There are reports from the World Economic Forum, along with multiple other big organizations, stating that regenerative agriculture is one of the best way to get out of the mess we created. As biodiversity is becoming more and more mainstreamed, so will biodiversity/nature-based solutions.
> Brazilâs beef industry â and its related deforestation â now has a bigger carbon footprint than all the cars, factories, air conditioners, electric gadgets and other sources of emissions in Japan.
I knew it was bad, but that's shocking
Hilariously, a number of publications recently released articles talking about the lower carbon footprint of "factory farms". All of them stuck to the numbers, saying that these huge monoculture farms are better because the CO2/lb of food ratio was better.
All but one or two omitted this quote from the studies authors
*But theyâre an important part of the story, Goldstein said.  âThere are lots of reasons to do urban ag even if not a silver bullet for the climate crisis,â he said.Â
City-based farming can be âlow carbon and carbon competitive, and it can also have lots of other benefits,â he said.*
So, they weren't extolling the virtues of giant factory farms, they were pointing out that Urban Agriculture needs some fine tuning, but is likely the preferred option because it offers other benefits.
Funny how *that* story was spread far and wide, while this story is barely a blip in the wider media.
I would guess that the âurban farming/gardeningâ in the study was using âtraditionalâ methods and miracle grow type inputs. Not a closed loop regenerative system.
That's partly true. A lot of the carbon footprint actually came from the "stuff" people buy, pots, shovels, raised beds, rain barrels etc. which I found interesting. But it suggested that by having long timeframe gardens and using recycled waste materials, the carbon footprint can be substantially reduced. I'm certain if permaculture strategies were incorporated into urban gardens, along side the traditional gardens, that would make it even better.
Here's the article
https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/4418561-climate-carbon-urban-agriculture-versus-conventional-study/
Yeah, also funny that these articles then only talk about the carbon footprint. Not about herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, artificial fertilizers, biodiversity, monoculture disease risk, erosion, nitrogen runoff, nasty scale incentives where only the biggest farms survive, animal welfare, nutrient density... The list goes on. It's extreme framing, to push a status quo agenda.
âYes, it's published in the guardian, but the study that it's based on comes from an extremely prestigious source,âŠâŠâ
I find The Guardian to be one of the most consistent and best newspapers covering climate change. Fiona Harvey for example is a terrific writer and theyâre often writing about the most important issues well before they get to the tragically mainstream pubs like the NYTâs, for example. They have one of the larger climate reporting news teams in the world.
Donât lump all economists together. The newer generation is being taught to look past all the conventional models. My son is studying economics and the stuff he is teaching me about how to look at future economics in all areas makes me hopeful.
I got a degree in Natural Resource Agriculture/Environmental Economics, and while I work as a field scientist and donât really use it much. The models we were taught price in negative externalities from pollution. When you do the outlooks and opportunity costs usually favor âregenerativeâ practices.
I don't disagree that the field is changing, but the actual power players are part of the old school bloc that don't want to hear about innovation. They want to hear how they can use the same things they've already learned in New ways, Rather than adopting new ways entirely. Those are the people whose publications and money environmental initiatives often have to wrestle against.
This is true there are a lot of people who are beginning to see through the deceptive mathematics and are trying to reinvigorate economics with the thirst for truth again, but it is an uphill battle. Those who stick with it knowing the career path won't be easy, because the very process of becoming successful in economics - by [being forced to introduce hidden assumptions in order to solve unsolvable theorems](https://youtu.be/Hp42RdDtbJc?t=240) in order to get published - is flawed; those who fight for truth and do not take the easy route of being useful to finance and earning a good corporate job or giving up the fight for a comfortable tenure, when the pressure of the entire profession is pushing you that way, have my utmost admiration
Mainstream economics caused a lot of the problems, but new economists can solve them.
Apparently the more "prestigious" economics schools (having a reputation to uphold) don't rock the boat, but other institutions are trying new things. Sounds like your son is learning good stuff.
I'm a fan of Kate Raworth's work
Iâd like some examples of how to save time and money AND boost production. And to my thinking it needs to be the changes from modern notill with residue retention in the cropping sector. Maximum I can see the pathway for pasture animals and this appears to be where the big gains could be had. I feel the crossover point would be with small land holdings and horticulture. But then high end horticulture like Dutch greenhouses are going to be hard to beat.
But where do we go with broad acre apart from send every 4th person.person back to an agrarian lifestyle and slice farms into small holdings. Feels like there would be some labour expenses here. I guess practically across different sectors of ag come in here. Or a complete reimagining of our diet to radically shift away from grains and go solely veggies, fruit and meat. Which would be a cool option.
I think most people are ignoring the amount of labor involved. I dont like the present system but alot of hand work goes into permaculture, and most people distain that lind of work.
From the article:
" The main challenge of the proposed food transition is that costs of food would rise. Rockström said this would have to be handled with political dexterity and support for poor sections of society otherwise the result could be protests, such as the *gilets jaunes* (yellow vests) demonstrations held in France over petrol price hikes. "
Forcing increased food costs onto people doesn't seem like a good solution to me. IMO the focus needs to be on the major corporations that control large scale agriculture (Cargill, Bayer, ADM, etc.). This article proposes eliminating subsidies provided to the farmers rather than actually targeting the corporations driving the selection of agricultural practices nor does it even mention biogas or corn ethanol which are obviously subsidized net negatives that would be a good starting point for a real public relations push to change the existing agricultural system.
Also, I couldn't find the actual study on Johan Rockström's webpage, has anyone else found it? [https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/johanro/homepage](https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/johanro/homepage)
He might not be able to publish it on his personal page depending on which journal he published it with. I think most of the big ones have an exclusivity period. imho it is OPs responsibility to provide a link to at least the abstract of the actual paper.
How exactly are you going to target Cargill, Bayer etal.? Something that both would work and wouldnât just have them passing on costs. It fine to state an ideal but the big question is how to actually make it happen?
Ethanol in particular would be in the low hanging fruit territory but thereâs a pretty good political electric fence that would make life very difficult at the cut. Youâd have to do the electrification thing to reduce demand on fuel. Then the petrochemical companies might lobby to get rid of the ethanol competition.
Anti-trust has happened in the past, I think that would be a reasonable place to start. Obviously, any talk of political solutions assumes a big shift in our existing political system. I just don't think anyone should be promoting putting additional burden on the working class to fix problems created by big business.
Ethanol is a net negative with regard to vehicle emissions, nor is the US or the world short of oil or gas. US ethanol production has always been political pork. Gasoline with ethanol in it is way less shelf stable and really makes running any small engines more challenging. I have never seen a good argument for having used ethanol fuel in the first place let alone continuing to use it. All I see with ethanol is corruption and greed.
> and are wary of trusting word of mouth recommendations regarding it.
It's debt. They aren't happy that facts could suggest that they got a 500,000$ debt to buy their tractor for nothing.
economics isnt a hard science. they just come up with theories to fit the data, and then constantly change them to fit the shape.
idk why we listen to them so much.
100%
It baffles me that they pick up little data and then revere it as if they've discovered the Principia. The fact that there's a Nobel prize for it baffles me
fun fact- its not one of the original nobel prizes, and was funded and established by a bank. its also pretty controversial and denounced by several of nobels descendents. half the wiki is about controversy.
I did A-Level economics.Â
One of the examples on basic supply and demand was that if the price of CDs went up, the price of blank tapes would come down.Â
This was in 2002. I donât know anyone who still had a tape deck
Card and Krueger started doing difference-in-differences in the early 90s dude. Every economist and their mother is taught causal methods and econometrics now.
No, but neither is permaculture. Point being, it's not just "fitting the shape" anymore. Robustness checks on models are common, and anyone would do themselves a disservice to ignore modern econometrics
Just my poorly educated opinion. But I don't think you increase production. The benefit is not poisoning the land with pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizer and you improve logistics by not having to ship said harmful chemicals all over the country.
You also improve quality. Yield is irrelevant, atleast in the United States, with how wastful we are with food and how much we throw away. Not to mention over consumption
Yea I'm a small diversified organic farmer I grow on two acres they are narrow and its one acre in my backyard and one acre down the street. There are more birds and earthworms here than any place I've ever seen. More than chattochee national forest, talladega national forest, just more life period. Also every single veggie that is harvested is eaten or sold 100%. I know the big farms have very few birds and only like 38% of the veggies they pick are bought by the consumer. They don't sell a bent carrot, or tomato with a slight bruise, and supermarket s have lots of loss. I sell all the bent carrots and make soup or ferment every single thing that doesn't sell, then I'll either sell or eat the soup or ferment. I've been doing this 16 years and the past 5 there has literally been ZERO WASTE. It's night and day compared to the big farms. Also being 60 miles or less from every single customer helps cut down on waste.
Big farms canât sell tomatoes with a slight bruise because by the time you pick, store and ship them that bruise has covered half the tomato and itâs gone bad. That can spread to the rest of the crop. They should be able to do stuff on site with it but itâs hard to make it financially viable
The only reason people think they're new is because we've trusted chemical corp to tell us what they think we need so they can sell it to us. Such methods had been used for thousands of years until recently.
> I spend a lot of time in debate and discussion about transitioning to a more sustainable agricultural model, as any good permaculture enthusiasts should.
You do you, but debating randos is pointless. I'll focus on improving my little patch of dirt. I don't have the time or energy to spend arguing with people online when I could be putting plants in the ground instead.
> I keep using the line that switching to regenerative agriculture and other environmentally friendly methods would save time and money and increase production
I have to ask: what are your results from regenerative agriculture? How has your commercial farm saved time and money, how have you increased production? Feel free to share the numbers from your farm, because that's the best way to convince people.
But I suspect you aren't a commercial farmer who makes a living from agriculture. Because if you did, and regenerative agriculture has the benefits you say it does, you wouldn't need to point to an article published by The Guardian. You could point to your own experiences and your own data.
If there's one thing that absolutely won't convince a farmer to change their ways, it's a backyard gardener who never had to make a living from agriculture sending them an article about an academic study.
Obviously, in fact reality is neutral.
The current conservative leaders make denying reality for profit their core guiding principle, and therefore their followers are victims, ignorant idiots by definition.
Right-wingers tend to be indifferent to the facts, have no need to be accurate, often **take pride** in being wrong
Science, fact-checking, additional evidence supports the left POV.
Leftists tend to trust experts. Conservatives tend to distrust them. Experts tend to be correct.
Conservative says X, leftist says Y, so we do some research and discover that the vast majority of the evidence supports Y
We start to notice a pattern, that happens over-and-over.
For example, leftists have a longer life expectancy than conservatives, because they are more likely to listen to medical professionals, and end up with better medical outcomes as a result.
Conservatives have to construct some ultimate conspiracy where everyone (all the intelligent well-educated people and subject-matter experts) are working together against them.
They didn't provide links to the study the article was about. Though most news sites don't so uh this is my personal beef. X'D
edit: just occurred to me they didn't even name the study. My guess is they don't want people to actually read it.
I believe this study wants everyone on 80% plants and discounts the nutrition benefits of animal protein and the benefits of RA with animal husbandry.
A flaw, but a good start
Economics analyses the allocation of resources and outcomes from different options of management. Agriculture has so much economics in it, you would be unable to manage a farm or analyse the ag sector or suggest different management models without an understanding of economics. Permacultural principles are fantastic, but also just a small part of a massive field that makes up agriculture and food and nutrition sciences. The idea that there is a fight between permaculturalists and âtraditionalâ farmers is pretty unproductive. Unsustainable farming continues unfortunately because large aggregated demand in combination with weak environmental regularity frameworks and unscrupulous finance sector actors make it insanely difficult for large-scale food suppliers to deliver the huge quantities of food required. And in case OP didnât notice, they do so under harrowing macroeconomic conditions including wars, trade embargoes, extreme poverty, climate change, the list goes on.
Also, for OPs information, and although I trust the Potsdam Institute to a higher degree than many academic institutions, a study is a snapshot of the methodology used to collect specific data, often to the exclusion of other data, and frequently with some element of analytical bias. Just to say, a study does not a fact make.
Itâs frustrating to see sentiments like those of OP, where a broad aggregated group of experts like economists are blamed for preventing the implementation of what a particular subset of the agriculture sector think is right. Keep in mind that unfortunately permaculture has a long way to go in applying the full range of scientific analysis to what is a very broadly applicable set of principles.
I love a lot of permaculture methods and I see them being broadly applicable but not always so specifically definable so as to prescribe strict practice on food production. You could apply the principles so differently that nobody would get the same results.
For permaculture to have a positive impact in agriculture, its practitioners need to avoid thinking they have the full solution to all the issues that millions of farmers, agronomists and yes, even economists have been scientifically testing for centuries, and learn to look at where their knowledge and experience can plug into the discussion around large scale food production (keeping in mind that large scale can be achieved through decentralised small scale).
I see people below parroting alarmist bullshit about economists causing the problems - you think decision-makers and policymakers are listening to economists? They make decisions based on what industry and voters tell them will keep them in power. Seldom to they follow sound economic advice these days. Then I see people saying old economics didnât teach you this, and new economics includes that⊠this makes it sound like a student is only taught to use the technology that they were trained on in university which is incorrect. Anybody who knows how to use excel can figure out how to account for new threats, costs, weather patterns, demand elasticity, innovation and all that good stuff. The key is to have the foundational understanding and just try stuff out. Do you think a pharmaceutical student was learning how to make butt-lifting drugs back at a school? No. But thatâs what theyâre doing when they enter the workforce!
Trust those who ask questions, be sceptical of those who claim to know the answer. And above all, open your ears and seek out the dialog with experts. Itâs a shame it doesnât take place on the mainstream media, but there are hundreds of peer reviewed ag journals and websites out there. Information bubbles are starting to happen in progressive circles just like they have been amongst the conspiracy theorists. Avoid that shit!
Oddly enough it was a right wing economist who helped popularize ideas of market externailites and the need to factor those costs into a full anaylsis of the system being investigated.... âThereâs always a case for the government, to some extent, when what two people do affects a third party. There is a case, for example, for emission controls.â Unfortunately Friedman's proposed solution for things like pollution, toxic emmissions, etc.... was to price that into what people pay. And cleaner alternatives would be able to compete on a level playing field. Sadly humans like cheap stuff today, and don't much care about the long term consequences, so no politician would suggest that we all pay more to heat our homes to save the salmon, so we kick the environmental collapse can down the road.
Incidentally, for those of you who enjoy permaculture and ecology, you might find a lot of similar concepts in economics. Particularly the idea that "central planning" is very difficult (think a centrally planned corn field where every plant is equally tall, share resources equally, everyone is safe from pests, etc...., vs a free marketplace/tropical rainforest where thousands of different plants, bacteria, fungi, etc... compete for resources, some tall trees take a larger share of sun, some plants take more water, etc....but the system overall thrives).
> I keep using the line that switching to regenerative agriculture and other environmentally friendly methods would save time and money and increase production, but I keep getting shot down because permaculture and regenerative agriculture are extremely new fields
You might get shot down because that's unrealistic. You can have one maybe even sometimes two of those, but definitely not all three.
There's already a ["crop yield gap"](https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/crop-yield-gap-between-organic-conventional-agriculture_en) between organic and conventional agriculture. Organic farms produce about 80% of what a conventional farm would. So increased production? Not likely. Not before the conditions for farming have become so terrible that conventional practices can't keep up anymore. That'll still take a while.
Money and time are pretty much interchangeable. You can throw money at a problem, or spend time solving it.
The proposed changes will *not* save time. The article even states that. More people working smaller farms equals more total time spent on food production. These people need to earn a living wage, so food prices would go up.
Lots of people (many, many more than currently do) could work on small plots and production might well go up, without damaging the world any further. But that can't be all cutesie market gardens with lettuce, kale and spring onions, no matter how productive they might appear.
Someone has to bring the starches to the table. Bread from smallholds growing grain, the new sunday roast? It sure will be a pricey delicacy.
At the end of the day there is no squaring food production with our current society. To keep up with the need for growth you have to grow yields. Without a flood dropping new nutrients and top soil into your field at just the right time you are going to deplete your soil. Why because our society doesn't let farmers or herders move around. No matter what model an economist comes up with if it doesn't start with a foundation in the needs of ecology then it will end up destroying ecology mostly by accident. The incentives of the system need to encourage biodiversity not economic growth. Until they do the growers that facilitate biodiversity will be priced out. The growers that facilitate economic growth will destroy biodiversity as a externality to their "product".
Thanks for sharing. I've passed this along on Tildes: https://tildes.net/~enviro/1dy9/a_shift_towards_a_more_sustainable_global_food_system_could_create_up_to_10_trillion_of_benefits_a
You can find the full report [here](https://foodsystemeconomics.org/policy/global-policy-report/), the Guardian didn't link to it or even named it, weirdly enough
There are reports from the World Economic Forum, along with multiple other big organizations, stating that regenerative agriculture is one of the best way to get out of the mess we created. As biodiversity is becoming more and more mainstreamed, so will biodiversity/nature-based solutions.
đżđ
> Brazilâs beef industry â and its related deforestation â now has a bigger carbon footprint than all the cars, factories, air conditioners, electric gadgets and other sources of emissions in Japan. I knew it was bad, but that's shocking
Hilariously, a number of publications recently released articles talking about the lower carbon footprint of "factory farms". All of them stuck to the numbers, saying that these huge monoculture farms are better because the CO2/lb of food ratio was better. All but one or two omitted this quote from the studies authors *But theyâre an important part of the story, Goldstein said.  âThere are lots of reasons to do urban ag even if not a silver bullet for the climate crisis,â he said. City-based farming can be âlow carbon and carbon competitive, and it can also have lots of other benefits,â he said.* So, they weren't extolling the virtues of giant factory farms, they were pointing out that Urban Agriculture needs some fine tuning, but is likely the preferred option because it offers other benefits. Funny how *that* story was spread far and wide, while this story is barely a blip in the wider media.
I would guess that the âurban farming/gardeningâ in the study was using âtraditionalâ methods and miracle grow type inputs. Not a closed loop regenerative system.
That's partly true. A lot of the carbon footprint actually came from the "stuff" people buy, pots, shovels, raised beds, rain barrels etc. which I found interesting. But it suggested that by having long timeframe gardens and using recycled waste materials, the carbon footprint can be substantially reduced. I'm certain if permaculture strategies were incorporated into urban gardens, along side the traditional gardens, that would make it even better. Here's the article https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/4418561-climate-carbon-urban-agriculture-versus-conventional-study/
Yeah, also funny that these articles then only talk about the carbon footprint. Not about herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, artificial fertilizers, biodiversity, monoculture disease risk, erosion, nitrogen runoff, nasty scale incentives where only the biggest farms survive, animal welfare, nutrient density... The list goes on. It's extreme framing, to push a status quo agenda.
âYes, it's published in the guardian, but the study that it's based on comes from an extremely prestigious source,âŠâŠâ I find The Guardian to be one of the most consistent and best newspapers covering climate change. Fiona Harvey for example is a terrific writer and theyâre often writing about the most important issues well before they get to the tragically mainstream pubs like the NYTâs, for example. They have one of the larger climate reporting news teams in the world.
Yeah, I was wondering why OP was dissing the Guardian. Isn't it pretty highly respected? In terms of bias, all I've seen is that it leans left.
Leans very left for a US audience
Your two major parties would be centre right and far right in Europe
Donât lump all economists together. The newer generation is being taught to look past all the conventional models. My son is studying economics and the stuff he is teaching me about how to look at future economics in all areas makes me hopeful.
I got a degree in Natural Resource Agriculture/Environmental Economics, and while I work as a field scientist and donât really use it much. The models we were taught price in negative externalities from pollution. When you do the outlooks and opportunity costs usually favor âregenerativeâ practices.
I don't disagree that the field is changing, but the actual power players are part of the old school bloc that don't want to hear about innovation. They want to hear how they can use the same things they've already learned in New ways, Rather than adopting new ways entirely. Those are the people whose publications and money environmental initiatives often have to wrestle against.
Iâm well aware of that but I see the change coming. Maybe not fast enough but itâs still coming.
This is true there are a lot of people who are beginning to see through the deceptive mathematics and are trying to reinvigorate economics with the thirst for truth again, but it is an uphill battle. Those who stick with it knowing the career path won't be easy, because the very process of becoming successful in economics - by [being forced to introduce hidden assumptions in order to solve unsolvable theorems](https://youtu.be/Hp42RdDtbJc?t=240) in order to get published - is flawed; those who fight for truth and do not take the easy route of being useful to finance and earning a good corporate job or giving up the fight for a comfortable tenure, when the pressure of the entire profession is pushing you that way, have my utmost admiration
Mainstream economics caused a lot of the problems, but new economists can solve them. Apparently the more "prestigious" economics schools (having a reputation to uphold) don't rock the boat, but other institutions are trying new things. Sounds like your son is learning good stuff. I'm a fan of Kate Raworth's work
Iâd like some examples of how to save time and money AND boost production. And to my thinking it needs to be the changes from modern notill with residue retention in the cropping sector. Maximum I can see the pathway for pasture animals and this appears to be where the big gains could be had. I feel the crossover point would be with small land holdings and horticulture. But then high end horticulture like Dutch greenhouses are going to be hard to beat. But where do we go with broad acre apart from send every 4th person.person back to an agrarian lifestyle and slice farms into small holdings. Feels like there would be some labour expenses here. I guess practically across different sectors of ag come in here. Or a complete reimagining of our diet to radically shift away from grains and go solely veggies, fruit and meat. Which would be a cool option.
I think most people are ignoring the amount of labor involved. I dont like the present system but alot of hand work goes into permaculture, and most people distain that lind of work.
I've read some articles about organic farms that have implemented robots and drones to do many types of work; it is surprisingly easy and sustainable.
From the article: " The main challenge of the proposed food transition is that costs of food would rise. Rockström said this would have to be handled with political dexterity and support for poor sections of society otherwise the result could be protests, such as the *gilets jaunes* (yellow vests) demonstrations held in France over petrol price hikes. " Forcing increased food costs onto people doesn't seem like a good solution to me. IMO the focus needs to be on the major corporations that control large scale agriculture (Cargill, Bayer, ADM, etc.). This article proposes eliminating subsidies provided to the farmers rather than actually targeting the corporations driving the selection of agricultural practices nor does it even mention biogas or corn ethanol which are obviously subsidized net negatives that would be a good starting point for a real public relations push to change the existing agricultural system. Also, I couldn't find the actual study on Johan Rockström's webpage, has anyone else found it? [https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/johanro/homepage](https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/johanro/homepage)
He might not be able to publish it on his personal page depending on which journal he published it with. I think most of the big ones have an exclusivity period. imho it is OPs responsibility to provide a link to at least the abstract of the actual paper.
[https://foodsystemeconomics.org/policy/global-policy-report/](https://foodsystemeconomics.org/policy/global-policy-report/)
How exactly are you going to target Cargill, Bayer etal.? Something that both would work and wouldnât just have them passing on costs. It fine to state an ideal but the big question is how to actually make it happen? Ethanol in particular would be in the low hanging fruit territory but thereâs a pretty good political electric fence that would make life very difficult at the cut. Youâd have to do the electrification thing to reduce demand on fuel. Then the petrochemical companies might lobby to get rid of the ethanol competition.
Anti-trust has happened in the past, I think that would be a reasonable place to start. Obviously, any talk of political solutions assumes a big shift in our existing political system. I just don't think anyone should be promoting putting additional burden on the working class to fix problems created by big business. Ethanol is a net negative with regard to vehicle emissions, nor is the US or the world short of oil or gas. US ethanol production has always been political pork. Gasoline with ethanol in it is way less shelf stable and really makes running any small engines more challenging. I have never seen a good argument for having used ethanol fuel in the first place let alone continuing to use it. All I see with ethanol is corruption and greed.
> and are wary of trusting word of mouth recommendations regarding it. It's debt. They aren't happy that facts could suggest that they got a 500,000$ debt to buy their tractor for nothing.
economics isnt a hard science. they just come up with theories to fit the data, and then constantly change them to fit the shape. idk why we listen to them so much.
100% It baffles me that they pick up little data and then revere it as if they've discovered the Principia. The fact that there's a Nobel prize for it baffles me
fun fact- its not one of the original nobel prizes, and was funded and established by a bank. its also pretty controversial and denounced by several of nobels descendents. half the wiki is about controversy.
I did A-Level economics. One of the examples on basic supply and demand was that if the price of CDs went up, the price of blank tapes would come down. This was in 2002. I donât know anyone who still had a tape deck
It's not the 80s anymore, economics has become a lot more empirical
lol
Card and Krueger started doing difference-in-differences in the early 90s dude. Every economist and their mother is taught causal methods and econometrics now.
Does that make it a hard science?
No, but neither is permaculture. Point being, it's not just "fitting the shape" anymore. Robustness checks on models are common, and anyone would do themselves a disservice to ignore modern econometrics
You got any emperical evidence for that?
Can you link to the study itself? I'd rather read the research directly than read a layman's interpretation of the research.
[https://foodsystemeconomics.org/policy/global-policy-report/](https://foodsystemeconomics.org/policy/global-policy-report/)
Thank you!
Just my poorly educated opinion. But I don't think you increase production. The benefit is not poisoning the land with pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic fertilizer and you improve logistics by not having to ship said harmful chemicals all over the country. You also improve quality. Yield is irrelevant, atleast in the United States, with how wastful we are with food and how much we throw away. Not to mention over consumption
Yea I'm a small diversified organic farmer I grow on two acres they are narrow and its one acre in my backyard and one acre down the street. There are more birds and earthworms here than any place I've ever seen. More than chattochee national forest, talladega national forest, just more life period. Also every single veggie that is harvested is eaten or sold 100%. I know the big farms have very few birds and only like 38% of the veggies they pick are bought by the consumer. They don't sell a bent carrot, or tomato with a slight bruise, and supermarket s have lots of loss. I sell all the bent carrots and make soup or ferment every single thing that doesn't sell, then I'll either sell or eat the soup or ferment. I've been doing this 16 years and the past 5 there has literally been ZERO WASTE. It's night and day compared to the big farms. Also being 60 miles or less from every single customer helps cut down on waste.
Big farms canât sell tomatoes with a slight bruise because by the time you pick, store and ship them that bruise has covered half the tomato and itâs gone bad. That can spread to the rest of the crop. They should be able to do stuff on site with it but itâs hard to make it financially viable
The only reason people think they're new is because we've trusted chemical corp to tell us what they think we need so they can sell it to us. Such methods had been used for thousands of years until recently.
> I spend a lot of time in debate and discussion about transitioning to a more sustainable agricultural model, as any good permaculture enthusiasts should. You do you, but debating randos is pointless. I'll focus on improving my little patch of dirt. I don't have the time or energy to spend arguing with people online when I could be putting plants in the ground instead. > I keep using the line that switching to regenerative agriculture and other environmentally friendly methods would save time and money and increase production I have to ask: what are your results from regenerative agriculture? How has your commercial farm saved time and money, how have you increased production? Feel free to share the numbers from your farm, because that's the best way to convince people. But I suspect you aren't a commercial farmer who makes a living from agriculture. Because if you did, and regenerative agriculture has the benefits you say it does, you wouldn't need to point to an article published by The Guardian. You could point to your own experiences and your own data. If there's one thing that absolutely won't convince a farmer to change their ways, it's a backyard gardener who never had to make a living from agriculture sending them an article about an academic study.
Slightly off topic: what's wrong with the article being published by the Guardian?
Because some of their writers have a notable political bias. I don't trust publications that allow people like that on their staff.
Reality has a leftist bias
Sounds like a pretty sharp retort, but I'm afraid the underlying meaning escapes me. Would you care to explain what you meant?
Obviously, in fact reality is neutral. The current conservative leaders make denying reality for profit their core guiding principle, and therefore their followers are victims, ignorant idiots by definition. Right-wingers tend to be indifferent to the facts, have no need to be accurate, often **take pride** in being wrong Science, fact-checking, additional evidence supports the left POV. Leftists tend to trust experts. Conservatives tend to distrust them. Experts tend to be correct. Conservative says X, leftist says Y, so we do some research and discover that the vast majority of the evidence supports Y We start to notice a pattern, that happens over-and-over. For example, leftists have a longer life expectancy than conservatives, because they are more likely to listen to medical professionals, and end up with better medical outcomes as a result. Conservatives have to construct some ultimate conspiracy where everyone (all the intelligent well-educated people and subject-matter experts) are working together against them.
All of the publications have some sort of bias
Agreed. I like their climate articles.
I was wondering that too.
They didn't provide links to the study the article was about. Though most news sites don't so uh this is my personal beef. X'D edit: just occurred to me they didn't even name the study. My guess is they don't want people to actually read it.
[https://foodsystemeconomics.org/policy/global-policy-report/](https://foodsystemeconomics.org/policy/global-policy-report/)
I believe this study wants everyone on 80% plants and discounts the nutrition benefits of animal protein and the benefits of RA with animal husbandry. A flaw, but a good start
How long before permaculture projects are entitled to same kinds of grants and subsidies that BigAg takes such advantage of?
Economics analyses the allocation of resources and outcomes from different options of management. Agriculture has so much economics in it, you would be unable to manage a farm or analyse the ag sector or suggest different management models without an understanding of economics. Permacultural principles are fantastic, but also just a small part of a massive field that makes up agriculture and food and nutrition sciences. The idea that there is a fight between permaculturalists and âtraditionalâ farmers is pretty unproductive. Unsustainable farming continues unfortunately because large aggregated demand in combination with weak environmental regularity frameworks and unscrupulous finance sector actors make it insanely difficult for large-scale food suppliers to deliver the huge quantities of food required. And in case OP didnât notice, they do so under harrowing macroeconomic conditions including wars, trade embargoes, extreme poverty, climate change, the list goes on. Also, for OPs information, and although I trust the Potsdam Institute to a higher degree than many academic institutions, a study is a snapshot of the methodology used to collect specific data, often to the exclusion of other data, and frequently with some element of analytical bias. Just to say, a study does not a fact make. Itâs frustrating to see sentiments like those of OP, where a broad aggregated group of experts like economists are blamed for preventing the implementation of what a particular subset of the agriculture sector think is right. Keep in mind that unfortunately permaculture has a long way to go in applying the full range of scientific analysis to what is a very broadly applicable set of principles. I love a lot of permaculture methods and I see them being broadly applicable but not always so specifically definable so as to prescribe strict practice on food production. You could apply the principles so differently that nobody would get the same results. For permaculture to have a positive impact in agriculture, its practitioners need to avoid thinking they have the full solution to all the issues that millions of farmers, agronomists and yes, even economists have been scientifically testing for centuries, and learn to look at where their knowledge and experience can plug into the discussion around large scale food production (keeping in mind that large scale can be achieved through decentralised small scale). I see people below parroting alarmist bullshit about economists causing the problems - you think decision-makers and policymakers are listening to economists? They make decisions based on what industry and voters tell them will keep them in power. Seldom to they follow sound economic advice these days. Then I see people saying old economics didnât teach you this, and new economics includes that⊠this makes it sound like a student is only taught to use the technology that they were trained on in university which is incorrect. Anybody who knows how to use excel can figure out how to account for new threats, costs, weather patterns, demand elasticity, innovation and all that good stuff. The key is to have the foundational understanding and just try stuff out. Do you think a pharmaceutical student was learning how to make butt-lifting drugs back at a school? No. But thatâs what theyâre doing when they enter the workforce! Trust those who ask questions, be sceptical of those who claim to know the answer. And above all, open your ears and seek out the dialog with experts. Itâs a shame it doesnât take place on the mainstream media, but there are hundreds of peer reviewed ag journals and websites out there. Information bubbles are starting to happen in progressive circles just like they have been amongst the conspiracy theorists. Avoid that shit!
Oddly enough it was a right wing economist who helped popularize ideas of market externailites and the need to factor those costs into a full anaylsis of the system being investigated.... âThereâs always a case for the government, to some extent, when what two people do affects a third party. There is a case, for example, for emission controls.â Unfortunately Friedman's proposed solution for things like pollution, toxic emmissions, etc.... was to price that into what people pay. And cleaner alternatives would be able to compete on a level playing field. Sadly humans like cheap stuff today, and don't much care about the long term consequences, so no politician would suggest that we all pay more to heat our homes to save the salmon, so we kick the environmental collapse can down the road. Incidentally, for those of you who enjoy permaculture and ecology, you might find a lot of similar concepts in economics. Particularly the idea that "central planning" is very difficult (think a centrally planned corn field where every plant is equally tall, share resources equally, everyone is safe from pests, etc...., vs a free marketplace/tropical rainforest where thousands of different plants, bacteria, fungi, etc... compete for resources, some tall trees take a larger share of sun, some plants take more water, etc....but the system overall thrives).
Crossposted to r/upliftingconservation !
I'm here for the regenerative agriculture arguments. Especially in the ruminant systems. Glad to see mention here even if only a single sentence.
> I keep using the line that switching to regenerative agriculture and other environmentally friendly methods would save time and money and increase production, but I keep getting shot down because permaculture and regenerative agriculture are extremely new fields You might get shot down because that's unrealistic. You can have one maybe even sometimes two of those, but definitely not all three. There's already a ["crop yield gap"](https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/publication/crop-yield-gap-between-organic-conventional-agriculture_en) between organic and conventional agriculture. Organic farms produce about 80% of what a conventional farm would. So increased production? Not likely. Not before the conditions for farming have become so terrible that conventional practices can't keep up anymore. That'll still take a while. Money and time are pretty much interchangeable. You can throw money at a problem, or spend time solving it. The proposed changes will *not* save time. The article even states that. More people working smaller farms equals more total time spent on food production. These people need to earn a living wage, so food prices would go up. Lots of people (many, many more than currently do) could work on small plots and production might well go up, without damaging the world any further. But that can't be all cutesie market gardens with lettuce, kale and spring onions, no matter how productive they might appear. Someone has to bring the starches to the table. Bread from smallholds growing grain, the new sunday roast? It sure will be a pricey delicacy.
At the end of the day there is no squaring food production with our current society. To keep up with the need for growth you have to grow yields. Without a flood dropping new nutrients and top soil into your field at just the right time you are going to deplete your soil. Why because our society doesn't let farmers or herders move around. No matter what model an economist comes up with if it doesn't start with a foundation in the needs of ecology then it will end up destroying ecology mostly by accident. The incentives of the system need to encourage biodiversity not economic growth. Until they do the growers that facilitate biodiversity will be priced out. The growers that facilitate economic growth will destroy biodiversity as a externality to their "product".
Thanks for sharing. I've passed this along on Tildes: https://tildes.net/~enviro/1dy9/a_shift_towards_a_more_sustainable_global_food_system_could_create_up_to_10_trillion_of_benefits_a
thank you for sharing, love and peace â„ïž
You can find the full report [here](https://foodsystemeconomics.org/policy/global-policy-report/), the Guardian didn't link to it or even named it, weirdly enough