Quote:
Originally Posted by Bicycle Bob
Modern agriculture is totally dependent on oil, so current trends cannot continue. Part of California's central valley is being lost to salt accumulation from bad irrigation, and many other productive areas are dependent on aquifers that are quickly being depleted. Desalinization is energy-intensive, as would be running rivers backward to the fields.
GM crops are less productive than traditional seeds - they are designed to sell chemicals and promote a monopoly, while causing health problems.
Aquaculture is dependent on converting less-desireable ocean species to salmon, etc, at a great loss in protein overall, while the farms spread disease and overfishing, ocean acidification, etc, are only helping the jellyfish. My own well was ruined by nearby aquaculture hatchery tanks when I lived on the coast. The fish farms in Chile crashed recently, and the ones in BC are always in trouble, or making trouble for the wild population.
If the whole world copies our high-energy, non-sustainable practises, climate chaos is certain. What would really ease the situation is more awareness that vegetarians who get a good variety of plants live longer, healthier lives on a small fraction of the land needed to raise and slaughter animals for food.
|
A couple of items:
Is modern agriculture really "totally dependent on oil"? Point 1: Many fertilizers are fossil-derived, true. But the primary source of fertilizer nitrogen is ammonia, produced via
natural gas, not oil. But as it becomes more economical, ammonia derived from agricultural urine will likely gain more traction. Point 2: Tractor and combine use of oil, which constitute 19% of agricultural energy consumption, will benefit from many of the technology advances in automobiles. Moreso, really, considering the difference in use cycles.
Regarding irrigation and desalination: Agreed... but with some additional thoughts. As the problems become more apparent in the US, we have the good fortune of being one of the few countries facing both the need and having the economic capacity to develop and deploy desalination technologies. That's why I said, "within ten to fifteen years, high volume production {of potable water from seawater} will be far more economical." Companies will compete where there is money to be made (again, need and economic capacity).
"GM crops are less productive than traditional seeds" - I'm not sure what figures you are using to get here, but they are patently false. (I'm including selective interbreeding of crop strains into my definition of GM.) For example, Borlaug's work in developing nations resulted in increases in wheat yield from 750kg/Ha in the 1950s to ~2300kg/Ha, with India acheiving almost 4500kg/Ha. "Bt" cotton farming greatly reduced pesticide use while increasing productivity.
"{GM crops} are designed to sell chemicals and promote a monopoly, while causing health problems" - True... but only in parts. Pesticide and herbicide resistance are only two of the commonly GM components. Others include inherent insect resistance, virus immunity (yellow mosaic for example), rust immunity, etc. The "Roundup Resistant" crops are not the end-all of GM crops. As for the health problems, I've yet to see a properly vetted and confirmed study showing any resulting health issues. Certainly, if you eat any wheat-containing products, you already eat the results of Borlaug's work in developing hybridized wheat.
Regarding aquaculture: I actually was not referring to oceanic fisheries, but to oceanic hydroponic farms (hence the "not to distant technology" remark; fisheries are a "here and now" tech). The current harvesting of kelp and other seaweeds is merely the tip of the iceburg.
Re vegetarianism: I don't have any problem with the idea that vegetarianism is less resource intensive than omnivorism. But if you are truly opposed to GM crops, even vegetarianism is screwed.
