Organic farming could be worse for the climate than conventional farming methods, one of the government’s scientific advisers has said, because of the greater land use required and the methods us. Lord Krebs, who advises ministers on how to adapt to climate change, told the Oxford Farming Conference that organic farming did not necessarily mean more environmentally friendly farming.
Instead, he suggested, agricultural methods known as “no-till” – which usually involves the use of genetically modified crops or biotechnology, with herbicides to kill the weeds that tilling normally prevents – were better for the climate as they reduce the turnover of soils, a process that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere......Krebs also argued that organic farming needs more land than technological methods to produce the same yield, which could be an increasing problem as the world’s population is projected to grow from more than 7 billion people today to 9 to 12 billion by mid-century, requiring a correspondingly large rise in agricultural productivity.....He told the BBC in that year that people who bought organic food were “not getting value for money, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Food Standards Agency, if they think they’re buying food with extra nutritional quality or extra safety. We don’t have the evidence to support those claims.”.....To Read More....
My Take - The fact this appeared in the Guardian is the only justification for linking the article, and they do give the "organics" the last word. Global Warming has exposed the Guardian as the left wing rag everyone knew it to be and their attachment to real science, the proper interpretation of science, understanding science is tenuous at best. Actually, the Guardian’s attachment to anything that resembles reality is tenuous.
No comments:
Post a Comment