Not The Onion

12314 readers

256 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

281

The U.S. bans most common form of asbestos, after decades of pushback from industry (www.npr.org)

submitted 8 months ago by cypherpunks@lemmy.ml to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The issue with our impact on the nitrogen cycle is that it is exceeding the planetary boundaries significantly. Same for Phosphor https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html

However if we look at the countries with the highest use of chemical fertilizers per Capita it is also countries with industrialized agriculture that focus on meat production or cash crops.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/fertilizer-per-capita

We use about half of global agricultural lands for animal feed. So the nitrogen fertilizers are not needed to sustain nutrition. They are needed to sustain the meat overconsumption in wealthy countries.

[–] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Same for Phosphor https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html

I'm sorry, but I didn't see anything about the nitrogen cycle in the link you posted. What do you mean by "exceeding the planetary boundaries significantly"? I'm not very familiar with "planetary boundaries" as an ecological theory, and the site doesn't seem to expand on their methodology to a significant degree, or maybe I'm just not looking at the right pages.

use about half of global agricultural lands for animal feed. So the nitrogen fertilizers are not needed to sustain nutrition. They are needed to sustain the meat overconsumption in wealthy countries.

Right..... But do we actually expect that to happen? You seem to be focused on the physical possibility and the science behind the problem, when my argument has been entirely policy based.

If we had the political will, or if we were motivated as nations to help our fellow man, I wouldn't be worried in the first place. My concern isnt that this is some unsolvable and inevitable problem, but that governments will respond to this problem in the easiest and most profitable way. By ignoring it and allowing big AG to create a natural monopoly over an artificially inflated scarcity.

[–] tryptaminev@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago

You can only push so much nitrogen and phosphor into the biological cycle w.o. having grave side effects. Acidification, erosion of soil microbiomes, eutrophication of water bodies...

The current amount of fertilizers used are killing the environment and through this reducing crop yields.