upvote
None of the inputs required for plants to grow require toxic pollution or destructive extraction.

Of course humans can bring in toxic or destructive inputs to try to favor certain plants over others, or humans can do other non destructive things to favor certain plants over others. Or humans can step aside and let the plants do their thing which will create abundance too. (I like the middle of these three.)

Also, trees provide far more value than timber alone.

reply
To be a pedant, the inputs for photosynthesis are pretty toxic to humans. Sunlight burns and causes skin cancer. CO2 also kills people each winter when space heaters aren't properly vented.
reply
[dead]
reply
Would you give up fertilizer and pest control and stop feeding the 8 billion ?

Please dont be a holdomorehippy.. Those back-to-nature loving massmurderers without a cause creep me out beyond repair.. those that openly hate some humans at least give the monstrous game away.

reply
Eventually, you won't have a choice when fertiliser produced from oil runs out, becomes cost prohibitive, or is made illegal due to greenhouse gas problems; likewise, "pest control" has already resulted in a 40% decline in insect populations; it won't be good if it gets to 100%.

It would be best to find sustainable ways to grow food now, instead of continuing unsustainable ways (including supplying massive food aid to unsustainable populations so they can keep growing) until there is a precipitous crash.

The idea that only industrial scale farming can feed the planet is mostly a myth promoted by producers of industrial scale inputs and the oil/gas industry, by the way.

reply
The production of concentrated nitrogen compounds from thin air is useful enough that we'll almost certainly keep doing it en masse in an electric-only future.

Mining for phosphorous and potassium fertilizers, likewise, but situationally a little different because these aren't very mobile in the groundwater column like nitrogen is, and they don't offgas back into the air like nitrogen compounds do. Quite possibly we'll be mining manure lagoons more, for CH4 and for closing the loop better on P and K.

Ag will continue at industrial scale for cereal grains, because half the population is not going back to the fields.

Within that framework, there's a lot of difference between outcomes in terms of how green we make our farms, what we grow, how we grow it. Herbicide and insecticide practices do not have to be what they are, as we witness massive overuse of things like neonics, glyphosate, and aminopyralid mostly because there's little financial reason to constrain use. We could stand to dramatically reduce the amount of cereal grain we consume, from a diet perspective, but the logistical difficulties of alternatives like more fresh fruits & vegetables will tend to increase carbon emissions. Eating less grain-fed meat and more high-protein legumes is basically a win-win from diet and climate perspectives. Returning to a less industrialized industry where livestock are raised on farms instead of on "feeding operations" seems like a fair tradeoff against something like subsidized corn-ethanol production. Attempting to encourage long-term soil stability with reduced tillage and is another goal that we might tangle with that would reduce yields; We have plenty of yield to spare in the US, so this is an option.

reply
It is a given that bovines should be eating grass (one of the most productive plants there is with the highest calories per acre), not grain, and with the bonus that bovines or other ruminants eating grass improve the soil ecology and lessen erosion. There also isn’t any need for fertiliser inputs, or any oil/gas produced inputs at all.

Chickens can also be raised more sustainably. They don’t need to be raised 50,000 at a time, and don’t need to be fed grain. I don’t feed mine other than in winter when there is snow, and they don’t forage past an acre or so area. We produce a surplus of more chicken meat and eggs than my household can eat, and I still have enough time to work full time doing something else. (The same goes for my cows, but they take even less work and basically sustain themselves - I have not bought feed for them in two years.)

Oddly enough, I now sell my eggs for less than grocery stores charge for them. I could easily plant enough cereals and legumes for my household (about a 10,000 sq ft area or ¼ acre), but haven’t done this the last 2 years since I put my effort into vegetable gardens and livestock instead.

Part of the big myth is that we need industrial scale “farming”. We don’t. A lot more humans need to be a lot closer to producing the food they eat, though. If someone owns/maintains a lawn, they should be using it to grow food, instead of buying factory farmed food. (I give apartment dwellers a free pass, but I see large swathes of land that do nothing but grow grass and then have a lawn mower run across them.)

reply
We absolutely need industrial scale farming, even if we take 40 million acres of suburban lawns and convert 10 million to active garden rows (there are many constraints on spacing, I'm dealing with this right now). Because 10 million acres feeds vegetable calories to something in the vicinity of 3-30 million people, at very high labor and logistics costs, for a small portion of the year.

It doesn't have to be 99% industrial scale farming in the current format, is the thing.

reply
> Eventually, you won't have a choice when fertiliser produced from oil runs out, becomes cost prohibitive, or is made illegal due to greenhouse gas problems

You mean, aside from the process of making ammonia using green hydrogen that doesn't use fossil fuel at all? A process that can be sustained indefinitely, using renewable energy?

The single big concern is nitrous oxide emission from bacteria in the soil, but that can be reduced by nitrification inhibitors, some of which can be produced naturally by plant roots (and likely engineered into crop plants.)

reply
Promises of “green hydrogen” and fertiliser made sustainably haven’t panned out. I’ll believe them when I see it, but I’m not a believer in industrial farming, which is more akin to mining.
reply
Green hydrogen can't compete when natural gas-derived hydrogen is allowed to dump its waste CO2 into the atmosphere. That doesn't mean it can't or won't work when natural gas is outlawed. Your evidence shows nothing except that CO2 isn't being controlled.
reply
Fertilizer is mainly made from natural gas, not oil. Accordingly it should last much longer. Worse case scenario when we run out is we switch to less efficient production, for instance splitting water using nuclear power.

Any plan that relies on depopulation isn't going to work and any attempt to force it to work would require crimes against humanity.

reply
Whose time and what inputs are required to make grass and trees? If you simply leave a place alone, it will turn into either a forest, a grassland, or desert (the latter when human activity has thoroughly destroyed it).
reply