Reply #66: Non-fertilizer-based farming sounds plausible to you?

[NickB79]

I grew up on a farm, and am well aware of the increased yields seen when fertilizers are properly applied. We *might* be able to get by here in the US with organic farming, since we have so much quality farmland and relatively low populations, but the rest of the world will suffer badly. When fertilizers go, a couple billion people go with it. The Green Revolution was the only thing that prevented massive starvation in the 1970's, relying heavily on fertilizers. The world population is now significanly higher than it was then. The only way we could transition to a non-fertilizer-based method of farming and still feed enough people would be widespread use of genetically engineered crops that can fix their own nitrogen, or grow in low-fertility soils. Since Monsanto and other biotech companies don't want to lose profits, though, I doubt that technology would be freely distributed to starving farmers in much of the world, however.

On edit, I saw you mentioned clean-burning coal as a possible power source. No matter what technological fixes you apply, coal can never be clean-burning. You can use scrubbers to filter out the particulate matter and various noxious gases, but in the end you still have millions of tons of toxic coal ash produced annually. This ash is filled with various heavy metals, making it hard to dispose of. You also have the massive release of excess CO2 into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. If farming without fertilizer wasn't bad enough, imagine trying to farm without fertilizer AND with the climate shifting around you. Finally, the environmental effects of strip-mining for coal are well-known and devastating. I would much prefer nuclear power plants over clean-burning coal any day.