbicides, grows well in a variety of climates and soil types and it leaves a weed-free field for following crops. In addition, industrial hemp can be used to make fine quality paper and it yields 3 to 8 dry tons of fiber per acre, about four times that of an average forest.

It's time we return to this useful plant!
By Anonymous Anonymous on June 18, 2008 6:54 PM  
A good point, as far as it goes. Just one snag: if you want to phase out cotton - or anything else we're already using - you need to suggest an alternative. Synthetics, as made using finite petrochemical resources? Hemp, as the previous poster advocates? Something else entirely?
What about the recently developed GM cotton sans toxin gossypol in the seeds?

It is claimed that enough cotton seeds are produced as a side product to provide for the protien needs of 500 million people.

And that's the protien. What about the fats? The oils? Can these not be used to produce biofuels? Cooking oil?

And I'm sure with more modification the plants could also be made more resistant to pests.

In the end it would certainly help if the fashion and clothing industries were less wasteful. I'm not exactly a hippy, but darn... Most people have lots of clothing they never wear. Bales of clothing they have only worn once or twice.

It's a little bit evil if you think how much some poor people have to suffer in the textile industry.
By Anonymous Anonymous on June 18, 2008 9:44 PM  
What the hell, pick on corn next! Or ANYthing that's grown in the US. More politically-correct scapegoating, please!!
By Anonymous Anonymous on June 18, 2008 10:06 PM  
When you put this article along with a few others that have appeared recently it certainly does look like the world has reached or is about to reach it's peak population.
The debate is definately needed to allow ceretain banned products such as hemp to be grown commercially.
However, economics will not answer the problem as non food crops like cotton and narcotics will always get better returns than food allowing their growers to buy the food they need.
The next few years, maybe up to 50, will be interesting times to live through, for those that can make it through, as science tries to match the ravages of free market economics which are about to hit the wall when unlimited growth is no longer an option.
By Anonymous Anonymous on June 18, 2008 10:37 PM  
Is there no way to recycle cotton clothing? If not, perhaps someone should work on this problem. That would reduce the need for fresh cotton fields and release those fields for other uses.
By Anonymous Anonymous on June 19, 2008 3:50 AM  
How about Bamboo fiber, that stuff grows like crazy.
While talking about terrible crops, how about Coffee, its almost as bad as cotton, and despite what you think - you don't NEED it.

Do you think it could feed an American for a year?
By Anonymous Anonymous on June 19, 2008 11:56 AM  
One thing we need to guard against is knee-jerk reactions....

Plastic shopping bags out, and cotton 9ooops) and plastic (yes, the green bags are polypropylene) in?????

Fossil oil out, and seed oils in????

Food crops out, and oil crops in????

Doomsday, knee-jerk reactions threaten to drive us to destruction faster than if we let the systems adjust with a little finesse and guidance rather than sledgehammer green politics driving the debate. The very disregard the green movement accuses traditional resource companies of, failure to consider all of the pros and cons, is exactly what is being displayed by them! It's time we dropped the soft pseaudo-scientific "green" approach for some good basic hard science that has the capacity and capability of measuring these things.
By Anonymous Chemikazi on June 19, 2008 12:55 PM  
I think the difference is that the bio-fuels are MANDATED BY GOVERNMENT while cotton crops are a product of market forces. That may not mean much too many but having to do something at the point of a gun will usually lead to a negative reaction.
By Anonymous Anonymous on June 19, 2008 3:50 PM  
Let's all go back to the "Good Old Days" when we were naked and ate dirt (or something like that)!
By Anonymous Anonymous on June 19, 2008 6:22 PM  
A river dries up only if the source dries up. As is the case with most rivers, the ocean is the source and the water cycle take the water through evaporation from the ocean and brings the water to where to river starts as precipitation.

The Earth is not loosing water through the seal of it's atmosphere into outer space!

Has the water cycle principle taught in primary school undergone a malfunction?
Cotton has been well known as a water waster for centuries but government paranoia dictates that extraordinary alternatives like hemp (from which we can derive oils) and bamboo generate stronger monger lasting materials from plants that grow like weeds (excuse pun) and take little water. About time the Gov's woke up and showed some leadership - its nuts!!
By Anonymous Anonymous on June 19, 2008 11:52 PM  
Got a better Substitute than cotton???

For Energy there is wind and solar
By Anonymous Anonymous on June 20, 2008 4:22 AM  
Substitute for cotton is relatively easy with plenty of natural cellulosic fibres even if a little rougher than cotton. but the obvious fine fibre replacement in the cellulose types is Rayon. Take cellulose from a variety of natural sources, dissolve, process and extrude as filaments. Been done for almost 100 years.

[Your energy substitutes are much much much harder. Neither solar or wind energy can provide the base load levels 24 hours per day as yet because there are no satisfactory storage options. There are some possible solar-thermal options in that respect, but scaling up to meet even a fraction of the needs is still a long way off.]
By Anonymous Chemikazi on June 20, 2008 6:25 AM  
the economists predict a demand lead increase in supply of food.

the problem with that is that the economy responds to those with the most disposable income - ie, those who want cotton and fuel.
By Anonymous Steve Dobbs on June 20, 2008 3:57 PM  
Its now possible to fight CO2 while you surf the internet! The website treehoo.com plants trees for most of its ad-based profit. The site offers Google search and more and is perfect for everyone to have as homepage. Ad revenues on the net sum to 6 billion dollars each year! Imagine that kind of money invested in our nature!!!
Excellent, bring the debate on balancing food, fuel, fibres out into the open. Do not just kick biofuel and palm oil in the shins taking attention of the whole food and resources debate. The bottom line will be to increase fuel efficiency and produce as much as possible form prime agri-land as possible without destroying it. anyone who is sensible in the agri-business is doing this now. Getting people to consume less clothes, fuel, food etc or breaking supply-demand cycles is something the agri-business has little control over. But it is critical to change the current situation.
By Anonymous legoman on June 26, 2008 10:00 AM  
I agree with you and its a sour truth that we are producing non-food crops like cotton at the expense of food crops which will be a huge problem in the times to come. I feel there must be restrictions in the production and hence its usage of cotton.
As long as figures of "25 bathtubs of water to produce one T-shirt" are being thrown around, it should be noted that most of the cotton produced in the U.S. is grown on dryland farms and not irrigated. There is enough cotton in government controlled storage to provide for the needs of the U.S. for three years. Most cotton imported is not due to need or demand, but to serve as economic stimulus for the exporting countries ergo buying a T-shirt should not provoke feelings of guilt or wish that you could have a hemp shirt.
Okay, ban cotton, ban tobacco, even ban coffee -- but don't ban chocolate!! I NEED it!!
By Anonymous Anonymous on June 28, 2008 10:48 PM  
If we want to be rational there are many many things we can change to create more food. Growing Cotton may have been possible for Egypt as long as there enough water but when the Nile gets less and less water a year I suppose the change would come usually though it comes when the cotton can't grow any more for lack of water
On living without regard to hard truths, matters of scale or limits to growth.

How freedom without responsibility destroys life as we know it.

How do rich and famous people, who live large and have huge ecological footprints, as well as corporate ‘citizens’ that cast giant shadows over the Earth today, so easily get away with socially irresponsible behavior which could soon precipitate an ecological catastrophe?

As everyone knows but few openly discuss, wealth and power buy freedom. What is all too obvious but often cloaked in silence is this: A small minority of individuals in the human family with great fortunes and virtually all large corporations exercise their great wealth and power in ways that allow all of these self-proclaimed masters of the universe to live lavishly as well as to willfully refuse assumption of the responsibilities which necessarily come with freedom.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
Pearce is right, cotton uses up far too much water. Suzy Khimm of the New Republic has picked up on his article, and I have done a post on this at www.hempforvictory.blogspot.com
There you can see that hemp is a stronger and easier to grow fibre, that other products come from hemp which are more valuable than cotton by-products, and that it is better for the environment. It can be grown where cotton is not.
In Feb. this year Lisa Pearson made a cotton vs hemp comparison in the Scotsman on Sunday, one might want to take a look at that
article, and soon to come, one about hemp in the Ecologist (ETA, Sep.)
For a complete tome on the subject of hemp, "Hemp for Victory: History and Qaulites of the World's Most Useful Plant" will set the record straight.
Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some habbo credits . I do not know how to use the habbo gold ; my friend tells me how to use. I will thank for my friends bringing me in this world. I am not regret to buy habbo coins . We all love game, if you want to play it, please buy habbo gold and join us. Please do not hesitate to have cheap habbo credits . It is funny.
By Anonymous Anonymous on January 10, 2009 6:40 AM  
he usually can win a lot of rs gold
then he let his friends all have some runescape money