Funny that you mention nitrogen fertilizer, here in Belgium there is a minor agricultural crisis going on due to the ag sector needing to reduce nitrogen emissions.
The core problem is too much nitrogen absolutely destroying the native plants in Natura 2000 areas that always had very low nitrogen levels. You can be the most knowledgeable farmer in the world but that won't change the fact that intensive nitrogen (ammonia) emissions will annihilate the native plants in these protected areas, let alone outside them.
I would be funny if it wasn't horrifying. We're all shooting ourselves on the foot while other countries can only dream of achieving the industrial, technological and economical progress we've made. Deindustrialization 30,40,50 years ago was a side effect. But destroying our own energy infrastructure, industry, and now even agricultural sector? This is totally mad, and despite turning a blind eye this will come back to bites us, hopefully sooner rather than later so we can still undo some of the damage within 20 years.
Which one is "shooting ourselves in the foot"? Pumping more nitrogen fertilizer in the environment or cutting it?
I think it depends who is "we" and what's the timeline for shooting ourselves in the foot, short term or long term.
In both cases it sucks. I have a preference for the better long term strategy, at least I don't have the impression or driving into a wall (or I feel like we trying to swerve/break).
Some day it's hard not to feel overwhelmed, looking at the global prospective. Keeping our planet habitable will require us to:
* Sacrifice individual benefit for the common good
* Trust each other
* Think long term (like multiple generations)
All things humanity has a horrible track record at.
That does not put me in an optimistic mood.
On the up side, if we kill everything including ourselves maybe in millions of years the next intelligent race will find remnants of our apocalypse and learn from it? =)
Pumping nitrogen into the ground produces food. As for the long or short term question, we're amputating our foot because we predict that a minor cut will be infected. Knowing what you don't know is the key here. Right now no one can predict how the world will look like in 5 years. War, disease, new weapons, new disruptive technologies being developed. Whatever the temperature and sea level change will be, it'll be the least of my concerns for a good few decades.
Are you saying “no one can predict what effect nitrogen will have on our environment long term”? Because there is a broad consensus on the impact I believe:
Or are you saying “maybe there will be a cheap technology to clean up the environment in the future”? Which seems to be a very risky bet.
I’m not saying I have a simple solution, we do need crops, lots of them, there’s no question. But nitrogen pollution can’t be simply dismissed, we need to find a solution halfway: reduce nitrogen pollution but keep sufficient crop yields.
