4 ms·

Is something like this an accepted tradeoff when using fertilizers for farming?

by zxcdw 13y ago

mayneack 13y ago
Accepted by who?
ValG 13y ago
Not really. This would be a prime example of a negative externality, or a cost which results from an activity or transaction and which affects an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
- joonix 13y ago
  Now fishermen will suffer so farmers can pull a profit. It's kind of the most simple form of unfairness. The kind that small children easily identify and question.
  - dsuth 13y ago
    It's confusing that the only externality considered in the article or in the HN comments so far is "effect on fisheries". Coastal regions are (typically) teaming with life of all kinds. I can live without people getting fresh fish quite as often as they're used to. I can't swallow destroying entire ecosystems out of wilful ignorance quite so easily.
masklinn 13y ago
It's accepted by those who benefit and don't get (directly) harmed and those who do get harmed don't get a say. See negative externalities and tragedy of the commons.
- mynewwork 13y ago
  Your hyperbole here is incorrect and unwarranted. Agricultural chemicals in the US are highly regulated. Many types of fertilizers and pesticides have been banned, others have restrictions on the volume and timing of their use. The EPA has a 10 Billion dollar budget, which it uses to do massive amounts of research to help control and mitigate negative externalities. Fines and penalties for violating EPA rules are severe.
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    Sorry, but the EPA isn't nearly as formidable or effective as you make it out to mb. As recently noted in the NYT: "The Environmental Protection Agency is obliged under the Clean Water Act to monitor America’s waterways and shield them from the toxic runoff from factory farms. But the growth of that industry, and its courtroom tenacity, has far outstripped the E.P.A.’s efforts to restrict runoff from manure lagoons and feedlots. Last year, the agency meekly withdrew two proposed rules. One would have gathered basic information from all factory farms. The other proposed rule would have expanded the number of such farms required to have a national pollution discharge permit. Fewer than 60 percent do now. Then, last week, in yet another retreat, the agency announced that promised new regulations governing feedlot discharges nationally would not be forthcoming." This is an op-ed, and leads to advocacy for a particular response. But the facts it's based on are not in question, and they seriously undermine any assertions that the EPA is as effective as it needs to be. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/opinion/the-epa-backs-off-on-factory-farms.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/opinion/the-epa-backs-off-...
Shivetya 13y ago
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.CON.FERT.ZS http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.CON.FERT.ZS Interesting data in the above about fertilizer consumption in agriculture. The link was found at http://stirringthepyramid.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/who-overuses-fertilizers-who-underuses-them/ http://stirringthepyramid.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/who-overu... Farmers don't like to fertilize, it costs money. I remember long ago it being used to plant crops in fields that normally were off rotation because that crop was very profitable that year. That was ages ago so I don't know if it applies still.

Is something like this an accepted tradeoff when using fertilizers for farming?

by zxcdw 13y ago

Is something like this an accepted tradeoff when using fertilizers for farming?

mayneack 13y ago

Accepted by who?

ValG 13y ago

Not really. This would be a prime example of a negative externality, or a cost which results from an activity or transaction and which affects an otherwise uninvolved party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

joonix 13y ago
Now fishermen will suffer so farmers can pull a profit. It's kind of the most simple form of unfairness. The kind that small children easily identify and question.
- dsuth 13y ago
  It's confusing that the only externality considered in the article or in the HN comments so far is "effect on fisheries". Coastal regions are (typically) teaming with life of all kinds. I can live without people getting fresh fish quite as often as they're used to. I can't swallow destroying entire ecosystems out of wilful ignorance quite so easily.

masklinn 13y ago

It's accepted by those who benefit and don't get (directly) harmed and those who do get harmed don't get a say. See negative externalities and tragedy of the commons.

mynewwork 13y ago
Your hyperbole here is incorrect and unwarranted. Agricultural chemicals in the US are highly regulated. Many types of fertilizers and pesticides have been banned, others have restrictions on the volume and timing of their use. The EPA has a 10 Billion dollar budget, which it uses to do massive amounts of research to help control and mitigate negative externalities. Fines and penalties for violating EPA rules are severe.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  Sorry, but the EPA isn't nearly as formidable or effective as you make it out to mb. As recently noted in the NYT: "The Environmental Protection Agency is obliged under the Clean Water Act to monitor America’s waterways and shield them from the toxic runoff from factory farms. But the growth of that industry, and its courtroom tenacity, has far outstripped the E.P.A.’s efforts to restrict runoff from manure lagoons and feedlots. Last year, the agency meekly withdrew two proposed rules. One would have gathered basic information from all factory farms. The other proposed rule would have expanded the number of such farms required to have a national pollution discharge permit. Fewer than 60 percent do now. Then, last week, in yet another retreat, the agency announced that promised new regulations governing feedlot discharges nationally would not be forthcoming." This is an op-ed, and leads to advocacy for a particular response. But the facts it's based on are not in question, and they seriously undermine any assertions that the EPA is as effective as it needs to be. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/opinion/the-epa-backs-off-on-factory-farms.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/opinion/the-epa-backs-off-...

Shivetya 13y ago

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.CON.FERT.ZS http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.CON.FERT.ZS Interesting data in the above about fertilizer consumption in agriculture. The link was found at http://stirringthepyramid.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/who-overuses-fertilizers-who-underuses-them/ http://stirringthepyramid.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/who-overu... Farmers don't like to fertilize, it costs money. I remember long ago it being used to plant crops in fields that normally were off rotation because that crop was very profitable that year. That was ages ago so I don't know if it applies still.