Yes, but I read the article to imply that we were spreading petroleum on our fields, versus the alternative: rotting garbage. If the argument was an energy argument, I would have expected some mention of energy costs associated with composting (orders of magnitude worse than large-scale energy infrastructure)? The comparison wasn't apples-to-apples, and I wanted to clear up the implication.

So, sure, we use energy to create fertilizer. Instead of mining it and shipping it, or going without. Again, if it wasn't the cheaper alternative we wouldn't be doing it.