High-Value Crops: Sustainability and Climate Change (4)
High-Value Crops: Sustainability and Climate Change (4)
In the past three articles (Sustainability 1, Sustainability 2, Sustainability 3) I have been exploring the relation between climate change and sustainability. I have focused on the interface between different communities and the conflicts that arise as people push and shove different agendas. There are many issues at play, and when you think about climate change and sustainability, and bring in population and consumption, there are many things that are done in the spirit of sustainability that don’t address climate change – and are, perhaps, not really sustainable.
It is my belief that disentangling the issues at the interfaces will, ultimately, lead to more people engaging in the pursuit of solutions to the challenges of climate change – rather than dismissing the climate issue as unimportant – at least, to me, right now, for this problem. For this final entry in the series I want to start with a local discussion about genetically modified sugar beets. (Bet you did not see that sentence coming.)
First, I don’t know exactly where I sit on the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). There are many complex issues, including serious issues of ethics and social justice. Within the realm of climate change, some argue that one of our major adaptation strategies will be new GMO crops that are more heat and drought tolerant. Or, perhaps, to counter the spread of malaria by GMO mosquitoes. Enhanced removal of carbon dioxide by GMO plants? We could argue perhaps GMOs are some sort of fast evolution.
I want to talk about something far smaller. Beets. The arguments around here, Boulder County, Colorado, center on Roundup Ready Beets (for and against). Roundup is an herbicide, and the genetically modified beets definitively allow both less use of herbicides and fossil fuels – hence, cost reduction. According to the articles I linked above, the vast majority of the commercial sugar beet farmers have quickly embraced the GMO sugar beets. The argument in Boulder County is whether or not these beets should be allowed on county land that is leased for agricultural use. This leads, naturally, to discussions of local agricultural, organic farming, sustainability and things that are “good for the climate.” (Some local press coverage Boulder Weekly, Letters in Response)
The place I want to bring this blog is specifically, “high value crops.” One of the arguments that came forward is that rather than allowing GMOs, that local farmers could grow high-value crops, such as organic vegetables. It is argued that this supports local farmers and sustainability. (I cannot resist pointing out that the farmers who desire to plant GMO beets are also “local.”) It is pointed out that since, at least to some extent, that organic farming replaces the use of herbicides and fossil fuels with jobs for crop tenders. Hence it is good for the local workforce and, well, climate change.
The key to this argument is “high-value” crops. The organic and local vegetables that flow from Boulder County, definitely, require a population that can pay a high cost. This does not mean that the small local farmers are getting wealthy. It also does not mean that a large local workforce is being supported – many of the local farms have aggressive volunteer and education programs. The high cost represents a price that is indicative of the cost of raising crops in a region that is water-stressed, with a short growing season, with shifts between too hot and too cold, with more than its share of grasshoppers, magpies, rabbits and coyotes. And, the local farmer also needs to either be able to live in the region that can afford high-value crops.
High-value: High-value implies wealth, and in the here and now, wealth is correlated with energy use which is correlated with burning fossil fuels. The wealth that supports the ability to buy high-value crops follows, directly or indirectly, from the use of fossil fuels. Therefore the ability to buy high-value crops comes with a large carbon footprint. Therefore the argument that the small, local farm that generates high-value produce is climate friendly is, in the here and now, a hollow argument. In fact, if I wanted to make a climate-based argument, anything that requires less fossil fuel is more climate friendly. Perhaps, GMOs.
When I teach climate change problem solving, I advocate that my students try to organize the problem along three axes: time, is it near-term or long-term; space, is it local or global; and wealth, rich or poor. Wealth is the difficult axis. It represents consumption, how you think about mitigation and adaptation, and environmental justice. Earlier research shows that the wealthier a country is the less concerned they are about climate change. That’s a useful sociological consideration.
There are many issues that we conflate to support what we believe and what we want. (I also teach how do we separate what we know, we believe, we want.) We link things casually that make sense. When we think about sustainability and climate change, we have to think about our imperative to succeed, to consume. We live in a world where economic growth is required by policy, demanded by people, and economic growth means consumption. It gets back to energy and fossil fuels. To have a sustainable planet with more than 7 billion consuming humans, we have to decouple energy from carbon dioxide emissions. To address climate change we will have to figure out how to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. We might even need GMOs.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 — Blog Index
Thank you,ncstorm. I fully agree that there is little to discuss, concerning the tropics, at this moment. The season is not over though. We may see some action by the end of next week.
I think we'll see TS Philippe by Sunday/Monday, and Hurricane Philippe by Monday/Tuesday.
Old tree stands may or may not be very diverse places in terms of animals you can see but the point was that the canopy of old growth trees is an incredibly important eco-system. You may have walked around on the ground but unless you've lived in the canopy, studied the earth or studied the thousands of species that old growth supports, you probably walked past the species in blissful ignorance.
OH! So you are testing me now? ..... I see. LOL
I was considering that it has taken CV systems some time to spin up and cover up this year. Even then, it is awhile before it is a threat to anyone. Are you thinking of a possible home grown brew or the new exit off of Africa?
I know, Professor Rood. You are thinking, "what is happening here?". A short visit to Dr. Master's blog should help to explain. Nea and I are just briefly going with the flow. Pardon our brief tangent, please. We mean no offense, to anyone.
Hummmm...... Interpolation in effect.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
Some of the prior posts Kinda splains how some perspectives are achieved, no?
Logic ? ? ? ? ? ? ? involved? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Forestry "management" the tar sands way:
...the clear-cut way:
...and the unregulated Haitian way:
I agree that many will make "less than desirable" choices, even to themselves, in order to survive. Sometimes there is little choice than to do so. Should this eliminate any opportunities to find better ways of doing things? Some may prove to be more costly and some may prove to be cheaper and better. When you consider our rising global population, sooner or later, new and better ways will have to be found. Are you able to think of a better time to start, than today? We can either adjust as to how we do things now or we will have to adjust with fewer tools available for us to do so, in the future. I do not think anyone wants to limit the profits and survivability of any person, until those profits and their survival begin to restrict the profitability and survivability of the masses. Our resources are finite. We must begin to think of them as so. Do you consider this to be logical?
What a sad, sad way to look at things.
LOL!!
And now for something completely different
I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK
I sleep all night and I work all day
(He's a lumberjack and he's OK
He sleeps all night and he works all day)
I cut down trees, I eat my lunch
I go to the lavat'ry
On Wednesdays I go shopping
And have buttered scones for tea
(He cuts down trees...)
(He's a lumberjack...)
I cut down trees, I skip and jump
I love to press wild flow'rs
I put on women's clothing
And hang around in bars
(He cuts down trees...)
(He's a lumberjack...)
I cut down trees, I wear high heels
Suspenders and a bra
I wish I'd been a girlie
Just like my dear papa
(He cuts down trees...)
(He's a lumberjack...)
Good luck!
Why do you think that all of civilization suffers from conservation efforts? What do you tell your children when greed, self comfort and a sense of self worth has depleted the resources? What is left of civilization then?
Why do you think that current knowledge ceases through conservation efforts? We already have those among us that now how to extract teeth and fight infections. We already know how to predict storms. We already have communications, until a massive solar flare takes them out. This does not cease through conservation. Conservation actually extends all of the things that we know as "civilization". A lack of conservation brings it all to end at an ever increasingly faster rate.
Do you always throw curve balls?
So here's a straight slow pitch for you to knock out of the park.
"You" go tell your children that you vow to never buy plastic products or burn gasoline or use electricity ever again. Even the clothes you wear and the foods you eat will be produced without the use of fossil fuels. And the house you live in nor the stores you shop in will be built from lumber harvested by those sorry robber baron companies permitted by all those corrupt officials. Now that would be a man serious about conservation.
So...I guess we won't be hearing from you anymore???
Or are you just another feel-good hypocrite equal to the feel-good church goers who forget Sunday afternoon what they promised to do Sunday morning?
Tossing a few plastic water bottles into a recycle bin while at the same time supporting manned space flight to Mars is one of the most pathetic tragedies in history....and you all know who you are.
Link
"Paul Nicklen makes friends with polar wildlife, photographing seals, polar bears, narwhals and others in remarkable closeups.
And Nicklen, a contributing photographer for the National Geographic, is passing along a message from the creatures he sees in the Arctic and Antarctica: They're in trouble."
I do talk to my children. What do you tell your children? Tough luck?
Added - I forgot to ask. Home run?
I see we are at an impasse yet again: I have discussed the propensity some have for attempting to eliminate any logic from discussions about environmental stewardship, and you have responded, somewhat absurdly, with a laundry list of things things you claim to have done. Since I truly have no idea what bearing that has on our conversation, I'm going to have to take a pass.
Enjoy your gaming box.
So because the devastation is raw it's not so bad? I'm afraid I miss the point of your "logic" here; that's a little like saying, "Yeah, I ran over your dog and now he's all broken and bloody, but after a year in the veterinary hospital and some surgery, he won't look quite so bad."
Please. The damage has been done in the "after" side of that picture, and no amount of smoothing and replanting is going to make the forests, the waterways, and the wildlife like they were before greed left its hideous mark.
So what do vast expanses of Solar Panels or Wind Turbines look like ?
You like it?
Do some math on the acreage needed to be a direct replacement of the current supply of energy,,,,, at how much per KW?
Welcome to the real world................
Plus they are not 24/7/365 like Gulfstream kinetic energy!
The solar arrays are in the desert. The wind turbines are in exposed windy areas. Those areas are found naturally, in nature. Will they replace oil? No, not in the short term and not by themselves. What good are they, you may ask? They are a start.
Sooner or later, we will run out of enough "cost effective" oil reserves to where we are forced to get off of oil. Preparing to do so now is a wise move.
For your (those who will actually bother to read it) use as an example once again. Just one example of the things we need to evaluate and not just take for granted.
Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind
farms
The following are quotes from the Abstract of the link you supplied:
"For very large-scale utilization of this resource, there are however potential environmental impacts, and also problems arising from its inherent intermittency, in addition to the present need to lower unit costs."
"In contrast, surface cooling exceeding 1 degree C is computed over ocean installations, but the validity of simulating the impacts of wind turbines by simply increasing the ocean surface drag needs further study."
"These results are also dependent on the accuracy of the model used, and the realism of the methods applied to simulate wind turbines. Additional theory and new field observations will be required for their ultimate validation."
In other words, this is a work in progress. What I read, from the abstract, is that it is an untested theory. They are using computer models that they are unsure of and they do not even know if they are applying the correct methods to simulate wind turbines. There has been no observational data to support the theory. I do not see that any observational data has been used from even small scale tests of the existing wind turbines that are in place now. Do we base our future on what we do not yet know, or do we proceed based on what we do know now? What do we know?
1. There is no simple, currently cost effective way to remove ourselves from carbon based energy sources. Should there be, we would have already done so.
2. Carbon based energy sources release billions of tons/year of CO2 into our atmosphere.
3. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
4. Once man induced atmospheric CO2 levels have risen to a point to sufficiently raise the atmospheric temperature to begin the release of trapped methane into the atmosphere, then there will be no chance for us to reverse this process.
5. Mankind's activities are destroying and/or reducing the effects of nature's natural carbon sinks.
6. We must work to reduce our dependence on carbon based energy sources, if for no other reason than that they are finite energy sources. We either do so now or face severe energy shortages, in the future. A future that is not so distant.
What is the easiest and most cost effective thing you can do now to reduce your carbon footprint? One word, conservation. This is also the topic of the current blog. Through conservation you lower not only your costs but, you also lower your carbon footprint.
Either we use our intelligence or we use our arrogance and ignorance. I am going with intelligence. What do you plan to use? Music videos?
One last comment, for you, Ossqss. When it comes down to forensic linguistics, it always best when "the handwriting is on the wall".
I do talk to my children. What do you tell your children?
I tell her that if your handle is theshepherd and you ask the wrong question here, you will have your post removed for violating community standards.
And that if you are one of the protected covenant, you can quote the post and remain if your answer fits the agenda.
Sorry. but I can't respond. It would violate community standards.
The algae 'factories' need a lot of water, so they would have to be located near the Great Lakes or coastal locations. And, federal funding would be necessary to get the whole process ramped up to produce enough. And, of course it would require a LOT of land.
I wonder if you could write more about the possibility of algae fuels helping us reduce emissions, Dr. Rood.
As the owner of a very small organic farm, I am strongly opposed to GMO crops.
Sorta on subject.
I think that Switchgrass in the highway medians would be an interesting idea.
Certainly better than constantly mowing lawn type grass.Talk about a waste of land and resources,to continue that practice.
Any thoughts?
.
Link
Saving even more time and energy.
No Fed mandates just the States crunching the #s and seeing if it worked for them.
Just a thought.
Link are being killed faster by windmills than the bird's ability to breed new populations. So it is OK to kill off the local populations of an endangered so GE can make millions? That is all that is going on.
Now don't get me wrong I am not a wacko. But there are ways to generate reliable energy (windmills don't work if the wind don't blow) with limited impact to the environment. As has been mentioned, bio fuels made from plants not normally used by humans as a food source - for instance alge and to a limited extent - sorghum (which has a higher sugar yield than corn) would be 'more better' all for the economy and the environment.
Comments?
And I can say this without reserve. Do you think that with the latest nuclear upset in Japan that there's going to be a nuclear renaissance? Not a chance unless hell freezes over! Even though operating costs for nuclear plants are low, the construction costs and fears are too high. This is not to say all countries won't go nuclear, but many won't because of the above reasons. What else is competitive? Nothing. Geothermal? Nope. Solar? Nope. Wind? Nope. Wave? Nope. Etc. Clean coal is the one and only answer right now. For some countries, natural gas will be the answer.
I hate to repeat this again and again to people I meet and online, but this country (US of A) has a lot of coal. We're a wealthy nation. We will use it. Don't come crying to me because you think it's dirty. Energy ain't free. We will clean up our coal. And it's the only realistic answer right now.
We got a lot of natural gas too. And if we can figure out how to extract methane hydrate than we're golden. Fossil fuel is not bad. It has fueled our world for ages. I think it will continue to.
These resources will act as a bridge over the next 50 to 100 years that will allow us to develop our alternative sources of energy to later replace our fossil fuel infrastructure. The talk right now out there about alternatives is hot air. It's too premature. It has good intentions, no doubt.
This nation really is amazing. Geographically, it's a large place. Israel is always on the news, but people forget how small it's. It's the size of a county in one of the larger US states. It has about the same land area as the state of New Jersey. If the US was a 1024x768 display, Israel would be a square with 43 pixels on each side. We have low population per square mile. We're rich beyond imagining. We're a very environmentally friendly country. We take all of this for granted, sadly.
Sustainability is a grass-roots movement. I'm not afraid of it. It's not practical at a greater scale, though. Our economy simply could not sustain itself and grow at the meager pace environmentalists want. In effect, they're minimalists and it just won't work for the country. But it's nice to see people who do it. When I go to church, I get a good feeling too. But you know, not everyone goes to church. I can't make other people care. Nor can we force others to practice sustainability or minimalist living.
Forest management practices are far better than they were in the days before thinning; back then, there was little to no knowledge about how forests grow. Lately, because of the economy, some counties/states are pushing their forests to the limit. While this might seen unsustainable and not environmentally friendly, what's actually happening is that forest management ideas are improving to accommodate these new targets. We're getting better at it. That's how we're able to increase the rotation and yield greater economic benefits. We can benefit our economy and be eco-friendly too.
Anyway, I'm just rehashing things. I'll leave it here.
I have thought this as well. Switch grass can also be used as a bio-fuel and help to ease the strain on food items (corn) as being used as a bio-fuel. ... I agree with many that using corn as an ethanol fuel was a terrible idea.
Here is something I found on using switch grass as a bio-fuel.
Link
I do not of any adverse effects of using switch grass but, it is worth investigating. So far, this look likes an excellent idea, Spathy. Thank you!
A very good thought, indeed. The big items will need to be approached as well but, until then, the little things, done in mass, will also have an impact. ... We have the intelligence to make a difference. All we need to do is to apply the intelligence.
No matter what form of energy we use, some of the wildlife will suffer for it. While I respect diversity and the right of all species to share this planet with us, I am also aware that not moving off of carbon based fuels will cause a greater stress to nearly all species.
No one advocates that we do not use energy sources. We need to move towards the least harmful, to all life, that we can, as soon as we can. Should we do otherwise, all else suffers. The one exception is the planet itself. Earth will exist, even if life on it does not.
Yes, we have learned to better survive with extreme weather events. This is almost assuredly due to better housing, stronger housing, better clothing and our ability to more rapidly respond to those that have been affected. Including those in drought situations.
Texas, for one state, has suffered a devastating and ongoing drought situation. While the citizens have been able to survive, it has also been a huge economic drain and shortages in live stock and food crops that will impact many more. Food prices will rise and largely due to all of the adverse weather we are seeing around the world. We will not be able to escape this reality. The poor will most assuredly suffer the harshest consequences.
Goodness that is absurdly weak reasoning. So because we can predict weather well enough that people can get out of the way it means we are completely adapted and no problems down the road? Such facile thinking. I mean it's truly great that we can prevent fatalities, but more extreme weather means
1. Higher insurance even for people who don't build in high danger areas
2. More government money taken from general spending and put into emergency management (e.g. firefighting, emergency response, federal aid to victims of disasters, crop insurance to cover losses, etc.) means less economic growth because instead of spending it on productive things more and more will be diverted to handling emergencies and
3. More displaced and mentally broken survivors who lose everything and have a hard time readjusting.
No on second thought it's not weak reasoning it's outright nonsense to suggest that more extreme weather is something we can just adapt to because we are capitalists which is what they were trying to imply.
Did you happen to notice in the study that 13,000,000 could only support 10% of the need? Cover half the planet with solar panels and we come closer. You thought mining was ugly? Real world folks .....
Let's see.
The paper gives a death rate of zero from droughts for the 2001-2010 period.(page 7) I guess they forgot about the European heat wave/drought in 2003 (over 40,000 dead), the Darfur drought crisis (300,000-330,000 dead), the Russian heatwave (deaths in Russia were declining by 74,000 a year from 2005 to 2009, but then increased by 19,000 in 2010, a bump above trend by 93,000).
Not to mention that Indur M. Goklany has his degrees in electrical engineering. Not any relevant field like statistics or climate science.
Seriously. A death rate of zero from drought in 2001-2010. The paper isn't worth the ream it was printed on.
Yes, the real world. Why would you think that solar is the only option? Why have you ignored home and business rooftop installations? Why have you ignored that many state road side signs and flashing lights are solar powered now? (This is true in Texas. Should it not be true in your state, then perhaps a call to your state officials may help?)
Why have you ignored other suggestions that have been made, on this blog today? Why do you ignore all of the alternative energies that are functional now and will become even more functional in the future? Why do you ignore the fact that carbon based energy sources are being depleted and that other energy have better be in place before their costs become astronomical?
Yes, I do think that mining is ugly but, I never knew that this was simply about aesthetics.
Under ground coal mines that are on fire and will have to burn themselves out over a period of decades. No one can live there. - ugly
Strip mining that strips the top soil, blocks creeks and streams. - ugly
Forests that are laid bare, top soil destroyed and erosion. - ugly
Tar sands that are scraped from the surface. - ugly
Are you really concerned about aesthetics? Solar panels are better looking than any of these mining sources of energy.
Do you want to know what would probably work best, for nearly everyone, and in the short and long terms? Conservation. Simple, easy, cost effective and an impact you can make today.
Then, do some math.
How many wind turbines would it take to power all of New York City?
"Sclavounos calculates that a windfarm sufficient to power all of New York City would spread over 4,000 square kilometers of offshore terrain 40 by 40 miles, or a land area roughly equivalent to half of Yellowstone National Park. A windfarm of a more typical size, one rated 300 megawatts, say, would occupy a five by five mile swath of ocean, and could power 1.5% of the city. Thats a start,says Sclavounos. Leda Zimmerman"
Can you imagine 13 million of them?
What a service contract........ Now what about storm damage?
OK, Osqqss. You can keep pointing at trees and tell me there is a squirrel up there and expect me to just start barking at trees. Let us cut to the chase. Tell us, in all of your infinite wisdom, what is your plan to stretch our resources? All of us, that are far less knowledgeable than you, need to hear your solution(s). I, for one, am listening. The podium is yours.
Viewing: 51 - 101
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 — Blog Index