From receiving the data in the study, it must be concluded that the right direction will be a combination of innovative methods in traditional agriculture, a combination that will provide both an economic and environmental solution
Now it turns out that the green revolution played an important part in the recession of greenhouse gas emissions, (and as a result the recession of global warming?)
Researchers led by Jennifer Burney Jennifer Burney, from "Stanford Earth Sciences" Stanford Earth scientists conducted research for the Program on Food Security and the Environment publish their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. According to the researchers, the green revolution saved 590 billion cubic meters of greenhouse gas emissions.
The main savings in emissions come from reducing the need to convert new areas into agricultural areas, a process that traditionally and typically involves cutting down forests, burning forest areas and pit areas. Burning forests and fires are one of the most important factors in the emission of greenhouse gases, especially GHG.
The researchers estimate that without the green revolution, global greenhouse gas emissions would have increased by a third of the amount of emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution (1850). To facilitate the calculation of total emissions, the researchers measured the three main gases, greenhouse gas, methane and nitrous oxide, which together were weighted to the equivalent of the effect of religion "P on the atmosphere (warming).
Today, agriculture is "responsible" for about 12% of emissions (at the "fault" of humanity), although the use of fertilizers increased emissions from agriculture, there is no doubt that the alternative - burning forests and grasslands would have caused much greater emissions. Every time a forest is cut down (and burned) the DTP that was part of the biological mass finds its way into the atmosphere. Improvements in processing methods eased the need for new fields, which reduced emissions by 13 billion tons per year.
To assess the impact of the Green Revolution on climate change, the researchers compared the total agricultural production between 1961 and 2005, against the (estimated) possibility of traditional agriculture with a slight improvement in the amount of crops and an increase in land area. According to them, "Since the population growth continued, a situation of starvation (in much larger numbers than the existing one) and mass death would have been created." This is despite the utilization of agricultural areas that are increasing by billions of dunams, which means that once again, the green revolution "saved" the emission of 590 billion tons of greenhouse gases. Without the green revolution, emissions would have amounted to about 30% more,
When you check the costs of agricultural research and development, it becomes clear that any other way to prevent emissions costs ... three times. According to the researchers' account, "every dollar invested in research and improvement of agricultural processing methods (since 1961) has saved the emission of a third of a ton of greenhouse gases." This is a much lower price compared to (other) methods of capturing and preventing emissions of DTP.
Therefore, the researchers claim that: "The research refutes the claim that modern agriculture causes more environmental damage than traditional agriculture".
After all the advantages, the researchers recognize the catch, since the improvement of methods and the production of large crops can bring about a process based on the desire to "earn more" and therefore to spread over new areas, that is to say once again the burning of forests and pit areas and their burning, therefore it must be reiterated that the improvement of processing methods will come together with the efforts to preserve the environment.
The climatic advantage of the Green Revolution was not planned therefore, the final conclusion of the researchers is that the improvement of agricultural processing methods and research to obtain high yields must be part of the general policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
May I add (on a personal note) that for those who have seen the corn fields over hundreds of square kilometers, the barns and the giant barns, the apple orchards and vineyards that stretch as far as the eye can see, for those who have heard and seen the spread of diseases that destroy crops and the epidemics that attack livestock, between The rest because of industrialized agriculture, will arise more than easily satisfied about the final and sweeping conclusion of the study.
The researchers - Americans, the research - is published in an American monthly, so there may be an attempt here to justify or excuse the "monoculture", agriculture that is based on one and uniform crop over huge areas, a method that has many disadvantages - environmental and other. Therefore, from receiving the data in the study, it must be concluded that the right direction will be a combination of innovative methods in traditional agriculture, a combination that will provide both an economic and environmental response
For, as has already been said, the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.
13 תגובות
The important point in my humble opinion is that the individual person is not the one who determines his fate, but a handful of people in relevant positions.
In Israel a considerable percentage of the water is recycled not because there are all kinds of people who return gray water in the yard, but because the state has taken upon itself the treatment of the water crisis.
Rishon Lezion is the most recycling municipality in the Middle East and highly ranked in the world not because people have awareness (and they really don't) but because the municipality sorts the garbage and sells it for recycling. The future is simple - eventually in the future even if you don't want to recycle, eventually the systems around you will be systems that support recycling. Non-biodegradable plastics will not be sold, and it will not be possible to drive a car that has fuel consumption above a certain value.
It is easier to educate the person by not changing the length of his life and the changes for him will be transparent.
This is a process that has been unfolding in recent years and continues to develop, people like Assaf are important, but they are not supposed to convince their children or neighbors, but the decision makers, even if they are not convinced today, they will be convinced in the future.
It seems to me that people have come to us from the Talmud who argue only about word games and not about essences.
But if someone is not clear - no big deal.
Most people know that population control exists through laws and their enforcement.
That is why we talk about the "rule of law".
Who does the law control if not the population? In Zibizikobazi? But they are also a population!
The fact that humans set the laws and choose the government and its institutions does not change the fact that in the end there is control over the population.
'Control the population'?
Who will rule? The zibizikobas?
After all, the control of any race is carried out by that race itself. Except the human race which controls not only itself but also other races. In other words: there is a hierarchy between the races in nature, and there is a hierarchy within the races themselves.
The conclusion is that the human race will dominate people, and this is a situation that has existed since man existed.
Therefore the statement that 'the population should be controlled' is an irrelevant statement, what is more relevant is the way in which a person will control another person.
(The anonymous person in the previous comment is not me)
To anonymous from comment 7:
I will answer just one of the questions you asked.
You asked "do we look like animals to you?"
My answer - for people like you: "Definitely yes!"
I don't think all people are animals. far from it. But those who are not ready to accept any limitation and "put the world" on themselves are more animals than animals.
To anonymous
My "dear environment"? Do you live on Mars?
Maybe you should start from "Genesis" to read to learn and internalize the inextricable connection
between the (natural) environment and the human population,
For starters, read this
https://www.hayadan.org.il/save-the-nature-260604/
And then continue browsing on the same topic,
Every society, every population of animals (and yes we are animals) lives in equilibrium with its environment,
When the balance is violated, the environment is harmed and as a result the population is harmed,
The human population has disturbed the balance for a long time, but it has the technological skills to continue
and set up in a disturbed environment... not forever, the stage will come when humanity's technological skills
They will not overcome the "cultural/social" failure of the lack of respect for the natural environment,
Then the disasters will increase and claim billions of lives.
There are those who say "after the flood", there are those who think that it is the moral duty of humanity not to harm the chances
The survival of people (and animals) in the near and distant future.
Every animal exists to provide for future generations and to ensure the survival of its offspring,
Man is no different (not even if he is anonymous).
It is possible to prevent future disasters, it is possible to minimize the damage to the environment,
It is possible to leave to those who come after us an environment where it will be possible not only to survive,
but also to live a full life, rich and full of content, the possibility and the chance for that are
By understanding that we are part of our party and that it is our duty to live if our environment is in balance,
To reach a balance it is necessary to stop the damages (reversible waste) that the human population causes
to its environment, that is: to control the population.
To Anonymous - there is no need to kill anyone, but in the near future birth control will be a reality.
Otherwise the population will decrease due to lack of resources, wars will break out as a result and the destruction of the social order, and I quote you "do we look like animals to you?" The truth is we are all animals, just with a thin shell of culture. If and when (I hope to stay with the mother) there will be fights for water and food, you too will become an animal
Our way of life is indisputable, that the governments will find ways to produce millions of gigawatts of clean energy and take care of the environment themselves the little man is not interesting. "Controlling the human population"? Do we look like animals to you? No liberal country will agree to this, offer it to the dictatorial regimes in Africa and Asia, maybe in North Korea they will allow you to fulfill the vision of the "greens" and reduce the population by 90% in hunger, poverty and self-inflicted epidemics and thus they will not need electricity at all and grow some plants in the garden to make porridge and the environment Your darling will not be hurt.
For help with reading comprehension:
The human population is part of the environment,
A part that, like the other parts, must exist in balance and equilibrium,
When the balance is violated, the environment is harmed, in a harmed environment humanity will also be harmed,
Therefore, control of the human population is an effort to prevent the imbalance
and to maintain the environmental balance,
An action whose results will be positive for the environment and therefore also for humanity.
M. Rothschild - you are right. But this is your interpretation of a sentence that says something else.
It is not far today that telepathy will come into play and then mistakes in understanding the situation will be less common.
For anyone who doesn't understand the last sentence in the article:
The need to protect the environment is our need.
Saying "eat and drink because tomorrow we will die" and acting accordingly will mean that we will not make it to tomorrow either - beyond the fact that we also want our children to be able to live the day after tomorrow.
Humans evolved in a certain environment with a certain ecology and this is the environment to which they were adapted in evolution.
They are unable to live in a much different environment.
If the temperatures climb to an average of 50 degrees Celsius - we will become extinct, if there is a lack of oxygen in the air - we will become extinct, if it is not possible to find food for everyone - many will die and the rest may be forced to return to the stone age, if the energy resources that we can use are exhausted - all the culture we know will be lost.
The parable is not about saving for a beautiful grave.
A person who does not manage his resources wisely - not only will his grave not be beautiful, but he will die much earlier.
The earth and even the sun are - in the end - transient.
The optimization to be done is on the total amount of human happiness that can be derived from them - including that of future generations.
"As has already been said, the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment."
A sentence that in a gentle language can be said to lack understanding of how the world is built.
Who cares if we destroy the earth? The answer is - us. To limit the population in order to save the earth like him, to save money for decades so that we have money for a beautiful grave - after all, the earth has no meaning if we are not here (for humans and animals).
ethnic purity???
This is an interesting conclusion
In the last sentence you summed up all the world's problems. Beautiful.