3 ms·

I'm not disagreeing that different farming practices may be more sustainable. My argument is that existing farming practices are made more efficient and produc

I'm not disagreeing that different farming practices may be more sustainable. My argument is that existing farming practices are made more efficient and produce fewer emissions when using modern equipment vs. equipment that is 30-40 years old. There is plenty of research to support your point, also another poster replied to this parent with an interesting paper. My assertion is supported by direct observation, that is, if we constrain ourselves to current industrial farming practices, there's plenty of data showing improved yields and reduced fuel consumption as more modern equipment is adopted. I guess my point is that I don't see our relative assertions being in conflict.

mrpopo 7y ago
Let me use an analogy. If you are going to cut down a forest, I don't care that you're doing with a modern solar-powered and drone-controlled circular saw or a petrol-powered chainsaw. There is a more important problem that is dwarfing any improvement in the efficiency used by your tools, and that's all those trees getting cut down. > there's plenty of data showing improved yields and reduced fuel consumption as more modern equipment is adopted. I absolutely agree with this. My only concern is with relating this to CO2 emissions and the fight against climate change. It is a deceptive argument, since it was not a goal to begin with. I made a back-of-napkin calculation. I'm not an expert, so please bear with my poor estimates. Say a tractor burns ~1kg CO2/km (high estimate) while tilling a 4m-long piece of land. 1 Acre = 4m * 1km The tractor will emit 1kg of CO2 for every pass. If repurposed, the land will be able to store 25 to 50 tonnes of carbon (equivalent to 10-20t of CO2). Even if I made mistakes above, there are 3 or 4 orders of magnitude between the two. Any savings that could be made on the tractor's emissions are minuscule.
- halbritt 7y ago
  Tilling consumes 2-2.5 gallons of diesel per acre, that results in ~20-25kg of CO2 emitted per acre (~10kg per gallon of diesel). > If repurposed, the land will be able to store 25 to 50 tonnes of carbon (equivalent to 10-20t of CO2). Repurposed how? We still have to figure out how to feed 11 billion people. Am I missing something from your argument?
  - mrpopo 7y ago
    Repurposed to use more modern AND sustainable agriculture techniques (regenerative agriculture, permaculture, conservative agriculture, ...). You certainly have heard of some of those. As for how we will feed 11 billion people by the end of the century. This is a very reasonable question to ask. Sustainable agriculture has reduced yields, so maybe we wouldn't have enough to feed the world anymore. But, again, you are looking at the wrong culprit. There is already more than enough food to feed the world. Food waste, food distribution problems and our questionable appetite for meat are dragging us down. The problem of world hunger is NOT a "global food production limit" problem. Of course, we shouldn't ship food from the USA to Africa, though. But the phosphate imported from Western Sahara for our fertilizers? Maybe they could use that, to kick-start an agricultural revolution. Although, if your question was "how to feed 11 billion people without changing anything to our current food industry", the answer is we won't, since we have established that the traditional methods are unsustainable. People will die, either from hunger or from climate-related catastrophes.
    - halbritt 7y ago
      > Repurposed to use more modern AND sustainable agriculture techniques This answers my question. I was wondering if you were suggesting that arable land be repurposed for carbon capture rather than food production, thus the question, how to feed 11 billion people (projected peak world population). In any case, I think we're making arguments in slightly different directions. Surely, there are more sustainable farming approaches such as no-till, etc, which saves the CO2 emissions. Let's presume we've use those approaches and have a field full of corn (or wheat, or what have you) ready to harvest with zero carbon emissions and slightly reduced yield. Then what? That corn still needs to be harvested at 3.8 gallons of diesel per acre and then transported to market. > questionable appetite for meat As most other countries, especially developing ones consume way less meat, this is a US specific problem, though admittedly it makes a significant contribution to greenhouse gasses. > The problem of world hunger is NOT a "global food production limit" problem The basis of my arguments has less to do with world hunger as a problem that exists today and more to do with the fact that peak global population is estimated to be 11 billion folks. Feeding that population will be difficult to do with yields well below current industrial farming practices. > we won't, since we have established that the traditional methods are unsustainable. People will die, either from hunger or from climate-related catastrophes. We should hit ~10 billion by 2050, I doubt there'll be massive climate change related catastrophes by then. 11 billion is projected by 2100, and well, unless something changes then we likely would. In any case, thanks for engaging in this discourse. Likely, we agree more than not that more sustainable agriculture practices will be needed.

mrpopo 7y ago

Let me use an analogy. If you are going to cut down a forest, I don't care that you're doing with a modern solar-powered and drone-controlled circular saw or a petrol-powered chainsaw. There is a more important problem that is dwarfing any improvement in the efficiency used by your tools, and that's all those trees getting cut down. > there's plenty of data showing improved yields and reduced fuel consumption as more modern equipment is adopted. I absolutely agree with this. My only concern is with relating this to CO2 emissions and the fight against climate change. It is a deceptive argument, since it was not a goal to begin with. I made a back-of-napkin calculation. I'm not an expert, so please bear with my poor estimates. Say a tractor burns ~1kg CO2/km (high estimate) while tilling a 4m-long piece of land. 1 Acre = 4m * 1km The tractor will emit 1kg of CO2 for every pass. If repurposed, the land will be able to store 25 to 50 tonnes of carbon (equivalent to 10-20t of CO2). Even if I made mistakes above, there are 3 or 4 orders of magnitude between the two. Any savings that could be made on the tractor's emissions are minuscule.

halbritt 7y ago
Tilling consumes 2-2.5 gallons of diesel per acre, that results in ~20-25kg of CO2 emitted per acre (~10kg per gallon of diesel). > If repurposed, the land will be able to store 25 to 50 tonnes of carbon (equivalent to 10-20t of CO2). Repurposed how? We still have to figure out how to feed 11 billion people. Am I missing something from your argument?
- mrpopo 7y ago
  Repurposed to use more modern AND sustainable agriculture techniques (regenerative agriculture, permaculture, conservative agriculture, ...). You certainly have heard of some of those. As for how we will feed 11 billion people by the end of the century. This is a very reasonable question to ask. Sustainable agriculture has reduced yields, so maybe we wouldn't have enough to feed the world anymore. But, again, you are looking at the wrong culprit. There is already more than enough food to feed the world. Food waste, food distribution problems and our questionable appetite for meat are dragging us down. The problem of world hunger is NOT a "global food production limit" problem. Of course, we shouldn't ship food from the USA to Africa, though. But the phosphate imported from Western Sahara for our fertilizers? Maybe they could use that, to kick-start an agricultural revolution. Although, if your question was "how to feed 11 billion people without changing anything to our current food industry", the answer is we won't, since we have established that the traditional methods are unsustainable. People will die, either from hunger or from climate-related catastrophes.
  - halbritt 7y ago
    > Repurposed to use more modern AND sustainable agriculture techniques This answers my question. I was wondering if you were suggesting that arable land be repurposed for carbon capture rather than food production, thus the question, how to feed 11 billion people (projected peak world population). In any case, I think we're making arguments in slightly different directions. Surely, there are more sustainable farming approaches such as no-till, etc, which saves the CO2 emissions. Let's presume we've use those approaches and have a field full of corn (or wheat, or what have you) ready to harvest with zero carbon emissions and slightly reduced yield. Then what? That corn still needs to be harvested at 3.8 gallons of diesel per acre and then transported to market. > questionable appetite for meat As most other countries, especially developing ones consume way less meat, this is a US specific problem, though admittedly it makes a significant contribution to greenhouse gasses. > The problem of world hunger is NOT a "global food production limit" problem The basis of my arguments has less to do with world hunger as a problem that exists today and more to do with the fact that peak global population is estimated to be 11 billion folks. Feeding that population will be difficult to do with yields well below current industrial farming practices. > we won't, since we have established that the traditional methods are unsustainable. People will die, either from hunger or from climate-related catastrophes. We should hit ~10 billion by 2050, I doubt there'll be massive climate change related catastrophes by then. 11 billion is projected by 2100, and well, unless something changes then we likely would. In any case, thanks for engaging in this discourse. Likely, we agree more than not that more sustainable agriculture practices will be needed.