Yes, I was implying that it might be less damaging to our planet
if we produced food using pesticides in humid climates rather than
draining rivers for arid-land agriculture. However, I really doubt
if anyone has calculated the trade-offs, and it would probably be
nearly impossible to do so. We are all so interconnected that it is
often very difficult to predict how changes in one arena can totally
upset the balances half a world away. (Besides, the world would
rapidly run out of food if we abandoned all arid-land agriculture or
if we abandoned all pesticides not approved for organic use!)
To illustrate the complexities of our interconnectedness: A recent
article in Science magazine discussed decisions by an agency in
California that decided industries should not receive carbon-related
credits for using biofuels because the data collected by this agency
indicated that biofuels as currently produced provide no net benefit
to the environment. The problem is that the huge amounts of the US
corn crop consumed for biofuel production resulted, at least
initially, in rising food prices worldwide. That caused farmers in
tropical and subtropical climates to remove/burn more forest land so
as to convert it to farming. The loss of forest land was calculated
to negate the carbon-saving benefits of biofuels. The final comment
in that article was from a scientist who noted that we could produce
enough crops for both biofuels and human food if everyone became a
vegetarian because it takes only 1/10th as much land to support
humans on vegetarian diets as on meat-based diets.
After reading that comment, I thought it would be interesting to know
what would happen if North Americans were told that they could
either become vegetarian and continue driving their cars/trucks, or
they could give up their vehicles and driver's licenses and continue
to eat meat. However, our recent discussion on organic farming has
added a new twist: If everyone opted to become vegetarian so that
they could continue to drive their cars, we would end up with a
world-wide shortage of manure for organic farmers (despite all the BS
that comes out of Washington DC!). Given this conundrum, I suppose
the ecological choices would be to either become a non-organic
vegetarian with a car or an omnivore (organic optional) with no car.
Saving the planet gets awfully complicated. And what is the point in
eating organic foods to stay healthy (which seems to be the
under-lying driver for most organic foodies) if by doing so you end
up being the last healthy organism on the planet?
Dave,
There are lots of points you raise I agree with. Although I am not
sure I understand the water argument and how it ties into pesticide
usage. Are you suggesting it would be environmentally friendlier to
grow fruit in humid climates but with more pesticide usage? Western
climates do provide many other advantages, though.
--
**************************************************************
Dave Rosenberger
Professor of Plant Pathology Office: 845-691-7231
Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax: 845-691-2719
P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528 Cell: 845-594-3060
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard
<http://www.virtualorchard.net> and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon
Clements <webmas...@virtualorchard.net>.
Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent
"official" opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for
the content.
