The Meeting Lunch food security blog posted an interview with David Lobell, Stanford researcher and coauthor of a study arguing that our modern high-input, high-yielding agricultural system leads to less green house emissions than if we had a low-input, low-yielding agricultural system.
The report argues that even though high-yielding agriculture requires the use of fertilizer, pesticides, and other tools that result in high greenhouse emissions; low-yielding agriculture would require us to use much more crop land, resulting in a large increase in green house emissions from deforestation and other land use changes.
Meeting Lunch blogger Natalie Aldern challenged the report’s findings, writing:
There are several problems with the paper’s broad claim- first and foremost being that the study measures environmental impact solely in terms of greenhouse case emissions. Focusing on climate change as it relates solely to carbon emission is misleadingly narrow-sighted. Fertilizers and fossil fuel are more than just carbon emitters. They also contribute to nitrogen depletion and toxic runoff.
Secondly, the paper assumes that yield will always be higher with industrial farming. The argument rests on the assertion that without fertilizers and fuel, more land would need to be cleared to raise the same amount of food. Several recent studies suggest the opposite- that sustainable organic farming can produce high enough yields to feed the world.
Does this report change your mind about which approaches to agriculture are most environmentally sound? Post your comments below.
Posted by Rishi Sidhu.