4 ms·

> The issue is using this stuff inherently means a future spike in prices. The alternative then being a present spike in prices? I don't see how that's better.

Retric 7y ago
Not always, let’s say you have two options A and B that have similar lifetime costs including both capital costs and maintenance costs. A is unsustainable, but you have already paid the capital costs. Now switching to B means paying those capital costs. However, equipment has a finite lifespan so if you time the transition to the point when you need to replace A anyway it’s essentially free. At the consumer level electric cars are a reasonable approximation of this. For many people, TCO is about the same, but switching early is a poor choice. Similarly, for electric companies wind and solar are unlikely to outcompete existing coal power plants, but it can cheaply replace yet to be constructed coal power plants.
- thereisnospork 7y ago
  That's an unfair and unrealistic assumption. Industrial farming doesn't use synthetic fertilizer - the 'unsustainable' - because they lack basic accounting knowledge, they do so because they can make more food for less money (or some variation thereof) over reasonable accounting lifetimes. At the risk of invoking the rational market hypothesis, if using 'sustainable' methods were cheaper over the lifetime of the non-sustainable we wouldn't be having this conversation because the sustainable methods would already be in use. edit: nor is there meaningful capital inertia behind synthetic vs. other fertilization. To not use synthetic fertilizer, today, would increase food costs today. To run out of synthetic fertilizer e.g. 150 years from now would increase food costs an equal or lesser amount. Potentially lesser as a result of increased time to develop better sustainable methods. Integrating cost over the next e.g. 250 years, it will always be cheaper (better) to use the non-sustainable resources at the time sustainable methods are most expensive (today). Externalities, like global warming aside, as they aren't relevant to the example of fertilizer I was replying to.
  - Retric 7y ago
    It’s not quite that simple, sustainability is more than simply a binary choice between 100% synthetic vs other fertilizers. There is also a huge amount of inertia around crop types. For example subsidies play such a huge role in agriculture we are far from the economic optimal usage just a local optima under current tax law. Consider what happens if we stop ethanol subsidies while paying some farmers to keep some fields fallow. ~40 percent less corn * 96,000,000 acres is quite a bit less fertilizer. That’s not a recommendation, just a demonstration that the solution space is huge. Different subsidies and taxes can make a huge difference.
    - thereisnospork 7y ago
      Sure a full treatment would require a few hundred pages, at least but I believe my point that 'not using any synthetic fertilizer because we will eventually run out of natural gas is probably inane' stands despite the relative simplicity. Subsidies or no, a farmer with x acres will still try and maximize yield (and $$$) from those acres.
      - Retric 7y ago
        While I generally agree with the thrust of your argument. Farmers maximize profit not yields, as those are rarely the same thing.
        chicob 7y ago
        For each crop, to maximize yield is to maximize profit. In fact, those are usually the same thing. Unless some requirement must be met, like moisture, protein or sugar content (i.e. corn or barley), in which case a given yield can mean different profits. Farmers have poor leverage on produce retail prices, and depending on the soil and climate they have, the local markets and distributors, a limited range of crops is available. Once chosen, they simply maximize yield. As for permanent crops, farmers simply maximize yield.
        7y ago

Retric 7y ago

Not always, let’s say you have two options A and B that have similar lifetime costs including both capital costs and maintenance costs. A is unsustainable, but you have already paid the capital costs. Now switching to B means paying those capital costs. However, equipment has a finite lifespan so if you time the transition to the point when you need to replace A anyway it’s essentially free. At the consumer level electric cars are a reasonable approximation of this. For many people, TCO is about the same, but switching early is a poor choice. Similarly, for electric companies wind and solar are unlikely to outcompete existing coal power plants, but it can cheaply replace yet to be constructed coal power plants.

thereisnospork 7y ago
That's an unfair and unrealistic assumption. Industrial farming doesn't use synthetic fertilizer - the 'unsustainable' - because they lack basic accounting knowledge, they do so because they can make more food for less money (or some variation thereof) over reasonable accounting lifetimes. At the risk of invoking the rational market hypothesis, if using 'sustainable' methods were cheaper over the lifetime of the non-sustainable we wouldn't be having this conversation because the sustainable methods would already be in use. edit: nor is there meaningful capital inertia behind synthetic vs. other fertilization. To not use synthetic fertilizer, today, would increase food costs today. To run out of synthetic fertilizer e.g. 150 years from now would increase food costs an equal or lesser amount. Potentially lesser as a result of increased time to develop better sustainable methods. Integrating cost over the next e.g. 250 years, it will always be cheaper (better) to use the non-sustainable resources at the time sustainable methods are most expensive (today). Externalities, like global warming aside, as they aren't relevant to the example of fertilizer I was replying to.
- Retric 7y ago
  It’s not quite that simple, sustainability is more than simply a binary choice between 100% synthetic vs other fertilizers. There is also a huge amount of inertia around crop types. For example subsidies play such a huge role in agriculture we are far from the economic optimal usage just a local optima under current tax law. Consider what happens if we stop ethanol subsidies while paying some farmers to keep some fields fallow. ~40 percent less corn * 96,000,000 acres is quite a bit less fertilizer. That’s not a recommendation, just a demonstration that the solution space is huge. Different subsidies and taxes can make a huge difference.
  - thereisnospork 7y ago
    Sure a full treatment would require a few hundred pages, at least but I believe my point that 'not using any synthetic fertilizer because we will eventually run out of natural gas is probably inane' stands despite the relative simplicity. Subsidies or no, a farmer with x acres will still try and maximize yield (and $$$) from those acres.
    - Retric 7y ago
      While I generally agree with the thrust of your argument. Farmers maximize profit not yields, as those are rarely the same thing.
      - chicob 7y ago
        For each crop, to maximize yield is to maximize profit. In fact, those are usually the same thing. Unless some requirement must be met, like moisture, protein or sugar content (i.e. corn or barley), in which case a given yield can mean different profits. Farmers have poor leverage on produce retail prices, and depending on the soil and climate they have, the local markets and distributors, a limited range of crops is available. Once chosen, they simply maximize yield. As for permanent crops, farmers simply maximize yield.
        7y ago