Are the numbers in the NYT guest editorial by Stephen Budiansky correct?
Budiansky spends the rest of his editorial illustrating a larger perspective on American agriculture. Although today’s farms are responsible for supplying three times the populace and exporting ten times the product, he explains, total farm acreage is essentially the same as it was in 1910. Growing and raising food where it most flourishes, he says, makes the most environmental sense. Not only does it save us additional soil erosion, added chemical usage, and vegetable greenhouse heating costs, it spares countless acres of land for wilderness. In other words, geographically suitable trumps the proverbial “sustainable” message that circulates through the locavore movement.
Industrial agriculture where we have it now versus spreading industrial agriculture in other places may seem like a bad idea, but isn't sustainable and organic supposed to do something about soil erosion and the use of chemicals?
No comments:
Post a Comment