Page 13 of 13
1 11 12 13

The Paris Agreement Will Not Be Enough to Save the Planet

América del Norte/EEUU/Abril 2016/Autor: Leonardo DiCaprio/ Fuente: EcoWatch

Thank you, Mr. Secretary General, for the honor to address this body once more. And thanks to the distinguished climate leaders assembled here today who are ready to take action.

President Abraham Lincoln was also thinking of bold action 150 years ago when he said:

“The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. As our case is new so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country.”
He was speaking before the U.S. Congress to confront the defining issue of his time—slavery.

Everyone knew it had to end but no one had the political will to stop it. Remarkably, his words ring as true today when applied to the defining crisis of our time— climate change.

As a UN Messenger of Peace, I have been traveling all over the world for the last two years documenting how this crisis is changing the natural balance of our planet. I have seen cities like Beijing choked by industrial pollution. Ancient Boreal forests in Canada that have been clear cut and rainforests in Indonesia that have been incinerated. In India I met farmers whose crops have literally been washed away by historic flooding. In America I have witnessed unprecedented droughts in California and sea level rise flooding the streets of Miami. In Greenland and in the Arctic I was astonished to see that ancient glaciers are rapidly disappearing well ahead of scientific predictions. All that I have seen and learned on this journey has terrified me.

There is no doubt in the world’s scientific community that this a direct result of human activity and that the effects of climate change will become astronomically worse in the future.

I do not need to throw statistics at you. You know them better than I do, and more importantly, you know what will happen if this scourge is left unchecked. You know that climate change is happening faster than even the most pessimistic of scientists warned us decades ago. It has become a runaway freight train bringing with it an impending disaster for all living things.

Now think about the shame that each of us will carry when our children and grandchildren look back and realize that we had the means of stopping this devastation, but simply lacked the political will to do so.

Yes, we have achieved the Paris agreement. More countries have come together to sign this agreement today than for any other cause in the history of humankind—and that is a reason for hope—but unfortunately the evidence shows us that it will not be enough.

Our planet cannot be saved unless we leave fossil fuels in the ground where they belong. An upheaval and massive change is required, now. One that leads to a new collective consciousness. A new collective evolution of the human race, inspired and enabled by a sense of urgency from all of you.

We all know that reversing the course of climate change will not be easy, but the tools are in our hands—if we apply them before it is too late.

Renewable energy, clean fuels and putting a price on carbon pollution are beginning to turn the tide. This transition is not only the right thing for our world, but it also makes clear economic sense, and is possible within our lifetime.

But it is now upon you to do what great leaders have always done: to lead, inspire and empower as President Lincoln did in his time.

We can congratulate each other today, but it will mean nothing if you return to your countries and fail to push beyond the promises of this historic agreement. Now is the time for bold unprecedented action.

My friends, look at the delegates around you. It is time to ask each other—which side of history will you be on?

As a citizen of our planet who has witnessed so much on this journey I thank you for all you have done to lay the foundation of a solution to this crisis, but after 21 years of debates and conferences it is time to declare no more talk. No more excuses. No more 10-year studies. No more allowing the fossil fuel companies to manipulate and dictate the science and policies that effect our future. This is the only body that can do what is needed. You, sitting in this very hall.

The world is now watching. You will either be lauded by future generations, or vilified by them.

Lincoln’s words still resonate to all of us here today:

“We will be remembered in spite of ourselves. The fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the last generation… We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of Earth.”
That is our charge now—you are the last best hope of Earth. We ask you to protect it. Or we—and all living things we cherish—are history.

Thank you.

Leonardo DiCaprio’s address to the United Nations at the Paris climate agreement signing ceremony in New York City on April 22.

Fuente de la noticia: http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/36462-leonardo-dicaprio-paris-agreement-will-not-be-enough-to-save-the-planet

Fuente de la imagen: http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs20/020755-leo-042216.jpg

Comparte este contenido:

EE.UU: Día de la Tierra 2016: 11 meses seguidos batiendo récords de calor

El marzo de 2016 y el primer trimestre del año también marcan máximas históricas en el cambio climático

LaVanguardia/22 de abril de 2016/Por: Joaquim Elcacho

Temperaturas más elevadas (colores rojos) del mes de marzo de 2016, en relación con la media climática para esta época del año (NOAA)

El 22 de abril, Día de la Tierra 2016, se abre el plazo para la firma del acuerdo contra el cambio climático aprobado en la Cumbre de París del pasado mes de diciembre. Mientras tanto se siguen acumulando los datos científicos que muestran la gravedad del problema, y el mes de marzo tampoco se ha quedado atrás en la espectacular carrera de calentamiento global.

Los registros publicados por la NASA, la Agencia Meteorológica de Japón y la Administración Norteamericana de la Atmósfera y los Océanos (NOAA)confirman que durante el mes pasado se volvieron a batir varios récords históricos.

Con motivo del Día de la Tierra 2016 cabe recordar que la temperatura media registrada, en la atmósfera terrestre y la superficie marina, del mes de marzo de 2016 fue la más alta para esta época del año desde 1880 (fecha en que se inició el registro sistemáticamente este tipo de datos).

Además, marzo de 2016 ha sido el onceavo mes consecutivo en que se superan las temperaturas más elevadas de la historia reciente de la Tierra (en relación con los meses respectivos de años anteriores). Nunca hasta ahora (desde 1880) se había producido un periodo tan largo de constantes récords mensuales de temperaturas elevadas, destacan los expertos de la NOAA en el informe difundido esta semana.

Por si fuera poco, el período enero marzo de este año fue el trimestre inicial más cálido desde 1880, con 1,15ºC por encima de la media del siglo XX y 0,28ºC más que en el mismo periodo del año pasado.

Calor por tierra, mar y aire

Marzo de 2016 batió el récord histórico de temperatura tanto en la superficie terrestre (2,33ºC más que la media del siglo XX) como en la oceánica (0,81ºC más que el promedio del siglo pasado), confirman los datos publicados por la NOAA.

El mapamundi elaborado para el mes de marzo por la NOAA -que ilustra esa información- muestra en colores rojos las zonas de Asia, África, América y Groenlandia en las que se registraron temperaturas especialmente altas en relación a la media climática. Marzo de 2016 ha sido también el más caluroso de los últimos 107 años en Australia y el sexto más cálido en Nueva Zelanda desde 1909.

El promedio global de la temperatura superficial del mar, por otra parte, rebasó en 0,81ºC el promedio de los meses de marzo del siglo XX. Se trata del marzo más cálido en los océanos desde 1880, con 0,18ºC más que en 2015.

La superficie de los océanos fue más alta de lo normal en la mayor parte del norte y el sudeste del Índico, partes del centro y el suroeste del Pacífico ecuatorial, el oeste y el sur del Atlántico, y extensas áreas del Ártico.

Publicación científica de referencia:
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, State of the Climate: Global Analysis for March 2016. April 20, 2016 www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201603
http://www.lavanguardia.com/natural/20160422/401244547933/dia-de-la-tierra.html

Comparte este contenido:

La pelea de Monsanto por mantener su reinado

LaHaine/17 de abril de2016/Por: Silvia Ribeiro

descarga (3)

Desde el año pasado, el sector industrial químico-semillero está en erupción y si no lo prevenimos, su ceniza tóxica nos caerá en el plato de comida

Monsanto, la mayor empresa de transgénicos y semillas comerciales del globo, intentó dos veces comprar Syngenta, la mayor trasnacional de agrotóxicos, para establecer una megaempresa que habría sido la número uno en ambos sectores. Pero Syngenta lo rechazó y decidió fusionarse con ChemChina. Monsanto inició entonces negociaciones con otras dos de las seis gigantes globales de agrotóxicos y transgénicos, CBayer y BasfCC, para contrarrestar esa jugada. Poco antes, DuPont y Dow Agrosciences habían decidido fusionarse también. Si el hecho de que seis trasnacionales dominaran altos porcentajes de la venta de semillas y agroquímicos ya era un atentado a la seguridad y soberanía alimentaria de los países, ahora estamos ante la perspectiva de que esos mercados globales queden en manos de sólo tres empresas.

El Grupo ETC advirtió sobre estos movimientos desde el año pasado, explicando su lógica y consecuencias en el documento Campo Jurásico: Syngenta, DuPont, Monsanto: la guerra de los dinosaurios del agronegocio (http://goo.gl/d8tbdA)

Durante las últimas tres décadas, las viejas y poderosas empresas de la industria química, con más de un siglo de existencia, se lanzaron a comprar las empresas semilleras en todo el mundo, que hasta ese momento eran miles y estaban muy descentralizadas. Lo hicieron para crear un mercado oligopólico que obligara a los agricultores a comprar las semillas junto a sus propios agrotóxicos (que llaman agroquímicos para que parezcan menos dañinos). El resultado más evidente de esa búsqueda de venta casada fueron las semillas transgénicas, manipuladas para tolerar altas dosis de los venenos de las mismas compañías.

Hasta 2015, seis empresas, Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, Bayer y Basf, controlaban juntas 75 por ciento del mercado mundial de venenos agrícolas y 61 por ciento de las semillas comerciales de todo tipo, además de 75 por ciento de la investigación agrícola privada. En semillas transgénicas, las seis controlan ciento por ciento, o sea todo el mercado global, aunque a veces no se reconocen porque mantienen los nombres de empresas que compraron antes. A DuPont, por ejemplo, se la conoce más como Pioneer Hi-Bred en el área agrícola y de semillas.

En tres décadas, el ritmo de fusiones y adquisiciones en los sectores de semillas y agrotóxicos fue tal que se llegó a un tope donde virtualmente no quedan empresas para comprar, pero las compañías quieren seguir creciendo para controlar porciones aún más grandes de mercado.
Por eso comienzan a devorarse unas a otras. El resultado podría ser que solamente tres empresas gigantes tendrían un dominio total de los primeros eslabones de la cadena agrícola industrial, incluida la investigación y desarrollo. Por ello, estas fusiones están ahora bajo escrutinio de autoridades anti-monopolio en varios países, lo cual puede significar que no se concreten, particularmente si existe presión social y pública contra éstas. Monsanto espera que si se autorizan las fusiones de Syngenta y las demás, ya no le podrán impedir que prosiga su fusión con la división agrícola de Bayer y/o Basf. Según analistas de la industria, la preferencia de Syngenta por ChemChina se explicaría en parte porque al ser la segunda una paraestatal china, podrían evadir medidas antimonopolio. Sin embargo, un grupo de organizaciones internacionales y chinas, ya iniciaron una acción dirigida al gobierno de China, para que objete esta fusión, por la expansión de más y peores tóxicos que implicará (http://goo.gl/YILmBD).

Nada indica que la concentración corporativa terminará allí, aunque sólo queden tres empresas. La lógica de búsqueda de ganancias de las corporaciones de agronegocios será integrar esos cárteles de semillas y agrotóxicos con los eslabones siguientes de la cadena industrial, sea con las corporaciones de fertilizantes o de maquinarias agrícolas, con las que ya existen varios acuerdos de colaboración. El objetivo es extender el control sobre los agricultores, integrando en un solo proveedor las semillas, agrotóxicos, fertilizantes, maquinarias, servicios de datos sobre el clima y hasta seguros agrícolas. Esto significaría niveles sin precedente de control de la agricultura por parte de unas pocas empresas.

Para las comunidades y organizaciones campesinas que son las que alimentan a la mayoría de la humanidad y que en su gran mayoría tienen sus propias semillas, así como a las muchas que han optado por una agricultura ecológica, quizá estas fusiones podrían parecer irrelevantes, porque de todas formas no son sus clientes. Pero esas gigantes industriales aumentarán la fuerza para moldear a su favor acuerdos de comercio agrícola, subvenciones y programas rurales, leyes laborales, de semillas y patentes, normativas de uso del suelo, de uso de agroquímicos y hasta gastos públicos en infraestructuras, todo a favor de sus negocios. Todo esto ya tiene impactos muy negativos en las economías campesinas. Si a nivel global se concretan las nuevas fusiones, el poder de presión de las superempresas que permanezcan, será mucho mayor. Existen ya iniciativas desde la sociedad civil para impedir legalmente que estas fusiones se concreticen. (http://goo.gl/9006sd). Finalmente se trata de la alimentación de todos.

* investigadora del Grupo ETC
Fuente: http://www.lahaine.org/mundo.php/argentina-despues-del-golpe-blando-1

Comparte este contenido:

EE.UU: Monsanto’s Evil Twin: Disturbing Facts About the Fertilizer Industry

12 DE ABRIL DE 2016 / TRUTH-OUT.ORG/Por: Por Martha Rosenberg y Ronnie Cummins , Organic Consumers Association | Análisis de noticias

Resumen: ¿Qué sabe usted acerca de la industria de los fertilizantes químicos en todo el mundo? Si usted es como la mayoría de la gente, no mucho. Hay un montón de cobertura de la prensa y de sensibilización de los consumidores cuando se trata de alimentos y cultivos genéticamente modificados, y los riesgos ambientales de los plaguicidas y medicamentos para animales, pero de la industria de los fertilizantes, no tanto, a pesar de ser el mayor segmento de la agroindustria corporativa con al menos 175 $ millones de dólares en ventas anuales, y la mayor fuerza destructiva de contaminar el medio ambiente, lo que altera el clima y la salud pública. Aprender los hechos sobre los fertilizantes químicos y las empresas que los producen le dará una razón más para boicotear los alimentos químicos, granjas industriales y elegir los productos orgánicos de origen animal. Según las normas orgánicas establecidas por el Departamento de Agricultura de Estados Unidos (USDA) se prohíben el uso de fertilizantes químicos, pesticidas, transgénicos, o medicamentos para animales. En esta noticia se plantean cuestiones ambientales y regulatorios inquietantes sobre la transnacional de Monsanto: 1.) es la industria más grande de fertilizantes químicos y agroalimentaria mundial; 2.) Fracking ha alcanzado para los EE.UU. un enorme Productor nitrógeno de fertilizantes; 3.) Koch Industries es un líder de Fertilizantes; 4.) de fertilizantes químicos «Aplicación» es a menudo el autocontrol de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA); 5.) El nitrógeno de fertilizantes contamina el medio ambiente y el agua potable; 6.) Fertilizantes nitrogenados trabajadores daño y comunidades; 7.) Los fertilizantes químicos destruir la capacidad natural de los suelos para secuestrar el exceso de CO2 atmosférico; 8.) Las emisiones de óxido nitroso de los fertilizantes químicos son una gran contaminante y gases de efecto invernadero persistente. La situación es grave cuando entendemos que dos tercios del suministro de agua potable de Estados Unidos están contaminados con altos niveles de nitratos o nitritos cancerígenos, casi todos de uso excesivo de fertilizantes nitrogenados sintéticos. Algunos pozos públicos tienen nitrógeno a un nivel tan alto que es peligroso e incluso mortal para los niños beban agua del grifo. El fertilizante de nitrógeno es también el mayor contribuyente a las famosas «zonas muertas» en el Golfo de México, la Bahía de Chesapeake, las costas de California y Oregon, y otros 400 lugares en todo el mundo. Dado que se utilizó muy poco de fertilizante de nitrógeno sintético antes de 1950, todos los daños que vemos se produjo hoy en día en los últimos 60 años. Nitratos excesivas de agua, común en las zonas productoras de maíz de los EE.UU. potable, se sabe que causan mortal «bebé azul «síndrome en los bebés, y se han relacionado con el cáncer en adultos. En combinación con los residuos de herbicidas como la atrazina de Syngenta, nitratos se vuelven aún más tóxico , que puede causar daño cerebral y trastornos hormonales.

Artículo original:

There’s plenty of press coverage and consumer awareness when it comes to genetically engineered food and crops, and the environmental hazards of pesticides and animal drugs. But the fertilizer industry? Not so much — even though it’s the largest segment of corporate agribusiness, and a major destructive force in disrupting the climate and damaging public health.

What do you know about the worldwide chemical fertilizer industry? If you’re like most people, not much.

There’s plenty of press coverage and consumer awareness when it comes to genetically engineered food and crops, and the environmental hazards of pesticides and animal drugs. But the fertilizer industry? Not so much — even though it’s the largest segment of corporate agribusiness ($175 billion in annual sales), and a major destructive force in polluting the environment, disrupting the climate, and damaging public health.

Learning the facts about chemical fertilizers and the companies who produce them will give you yet another reason to boycott chemical/GMO/factory farmed foods and choose organic and grassfed animal products instead. Remember, organic standards established by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibit the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, GMOs, or animal drugs.

Here’s a list of underreported facts that raise disturbing environmental and regulatory questions about Monsanto’s Evil Twin — the chemical fertilizer industry. 1.) Chemical Fertilizer Is the Largest Industry in Global Agribusiness According to the ETC group, a watchdog organization that researches the socioeconomic and ecological impacts of industrial agriculture and GMOs, the world’s seven dominant pesticide, GM, and seed companies (including Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, Bayer, and Syngenta) represent a $93 billion market. The global, energy-intensive chemical fertilizer industry is almost twice as large, at $175 billion.

Like most of the other multinational players in Big Food Inc., the fertilizer industry has secretive, vertical or «cartel» like qualities that obscure operations and make regulation difficult. Increasingly, seed and GMO companies, farm equipment producers, pesticide/herbicide makers and crop and soil data producers work in each others’ interest seamlessly and behind the scenes, according to ETC.

As ETC points out: «With combined annual revenue of over $385 billion, these companies call the shots. Who will dominate the industrial food chain? And what does it mean for farmers, food sovereignty and climate chaos?» Industrially mined phosphorus and potash, along with synthetic nitrogen, are major components of the fertilizer industry. Up to 85 percent of the world’s known phosphate rock reserves are located in Morocco. About 70 percent of potash comes from former Soviet states and Canada.    2.) Fracking Has Made the US a Huge Nitrogen Fertilizer Producer In recent years, US production of nitrogen fertilizer has boomed thanks to the falling price of natural gas used in its production. The reason for the cheap gas of course is fracking — the process of extracting gas from rock formations by bombarding them with pressurized water spiked with toxic chemicals. Unfortunately, fracking releases large amounts of climate disrupting methane and toxic chemical laden fracking liquids which can permanently pollute underground aquifers.

That’s bad for the environment — but good for fertilizer companies. Thanks to low natural gas prices, after decades of importing nitrogen fertilizer from the Middle East, the number of US nitrogen fertilizer plants is growing. The three leading domestic producers — Koch Industries, Orascom Construction Industries and CF Industries — are reaping the benefits. Who’s driving demand for all this nitrogen fertilizer? Monsanto.

Between 2005 and 2010, US growers of genetically engineered corn, largely for GMO animal feed and ethanol, increased their nitrogen fertilizer use by one billion pounds. New nitrogen fertilizer plants are being situated close to the corn and soybean growers to feed demand more efficiently. «It is a highly concentrated and oligopolistic-type industry,» says Glen Buckley, a fertilizer industry consultant who spent 30 years working at CF Industries, based in Deerfield, Ill. 3.) Koch Industries Is a Fertilizer Leader In 2010, Koch Industries was named «the world’s third-largest maker and marketer of nitrogen fertilizer,» according to the Wichita Eagle. Koch, which along with Monsanto is one of the most hated corporations in the US, is infamous for its support of extreme right-wing politicians and climate deniers. Koch Industries is part of a large system «of buying, leasing, upgrading and expanding fertilizer manufacturing, trading and distribution facilities worldwide.» It controls over 65 terminals «where it wholesales nitrogen fertilizer to co-ops and grain elevators for sale to farmers, as well as selling to the chemical industry,» reported the Eagle.  Not surprisingly, Koch’s fertilizer unit, called Koch Agronomics, has drawn the ire of environmentalists.  Pollution is «strictly monitored and legally permitted by federal, state and local governments,» Steve Packebush, president of Koch Fertilizer and vice president for nitrogen for Koch Industries told the Eagle. But how strict are those guidelines, really?  4.) Chemical Fertilizer «Enforcement» Is Often Self-Monitoring The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges the severe harm nitrogen fertilizer does to waterways, including to marine life and humans. Yet the agency’s «enforcement» of harmful excessive farm runoff sounds a lot like an honor system.

Asked how National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which allow farming operations to discharge nitrogen, are «enforced,» the EPA says, «The permit will require the facility to sample its discharges and notify EPA and the state regulatory agency of these results. In addition, the permit will require the facility to notify EPA and the state regulatory agency when the facility determines it is not in compliance with the requirements of a permit. EPA and state regulatory agencies also will send inspectors to companies in order to determine if they are in compliance with the conditions imposed under their permits.» Self-monitoring by private industry is of course a government trend across the board. In the late 1990’s the government rolled out the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) program which took away the majority of those «pesky» federal meat inspectors’ duties and allowed Big Meat to self-police its own slaughterhouses. Sometimes US meat inspectors were openly defied and laughed at. HACCP was quickly dubbed Have a Cup of Coffee and Pray. Meat inspectors identified greater amounts of feces and contamination in meat soon after the program was instituted. Since then, self-policing by food producers has only been expanded. 5.) Nitrogen Fertilizer Pollutes the Environment and Drinking Water As most people know, nitrogen runoff from non-organic farms and feedlots into waterways causes hypoxic conditions — lack of oxygen — which regularly kill fish in shocking quantities.

Two-thirds of the US drinking water supply is contaminated at high levels with carcinogenic nitrates or nitrites, almost all from excessive use of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. Some public wells have nitrogen at such a high level that it is dangerous and even deadly for children to drink the tap water.

Nitrogen fertilizer is also the greatest contributor to the infamous «dead zones» in the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay, the coasts of California and Oregon, and 400 other spots around the world. Since very little synthetic nitrogen fertilizer was used before 1950, all of the damage we see today occurred in the last 60 years. Excessive nitrates in drinking water, common in the corn-growing areas of the US, are known to cause deadly «blue baby» syndrome in infants, and have been linked to cancer in adults. In combination with herbicide residues such as Syngenta’s atrazine, nitrates become even more toxic, potentially causing brain damage and hormone disruption.

In some rural areas, fertilizer pollution levels are 10 times beyond so-called «allowable levels,» although golf courses and homeowner fertilizer and pesticide use in urban areas also contribute to the problem. Last fall, the Des Moines Water Works sued three neighboring farming counties over their nitrate discharges but, reported the Associated Press, «the litigation has provoked intense criticism from Iowa’s powerful agricultural industry, which argues that farmers are already taking voluntary measures to control them.» 6.) Nitrogen Fertilizers Harm Workers and Communities Anhydrous ammonia, a nitrogen compound compressed into a clear, colorless liquid for easy application, is extremely dangerous to workers and neighboring communities. It poses explosion and fire hazards as well as respiratory risks.

«It [Anhydrous ammonia] must be stored and handled under high pressure, requiring specially designed and well-maintained equipment,» says the University of Minnesota’s extension site. «In addition, to ensure their safety, workers must be adequately educated about the procedures and personal protective equipment required to safely handle this product.» In 2013, an anhydrous ammonia explosion and fire at the West Fertilizer Company storage near Waco, Texas, killed 15 and injured 160, and caused 150 buildings to be razed. (At the time, Governor Rick Perry was in Chicago recruiting businesses to relocate in Texas, where safety regulations were more lax and would not cut into their profits.) In 2006, railroads asked to be relieved of their common carrier obligation to haul fertilizer products like anhydrous ammonia or to be protected by a liability cap. Accidents like last year’s in South Carolina, where people within a 1.5- mile radius of a derailed train carrying ammonium nitrate and anhydrous ammonium were evacuated, occur regularly. Yet the Fertilizer Institute trade group says «The historically high safety record of anhydrous ammonia transport by rail has been achieved over the years by the fertilizer industry, the railroads and tank car manufacturing and leasing companies working in a close cooperative effort.»

7.) Chemical Fertilizers Destroy the Soils’ Natural Ability to Sequester Excess Atmospheric CO2 According to GMO no-till advocates, adding nitrogen fertilizer to soil, is supposedly «climate friendly» because it allegedly helps crops draw CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it in the soil as organic carbon. But University of Illinois soil scientists disputed this view in «The Myth of Nitrogen Fertilization for Soil Carbon Sequestration,» a research paper published in the Journal of Environmental Quality:

«…excessive [fertilizer] application rates cut profits and are bad for soils and the environment. The loss of soil carbon has many adverse consequences for productivity, one of which is to decrease water storage. There are also adverse implications for air and water quality, since carbon dioxide will be released into the air, while excessive nitrogen contributes to the nitrate pollution problem.»

Not surprisingly, much of the organic carbon decline the researchers identified occurred in the fertilized soil found in corn belts. The ETC group agrees with the University of Illinois researchers.

There is growing recognition that synthetic fertilizers are a major contributor to climate-destroying greenhouse gases (GHG). The estimated cost of environmental damage from reactive nitrogen emissions is between $70 billion and $320 billion in the European Union alone.»

8.) Nitrous Oxide Emissions From Chemical Fertilizers Are a Major and Persistent Greenhouse Gas Pollutant

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is responsible for approximate 5 percent of all US greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Nitrous oxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth’s nitrogen cycle, and has a variety of natural sources. However, human activities such as agriculture, fossil fuel combustion, wastewater management, and industrial processes are increasing the amount of N2O in the atmosphere.

The primary cause of N2O contamination of the atmosphere are the nitrogen fertilizers used in industrial (non-organic) agriculture.

Nitrous oxide molecules, in comparison to other greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane, stay in the atmosphere for a very long time, an average of 114 years. NO2 also has much more potent heat-trapping characteristics. The impact of one pound of N2O on warming the atmosphere is 300 times that of one pound of carbon dioxide.

Although transportation, industry and energy producers are significant and well-recognized GHG polluters, few people understand that the worst US greenhouse gas emitter is «Food Incorporated,» industrial food and farming. Industrial food and farming accounts for a huge portion of US greenhouse gas emissions. EPA’s ridiculously low estimates range from 7 percent to 12 percent, but some climate scientists believe the figure could be as high as 50 percent or more. Industrial food and farming also destroys the natural capacity of plants and soils to sequester atmospheric carbon.

Many climate scientists now admit that they have previously drastically underestimated the dangers of the non-CO2 GHGs, including nitrous oxide, which are responsible (along with methane) for at least 20 percent of global warming.

Nearly all nitrous oxide pollution comes from dumping billions of pounds of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and sewage sludge on farmland (chemical fertilizers and sludge are banned on organic farms and ranches), mainly to grow animal feed or produce ethanol. Given that about 80 percent of US agriculture is devoted to producing factory-farmed meat, dairy and animal feed, reducing agriculture GHGs means eliminating the over-production and over-consumption of factory-farmed meat and animal products.

The most climate-damaging greenhouse gas poison used by industrial farmers is synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. Pesticide manufacture and use are also serious problems, which generate their own large share of GHGs during manufacture and use (more than 25 billion pounds per year). But, about six times more chemical fertilizer is used than toxic pesticides on US farms.

German chemical corporations developed the industrial processes for the two most widely used forms of synthetic nitrogen in the early 1900s. But until World War II, US use of synthetic nitrogen as a fertilizer was limited to about 5 percent of the total nitrogen applied. Up until that time most nitrogen inputs came from animal manures, composts and fertilizer (cover) crops, just as it does on organic farms today.

During the Second World War, all of the European powers and the US greatly expanded their facilities for producing nitrogen for bombs, ammunition and fertilizer for the war effort. Since then, both the use of nitrogen fertilizer and bomb-making capacity have soared. By the 1990s, more than 90 percent of nitrogen fertilizer used in the US was synthetic.

According to the USDA, the average US nitrogen fertilizer use per year from 1998 to 2007 was 24 billion 661 million pounds. To produce that nitrogen, the manufacturers released at least 6.7 pounds of GHG for every pound produced. That’s 165 billion, 228 million pounds of GHGs spewed into the atmosphere every year, just for the manufacture of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. Most of those emissions are nitrous oxide, the most damaging emissions of US agriculture.

Regenerative Organic Farming and Ranching Can Drastically Reduce GHG Emissions

The currently catastrophic, but largely unrecognized, greenhouse gas damage from chemical farms and industrial food production and distribution must be reversed. This will require wholesale changes in farming practices, government subsidies, food processing and handling. It will require the conversion of millions of chemical farms, feedlots and CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) to organic production. It will require the establishment of millions of urban backyard and community gardens.   If we carried out a full environmental impact statement on industrial and factory farming synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use, we would never give these practices a permit for agricultural use. Ironically, although factory farming is responsible for more GHGs than any other US industry, it will not be regulated under proposed EPA regulations designed to limit GHGs, unless citizens demand it. We must demand that methane pollution from factory farms and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer pollution on chemical farms be highly taxed and regulated in the short term, and phased out, as soon as possible. We must substitute instead cover crops, compost and compost tea, as currently utilized in organic farming and ranching.

In the meantime, consumers should boycott all foods and products emanating from Monsanto and its Evil Twin: the chemical fertilizer industry.

Fuente: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35575-monsanto-s-evil-twin-disturbing-facts-about-the-fertilizer-industry

Comparte este contenido:
Page 13 of 13
1 11 12 13