DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Fossil Fuel Folly
*****************************************************
#Post#: 325--------------------------------------------------
The "Green Revolution" Fossil Duel Based Lie
By: AGelbert Date: November 14, 2013, 1:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The fossil fuel industry falsely claims the world owes them for
"feeding millions" with fossil fuel powered farm machines,
fossil fuel based pesticides and fossil fuel based chemical
fertilizers that "increased the yield per acre of crops". It's a
lie.
In order to discuss the fallacy of the alleged high yields of
the "Green Revolution", we must first look at what an organic
crop "yield" REALLY is and compare it to a fossil fuel chemical,
pesticide, land plowing and soil degrading crop "yield". The
reason the claim of a "green Revolution" was initially supported
had a lot to do with the fact that Farmers get paid by the
weight of a crop, not by the amount of nutrients. As you will
see the "high yields" had more to do with $$$ profit "yield"
than food crop "yield". This whole thing with chemical
fertilizers is a more sophisticated equivalent scam of butchers
injecting meat cuts with saline solution water to increase
"yield" but even worse because the heavier metaphorical "meat
cut" in big ag has LESS nutritive value than the non-injected
lighter (organic) equivalent while costing much more to grow as
well as wreaking havoc on the environment within a few decades.
First, some info from the Land Institute in Kansas:
Some progress on perennial crops (no till and not annual is a
huge cost saving from mechanized farming).
[Abstract:
Annual cereal, legume and oilseed crops remain staples of the
global food supply. Because most annual crops have less
extensive, shorter-lived root systems than do perennial species,
with a correspondingly lower capacity to manage nutrients and
water, annual cropping systems tend to suffer higher levels of
soil erosion and generate greater water contamination than do
perennial systems. In an effort to reduce soil degradation and
water contamination simultaneously -- something that neither
no-till nor organic cropping alone can accomplish -- researchers
in the United States, Australia and other countries have begun
breeding perennial counterparts of annual grain and legume
crops. Initial cycles of hybridization, propagation and
selection in wheat, wheatgrasses, sorghum, sunflower and
Illinois bundleflower have produced perennial progenies with
phenotypes intermediate between wild and cultivated species,
along with improved grain production. Further breeding cycles
will be required to develop agronomically adapted perennial
crops with high grain yields.]
HTML http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2011/04/22/4db199966cf1a
HTML http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2011/04/22/4db199966cf1a
Then we have the reason organic farming doesn't use fossil fuel
chemicals:
Snippet:
[Why are synthetic fertilizers not permitted in organic
agriculture? The use of synthetic fertilizers is not allowed in
organic agriculture because the substitution of natural,
renewable resources for plant nutrition with non-renewable
petrochemicals is not sustainable, disrupts natural cycles,
pollutes the environment through runoff and leaves toxic
residues in the soil, just to name a few of the negative
implications.
Organic farmers use legumes – peas, beans and other plants –
that naturally fix and enrich nitrogen in the soil. The
application of synthetically produced phosphorous, another
important plant nutrient, is also not allowed in organic
agriculture. Because organic farm management creates a healthy
soil structure, fungi called mycorrhiza enable plants to utilize
phosphorus in the soil.
Organic farmers use on-farm recycling (composting) of biomass to
supply nutrients to plants. Farms that use chemically intensive
farming methods have largely abandoned traditional and natural
methods of nutrient recycling, resulting in the degradation of
the soil and increasing the susceptibility of plants to pests
and diseases.
The use of synthetic fertilizers has caused a great deal of
environmental pollution. One major problem all over the planet
that has resulted from the use of synthetic fertilizers is the
increased growth of algae in lakes and water reservoirs. A
harmful algal bloom (HAB) occurs when certain types of
microscopic algae grow quickly in water, forming visible patches
that harm the health of the environment, plants, or animals.
HABs deplete oxygen in the water and block the sunlight that
other organisms need to live, and some HAB-causing algae release
toxins that are dangerous to animals and humans.
The production of synthetic fertilizers uses large amounts of
energy, which mostly comes from the burning of fossil fuels,
thereby increasing dependency on external energy inputs.]
Source:
HTML http://www.ifoam.org/sub/faq.html
HTML http://www.ifoam.org/sub/faq.html
The following snippets from a long article on U.S. farming and
yields and my comments along the way form much of my view that
there was never any "Green Revolution":
Snippet 1:
[“The distrust on the part of nonagricultural groups is well
justified. With the publication of Rachel Carlson’s book
entitled ‘Silent Spring’ we, in agriculture, loudly and in
unison stated that pesticides did not contaminate the
environment—we now admit that they do. When confronted with the
presence of nitrates in groundwater we responded that it was not
possible for nitrates from commercial fertilizer to reach
groundwater in excess of 10 parts per million under normal
productive agricultural systems—we now admit they do. When
questioned about the presence of pesticides in food and food
quality, we assured the public that if a pesticide was applied
in compliance with the label, agricultural products would be
free of pesticides—we now admit they are not.
Certainly, the availability of new instrumentation and ability
to detect trace amounts of pesticides in water and food have
changed the meaning of absolute zero. Although this may be used
as an excuse for our belief that agriculture was not a
contributor to environmental degradation, the truth is, we are
not conducting the research and/or making the appropriate
measurements to insure that this was the case.”
This is a very strong indictment by one of us in professional
agriculture!
Today, we might well add more concerns to that list. For one, we
are learning that many surface water bodies have levels of
phosphorus high enough to promote excessive growth of blue-green
algae (Cyanobacteria) leading to eutrophication. Often these
raised levels of phosphorus are associated with the presence of
concentrated livestock operations. What is more, we do not know
whether optimal levels of soil phosphorus and nitrogen
applications for crop production pose serious hazards to water
bodies, and if they do, when, under what conditions, and to
which ones.
Another situation concerns the growing hypoxic volume in the
Gulf of Mexico near the mouth of the Mississippi River.
Finally, recent evidence suggests that transgenic corn producing
some Bacillus thuringensis proteins is harmful to certain
non-target insects. We must ask ourselves whether and how far we
can trust present methods of testing to assure the public that
we will not have to change previous conclusions.]
Snippet2:
[.. some problems are slow in manifesting themselves, and most
rewards to public servants went to new ideas, not for warnings.
Besides, agriculture became obsessed with the need to be as
efficient as possible in crop and animal production to maintain
a competitive edge and succeeded admirably in total food and
fiber production. Much of the competitive edge depended upon
increasing yields with externally supplied inputs.
But we have ignored the real cost of our applied technology at
the farm level because we have not had to pay for the
consequences, and society at large has not fully determined
nor assessed this cost, nor has been willing to pay more for
alternatives.
After all, the upland farmer does not directly pay for the cost
of dredging the Mississippi River or reimburse the loss of Gulf
of Mexico fisheries, nor does the farmer in north central Iowa
have to worry about nitrate removal from river water used for
drinking in Des Moines. Neither do users of sub-therapeutic
doses of antibiotics in animal production compensate for losses
in the effectiveness of similar products in human or veterinary
medicine. In bearing these added costs in other ways, parts of
society are paying the “hidden” costs of inexpensive food.
Why, then, had we come to this kind of a situation?
The Report on Alternative Agriculture, commissioned in 1985 by
the Board on Agriculture and published in 1989 by the National
Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Science,
summarized the work of a committee on the role of alternative
agricultural methods in modern production agriculture. The late
William Brown, president of Pioneer Hi-bred International, Inc.,
was chair of the Board, and Paul Johnson, a farmer and member of
the Iowa General Assembly, was also a Board member.
The dominant conclusion was that laws and policies governing
agriculture, especially commodity policies, are among the major
obstacles to “alternative” agriculture. These commodity policies
came to dominate agricultural producer behavior at the farm
level in ways that acted against achieving the goal of
sustainability.]
----------------------------------------------------------------
---
As you can see, big ag was doing the old "externalize the costs"
trick so dear to the hearts of our predatory capitalists
everywhere. When the total cost of "high yield" mechanized,
tilled soil, chemical fertilizer and pesticide on the farm land
and the planet (don't forget human health care costs from lower
crop nutritive value and harmful chemicals) are compared with
organic, friendly insect introduction for pest control, no till,
labor intensive, no chemical fertilizer or pesticide application
and much lower irrigation requirements from perennial type crops
(deep root systems absent in annual crops), both the yield and
the efficiency numbers for the Green Revolution are shown to be
a fossil fuel lie.
Of course the author of the above article is much more
charitable since he is part of big ag but he contradicts himself
when he talks of high U.S. yields and efficiency and then
schizophrencally admits to all those "other" costs that somebody
has to pay and cannot seem to subtract those "other" costs from
his "high yield" and "efficiency" claims. WTF!? "Inexpensive"
crops!? ??? I don't think so!
Big ag has been involved in a 100 year bubble destroying the
soil to force it to produce high numbers of crops decreasing in
nutritive value. If "yield" means anything at all, it means how
many people you can feed PROPERLY (not with depleted nutrition)
for a given price and maintain a balance with nature. If you
cheat and force the crop at the soil's expense, that's a bogus
high yield. :evil4:
And the U.S. Government was/is actually pushing this insanity:
:(
Snippet 3:
[The amount of subsidy a farmer received under previous recent
farm bills was calculated, in part, on the base acreage and on
the base yield of land in program crops. The farmer, therefore,
has been encouraged to strive for maximum yields and to keep the
highest acreage of land in program crops. There is evidence that
this has led to over-application of fertilizers and other
chemicals, and the cultivation of fragile land to grow more
program crops.]
-------------------------------------------------------
After discussing how alternate farming methods are not mandatory
but should be introduced because the are environmentally
friendly, the author, near the end of the article, says this
much that makes total sense while paradoxically not showing any
sense of outrage that U.S. big ag is in no hurry to go full
organic. ??? >:(
Snippet 4:
[Neil Hamilton, who was quoted earlier, wrote: “The relation of
sustainable agriculture to the multitude of environmental,
social, and economic issues associated with modern farming
practices makes the debate over the issue one of the most
significant in the history of U. S. farm policy.” Earlier I
expressed the conviction that a sustainable agriculture is
critical to the survival of humankind in its present
lifestyles.]
Source:
HTML http://www.wallacechair.iastate.edu/PDF/2001pesek_lecture.pdf
HTML http://www.wallacechair.iastate.edu/PDF/2001pesek_lecture.pdf
Now look at this gem. It's more proof that the "Green
Revolution" was bogus:
Snippet:
[The problem of hidden hunger grew out of the 1960s "green
revolution." That boom in agriculture relied on new varieties of
high-yield crops and chemical fertilizers to staunch world
hunger by upping caloric intake in the developing world.
Unfortunately, those high-yield crops are typically low in
micronutrients, and eating them has resulted in an epidemic of
hidden hunger.
At least a third of the world is already lacking in some
chemical element, according to the U.N., and the problem is due
in part to a steady diet of micronutrient-deficient
green-revolution plants.
Iron deficiency alone, which can cause cognitive impairment in
children and increase the rate of stillbirths, affects some 4.5
billion people. :o Lack of iodine, another micronutrient, can
result in brain damage and is a serious problem in 130
countries. According to the World Bank, hidden hunger is one of
the most important causes of slowed economic development in the
Third World.]
Source:
HTML http://eartheasy.com/article_food_bad_ugly.htm
HTML http://eartheasy.com/article_food_bad_ugly.htm
In other words, those "high yields" were NOTHING OF THE KIND!
:o
Sure they had numbers and size but at the expense of NUTRITION?
??? >:(
This sounds more like increasing the size of the cracker jack
box, while decreasing the amount of cracker jacks in it. [img
width=100
height=080]
HTML http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/173471/photos/PHOTO_16911555_173471_31107159_ap.jpg[/img]It's<br
/>more Madison Avenue monocrop eye catching packaging than food
production for the hungry masses.
More bad news:
Snippet 1:
[Of the 13 major nutrients found in fruits and vegetables, six
have declined substantially, according to a study by Donald
Davis, a biochemist at the University of Texas at Austin.
Using data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Davis claims
the average vegetable found in today’s supermarket is anywhere
from 5% to 40% lower in minerals than those harvested just 50
years ago. His research finds that recently grown crops have
shown decreases of up to 38% in protein, magnesium, calcium,
vitamin C, phosphorus, iron, zinc and riboflavin when compared
with produce from past decades.]
Snippet 2:
[“Farmers get paid by the weight of a crop, not by amount of
nutrients,” Davis said. He called this the “dilution effect”: As
fruits and vegetables grown in the United States become larger
and more plentiful, they provide fewer vitamins and minerals.][
HTML http://eartheasy.com/blog/2009/05/fruits-and-vegetables-yielding-fewer-nutrients-than-in-the-past/
The "Green Revolution" was quite "$$$ green" for big ag,
chemical corporations and fossil fuel pigs but it actually
INCREASED world hunger by decreasing nutrition of crops.
Sure, they are bigger but, due to chemical fertilzers, lack the
nutrition of organic crops. The "high yield" and "efficient"
high U.S. mechanized farming to feed the world was a huge lie
which we are all paying for with ongoing subsidies for
environment destroying farming (big ag seems also to have left
out subsidies from their "yield" calculations) and increased
health care costs from poor nutrition.
The REAL numbers tell the story of less yield with chemicals and
fossil fuels than organic.
Finally, there's this article on a GREENER REVOLUTION:
Snippet:
[Biologically intensive agriculture is a prolific and
sustainable method for growing
food which has its roots in the history of humankind: it was
practiced 5000
years ago in Ethiopia, 4000 years ago in China, Japan and Korea,
2000 years ago
in Greece, and 1000 years ago in the Mayan culture.
In 2009 it was the method featured in the primary case study in
the UNEP-UNCTAD report Organic Agriculture and Food Security in
Africa, with positive results.
Using Biointensive agriculture in its modern, scientifically
proven form, at intermediate-
level yields, with a reasonable buildup of soil quality and
farmer skill, on approximately 4000 square feet (317.6 square
meters) per person it is possible to raise:
• A complete vegan diet, plus
• All the carbonaceous and nitrogenous compost materials
necessary to
maintain fertile soil, and
• A modest income.
Per pound of food produced, as compared with conventional
mechanized agriculture,
the Biointensive method has the capacity to use:
• 66% less water,
• 50-100% less purchased nutrients*,
• 94-99% less energy in all forms, while producing
• Substantially increased yields, and
• A 100% increase in soil fertility!
The Biointensive method is organic, sustainable, low-input,
high-yield agriculture,
and is already being implemented by small farmers in 141
countries
around the world. It truly has the potential to combat hunger
and establish
food security, and to be the “greener revolution” this planet
needs.16]
Source:
HTML http://www.growbiointensive.org/PDF/BiointensiveAgricultureAGreenerRevolution_English.pdf
HTML http://www.growbiointensive.org/PDF/BiointensiveAgricultureAGreenerRevolution_English.pdf
There's more. China used humanure effectively for well over a
thousand years feeding a huge population without mechanized
anything and organic farming WITHOUT ever depleting their soil.
This is mentioned in this article I have posted some snippets
to here only briefly.
HTML http://www.wallacechair.iastate.edu/PDF/2001pesek_lecture.pdf
HTML http://www.wallacechair.iastate.edu/PDF/2001pesek_lecture.pdf
The permies have a free book on the web that goes into a lot of
detail about how the Chinese did this. In addition, the permies
added up all the fossil fuels required to make, transport and
distribute fertilizers and pesticides and the fuel for the
machines that spray them and the horrendous costs to the
environment as opposed to humanure.
It's absolutely mind boggling what chumps we have been taken for
by the fossil fuel and chemical corporations.
HTML http://images.zaazu.com/img/Incredible-Hulk-animated-animation-male-smiley-emoticon-000342-small.gif
The Green Revolution was nothing of the sort. Another fossil
fuel lie in a long line of perverse and environmentally costly
lies we swallowed from their propaganda mouthpieces.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gifThe<br
/>BIG OIL did the Crime; They need to DO THE TIME and PAY THE
FINE!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/cowboypistol.gif
#Post#: 638--------------------------------------------------
Re: The "Green Revolution" Fossil Duel Based Lie
By: AGelbert Date: December 29, 2013, 6:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img
width=640]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-080422162605.png[/img]
[center]King Corn: FOUR times the yield with LESS nutrition AND
HEALTH DEGRADATION to boot! [img
width=80]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-080422121157.gif[/img][/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/TWv29KRsQXU[/center]
34,000 seeds per acre of GMO corn grown in fossil fuel based
farming from machines to fertilizer to toxic, life expectancy
shortening, "High yield" (in weight, NOT NUTRITION) corn CRAP.
[img
width=70]
HTML https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-080422121435.png[/img]
The IRONY in this video is that HEMP is STILL trying to grow
wild in these corn fields after over half a century of
herbicides trying to wipe it out. MOST of these fields should be
for HEMP, not corn!
[img
width=640]
HTML http://seedsaverswa.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/heirloom-corn1.jpg[/img]
What we need to go back to. This is TRUELY nutritious corn!
#Post#: 3617--------------------------------------------------
Re: The "Green Revolution" Fossil Duel Based Lie
By: AGelbert Date: August 15, 2015, 2:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
pascalmolineaux
As with fossil fuels, industrialized agriculture so heavily
dependent on fossil-fuel inputs, energy intensive, has served us
well and no doubt saved the world from many famines. However, as
its additional costs on environmental and human health are
increasingly clear, it IS time to change.
The massive water pollution problems, loss of biodiversity and
natural landscapes, soil erosion and now methane production
associated with industrial agriculture are so, so huge they
outweigh the potential benefits of this particular mode of
production.
It is simply NOT sustainable and will ONLY lead to much worse
problems.
There are, as with fossil fuels, a wide range of alternatives
that protect human and environmental health.
Time to change.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif
Time to move on.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/128fs318181.gif<br
/> Time to be wise and forward looking.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
Thank
God Vandana Shiva (and others of course!) are leading. Thank
God.
Agelbert reply to pascalmolineaux
I agree with you that it is certainly time for a change. But I
write to caution you not to put too much stock in the fossil
fuel industry lie that we "owe them" for the chemical
fertilizers and tractor fuel needed for "modern" farming.
WHY?
Because all the farming machinery could have run on biofuel
ethanol. And no, the ethanol production would not then (or now)
cut into world food production. That is another lie going around
out there.
WHY?
BECAUSE ethanol products can be grown in presently "non-arable"
(for food crops) land.
And as to the fossil fuel based fertilizers that we allegedly
"owe so much too", [I]here are the facts. [/I]
Snippet 1:
[Of the 13 major nutrients found in fruits and vegetables, six
have declined substantially, according to a study by Donald
Davis, a biochemist at the University of Texas at Austin.
Using data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Davis claims
the average vegetable found in today’s supermarket is anywhere
from 5% to 40% lower in minerals than those harvested just 50
years ago. His research finds that recently grown crops have
shown decreases of up to 38% in protein, magnesium, calcium,
vitamin C, phosphorus, iron, zinc and riboflavin when compared
with produce from past decades.]
Snippet 2:
[“Farmers get paid by the weight of a crop, not by amount of
nutrients,” Davis said. He called this the “dilution effect”: As
fruits and vegetables grown in the United States become larger
and more plentiful, they provide fewer vitamins and minerals.][
HTML http://eartheasy.com/blog/2009/05/fruits-and-vegetables-yielding-fewer-nutrients-than-in-the-past/
The "Green Revolution" was quite "$$$ green" for big ag,
chemical corporations and fossil fuel pigs [I]but it actually
INCREASED world hunger by decreasing nutrition of crops. [/I]
Sure, they are bigger but, due to chemical fertilzers, lack the
nutrition of organic crops. The "high yield" and "efficient"
high U.S. mechanized farming to feed the world was a huge lie
which we are all paying for with ongoing subsidies for
environment destroying farming (big ag seems also to have left
out subsidies from their "yield" calculations) and increased
health care costs from poor nutrition.
The REAL numbers tell the story of less yield with chemicals and
fossil fuels than organic.
Finally, there's this article on a GREENER REVOLUTION:
Snippet:
[Biologically intensive agriculture is a prolific and
sustainable method for growing
food which has its roots in the history of humankind: it was
practiced 5000
years ago in Ethiopia, 4000 years ago in China, Japan and Korea,
2000 years ago
in Greece, and 1000 years ago in the Mayan culture.
In 2009 it was the method featured in the primary case study in
the UNEP-UNCTAD report Organic Agriculture and Food Security in
Africa, with positive results.
Using Biointensive agriculture in its modern, scientifically
proven form, at intermediate-
level yields, with a reasonable buildup of soil quality and
farmer skill, on approximately 4000 square feet (317.6 square
meters) per person it is possible to raise:
• A complete vegan diet, plus
• All the carbonaceous and nitrogenous compost materials
necessary to
maintain fertile soil, and
• A modest income.
Per pound of food produced, as compared with conventional
mechanized agriculture,
the Biointensive method has the capacity to use:
• 66% less water,
• 50-100% less purchased nutrients*,
• 94-99% less energy in all forms, while producing
• Substantially increased yields, and
• A 100% increase in soil fertility!
The Biointensive method is organic, sustainable, low-input,
high-yield agriculture,
and is already being implemented by small farmers in 141
countries
around the world. It truly has the potential to combat hunger
and establish
food security, and to be the “greener revolution” this planet
needs.16]
The fossil fuel industry falsely claims the world owes them for
"feeding millions" with fossil fuel powered farm machines,
fossil fuel based pesticides and fossil fuel based chemical
fertilizers that "increased the yield per acre of crops". It's a
lie.
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/fossil-fuel-folly/the-'green-revolution'-fossil-duel-based-lie/msg325/#msg325
Vandana Shiva: There Is No Reason Why India Should Face Hunger
and Farmers Should Commit Suicide
Dr. Vandana Shiva | August 14, 2015 1:35 pm
HTML http://ecowatch.com/2015/08/14/vandana-shiva-india/
#Post#: 16873--------------------------------------------------
Blue Hydrogen. The greatest fossil fuel scam in history?
By: AGelbert Date: September 5, 2021, 9:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]🦕 Blue Hydrogen [img
width=80]
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/2/3-050921221152.jpeg[/img].<br
/>The greatest fossil fuel scam in history?[/center]
[center]
HTML https://youtu.be/2EA4tDYwNYo[/center]
44,139 views Sep 5, 2021
Just Have a Think
324K subscribers
Blue hydrogen is being enthusiastically promoted by natural gas
producers as the simplest and cheapest answer to decarbonising
our economies. But recent studies have shown that it's overall
greenhouse gas emissions footprint is worse than natural gas.
So, is this just the latest in a long series of diversions and
deceptions from the fossil fuel industry?
Video Transcripts available at our website
HTML http://www.justhaveathink.com
Help support this channels independence at
HTML http://www.patreon.com/justhaveathink
*****************************************************