3 ms·

>Add nitrogen based fertilisers. The only viable way to generate them produces a lot of carbon, and the runoff has its own ecological toll. Since we're compari

>Add nitrogen based fertilisers. The only viable way to generate them produces a lot of carbon, and the runoff has its own ecological toll. Since we're comparing industrial ag with human-scale stuff it's only fair to point out that simple human-scale means of achieving this is to literally pee in a container, let it sit for a few months, dilute it 10-20x with water, and apply to garden beds. This fertilizer has an NPK of 11-1-2. If you compost, peeing directly onto it will have a similar effect. Also 'letting it sit fallow' is not really stating the option fairly. Nitrogen-fixing cover crops are an option and these can be cohabit with or grow in rotation with a main crop. I think it's a mistake here to assert that small-scale gardening should mimic industral ag practice. Of course that would produce a fragmented solution that is less efficient and offers little to no benefit. >A 40% tax on fertiliser (or whatever) would have enormous shockwaves on industrial agriculture; steps would be taken rapidly to reduce useage. A hobbyist growing tomatoes for his own use might not even notice, and thus, would not reduce usage. I don't buy that argument. Not only is a small-scale farmer less likely to be heavily reliant on buying in fertilizer, a 40% increase in cost will be equally impactful as to a large scale operator, because their means are proportionally smaller. >But the small hobbyist gardener has no reason not too either. The same incentives apply at every level. Not true. Bob the farmer has a much closer societal link to joe the fisherman. If bob's practices impact on Joe's means of sustenance, not only are they on an equal footing to discuss the matter but they can do by leaning over the fence. Big Ag talking to fisheries, by comparison, looks quite different and more abstracted, less neighbourly if you will. Likewise if the polluter is a large industry and the impacted parties are individuals, all the same problems of abstraction and drastically lowered leverage to boot. There are many examples where this is not true, of course e.g. Damages done at a great distance between source and impact.

Lazare 6y ago
First, humans don't generate enough waste to fertilise the crops they need to survive; that's why the Haber-Bosch process was so incredibly revolutionary. Sure, nitrogen fixing crops are a thing; crop rotation, there's a lot of ways we've figured out to get more crops grown in less land, and they all have limitations and tradeoffs, and they're all a lot less efficient than just dropping some cheap fertiliser on it. Second, no, small-scale agriculture should not blindly mimic industrial agriculture, but you also don't get any advantages just by being small. Pests want to eat your crops no matter who you are. And yes, of course a backyard veggie garden needs fertiliser. And third, dfferent consumers have different elasticities of demand. Hobbyists doing something for fun often have high elasticities of demand. I mean, obviously; if you were maximally sensitive to price, you'd be buying whatever is on sale at Costco already. :) A friend of mine makes her own cold process soap; they're lovely and high quality, and she has a lot of fun doing it. Even ignoring her time, the cost per bar for her to make them is a couple orders of magnitude higher than store bought. You think she'd stop - or even notice - if one ingredient went up a few cents? Finally: > Bob the farmer has a much closer societal link to joe the fisherman. I can't even begin to imagine how that might be true. We're talking about "hey, what if everyone grew their own potatoes instead of buying them; would that help the planet". But I mean....I don't know any fishermen. I don't even eat fish. And even if I did plant some potatoes in my back yard, I'm not going to suddenly meet a fisherman. And even if I did, I don't see why we'd assume they're an environmental chemist. Seems like he'd probably be pretty busy fishing, maintaining his boat, and (now) growing potatoes, so why would he even know that the fertiliser we're both putting on our potatoes is (eventually, in aggregate) harming the fish? You seem to be envisioning a pleasant world, but none of it really meshes with my understanding of how our world works. But eh, I suppose my arguments sound equally unconvincing to you, so...

Lazare 6y ago

First, humans don't generate enough waste to fertilise the crops they need to survive; that's why the Haber-Bosch process was so incredibly revolutionary. Sure, nitrogen fixing crops are a thing; crop rotation, there's a lot of ways we've figured out to get more crops grown in less land, and they all have limitations and tradeoffs, and they're all a lot less efficient than just dropping some cheap fertiliser on it. Second, no, small-scale agriculture should not blindly mimic industrial agriculture, but you also don't get any advantages just by being small. Pests want to eat your crops no matter who you are. And yes, of course a backyard veggie garden needs fertiliser. And third, dfferent consumers have different elasticities of demand. Hobbyists doing something for fun often have high elasticities of demand. I mean, obviously; if you were maximally sensitive to price, you'd be buying whatever is on sale at Costco already. :) A friend of mine makes her own cold process soap; they're lovely and high quality, and she has a lot of fun doing it. Even ignoring her time, the cost per bar for her to make them is a couple orders of magnitude higher than store bought. You think she'd stop - or even notice - if one ingredient went up a few cents? Finally: > Bob the farmer has a much closer societal link to joe the fisherman. I can't even begin to imagine how that might be true. We're talking about "hey, what if everyone grew their own potatoes instead of buying them; would that help the planet". But I mean....I don't know any fishermen. I don't even eat fish. And even if I did plant some potatoes in my back yard, I'm not going to suddenly meet a fisherman. And even if I did, I don't see why we'd assume they're an environmental chemist. Seems like he'd probably be pretty busy fishing, maintaining his boat, and (now) growing potatoes, so why would he even know that the fertiliser we're both putting on our potatoes is (eventually, in aggregate) harming the fish? You seem to be envisioning a pleasant world, but none of it really meshes with my understanding of how our world works. But eh, I suppose my arguments sound equally unconvincing to you, so...