I've heard that 20% of our energy is used to move water. I've also heard that it takes more water to grow organic foods. If both premises are true, then aren't we replacing the use of fossil fuels(for fertilizers and pesticides) in non organic farming with the fossil fuels to move more water in organic farming? Yes, it's probably healthier and maybe cleaner(no nitrogen dead zones from river runoff) but we're still emitting a good amount of carbon no?
yes organic foods do take more water to grow simply because they take longer to grow. and what does that fact have to do with resources? there is no free lunch. does the fact that a single drop of oil will taint 100,000 gallons of water mean anything? or does the fact that fertilizers and pesticides are introduced to billions of gallons of ground water every day that we will eventually drink? what does all those trace elements and particles doing to us and our children??
I don't dispute the ails that are concomitant with the use of oil generated fertilizers and pesticides. They are as great and vast as the Grand Canyon. Nor did I suggest or expect that eating organic gives us a free ride in terms of environmental damage. But if it's true that 20%(that's a large percentage) of our energy is used to move water and the vast majority of our energy is from fossil fuels, then are we deluding ourselves that eating organic is necessarily best for us? Is it possible that the benefits of eating organics are offset by the extra carbon we're emitting in which we don't know what the ultimate consequence is? I eat mainly organic and shop at our farmer's market. But if all 6 billion people on this earth were to do so, is there enough water to do so? Is there enough affordable and accessible energy to do so? Is eating organic just reserved for the wealthy(relatively) who do it to feel better? Or does it really not matter and the main problem is that this earth has just too many people, a problem than can only solved with solutions that are morally unacceptable(war, famine, disease, etc...)?
moving water is energy intensive, but there is a HUGE difference between the process to irrigate verses taking a shower in any big city. i think if we examine what it takes to move water to the farms, i think we will find the "energy" penalty to not be anywhere as extreme in fact, i venture to say that if we stopped taking showers, that 20% would be reduced to virtually nothing **edit** another thing that basic facts dont incorporate is culture. organic farmers usually do it for environmental reasons. i buy all my beef from organic farm, cattle is raised 100% on pasture grass, no pesticides, or fertilizers. here is a pic of a water delivery system. it works when cow walks up, steps on lever, water is pumped up and deposited into the tray for cow to drink. no dinosaur sacrifices required. water comes from creek just on other side of bushes. windmills also pump up water to other areas of the farm. sure some electricity is involved, but its minimized and ya, it took the cows a few weeks to learn it and yes, they do frequently pump out more than they need and it makes a mess. but the quantity spilled probably is no where near the evaporation of open tanks, plus the tank does not have to be dumped and cleaned as often...
Even if it does take more water to grow organic produce, the runoff is clean water. That runoff water returns to lakes, streams, rivers, and the aquifer as clean, usable water, not polluted water. Also, you have to factor in the amount of water that is used/polluted to produce chemical fertilizers and pesticides into total water use for growing conventional produce. All of which takes MUCH, MUCH LESS water than producing beef.
It doesn't take any more water to grow organic and often takes less as the soil has more organic material to act as a sponge to soak up and hold water. Length to maturety depends on the variety that is grown not weather it's organic or not. I've done desert, high altitude, and natural/traditional(almost Amish)/organic. Never seen the need to spend my money on spray. Never used BT either.
With or without the water issue, you are deluding yourself. There are no proven benefits from eating organic. Furthermore, there is little difference in the impact between organic farming and normal farming. The differences now relate more to the size of operations than whether they are organic or conventional. In the bad old days of commercial farming, pesticides and fertilizers were used indiscriminately, but not anymore. Economics have forced farmers to use them much more wisely, and the bad ones have been outlawed. Likewise, much of the stuff used by organic farmers is pretty nasty as well. Several of my friends are organic farmers, so I get to see a lot of this first hand. Tom
GB, I think that you are a bit naive to believe that large scale agri-biz is not more chemically intense than even large scale organic or semi organic agriculture. I do agree however that I don't think it makes much difference in my body if my food is organic or not. (especially in my case, given all the shit I have put into it over the years, having been a smoker for ~40 years, plus the stuff I still eat and drink!) I think that organic or semi organic farming is at least a step towards sustainable, responsible farming. I am not naive enough however to believe that this can solve all the worlds problems as I think that there are just too many mouths to feed. I also believe that the local food movement is all good, in that it increases the awareness of some real global issues. Icarus
I think there are a lot of problems with the assumptions for the same reasons that I disagreed with your assessment of leaks in a prior thread. I doubt cutting out showers would have much noticeable impact on water pumping expenditures. Take a look at the USGS estimate of water use from 2000: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2005-3051: Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000 Public water supply: 11% (that would include lawn irrigation, toilets, showers, etc.) Irrigation: 34% Thermoelectric: 48% Industrial: 5% Livestock, aquaculture, mining: 3% The worst part is that agriculture appears to be depleting deep aquifers more rapidly than they can be replenished. So while I'm definitely in favor of reducing water use for showers, toilets, etc. there appear to be far larger fish left to fry...electric use being one of them, ag another. Fortunately, if you cut enough power use, you can kill two birds with one stone.
Shawn, those numbers are surprising to say the least. there is no doubt, huge regional variances. also, the discussion was the amount of energy used to move the water. my contention is that gallon per gallon, the city uses much more power to move that gallon than farms. go to vertically challenged places like New York, and i can imagine we are talking power squared or more also, again this statistic does not really tell the story, especially in the context of this discussion. water used to irrigate the central valley in California where a significant percentage of the food grown is eaten by the population for 1500 miles in every direction on paper says that irrigation may have used a lot of water on a volume basis, but then that food is shipped to the cities where water is used on a much smaller basis by volume only, but the cost financially and to the environment is much much higher for its use. also, the irrigation figures are not really indicative of anything. in Eastern Washington, they irrigate a TON of water, mostly because its very very porous and dry. water must be pumped in huge quantities because the soil is basically rocks and does not retain moisture. but like so what... there is a huge hydroelectric system that has to route the water so why not divert it to crops? as it stands now, diversion dams are needed for flood control anyway. a diversion dam is a holding pond above the dam, after water is run thru the generators, its pumped back up to the top of the dam and stored again. this results in a power loss of like 20 to 1. iow, it takes 20 times more power to pump the water back up to the retention pond than what was generated when the water went thru. but this has to be done to prevent downstream flooding or overflow of the dam. now, i am not familiar with the volumes run thru Bonneville and what is passed around in Califronia where water is much more precious, but its a huge amount which i am pretty sure is enough to skew the stats.
USGS: "Thermoelectric-power plants accounted for 48 percent of total withdrawals (195,000 million gallons per day [Mgal/d]) in 2000." So, were does all this water disappear to? While a significant chunk of the irrigation water evaporates or slowly filters into aquifers, where does all that water used for Thermoelectric go? And how high are they pumping that Thermoelectric water from its point of withdrawal?
What is the proven health benefit to eating food soaked in pesticides and herbicides? The "soil" on those "farms" is dead inorganic clays and silts. Devoid of life except for the crop and the resistant pests that feeds on it. The USDA organic standard allows or use to allow nicotine to be used as a pesticide and yes it's very nasty stuff as are many other plant extracts. What is more abused caffeine or nicotine? Save the rain forests? Their are just as many species in Brazil's dry Forests but when these dry upland forests next are clearcut , slashed, and burned for a mono crop of soybeans (millions of acres) not a peep out of these activists. No reason that soybean crop can't be certified organic is there? For me it more about not being dependent on a food source beyond local/regional control. Based on land that was not growing vegetation similar to the crops we might grow and sustained only through government subsidies and projects. California Central Valley and all its past and future tax gifts compete against those of us who have never had "Free" water projects built for them. Same applies to BLM and Natl forest grazing of cattle. We have to pay for our own land, build our own roads and fences and pay taxes, liability insurance, fair wages ect on our operations. Most of my family and neighbors have fallow land now and are employed in other lines of work. better stop before I get carried away.
New York City water is gravity fed and minimally treated. It's not bad at all. Lakes and water works upstate and uphill. Seen on Modern Marvels I think or similar
Good questions and ones I don't have the answers to. One can ask the same about domestic water use (e.g. showers, toilets.) In many cases water is going to be taken off and put back in some fashion. Other than evaporation losses in basins this is the case with either. Thermoelectric does have major issues with the heat rejection into water sources. This is one of the global warming concerns that arises during droughts. You can only increase river water temps so much before other problems develop. At some point fossil fuel driven power plants have to shut down because of heat rejection limitations. I have not tried working through balances on all this by hand, so I'm not sure where all the numbers come from. However, it appears that Dave is way too easily dismissing the many things that dwarf municipal water distribution. Take irrigation for example, in many cases you still have to pump that water out of the ground, through a piping system, and to a sprinkler head with sufficient pressure to give a good spray pattern. I doubt these small pumps are as efficient as larger municipal pumps on average. And I doubt that the overall differential is less than half that of what a municipal system does. (And I can tell you from experience long ago that a poorly performing home well pump can cost you a fortune...stuck pressure switch in a place I had just moved into.) I roughed out the numbers for the power my PRV wastes in dropping the municipal supply from 120 to 60 psig...even if I got it all back at 100% efficiency it's not much. Now if you really want to save some money in town while reducing power use and save water that is lost to the atmosphere...reduce lawn irrigation.
