Hi Steve,

reading through the paper a number of value statements regarding the value
of technology. They give the example of maize production rising by 3 times
in the last one hundred years due to new hybrid strains. The emphasis of the
paper is on sustainability. 

Now in my opinion the issue of technology is not directly the issue that
sustainability is dealing with. One could also say that hybrid strains are
not sustainable because these strains cannot produce much yield without lots
of irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides. That part of the issue of
sustainability is what is the focus right now due to declining acquifers.

Many traditional crops like wheat, millet, and quinua for instance are not
adapted to require any irrigation where there are adequate precipitation,
and they can even grow well without vast inputs of fertilizers and pesticides. 

Modern farming does not result in the buildup of soils where there are
continous crops as is the case on most farms. In fact continuous cropping is
causing serious depletion of the moisture and nutrient retention capacities
of soils. In the article the idea is introduced about functions which act to
account for degradation and restoration. If these functions are applied in
the practical manner that the authors suggest, then a whole different type
of agriculture would be practiced. This agriculture would utilize mixed
crops, crop rotation, virtual elimination of pesticides, conservation
tillage that does not require herbicides, and soil amelioration techniques
such as green manuring, etc. 

The impact of making progress toward sustainability would thus amount to a
change in the way farming is carried out. There would be no optimization of
inputs based on a simple function of net maximized return (discounting) on
annual investment. The other functions would operate implicitly and to find
revenues for these implicit functions would require a social investment in
the form of a market premium, or tax reduction, or some type of subsidy.
This would be difficult to achieve when these instruments are already being
used. People do pay a premium for good quality food through the grading of
meats, fruits and vegetables. We have in place toxicity testing for residues
to also ensure that the quality of the food is good. 

So we would have to eliminate a subsidy (a perverse one) to introduce new
incentive that is not yet in there in the market sense. Of course people now
will pay more for organic produce, but all too often this is supplied by the
'household' domestic economy and not through the major food suppliers. To
create a supply of organic foods then we would have to eliminate a preverse
subsidy, and this may take some political negotiating to accomplish. The
subsidies on the growing and production of corn ethanol would have to go in
my opinion. This is a perverse subsidy and to replace this product we would
have to import a subsistute like ethonal from cane that Brazil has a lot of
for sale. 

We would have to ensure that certifiable foods can be produced for a profit
as well. Now that may seem very difficult but in fact it is not. The
benefits of using grains to reduce water demand is really a good idea
because of the cost of treating and finding water in the US for instance. In
Canada there is a lot of water, but it is not for sale, and there is no
reason why the water in the US cannot be managed better where it occurs. So
to conserve water we need to ensure that some limits are placed on certain
crops. For instance cotton and rice should not be grown in California
because these two crops account for 30 % of the state water use, but only 2
% of the state agricultural revenue. 

In Canada it is not practical to grow wheat in the boreal forests due to wet
and cold summers  but some farmers do anyway and lose out. The markets for
barley is not as good for some reason but barley grows in colder climates,
so we need to devise strategies on how to optimize the outputs of grains on
the basis of regional opportunities and successes. This takes a lot of skill
for nations, and marketing experts. 

There are many examples where technologies can be utilized to improve the
resources of soil and water, but the poorest use of soil and water is to use
it for growing crops that are used to power RVs as is the case with ethanol
from corn. That ethonal is takes more water than the ethanol can pump from
the ground. It takes over 90 thousand liters to grow one hectare of corn.
and how much ethanol can we make? Well the answer is that in terms of net
energy produced, there is about a 4 % gain, but that takes 90 thousand
liters of water which is wasted after it infiltrates with pesticides and
fertilizers. 

Anway there are other examples of perverse subsidies. 

John 














At 03:34 PM 7/25/00 -0700, Steve wrote:
>A week or so ago I sent out an e-mail that had a paper in it on
>sustainable development.  I was mildly surprised that there was no
>reaction to it at all.  
>
>(here is the link again)
>http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/mn/wp9642a.pdf
>
>
>Well in reading it I came across this portion which I found very
>interesting.
>
>"Economic Growth and Sustainability
>
>Another controversial issue that comes up in the discussion of sustainable
>growth is the allegation that economic growth and development are the
>cause fo environmental damage.  These arguments often take the form of
>anti-growth postures, with the implication taht environmental damage could
>be reduced or eliminated if we would only foregoe economic development.
>
>There is little evidence for such a position.  Moreover, it tends to be
>mischevious.  At least three issues seem important.  First, a ranking of
>countries by their level of per capita income would tend to show that
>environmental problems are more serious at low levels of of per capita
>income that at high levels.  Second, the "taste" for a cleaner environment
>tends to be associated with higher per capita incomes.  It is only at
>later stages of development that the citizenry begin to demand a cleaner
>environment and greater attention to sustainability issues.  Third,
>economic growth provides the means by which environmental and
>sustainability issues can be addressed.  Thus, given that the world's
>population seems to grow inexorably, the only alternative seems to be to
>promote ecnomic development in sustainable ways, not to forego economic
>growth."  (Page 16)
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>=====
>"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 
>'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come." 
>--Jamey Lee West
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere!
>http://mail.yahoo.com/
>

"When an idea is new, it is seen as crazy. This is followed by a period in
which it is viewed as dangerous. After this, there is a period of
uncertainty. In the end, you can't find anyone who disagreed with it in the
first place".  

Stephen J. Gould



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%