7 ms·

This is happening not only in the US but around the globe. I struggle with it myself. I find there are 4 main problems associated with erosion where I work (Po

by chicob 9y ago

This is happening not only in the US but around the globe. I struggle with it myself. I find there are 4 main problems associated with erosion where I work (Portugal): 1) Herbicides overkill leads to the death of useful grasses that help hold soil structure. Some fungicides may kill mycorrhizae which are fundamental in soil maintenance (http://mycorrhizae.com/wp-content/uploads/Effects-of-Fungicides-on-Mycorrhizal-Fungi-PDF.pdf http://mycorrhizae.com/wp-content/uploads/Effects-of-Fungici...) 2) Tillage avoidance is recommended, and in some cases prohibited. But people do it nevertheless... The consequences are obvious. 3) Dams built with irrigation in mind often accumulate mineral salts at a rate larger than what Nature would drain towards the sea. Since water is used in places with lower rain levels, drainage in those places is low as well, which leads to salination (Sometimes it also leads to lower levels of mineral salts in river mouths, thus a decline in phytoplankton and as as consequence fish populations). 4) Global warming means tougher draughts and heavier rains, which means more erosion. We're headed to some serious problems if we don't take these issues seriously.

Gravityloss 9y ago
Let's play a game. First, assume you're correct and these soil issues really exist. I'm sure there are entities who have a short or long term interest to not do anything about it. For example, somebody might be selling land (because they know such issues will get worse in the future), and if farming will be prohibited, they will get a worse price for the land. Hence best to deny, or at least question the existence of soil problems. If these entities have a lot of money, they can create their own journals and publish science that says "there is no problem with the soil". They can also bribe scientists and reviewers with high status. They can lobby politicians. And lastly, the media can be caught too, you have to frame it as a political issue so you have 50% of the media in your pocket. Now look at it from a politician's point of view. If you really get the signal that it's not a real problem, then it certainly doesn't make sense to spend resources on it.
- chicob 9y ago
  Ok. In agriculture, people tend to ignore the problem because it leads to lesser profits in the short term. The food industry, one of the major clients of agrobusiness is very competitive. The phyto pharmaceutical industry keeps pushing their products just like the pharmaceutical companies in hospitals. In fact, they're the same corporations most of the time. In this case, lobbying happens in the Union level, i.e. the European Parliament. The pressure is to great for small farmers to deal with. That is also happening with the construction/concrete lobby (and I presume that sometimes the land price rises if you plan to build housing around cities in the countryside). Construction companies build regardless of erosion or flooding problems. It's not their problem once they finish the job. That happens a lot around here. Politicians only think in the short term. "Yeah, sure there's the problem of seasonal fires, draughts and floods. We'll make use of some catastrophe fund. But you can't forget jobs in construction and tourism infrastructure!" Result: concrete all over.
  - balabaster 9y ago
    So you buy farmland high in the water catch basin where you're not subject to salination and as few upstream pollution problems. Dig yourself a well, grow your own food using as few herbicides, fungicides and pesticides as possible. Build your own ecosystem and let the rest of society go to hell. Eventually, if you do it properly, you'll be the only one left with farmable land, you'll be bought out for a handsome price and you take your newfound riches and fuck off to somewhere that doesn't have this problem yet and do it all again. It doesn't matter if anyone believes in it or not. Either you're wrong and you're no further behind, in fact, from a trust standpoint, you're ahead because you're now in control of your food supply from the ground to your plate... and if you're right, then you win. I'm over simplifying to be facetious, but my point stands. If everyone put not only their money where their mouth was, but took legitimate action to ensure their lifestyle fit what was important to their belief, I don't think we'd suffer from half of the problems we do. Unfortunately 90% of the population are happy with just complaining and being armchair politicians and only make the convenient choices that don't interfere with their comfort and their status quo. If you believe big agriculture is destroying the planet, find a sustainable way to not support them, or support them as little as absolutely possible. Support your local farms and farmers. Support Mom & Pop stores in your local area. Buy from farmers markets. Learn to preserve food over the winter months when it's not available. Eat seasonal produce. Of course, everyone's lives are nuanced and complicated. It's not as easy as it sounds for most people. But I firmly believe that if you truly believe we have a problem (which I do), then do something about it instead of just talk, complain and continue life as normal.
- chicob 9y ago
  Another thing. >Now look at it from a politician's point of view. If you really get the signal that it's not a real problem, then it certainly doesn't make sense to spend resources on it. That is true, but even if there is a perception of a real problem, the short term rules. If it is not as profitable, they ignore it. It's not going to be their problem 50 years ahead.
- mason240 9y ago
  That would require a massive, coordinated conspiracy by a large group of landowners, and would be very expensive to carry out and would suffer from a free-rider issue of funding it. It's just not within the realm of possibility.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  In what we actually observe, this doesn't seem to be the case. (In this case - obviously issues like smoking went exactly this way.) Rather, everything from "best to deny..." to "...bribe scientists and reviewers" got skipped. It just didn't change anything. Pretty much everyone knows soil erosion, desertification, and aquifer drawdown are major issues in the US Midwest. Certainly everyone with a big enough farm to have a major impact does. Cattle feedlots have been moved out of the TX/OK panhandle area because water is so scarce. Politicians are painfully aware of it. But there's no incentive to fix it, because the fix is basically just triggering the shutdown sooner. Eventually soil and water issues will cripple midwestern farming, but avoiding that means slashing farming volume now. Better for the environment, but not for most of the people there. So... no conspiracy, everyone knows, but the problem continues. Ironically, the conspiracy story shows too much faith in our government - it assumes they would act if they knew!
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Sometimes I think it must really suck to be in public administration. If you want to do something about anything, you get attacked for trying to limit people's freedom. If you don't do anything, you later get blamed for letting the problem happen.
    - bluGill 9y ago
      It sucks because the job is impossible for technical reasons: Just moving 100 meters often changes the correct best practice for long term soil health. How you can you regulate when you need that many different regulations?
danjoc 9y ago
>4) Global warming means tougher draughts and heavier rains, which means more erosion. Erosion is not the result of global warming. Erosion is the largest source of CO2 on Earth. It's an order of magnitude larger than all fossil fuel combustion combined. http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/carbcycle.html http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/carbcycle.html Not picking on you specifically. It's a common misunderstanding. The media has badly misinformed people in an effort to push an agenda.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  I think chicob was saying that climate change causes more severe storms, which increases the weather; not saying that increased erosion leads to climate change. Your point is valid, but your cause and effect are backwards from chicob's.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    The way I reconcile both those comments is that 'chicob suggests there is - or might be soon - a positive feedback loop here.
    - danjoc 9y ago
      That would also be wrong. Earth is a buffer system, not something easily tipped into runaway Armageddon.
      - chicob 9y ago
        A buffer system within small scale perturbations. Take anthropogenic CO2 emissions: they are changing the entire planet's climate. Take permafrost, for instance. A small increase in the temperature might lead to an even bigger one. This is well documented.
  - danjoc 9y ago
    >chicob was saying that climate change causes more severe storms Storms lead to weathering. Weathering is a carbon sink. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292711001648 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292711... >Your point is valid, but your cause and effect are backwards from chicob's. Ice cream doesn't lead to hot summer days. It's the other way around. Erosion exposes further, deeper, top soil to erosion. By the time layer 1 is eroded to expose layer 2, layer 1 is already a done deal. You can pave over it if you like, but the CO2 is already gone. Close the barn! The horses escaped... too little, too late.

by chicob 9y ago

Gravityloss 9y ago

Let's play a game. First, assume you're correct and these soil issues really exist. I'm sure there are entities who have a short or long term interest to not do anything about it. For example, somebody might be selling land (because they know such issues will get worse in the future), and if farming will be prohibited, they will get a worse price for the land. Hence best to deny, or at least question the existence of soil problems. If these entities have a lot of money, they can create their own journals and publish science that says "there is no problem with the soil". They can also bribe scientists and reviewers with high status. They can lobby politicians. And lastly, the media can be caught too, you have to frame it as a political issue so you have 50% of the media in your pocket. Now look at it from a politician's point of view. If you really get the signal that it's not a real problem, then it certainly doesn't make sense to spend resources on it.

chicob 9y ago
Ok. In agriculture, people tend to ignore the problem because it leads to lesser profits in the short term. The food industry, one of the major clients of agrobusiness is very competitive. The phyto pharmaceutical industry keeps pushing their products just like the pharmaceutical companies in hospitals. In fact, they're the same corporations most of the time. In this case, lobbying happens in the Union level, i.e. the European Parliament. The pressure is to great for small farmers to deal with. That is also happening with the construction/concrete lobby (and I presume that sometimes the land price rises if you plan to build housing around cities in the countryside). Construction companies build regardless of erosion or flooding problems. It's not their problem once they finish the job. That happens a lot around here. Politicians only think in the short term. "Yeah, sure there's the problem of seasonal fires, draughts and floods. We'll make use of some catastrophe fund. But you can't forget jobs in construction and tourism infrastructure!" Result: concrete all over.
- balabaster 9y ago
  So you buy farmland high in the water catch basin where you're not subject to salination and as few upstream pollution problems. Dig yourself a well, grow your own food using as few herbicides, fungicides and pesticides as possible. Build your own ecosystem and let the rest of society go to hell. Eventually, if you do it properly, you'll be the only one left with farmable land, you'll be bought out for a handsome price and you take your newfound riches and fuck off to somewhere that doesn't have this problem yet and do it all again. It doesn't matter if anyone believes in it or not. Either you're wrong and you're no further behind, in fact, from a trust standpoint, you're ahead because you're now in control of your food supply from the ground to your plate... and if you're right, then you win. I'm over simplifying to be facetious, but my point stands. If everyone put not only their money where their mouth was, but took legitimate action to ensure their lifestyle fit what was important to their belief, I don't think we'd suffer from half of the problems we do. Unfortunately 90% of the population are happy with just complaining and being armchair politicians and only make the convenient choices that don't interfere with their comfort and their status quo. If you believe big agriculture is destroying the planet, find a sustainable way to not support them, or support them as little as absolutely possible. Support your local farms and farmers. Support Mom & Pop stores in your local area. Buy from farmers markets. Learn to preserve food over the winter months when it's not available. Eat seasonal produce. Of course, everyone's lives are nuanced and complicated. It's not as easy as it sounds for most people. But I firmly believe that if you truly believe we have a problem (which I do), then do something about it instead of just talk, complain and continue life as normal.
chicob 9y ago
Another thing. >Now look at it from a politician's point of view. If you really get the signal that it's not a real problem, then it certainly doesn't make sense to spend resources on it. That is true, but even if there is a perception of a real problem, the short term rules. If it is not as profitable, they ignore it. It's not going to be their problem 50 years ahead.
mason240 9y ago
That would require a massive, coordinated conspiracy by a large group of landowners, and would be very expensive to carry out and would suffer from a free-rider issue of funding it. It's just not within the realm of possibility.
Bartweiss 9y ago
In what we actually observe, this doesn't seem to be the case. (In this case - obviously issues like smoking went exactly this way.) Rather, everything from "best to deny..." to "...bribe scientists and reviewers" got skipped. It just didn't change anything. Pretty much everyone knows soil erosion, desertification, and aquifer drawdown are major issues in the US Midwest. Certainly everyone with a big enough farm to have a major impact does. Cattle feedlots have been moved out of the TX/OK panhandle area because water is so scarce. Politicians are painfully aware of it. But there's no incentive to fix it, because the fix is basically just triggering the shutdown sooner. Eventually soil and water issues will cripple midwestern farming, but avoiding that means slashing farming volume now. Better for the environment, but not for most of the people there. So... no conspiracy, everyone knows, but the problem continues. Ironically, the conspiracy story shows too much faith in our government - it assumes they would act if they knew!
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Sometimes I think it must really suck to be in public administration. If you want to do something about anything, you get attacked for trying to limit people's freedom. If you don't do anything, you later get blamed for letting the problem happen.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    It sucks because the job is impossible for technical reasons: Just moving 100 meters often changes the correct best practice for long term soil health. How you can you regulate when you need that many different regulations?

danjoc 9y ago

>4) Global warming means tougher draughts and heavier rains, which means more erosion. Erosion is not the result of global warming. Erosion is the largest source of CO2 on Earth. It's an order of magnitude larger than all fossil fuel combustion combined. http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/carbcycle.html http://soilcarboncenter.k-state.edu/carbcycle.html Not picking on you specifically. It's a common misunderstanding. The media has badly misinformed people in an effort to push an agenda.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
I think chicob was saying that climate change causes more severe storms, which increases the weather; not saying that increased erosion leads to climate change. Your point is valid, but your cause and effect are backwards from chicob's.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  The way I reconcile both those comments is that 'chicob suggests there is - or might be soon - a positive feedback loop here.
  - danjoc 9y ago
    That would also be wrong. Earth is a buffer system, not something easily tipped into runaway Armageddon.
    - chicob 9y ago
      A buffer system within small scale perturbations. Take anthropogenic CO2 emissions: they are changing the entire planet's climate. Take permafrost, for instance. A small increase in the temperature might lead to an even bigger one. This is well documented.
- danjoc 9y ago
  >chicob was saying that climate change causes more severe storms Storms lead to weathering. Weathering is a carbon sink. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292711001648 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292711... >Your point is valid, but your cause and effect are backwards from chicob's. Ice cream doesn't lead to hot summer days. It's the other way around. Erosion exposes further, deeper, top soil to erosion. By the time layer 1 is eroded to expose layer 2, layer 1 is already a done deal. You can pave over it if you like, but the CO2 is already gone. Close the barn! The horses escaped... too little, too late.