"The new study essentially argues that we need to use land optimally. If land is well suited to growing corn, then we should grow corn. If it is better suited for forestation, then we should allow forests to grow there and not convert it to farmland. Forests sequester a lot more carbon than farmland, and this is a critical component to any overall strategy to mitigate climate change. The authors calculate that land use contributes, “about 20 to 25 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions.”
If we put the various studies I have been discussing together, a compelling image emerges. First, we need to consider that we are already using all the best farmland to grow crops. Any expansion of our farmland will by necessity be using less and less optimal land for farming. This translates to a greater negative impact on the climate. However, our food production needs will grow by about 50% by 2050.
This is a strong argument, in my opinion, against biofuels. We need that land to grow food, not fuel – unless we can source biofuels from the ocean or industrial vats without increasing land use.
It is also a powerful argument against organic farming. This dovetails with the previous study I discussed, which showed that intense farming is better for the environment than organic farming. This is due primarily to land use. Organic farming is less productive per hectare, and any decreased CO2 production from avoiding fossil-fuel based fertilizers or other methods is more than offset by the decreased production and increased land use. This disadvantage will only become greater with time, as the advantages of conventional farming increase and the greater inefficiency of spreading into suboptimal land increases.
Further, we have to consider the nitrogen cycle. Where is all the nitrogen to grow crops coming from? Organic farming relies heavily on manure, and that is not sustainable.
Scientists are increasingly coming to the firm conclusion that we have to optimize our farming, and organic farming just doesn’t cut it. This should come as no surprise, as organic farming is not evidence-based or even outcome-based – it is methodology-based, and also is derived from an appeal-to-nature fallacy. It avoids whatever does not feel “natural,” and then tries to present itself as more wholesome. Unfortunately, this resonates with human psychology, but the details don’t make sense when you take a close look. Organic produce is no better, but it is more wasteful, and therefore more expensive and worse for the environment. climate crisis means we cannot afford it."
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
More Evidence Organic Farming is Bad
By Steven Novella of NeuroLogica. Excerpt:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.