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.
“Alan Robertson says:
May 13, 2014 at 1:04 pm
Do you suppose it might help to stop fertilizing marginal lands which are best suited for grazing, in order to raise corn for ethanol production?”
Yes indeed, that would be a step forward. This paper notwithstanding, N2O has long been a concern as it has been steadily increasing in the atmosphere ever since we learned how to fix N2 chemically (first for explosives and then fertilizer). It has a clear role in catalyzing ozone degradation and is regarded as the primary 21st century ozone threat.
Commenters are missing the point here- it’s reactive N that is at issue, not N2. Nitrates in drinking water (resulting from overfertilization) are a direct health threat. Nitrates in rivers cause the “dead zone” algal blooms at ocean outfalls. Fertilizing poorer marginal lands to squeeze more corn-based ethanol from them is only increasing these problems.
The scenario that underlies the plot in a sci-fi novel, Fallen Angels, is occurring as we watch. See:
http://www.amazon.com/Fallen-Angels-Larry-Niven-ebook/dp/B005BJTZ1U/ref=sr_1_5?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1400097280&sr=1-5&keywords=Fallen+angels
The authors are truly prophetic.
I read “Fallen Angels” not long ago. The only problem I had was how the authors conflated the religious believers and the environmental believers. Since reading it, I have come to realize it was my perception that was in error, not the authors.
And as for this whole argument about “nitrogen” vs. “nitrogen compounds” – the use of “nitrogen” as a shorthand is either intended to deliberately mislead the average reader, or, more likely, nothing more than sloppy writing – something that plagues these sort of discussions thanks in part to the warmist’s harping about “carbon”, and at least as much to the fact that nobody wants to hold these writers to a higher standard.
Student: If I move carbon footprint to zero. Eliminate Nitrogen and dihydrogen monoxide from my life, then ,and only then will I be a good human?
Teacher:That’s right.
Good and dead.
How much of that evil “nitrogen” is produced by the corn crops for alcohol production i wonder?
I do not believe in these biofuels, but often those scientists focuses on a single adverse effect of a subtance but totally forget the benefits of the same substance.
If the same methods were used for the biofuel crops, they would never be allowed. But there they only focused on the benefits. Funny world we live in.
You have to be rather cynical to keep your mental health.
“How much of that evil “nitrogen” is produced by the corn crops for alcohol production i wonder?”
Gawd, quit with this rubbish. The authors of the paper aren’t making any claims about nitrogen being “evil”. That’s just rubbish you made up.
‘Mit der dummheit kampfen Gotte selbst vergebens”
The press release clearly states early on that the pollution is by “reactive nitrogen”, which means nitrates, ammonia and ammonium compounds, nitrogen oxides, etc.
Donald you are correct, but Phillip what is harmful to water ways, is phosphates leaching into rivers from farming land use of super phosphate fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides. Atmospheric nitrogen is not harmful.
What in the name of JR Bob Dobbs is going on here? Too mcuh nitrogen?
Every productive farmer uses fertilizers to support the growth of the food crops. The main needs of plants include nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. You cannot grow food, esp. high yield varieties, without meeting the needs of your crops. Someone here said, “There is no such thing as a free lunch,” and that is correct. You must feed and water your crops in order to get a good yield and keep your plants less vulnerable to the hundreds of diseases waiting in the wings. The use of synthetic fertilizers is clean, available at all times, and can be shipped simply and easily in tanks of any size.
I do not buy organic food. It is a specialist, expensive, niche market. Applying manure to crops is risky because of bacteria such as ecoli. Putting manure on crops is not safe because these bacteria can live for 300 days, or possibly more. We just simply do not buy organic food for many reasons.
The organic food interests are a powerful, loud and obnoxious lobby, and not afraid to slander good farmers and good farming practices, using environmental and cancer scares of every kind. But I just ignore them. The use of synthetic fertilizers is rational and scientifically based. This simple knowledge of N, K, and P could have saved the ancients a lot of time and sacrifices to get the fertility goddesses to do what a simple application of miracle gro will do.
Let’s all keep in mind that the environmentalist activists and hopeless boomer irrationalists have displayed enough of a pattern to be able to recognize the trap: First, the funding roles in to begin a campaign of fear and uncertainty about some economic activity or necessity. We see the GHG include methane from cows, nitrous oxide from crops, and carbon dioxide from personal transportation and energy production. Other targeted substances include refrigerants, pest control, fertilizers, and any crop that some governing body determines is risky or will not be hardy enough to survive computer generated scenarios of global warming.
Next the force of government is used to outlaw something that works, is plentiful, and is inexpensive, with something that is far more expensive and does not work nearly as well. This is illustrated by worthless wind turbines, but there are many other “sustainable” products forced on people by their governments.
After everyone has, for example, curly bulbs spontaeously combusting, or leaking volatilized mercury in their homes, then the environmentalists and hippies blame “capitalism” for the nasty results of their own environmentalist coercements. This is what is happening to energy, lighting, refrigerants, “low water use detergents” (which burn on contact with skin), etc.; and now the same MO is being used with fertilizers for food crops.
Let’s all keep in mind that the environmentalist activists and hopeless boom*r irrationalists have displayed enough of a pattern to be able to recognize the trap: First, the funding roles in to begin a campaign of fear and uncertainty about some economic activity or necessity. We see the GHG include methane from cows, nitrous oxide from crops, and carbon dioxide from personal transportation and energy production. Other targeted substances include refrigerants, pest control, fertilizers, and any crop that some governing body determines is risky or will not be hardy enough to survive computer generated scenarios of global warming.
Next the force of government is used to outlaw something that works, is plentiful, and is inexpensive, with something that is far more expensive and does not work nearly as well. This is illustrated by worthless wind turbines, but there are many other “sustainable” products forced on people by their governments.
After everyone has, for example, curly bulbs spontaeously combusting, or leaking volatilized mercury in their homes, then the environmentalists and hippies blame “capitalism” for the nasty results of their own environmentalist coercements. This is what is happening to energy, lighting, refrigerants, “low water use detergents” (which burn on contact with skin), etc.; and now the same MO is being used with fertilizers for food crops.
I don’t buy organic food, it is expensive, especially if the farm is from a certified organic farm. Most organic foods one sees are not certified organic. How are we to know if they don’t use insecticides or herbicides? When I was studying my diploma in organic agricultural production, I am not a farmer. We emphasized that the use of chemical fertilizers killed off soil microorganisms.And for plants or crops to absorb nitrogen from the soil, a type of microorganism had to present, can’t remember the name, but they create a rhizosphere around the hair roots, look up the Soil Food Web. From what I remember, these microorganisms eat bacteria, and it is the microorganisms pooh that contains nitrogen that can be readily absorbed by the roots. Plants don’t have a digestive system. A soil test is necessary before we find out what mineral is lacking. Calcium and magnesium must be in the right balance, ie. Lime. But organic additions of manures for the home gardener can not harm. So long as it is composted and not straight from the horse or cow. pH is also something that can be tested. Most veggies and crops prefer an acid soil, depending on the species. But 6.5 pH is probably the best and you can add flowers of sulfur to gradually acidify soils and lime or dolomite to make them more on the other side of 7 pH. Organic compost teas if they are not prepared properly can carry E.Coli. But usually there is a withholding period of quite a few weeks or 1 inch of rain, before cropping. I tried it but I found adding the humus from my worm farm on top of soils was more effective.
If you apply Nitrogen to any plant directly it will grow, even in potting soils and seed starter mix. The plant uses it immediately and shows hardy growth.
I would be shocked to find out that the fluffy mixtures of potting soil (the best ones, not with all of the sticks in it) have any micro organisms to speak of. In fact, soilless methods have even been developed for growing vegetables. So I am not entirely accepting at face value these academic arguments in comparison with experience and research.
Over application is harmful to plants and therefore the farmers are not doing that!
With regard to soil, too often, organic farmers are the ones who destroy the soil with pathogens and pests, and then move on somewhere else, using the umbrella of protection provided by a region where most of these diseases and pests have been put into Pandora’s Box by farmers who control them.
Organic lobbyists want to open the box because there is money in it for them. Look at what they charge for the same food.
bushbunny said:
“Donald you are correct, but Phillip what is harmful to water ways, is phosphates leaching into rivers from farming land use of super phosphate fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides. Atmospheric nitrogen is not harmful.”
Any particular reason you are stating the obvious at me, as explained clearly by the actual paper?
owe*
I think we are arguing for the wrong reasons. A certified organic farm, be it growing vegetables or stock is observed and checked on for five years before it is certified organic. It is a very very expensive exercise. One can follow organic principles without being certified. For example my tutor farms free range eggs. But because they didn’t use certified organic grain, they could not claim to be certified. There are plenty of soil mixes labeled as organic. As well as fertilizers.
And they do have micoorganisms present, but more increase when water is added through pot plant fertilizers.One uses a mask and gloves while handling them. Or should.
Even sphagnum moss. People die each year after catching legionnaire’s disease from inhaling the spores present in soil mixes. What about tetanus. I have a 10 year booster because I am handling soils and bonsai soils, etc. On one teaspoon of soil there are billions of microorganism.
And some can be harmful to humans. When you add fertilizers you are feeding the soil, and indirectly the plant. All soils are different favoring some plants and not others, as well as the natural environment where they grow. This is simple horticultural knowledge understanding what your soils are made up of. Compost does well because it is rich in microorganisms
Organic farmers in my experience enrich soils not destroy them. It’s just getting rid of chemical fertilizers. And the composition of soils enriched that improves water conservation, temperatures stable, and encourages little bugs of nice kind. I think you are dead against organic principles my friend. Don’t worry, but sustainability is all about preserving the fertility of soils.
Ah, more computer games!
Once upon a time, scientists used to do sciency stuff.