Regular readers of this site know that I publish special interest stories regarding science, health, and cool gadgets daily. Many
are drawn from the website New Atlas.
While this site is exceptional for its cutting-edge health and technology news, it does lean to the left on many issues. One is most certainly global warming, climate change, or however we care to classify it today.
And as a regular reader, you also know that I am what many would consider a man-caused global warming denier. Notice I didn’t say climate change denier, for who in their right mind can deny that the climate has and is constantly changing over time.
That being said, one of the left’s causes for combating CO2 emissions and thus global warming is “sustainable” farming, a euphemism for organic farming.
And as organic farming has become more popular, we on the reasonable right have insisted that while organic farming has its place, much like micro-breweries, they should not and cannot take the place of mass-production conventional farms and evil GMOs.
Much to my surprise, it seems though that at least some on the left are beginning to take an honest look at the pitfalls of organic farming, and that it is evidently worse for the environment than conventional farming.
This is a huge concession, for we know those on the left never give up a cause – certainly not something as monumental, not to mention profitable, as global warming.
But I guess the facts have finally caught to the myth.
New Atlas writes that “A new international study into the impact of agricultural land use on climate change has found organic food production is worse for the climate than conventional farming, due to the fact that it needs greater areas of land to grow produce.”
The study developed a new metric called a “carbon benefits index,” that, “measures the agricultural output of a given hectare of land in terms of volume of product and carbon dioxide emissions.”
This new metric told them what we with common sense have known for decades – that organic farming harms the environment more than does conventional methods due to the relatively small crop yields and the much greater land area required for organic production.
Thanks to greater deforestation and other factors, a Swedish researcher, Stefan Wirsenius, found that organic peas grown in the country had a 50% greater environmental impact and winter wheat, a whopping 70% greater impact.
Another researcher, Andrew Balmford, insists that “if we are to avert mass extinction it is vital that land-efficient agriculture is linked to more wilderness being spared the plow.”
And the only way to spare the wilderness from the plow is to utilize conventional farming and give up the fantasy of organic farming being the panacea for all our food production ills.
They also touch upon organic animal farming, such as beef production. They again admit that there is no advantage to grass fed vs. grain fed beef.
A 2017 study, “calculated grass-fed beef requires more land than grain-fed beef while offering no decreases in comparable greenhouse gas emissions. All this means is that from a carbon emission perspective, conventional animal farming may be better for the environment than organic.”
These admissions are incredible and groundbreaking, in my opinion. Frankly, it’s the first time I’ve seen anything like this from any site on the left. There may be hope for us man-caused deniers yet.
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.