Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 8:16:23 GMT
Because it promises to be healthier and more sustainable, organic food is better for the climate, which is why the European Union plans to achieve organic production on 25% of its land by 2030, up from 9.1% in 2020.
On the other hand, the United States is not betting on green agriculture, which still represents less than 1%. However, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) promotes climate-smart harvesting by investing $1 billion in regenerative commodity pilot projects.
Does organic farming require too much land?
According to GreenBiz ,climate-friendly than conventional planting if emissions are strictly evaluated. In a comparative analysis of environmental impacts, Michael Clark and David Tilman of the University of Minnesota found that “organic and conventional systems do not differ significantly in their greenhouse gas emissions,” and that's not the only thing.
Land use is the Achilles heel of organic techniques. The Chinese American Phone Number List research concluded that farms require between 25 and 110% more land to produce the same amount of food because yields are lower. This is terrible news for the climate because it carries the so-called “opportunity cost of carbon.”
When not used for farming, the same space could host natural ecosystems such as forests and grasslands that store much greater amounts of carbon than agricultural sites. But agriculture continues to seize more and more reserves instead of returning fields to nature, further strengthening the climate and biodiversity crisis.
Organic food is better for the climate sowing
The resulting need to limit agriculture, along with concerns about profitability, causes many farmers and environmentalists to focus on ensuring high profits.
Advances in genetic improvement, pesticides and fertilizers, machinery and farms have ushered in impressive increases in productivity in recent decades. For example, soybeans have increased 150% since 1961 and the environmental benefits have not been able to compete with these rapid advances, which has hindered their growth.
The costs of carbon
Why has this disadvantage not deterred advocates and practitioners of organic farming, including European policymakers? One reason is that it offers other social and environmental advantages.
Rural workers and communities suffer disproportionately from the unsafe use of conventional pesticides. For their part, organic soils tend to be healthier, which increases their resistance to extreme weather events, an essential consideration as the impacts of global warming will intensify.
Furthermore, in low- and middle-income countries, the shift to industrial planting does not usually lead to an overall improvement in social, economic and environmental conditions. Meanwhile, many of the practices that are called regenerative have been cornerstones in the face of problems.
Organic food is better for the climate, true or false?
Likewise, sustainable plantings are a more transparent way to promote climate-smart agriculture. Practices such as crop rotation, intercropping, cover cropping, reduced tillage and composting are clearly regulated, third-party verified and labeled for consumers.
Although they have flaws, it seems like it would be much easier to continue building on organic to support climate-smart activities rather than invent a new regenerative ecosystem of regulation, enforcement and communication.
Other experts argue that the gap in land use is not (or need not be) as large as estimated and cast doubt on the dominant “feed the world” narrative. They argue that we must take into account adequate evidence to ensure the superiority of organic.
But several indigenous communities and small producers have successfully achieved organic ways , while maintaining a sufficient yield of nutritious food. Although these efforts are not usually documented or shared in the academic literature, which is the main source of information for current agricultural policies and practices, they are therefore overlooked.
On the other hand, the United States is not betting on green agriculture, which still represents less than 1%. However, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) promotes climate-smart harvesting by investing $1 billion in regenerative commodity pilot projects.
Does organic farming require too much land?
According to GreenBiz ,climate-friendly than conventional planting if emissions are strictly evaluated. In a comparative analysis of environmental impacts, Michael Clark and David Tilman of the University of Minnesota found that “organic and conventional systems do not differ significantly in their greenhouse gas emissions,” and that's not the only thing.
Land use is the Achilles heel of organic techniques. The Chinese American Phone Number List research concluded that farms require between 25 and 110% more land to produce the same amount of food because yields are lower. This is terrible news for the climate because it carries the so-called “opportunity cost of carbon.”
When not used for farming, the same space could host natural ecosystems such as forests and grasslands that store much greater amounts of carbon than agricultural sites. But agriculture continues to seize more and more reserves instead of returning fields to nature, further strengthening the climate and biodiversity crisis.
Organic food is better for the climate sowing
The resulting need to limit agriculture, along with concerns about profitability, causes many farmers and environmentalists to focus on ensuring high profits.
Advances in genetic improvement, pesticides and fertilizers, machinery and farms have ushered in impressive increases in productivity in recent decades. For example, soybeans have increased 150% since 1961 and the environmental benefits have not been able to compete with these rapid advances, which has hindered their growth.
The costs of carbon
Why has this disadvantage not deterred advocates and practitioners of organic farming, including European policymakers? One reason is that it offers other social and environmental advantages.
Rural workers and communities suffer disproportionately from the unsafe use of conventional pesticides. For their part, organic soils tend to be healthier, which increases their resistance to extreme weather events, an essential consideration as the impacts of global warming will intensify.
Furthermore, in low- and middle-income countries, the shift to industrial planting does not usually lead to an overall improvement in social, economic and environmental conditions. Meanwhile, many of the practices that are called regenerative have been cornerstones in the face of problems.
Organic food is better for the climate, true or false?
Likewise, sustainable plantings are a more transparent way to promote climate-smart agriculture. Practices such as crop rotation, intercropping, cover cropping, reduced tillage and composting are clearly regulated, third-party verified and labeled for consumers.
Although they have flaws, it seems like it would be much easier to continue building on organic to support climate-smart activities rather than invent a new regenerative ecosystem of regulation, enforcement and communication.
Other experts argue that the gap in land use is not (or need not be) as large as estimated and cast doubt on the dominant “feed the world” narrative. They argue that we must take into account adequate evidence to ensure the superiority of organic.
But several indigenous communities and small producers have successfully achieved organic ways , while maintaining a sufficient yield of nutritious food. Although these efforts are not usually documented or shared in the academic literature, which is the main source of information for current agricultural policies and practices, they are therefore overlooked.
