Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
The upside to peak fertilizer
Andrew Leonard, Salon
Synthetic fertilizer prices are spiking upwards all over the world, inflicting economic pain on farmers everywhere. Another sign of the peak oil apocalypse? The industrial production of nitrogen — a key synthetic fertilizer ingredient — is extraordinarily energy intensive. So when energy prices rise, so do fertilizer prices. And if you buy the thesis that without manmade fertilizer the world will be physically incapable of supporting a population of nine billion, then you start to get very nervous.
Opponents of biofuels have been quick to point the finger at the stampede to divert farming land to energy crops as another reason explaining the fertilizer market’s failure to keep up with global demand. But that’s only one factor. Population growth and the explosion of meat and dairy consumption in the rising middle classes of the developing world are also contributing to the worldwide agricultural boom. Even without rising energy prices, the surging demand for fertilizer would be overwhelming suppliers.
When demand rises, supply follows — and sure enough, investment in synthetic fertilizer production is booming. Intriguingly, the global center for synthetic fertilizer production appears to be the oil states of the Mideast. A new study by the Doha-based Gulf Organization for Industrial Consulting reports that UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman are expected to invest billions of dollars in the next few years ramping up ammonia and urea production. (Thanks to Energy Bulletin for the link.)
Which drops a big fat dollop of synthetic fertilizer irony in our laps. The growth of energy crops is in part directly attributable to rising energy prices. But the demand for synthetic fertilizer to nurture those energy crops requires the consumption of even more fossil fuel, thus likely pushing energy prices further, and creating even more demand for energy crops. On second thought, that’s not ironic. That’s tragic.
(7 February 2008)
Links and more at original.
Nitrogen pollution stomps on biodiversity
Emma Marris, Nature
Nitrogen emitted into the atmosphere as a result of human activity could be changing plant communities worldwide. Although hot spots of high nitrogen pollution are known to change plant dynamics, new work predicts substantial effects from the lower, chronic levels of pollution found throughout most of the world.
A study of a prairie site in the middle of Minnesota shows that after more than 20 years of slow, chronic deposition of nitrogen – at levels typical of nitrogen pollution in most of the industrial world – cut the number of plant species by 17% compared with control plots not exposed to extra nitrogen.
… Humans spread a lot of nitrogen around. The element is a key limiting factor in the growth of many plants, so nitrogen-based fertilizers have been developed to enable people to grow much more food. It is also produced by the burning of fossil fuels and from the excreta of livestock and it has a way of wandering into the atmosphere and raining down on areas that are superficially untouched by humans.
Nitrogen falling on the land has risen from a pre-industrial levels of 1-3 kilograms per hectare per year to 7-100 kilograms per hectare per year, depending on the local intensity of nitrogen use. Scientists have estimated that human intervention today more than doubles the amount of nitrogen moving from the atmosphere to Earth each year
(6 February 2008)
It is Time for a New Victory Garden Movement!
Sharon Astyk, Depletion and Abundance
… interest in really, really local food is growing, and so is interest in food production, as food prices skyrocket and quality falls. And the best news is that this is a case where grassroots action not only can work, but it is the only thing that ever has worked – that is, in the US during both World Wars, in Cuba, in Russia – gardens for food security began and grew under the aegis of ordinary people acting to improve their world. While we can enable it from above, the creation of a victory garden movement is a person to person, blog to blog, neighbor to neighbor project. Why do it? A host of reasons, personal and political.
Victory Gardens Mean:
-Better Food – Fresher, better tasting, straight off the plant food money literally cannot buy!
– Better Health – More nutrition in just picked vegetables, grown without chemicals, while getting the kind of exercise many of us pay the gym for! Safety from industrial food contamination and toxic imports.
-Food Security – Food in your pots as prices get higher, supplies that can’t be disrupted by energy shortages, greater regional self-sufficiency. Millions of new gardeners can make sure that Americans don’t have to wait for distant food supplies to be trucked in – weeks after they are needed. Every gardener makes your region more secure.
(10 February 2008)
Studies conclude that biofuels are not so green
Elisabeth Rosenthal, International Herald Tribune
Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the pollution caused by producing these “green” fuels is taken into account, two studies published Thursday have concluded.
The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months as scientists have evaluated the global environmental cost of their production. The new studies, published by the journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.
These studies for the first time take a comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development. The destruction of natural ecosystems – whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America – increases the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere because the ecosystems are the planet’s natural sponge for carbon emissions.
“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, the lead author of one of the studies and a researcher on the environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously, there’s been an accounting error: Land use change has been left out of prior analysis.”
(7 February 2008)
Also at New York Times.
Related at Scientific America: Biofuels Are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change
