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.
They went full retard.
We used to worry about ‘analysis paralysis’.
It has become analysis anality.
I thought this was a serious study until I saw:
Then I relaxed knowing this was more alarmist BS from PIK, the people in bed with Munich-RE insurance company. The first link
=============================
New Film Shows Hans Schellnhuber Claiming “Himalayan 2035 Glacier Melt Was “Very Easy To Calculate”
He could not see the fail for the trees. He later said it was obvious that the 2035 date was wrong.
I neglected to mention that excess nitrate fertilizers can contaminate groundwater, leading to health problems in infants (methemoglobinemia):
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts204.pdf
Therefore, the guy touches on something that has legitimacy. However, [using] the phrase “dangerous nitrogen pollution” is just stupid. Nitrogen gas is largely inert, but some compounds containing nitrogen, such as cyanide, will kill you very quickly. “Dangerous” depends upon the form.
(mod, please change “ssing” to “using” & thanks!)^
While I am normally on board with bashing the growing reach of government regulation, this is justified. Nitrogen may indeed be 78% of the atmosphere, but that’s where it belongs, and not in the oceans. In the atmosphere it exists as chemically stable. In the oceans, it leads to algeal blooms which leads to ecosystem collapse from the bottom up. The good news is all of these issues appear and can be managed on a local scale. Whereas for the CO2 issue, it is a global issue. Nitrogen is indeed harmless, when it stays where it is supposed to. But move it into the oceans and you have legitimate issues.
These guys make themselve sound like idiots. Of course, they are not talking about N2; but NH3 and other nitrogen bassed fertalizers.
CRS, DrPH says:
May 13, 2014 at 1:14 pm
“Sorry, Anthony, this article is a “red herring” and shouldn’t be part of the climate discussion. ”
It is, because it is by the PIK, which has the only purpose of pondering the effects of climate change. They don’t do ANYTHING without connecting it to Earth’s precious vulnerable climate. They were founded for this reason. PIK means Potsdam Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung; literally: Potsdam Institute for climate consequences research; sorry, that’s really the name even if it’s rather nonsensical. We had a serious brain drain after Operation Paperclip.
““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. ”
See?
@CRS, DrPH thankfully our hosts blog isn’t juat about the climate discussion. It;s about life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology and recent news. Also just about anything else that piques our host’s interest.
I for one am very thankful about that as it produces some of the liveliest discussion on the web today. Even if the likes of Mosher believes we are all no better than third rate thinkers.
The article is what it is, and as it is it will be misleading to the layman. Which is who it will be intended to scare if it makes mainstream media. I’m still astounded by the number of people who will argue that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. That’s the fault of the media and this kind of thing needs to be headed off. Let’s keep them honest.
Who claims that record yields are costing the GDP?
Bob Diaz says:
May 13, 2014 at 12:16 pm
RE: Only combined mitigation efforts both in food production and consumption could substantially reduce the risks, the study shows
================================
So there you have it; just stop eating. Problem solved.
And to think; Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Edison, Fermi, Curie, Tesla and Einstein NEVER saw a computer model. How did they manage?
These people will never stop inventing new dangers to life on Earth until we stop falling for it by giving them more money.
In Europe, we farmers have limits on the number of nitrogen and phosphorous units/acre that we can spread. We have limits on livestock stocking rates/acre and we have strict calendar date controls on the spreading of organic and inorganic fertiliser. Long before this legislation was enforced every analysis of river pollution showed the following, upstream of urban centres water is slightly polluted, downstream of urban centres water is polluted/seriously polluted. This type of “science” further undermines the credibility of conventional agriculture. It is politically acceptable because it attacks a minority grouping but does not to tackle a more obvious problem involving significant votes. Easy pickings then for the green agenda.
Yeah, using the term “Nitrogen Pollution” as a short-hand for “Pollution of Nitrogen compounds” is annoying, but other than that, I really don’t see why anyone has a problem with this article. Many Nitrogen Compounds are really harmful to the environment, to animal life, and to human life, so it is important to monitor and control such pollution. If you don’t believe me, visit Los Angeles in 1960 or Beijing today!
Fortunately, efforts to clean up NOx pollution from automobiles have been quite successful (visit modern day L.A. or any other major city in the U.S. or Europe). Furthermore, ground water contamination by run-off of nitrogen-based fertilizers is a major problem in many parts of the world and it is getting worse. Again, these are technological problems, with fairly straightforward solutions. Do we need to eliminate such fertilizers? No, but we do need to monitor their use and when they become a problem, take steps to remedy them, either by limiting the source or treating the run-off water appropriately.
Unlike, global warming, these are real, observable problems (NOx causes smog, particulates, and Ozone build-up, all of which are proven to be harmful to humans. Water contamination by fertilizers promotes growth of algaes and other organisms, which can cause sickness in humans, as well as reduce the oxygen content killing fish or aquatic animals.) In many cases, they also have straightforward, albeit sometimes costly, solutions. However, in most cases, the costs are justifiable and the solutions demonstrable (compare smog levels in L.A. vs. Beijing).
There are some relevant issues here that this research, for some reason does not address properly. Excessive use of nitrogen by farmers, does in fact cause some serious problems.
The “Dead Zone” in the Gulf of Mexico is an example. Runoff from nitrogen that was applied to tens of millions of acres of land intended for corn, makes its way to the northern Gulf of Mexico every Spring. The nitrogen also fertilizes algae and bacteria which ends up creating as much as 6,000 sq miles of oxygen depleted water. Fish and other life dependent on oxygen either die or move outside the zone.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-06-14/gulf-of-mexico-s-extinction-by-ethanol
There are ways to lessen the amounts/concentration of the nutrient rich runoff from productive farms upstream. Fertilizing practices can be made more effective. However, by a wide margin, the best way to manage this problem is to stop the silly practice of growing 40% of our corn crop to make ethanol. Growing corn to make fuel has numerous negative consequences and this is just another item that adds to the list. Why this study did not target ethanol is baffling.
One that should be off the “table” is the suggestion that we eat 50% less meat. Suggesting that this will benefit wallets but failing to mention ethanol, which causes the price for all crops to go up substantially is absurd.
Freeing up tens of millions of acres to grow food vs fuel, would not only cause ALL crop prices to drop(sorry crop farmers) a great deal but feed costs would also fall, resulting in the price we pay for meat, eggs and other food products to drop.
It’s a win-win-win as, this would be the most effective way to manage the nitrogen fertilizer, cause lower prices and we can still dine on high quality, nutritious meat products.
@zootcadillac says:
May 13, 2014 at 2:37 pm
Thanks, I agree, but only to a point. Objecting about anything pertaining to government regulations or pollution just reduces the intellectual discourse we usually have. I’m glad we have regulations to protect our food & water supply, I just think that the GHG stuff is an overreach based on the evidence that is being presented. Bob Tilsdale nails it.
Do WUWT readers object to drinking water chlorination? Improved fishing waters? Reduced airborne toxics? I really don’t think so. These have improved life expectancy a great deal.
Pollution by nitrogenous compounds is a real phenomenon and could easily be reduced by at least half, and the article mentions some important steps. At University of Illinois (my affiliate), we promoted “no till” agriculture early on in order to reduce topsoil erosion and conservation of nutrients. http://saltfork.nres.illinois.edu/pdfs/Monitoring%20Handout.pdf
Ronald Reagan once said “Of COURSE I’m for conservation! I’m a conservative!” Amen to that!
Whilst I agree that the idea of atmospheric nitrogen being dangerous is quite simply preposterous. I have witnessed with my own eyes the destruction of stream and river ecosystems by ‘nitrate’ run off.
The really interesting thing however is that much of the run off was due to excessive use of nitrogen fertilisers and the mis-timing of their application.
A more intelligent approach to their use will reduced damage to water courses AND save farms money….which can’t be a bad thing.
Nitrogen is a component of explosives and therefore is responsible for violence. It must be BANNED.
Oxygen is a component of carbon dioxide and obviously must be BANNED.
Water vapor contains hydrogen, which is a dangerous explosive, and therefore must be BANNED.
Argon is a “noble gas”. Nobility is elitist and cannot be tolerated. Argon must be BANNED.
Carbon dioxide – what need I say? It must be BANNED.
Once these dangerous and bigoted substances are BANNED, women, gheys and people of color can lead peaceful lives of tolerance and inclusiveness.
(A) The irony of how nitrogen output from coal is actually causing more carbon dioxide uptake by forests is the biggest benefit imaginable in their doomsday scenario outlook, vastly outweighing actual pollution damage.
(B) The green party candidate for NYC mayor was actually quoted on our local West Side Rag online newspaper as calling not just for the banning of plastic bags but plastic itself:
“One serious event at the Indian Point plant just 25 miles up the river would be a disaster for NYC and the entire nation. We must also practice conservation and ban environmentally toxic products such as plastics. I mentioned the importance of the Green Party because the Democratic and Republican Parties are controlled by the very corporations that are polluting our environment.”
http://www.westsiderag.com/2013/09/05/decision-2013-we-grilled-the-city-council-candidates-on-the-hot-issues
One must ask whether the mollusks putting out this twaddle are aware that every one of them exhales about a pound and a half of carbon dioxide, and about 20 times that much nitrogen, every day? Just think of the great service they could do by not breathing. /sarc, but not too much
In the U.S. alone, about nine people per day die from excess dihydrogen monoixide exposure, a disproportionate percentage of them children under the age of five.
OH no! The atmosphere … it contains Atoms, Molecules and Chemicals. Gasp! I cannot breath. We’re all going to die!
“This is why the scientists ran extensive computer simulations to explore the effects of different mitigation measures.”
Sheesh!
Good news! The UN have already responded by setting up an agency to deal with this. It is rumored to be called the “Inter-Governmental Nitrous Oxide Reduction And Mitigation Unhinged Splurge”, or IGNORAMUS for short.
3×2 says:
May 13, 2014 at 12:42 pm
You have illustrated a point that I have suspected about modern science for many years. Paraphrased roughly, it is not seeing the forest for the trees. Science has become so concerned with the microscopic elements of things, reducing everything down to almost beyond a microscopic level, that they fail to truly understand the large-scale, human-scale implications of what they see (or they infer far too greatly from what they find at the microscopic level). That has led science to draw far larger (and, I think, far more questionable) conclusions from what seems to me to be relatively minor phenomena. The conclusions thus drawn appear to lack any kind of sense compared to what we see around us every day.
Yes, it is true that some farmers may fertilize too much. But plants drawing nitrogen from the atmosphere alone takes more time, and does not improve crop yields in the same way that adding nitrogen-based fertilizers can. Yet, we have to balance the need for higher yields with prudent use of these fertilizers. I only wish the authors had a more specific data as evidence to support their conclusions.
Do these “people” honestly expect a perfectly clean, sanitized, non-dangerous universe? One reason organisms evolve and grow stronger is due to adversity, not from perfect, non-threatening environments. Humans have already probably ceased to effectively evolve, because we care for and nurture those who wouldn’t survive long enough to procreate under survival conditions, as we should.
The universe is a dangerous place, always has been, always will be. If they want to get rid of all the dangers, then build a gigantic, underground clean room to live in, and leave the rest of us alone.