3 ms·

Organic crops are much worse for the environment in the long term. The biggest environment problem right now is habitat loss. In 100 years it might be climate

Organic crops are much worse for the environment in the long term. The biggest environment problem right now is habitat loss. In 100 years it might be climate change (of course we should definitely try to prevent climate change), but for the foreseeable future it's habitat loss. The current extinction event is mostly driven by habitat loss. Most habitat loss is due to the conversion from natural land to farmland[1]. We're losing between 24 and 150 species _per day_.[2] Organic crops are much less land efficient[3][4][5], so they drive habitat loss. It also releases more greenhouse gasses, but given the scale of environmental destruction that a worldwide increase in organic farming could cause, there isn't even a point in talking about it. Organic farming is a marketing ploy where food suppliers realised they can sell fake ethical superiority to consumers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_destruction [2] https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_do_estimates_vary_so_wildly https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_extinction_rates_why_d... [3] https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/22/132497/sorryorganic-farming-is-actually-worse-for-climate-change/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/22/132497/sorryorga... [4] https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2019/11/organic-farming-uses-more-land-than-conventional https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2019/11/organic-farmin... [5] https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/10/22/organic-food-better-environment/ https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/10/22/organic-food-be...

dbingham 5y ago
You're going to need a citation for the statement that organic farming releases more greenhouse gasses. That would be a deeply un-intuitive finding, and even with that citation I would want to scrutinize it carefully. Organic farming builds soil, where chemical farming strips it away. Organic farming has no dependencies on fossil fuels, but fossil fuels are used to create the fertilizers that chemical farming depends on. Any analysis of the comparitive greenhouse gas emissions needs to include a full lifecycle analysis of the fertilizers and pesticides used in conventional industrial farming. And I really, seriously doubt that will find lower greenhouse gas emissions in chemical farming. As for habitat loss - organic farming done right provides ecosystem services. Not as well as fully wild habitat, it's true, but it's not totally dead space and does support the ecosystem. Where as conventional, industrial farming is worse than dead space - it creates a death zone where anything that goes there dies. So even if organic farming is a little bit less space efficient, on total it is better for the ecosystem because it provides positive habitat, as opposed to the negative habitat of conventional farming. I would also challenge your assertion that its less space efficient, since there have been other studies that have found it can be equivalent when done right and given the right conditions: "Under certain conditions—that is, with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under others it at present cannot." [1] We've also spent a lot less time optimizing organic farming on a large scale than we have conventional industrial farming. So there are likely substantial efficiency gains yet to be found. I don't think you stand on firm ground declaring that organic farming is worse, environmentally, in the long term. The harms of industrial farming are extensive and extensively documented. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11069 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11069
- luc4sdreyer 5y ago
  The third link talks about it in detail: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/22/132497/sorryorganic-farming-is-actually-worse-for-climate-change/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/22/132497/sorryorga... The "natural" pesticides used by organic farming can also bioaccumilate, that doesn't sound like good soil management to me. [1] As for the rest of it: it doesn't really matter what's possible in theory. Research is awesome and should continue. But like I said, we're losing dozens of species per day. We have to choose whatever is most cost and land-efficient today (else people will starve). It's true that some organic crops are sometimes environmentally better. But the only question is how much better or worse it is today, on average. Unless you have a cheap and effective way that will guarantee that certain standards are maintained on 90% of the organic farms on the planet. I don't know of such a mechanism. Costs will be minimized and rules that decrease yield will be skirted. A global carbon tax and some sort of land use tax (I don't know how else natural land could be protected) would solve most of these problems but I don't see that happening anytime soon. [1] https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/07/23/organic-fungicide-copper-sulfate-poses-dangers-to-humans-animals-insects-how-does-it-compare-to-conventional-pesticides/ https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/07/23/organic-fungic...
slightwinder 5y ago
> In 100 years it might be climate change (of course we should definitely try to prevent climate change) What do you mean? Climate change is happening now, not in 100 Years. And it's just getting worse in the next 10-20 Years.
- fsckboy 5y ago
  I don't know if he's right, but you misunderstood what he meant. He's not saying that there is no climate change right now. He's saying that habitat loss is right now the direct cause of more extinction events on the daily than climate change is right now causing.

dbingham 5y ago

You're going to need a citation for the statement that organic farming releases more greenhouse gasses. That would be a deeply un-intuitive finding, and even with that citation I would want to scrutinize it carefully. Organic farming builds soil, where chemical farming strips it away. Organic farming has no dependencies on fossil fuels, but fossil fuels are used to create the fertilizers that chemical farming depends on. Any analysis of the comparitive greenhouse gas emissions needs to include a full lifecycle analysis of the fertilizers and pesticides used in conventional industrial farming. And I really, seriously doubt that will find lower greenhouse gas emissions in chemical farming. As for habitat loss - organic farming done right provides ecosystem services. Not as well as fully wild habitat, it's true, but it's not totally dead space and does support the ecosystem. Where as conventional, industrial farming is worse than dead space - it creates a death zone where anything that goes there dies. So even if organic farming is a little bit less space efficient, on total it is better for the ecosystem because it provides positive habitat, as opposed to the negative habitat of conventional farming. I would also challenge your assertion that its less space efficient, since there have been other studies that have found it can be equivalent when done right and given the right conditions: "Under certain conditions—that is, with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields, whereas under others it at present cannot." [1] We've also spent a lot less time optimizing organic farming on a large scale than we have conventional industrial farming. So there are likely substantial efficiency gains yet to be found. I don't think you stand on firm ground declaring that organic farming is worse, environmentally, in the long term. The harms of industrial farming are extensive and extensively documented. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11069 https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11069

luc4sdreyer 5y ago
The third link talks about it in detail: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/22/132497/sorryorganic-farming-is-actually-worse-for-climate-change/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/22/132497/sorryorga... The "natural" pesticides used by organic farming can also bioaccumilate, that doesn't sound like good soil management to me. [1] As for the rest of it: it doesn't really matter what's possible in theory. Research is awesome and should continue. But like I said, we're losing dozens of species per day. We have to choose whatever is most cost and land-efficient today (else people will starve). It's true that some organic crops are sometimes environmentally better. But the only question is how much better or worse it is today, on average. Unless you have a cheap and effective way that will guarantee that certain standards are maintained on 90% of the organic farms on the planet. I don't know of such a mechanism. Costs will be minimized and rules that decrease yield will be skirted. A global carbon tax and some sort of land use tax (I don't know how else natural land could be protected) would solve most of these problems but I don't see that happening anytime soon. [1] https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/07/23/organic-fungicide-copper-sulfate-poses-dangers-to-humans-animals-insects-how-does-it-compare-to-conventional-pesticides/ https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2020/07/23/organic-fungic...

slightwinder 5y ago

> In 100 years it might be climate change (of course we should definitely try to prevent climate change) What do you mean? Climate change is happening now, not in 100 Years. And it's just getting worse in the next 10-20 Years.

fsckboy 5y ago
I don't know if he's right, but you misunderstood what he meant. He's not saying that there is no climate change right now. He's saying that habitat loss is right now the direct cause of more extinction events on the daily than climate change is right now causing.