Now Nitrogen, making up 78% of Earth’s atmosphere, and a requirement for many agricultural crops is given the label of “dangerous”. I’m guessing Oxygen and the “dangerous oxidation” it causes will be next.
First they came for the CFC’s, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a user of aerosol deodorant.
Then they came for the Carbon Dioxide, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a denier.
Then they came for the Nitrogen, and I did not speak out– Because I was not a farmer.
Then they came for the Oxygen–and there was no one left breathing to speak for me.
From the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) home of the Schellnhuber
Dangerous nitrogen pollution could be halved
Ambitious mitigation efforts, however, could decrease the pollution by 50 percent. The analysis is the very first to quantify this.
“Nitrogen is an irreplaceable nutrient and a true life-saver as it helps agriculture to feed a growing world population – but it is unfortunately also a dangerous pollutant,” says Benjamin Bodirsky, lead-author of the study. In the different forms it can take through chemical reactions, it massively contributes to respirable dust, leads to the formation of aggressive ground-level ozone, and destabilizes water ecosystems. Damages in Europe alone have been estimated at around 1-4 percent of economic output, worth billions of Euro. About half of these nitrogen pollution damages are from agriculture. This is why the scientists ran extensive computer simulations to explore the effects of different mitigation measures.
Both farmers and consumers would have to participate in mitigation
“It became clear that without mitigation the global situation may markedly deteriorate as the global food demand grows,” says Bodirsky, who is also affiliated to the International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Colombia (CIAT). “A package of mitigation actions can reverse this trend, yet the risk remains that nitrogen pollution still exceeds safe environmental thresholds.”
Only combined mitigation efforts both in food production and consumption could substantially reduce the risks, the study shows. Currently, every second ton of nitrogen put on the fields is not taken up by the crops but blown away by the wind, washed out by rain or decomposed by microorganisms. To reduce losses and prevent pollution, farmers can more carefully target fertilizer application to plants’ needs, using soil measurements. Moreover, they should aim at efficiently recycling animal dung to fertilize the plants. “Mitigation costs are currently many times lower than damage costs,” says co-author Alexander Popp.
“For consumers in developed countries, halving food waste, meat consumption and related feed use would not only benefit their health and their wallet,” Popp adds. “Both changes would also increase the overall resource efficiency of food production and reduce pollution.”
“Health effects of nitrogen pollution more important than climate effects”
“The nitrogen cycle is interwoven with the climate system in various ways,” Hermann Lotze-Campen points out, co-author of the study and co-chair of PIK’s research domain Climate Impacts and Vulnerabilities. Nitrous oxide, or laughing gas, on the one hand is one of the major greenhouse gases. On the other hand, nitrogen containing aerosols scatter light and thereby cool the climate. And as fertilizing nutrient, nitrogen enhances the growth of forests which binds CO2. “Currently the health effects of nitrogen pollution are clearly more important, because the different climate effects largely cancel out,” says Lotze-Campen. “But this may change – hence limiting nitrogen would have the double benefit of helping our health today and avoiding climate risks in the future.”
Article: Bodirsky, B.L., Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H., Dietrich, J.P., Rolinski, S., Weindl, I., Schmitz, C., Müller, C., Bonsch, M., Humpenöder, F., Biewald, A., Stevanovic, M. (2014): Reactive nitrogen requirements to feed the world in 2050 and potentials to mitigate nitrogen pollution. Nature Communications [DOI:10.1038/ncomms4858]
Weblink to Nature Communications where the article will be published: http://www.nature.com/naturecommunications
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Man-made global warming, er climate change, er global weirding, er climate disruption is causing dangerous levels of the potent greenhouse gas dihydrogen monoxide to accumulate in our precious atmosphere!
Time to ban lightning.
dihydrogen monoxide It ain’t called the universal solvent for nothing! Exercise extreme caution.
It is now clear that the real movers behind all this climate drivel are “the greys” who are planning to take over after we have run ourselves into extinction.
The world has gone insane
Robert Bisset beat me to it. The dangerous dihydrogen monoixide must be next on the list /sarc
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
Acknowledgements
This research is funded by BMBF and launched by FONA under support code
01LL0901A (GLUES) and 01LL0904B (INNOVATE). The research leading to these
results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework
Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement number 266992 (Global IQ), 226701
(Carbo-eXtreme), 265104 (Volante), 243888 (FUME).
with apologies to milodonharlani who mentioned it first. I am slow on the uptake today 🙂
oh boy; another boogieman two generations down the road…
Why and how do crop yields per acre continue to climb? Corn is at record levels. Who claims that record yields are costing the GDP?
RE: Only combined mitigation efforts both in food production and consumption could substantially reduce the risks, the study shows.
I notice a repeating pattern of trying to control everyone. Hand over your freedom and we’ll make you safe.
I am sure there will be a 12-step program developed soon for an organizaton called Alarmists Anonymous for Mad Scientists – AAMS for short. When will it end? When will IT enddd ….
73% of my “Carbon Footprint” is pure oxygen.
We must return the Earth to its natural state. Only when the Earth is as it was about 4 billion years ago, before it had an atmosphere, will it be safe.
They’re talking about Amine (NH3-) Nitrate (NO3-) salts, not Nitrogen gas (N2).
Since nitrogen fertilizers are a diverse set with only the Nitrogen part in common, it is reasonable to refer to them generally as Nitrogens.
Obviously.
Bob Diaz says:
May 13, 2014 at 12:16 pm
But don’t call ’em Malthusians!
Uh……………What?
So their fix is: eat less, become a vegetarian, make farming more difficult. Got it!
(Remember that these are the same elites who think nothing of jetting off to Bali for a climate conference, where they dine, frolic, and consume adult beverages with no guilt…).
You have GOT to be kidding!!!!
vboring says: May 13, 2014 at 12:23 pm
“Obviously.”
Indeed so. When your doctor recommends more iron in your diet, he isn’t talking about nails.
Happy Days lasted another seven years after Fonzie jumped the shark. The Greens, misunderstanding the concept, keep jumping more sharks thinking it will give them seven more years of relevance.
Now lets get this right
1 we have global warming but we need to limit Nitrogen because it is a cooling agent.???
2 We need to eat less meat to reduce Nitrogen because its good for our health- not according to the latest dietary information.
3 nitrogen enhances growing and binds CO2- so we should limit it.
4 So in nature the good and bad effects cancel out.- but that may change, really!!!!
To much laughing gas in the lab to be taken seriously.
@Stark Dickflüssig
“Time to ban lightning.”
Note that these climate alarmists (aka left wing, progressive eco-fascists) are very fond of using the “b” word these days. Think they won’t attempt to use the power of government to fundamentally change our ways of life???
Time to vote their political enablers out of office, then begin the process of defunding this junk science…
Do some farmers over fertilize? Sure. Is there some run off of fertilizer into streams and rivers? Sure. Do farmers try to limit over fertilization and run off? You bet. At least those that have to pay for the fertilizer they apply. It isn’t cheap. And without fertilizer we would not be able to produce the amount of food required to feed the inhabitants of this planet. Of course, we could develop soylent green as a food source.
Demonstrates exactly what is going wrong with ‘science’.
As I suggested a long time ago here … We have entered the Macroscopic Era of science. We have too much information that we barely understand. We can, from space, measure temperature, global cloud cover or CO2 concentration over Beijing in real time. We can count the number of Ants entering and leaving the nest. What we don’t have is anything to compare it with.
Were there more Ants in 1950? More Clouds?
The ‘microscope’ was developed several hundred years before we understood ‘Bacteria’. I suspect that we may come to understand elements of the macroscopic world in less time. But not right now.