Merrick
|
Peak soil
Feb 07, 2010, 20:24
|
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/farming/6828878/Britain-facing-food-crisis-as-worlds-soil-vanishes-in-60-years.html
|
PMM
|
Edited Feb 08, 2010, 04:04
Re: Peak soil
Feb 08, 2010, 04:04
|
Britain facing food crisis as world's soil 'vanishes in 60 years'
British farming soil could run out within 60 years, leading to a catastrophic food crisis and drastically higher prices for consumers, scientists warn.
I'm not disputing that soil depletion is an increasingly serious issue. In some ways it may be the most urgent of the carrying capacity issues facing us. In fact, since, as temperatures rise, soil releases carbon into the atmosphere - something that could severely exascerbate and accelerate the greenhouse effect, it could make an even stronger point. But I'm finding that this sort of presentation is ultimately counter-productive.
The headlines seem to stem from this comment:
John Crawford, professor of Sustainable Agriculture at the University of Sydney, who presented the study, said it was unknown how long soil will last.
“It could be as little as 60 years and that is a scary figure because it is not obvious that we have time to reverse decline and still meet future demands for food,” he said.
By putting the most sensationalised interpretation forward, it risks dismissal as alarmist hype.
My concern is not just limited to this issue, but I think one reason scepticism is so strong is because the worst case scenarios are failing to materialise. How often do you hear people say "Global warming? Yeah but back in the 70's, scientists were predicting another ice age"
If I remember rightly, scientists weren't predicting another ice age. But guarded scientific statements about a range of possibilities were transformed into lurid headlines, which is what people remember now.
The article claims that we couldn't feed everyone using organic techniques. Personally I'm not sure we could feed everyone just using sustainable techniques, never mind organic ones.
There have been a couple of articles about it in u-know.
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/?id=87
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/?id=59
I really must read Colin Tudge's Sow you Shall Reap book again.
|
moss
|
Re: Peak soil
Feb 09, 2010, 12:02
|
Though I hate to be sceptical on this, and reading Diamond's 'Collapse' at the moment, which gives ample evidence of soil loss and end of civilisations, especially Iceland's 50% which made a great part of the country a soil desert, such headlines do obscure the fact that the human race is adaptable. The 'scare' tone brought to mind Massingham's book 'Prophecy of Famine' in the early 20th century, which did'nt quite come about.
There are answers out there, permaculturists have been addressing them, and though 'organic' has now acquired a cynical tone by most, covering the soil, growing more trees and changing the pattern of our eating is one way forward.
The pessimist would probably point to a truth, that the predictions of nine billion people in the future are just predictions, the reality is that a lot of people are starving and will starve - nature is a grim reaper. China does'nt even bear thinking about with its massive population and environmental degradation of its rivers ;(
|
Merrick
|
Re: Peak soil
Feb 11, 2010, 21:39
|
|
PMM wrote: But I'm finding that this sort of presentation is ultimately counter-productive.
yeah, but sub-editors want to give the most eyecatching headline, not a truthful one. In the Express/Mail world, I've repeatedly found the articles don't even tally with the headlines, which must really piss off the journo who wrote it. And when you peel off the layer of journo sensationalisation, the thing actually being reported is often even less alarming.
As a tangent...
PMM wrote: How often do you hear people say "Global warming? Yeah but back in the 70's, scientists were predicting another ice age"
If I remember rightly, scientists weren't predicting another ice age.
They were. It was based on the huge amount of sulphur emissions from industrial facilities. This would cause greater cloud cover, lowering global temperatures.
They were right. Indeed, there has been serious suggestion that it was European sulphate emissions that fucked up rainfall patterns in eastern Afirca and triggered the droughts of the 70s and 80s.
What they didn't factor in to the cooling scenario was it being countered by the warming effect of carbon emissions, and then reduced to negligibility by legislation that reduced sulphur emissions.
It's yet another of the climate deniers tired arguments 'but they predicted global cooling and were wrong', or 'why didn't the massive increase in carbon emissions after WW2 see a commensurate rise in global temperature'; and like most denier stuff, it's already been covered by accepted science.
There are people advocatin geo-engineering solutions to climate change including firing sulphates into the straoshpere to increase cloud cover. Even though it will cause droughts, and do nothing to reduce CO2 levels and all the other damage they do (acidifying oceans, etc)
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/08/29/no-quick-fix/
http://bristlingbadger.blogspot.com/2009/01/geoengineering-ethically-unsound-says.html
|
