Another great seminar - Steve Savage on global warming and agriculture. He described some very interesting observations on the interaction of environmental protection and the free market.
First, he pointed out that despite all the foot-dragging from the Feds, major corporations are already adapting to global warming - mostly in anticipation of public demand, but also in savings of increased efficiency. In the vacuum of government leadership though, each company is haphazardly defining "sustainability" differently (and declaring how their products fulfill it). Since these decisions are driven largely by marketing, little care is invested in analyzing whether apparently environmentally-friendly practices really are (read Wal-Mart's foray into organic food).
Unfortunately, some private certification agencies are similarly more interested in public perception than scientific reality. If any such "sustainability" certification becomes popular, major companies will be compelled to adopt them, enshrining practices that aren't really good for our environment. Again, unless some government or scientific association steps in to fill the void with some facts.
Secondly, he pointed out that in spite of all the lobbying from environmentalists, the only organizations that have managed to prevent the marketing of GMO crops are major food retailers and manufacturers in charge of valuable brands. These companies have already halted the introduction of cultivars such as a ripening-controlled banana and glyphosate-resistant wheat, both of which and with others would have contributed to huge reductions in worldwide pesticide and herbicide use.
note: He also recommended Starving for Science, by Robert Paarlberg, for a description of how the crunchy elite, especially in Europe, have kept life-saving biotechnology out of developing countries in places like Africa. I'll read this and get back to you.In the end, Dr. Savage really emphasized that if you want to optimize the sustainability of agriculture, you really need to establish appropriate standard metrics. He pointed out that if you measure pollution per unit of land, you encourage low yielding techniques that require more land to produce the same amount of food, and produce more pollution per amount of food. He argued that we should compare agricultural systems by the amount of pollution (E.g. carbon) produced per bushel of food. He cited a few studies that found that intensive agriculture, with intelligent use of chemicals and GMOs, produced more food per land/amount of pollution in comparison to organic agriculture (with limited exceptions).
It was also interesting to hear that organic agriculture (contrary to all the hype) accounts for a tiny fraction of total agriculture (half a percent!) and is growing at a slow, linear rate. In contrast, modern no-till ag now accounts for 15% of all ag. He then used no-till ag as a jumping off point to explain how modern, intensive agricultural practices including safe and highly specific chemicals and erosion-limiting no-tillage could be used to sequester carbon. (as another aside, he showed a great chart showing that many modern pesticides and herbicides such as glyphosate, are safer than aspirin and caffeine!)
He explained how a carefully constructed carbon trading program could quickly become very profitable for many growers. At $5 a ton, carbon would produce greater domestic income than the national grape crop, at $10 a ton, more than wheat, and at $30 it would become the nations second most profitable agricultural "crop."
Overall he recommended changing ag regulations from a system that rewards inefficiency and ignores pollution to one that rewards efficiency and decreases pollution by linking true costs to monetary costs. According to some ag economists, this problem will take care of itself with a little regulation.
Or as the agronomists say,
"The best cure for high commodity prices is high commodity prices"
