Hacker News Reader

Comment by chiefalchemist | Hacker News Reader

Not nitpicking but to clarify a bit, that study says

"Such blooms are a regular feature of Australian inland waterways and are increasing due to nutrient run-off, reduced river flows and climate change."

So while climate change (i.e., warming in targeted areas) doesn't help, it's more of the final nail in a series of nails we've been driving into Mother Nature's heart.

The idea we could be so negligent and abusive of our own home without repercussions is a great narrative for profits, but not so good for our home.

View on HN

The leading cause of toxic algae blooms like this is nutrient runoff.

The leading cause of nutrient runoff is over-fertilization of industrialized farmland.

I've never heard of climate change associated with these until now, but I've only worked tangentially with these phenomenon, and am not an expert.

You also get algae blooms when the water is warmer, because algae grow faster in warmer water. This leads to less oxygen in the water and less mixing of water layers. Warmer water bodies often occur during drought and that often means more artificial irrigation... https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-har...

> runoff is over-fertilization of industrialized farmland.

And I'd say that the leading cause of that is the increase of world population which necessitates the "industrialized farmland". In other words there's always a balance between more people on this planet vs more wild-life.

partially. Over fertilization, which causes nutrient runoff (by definition wasteful and not cost effective) is not required to grow the amount of food that we grow.

Targeted fertilization or erosion control can both mitigate it by reducing waste, saving money and reducing occurance of side effects at the expense of a reduction fertilizer sales worldwide.

Tech can help here. See precision agriculture and other related topics

Don't think precision agriculture would scale. And even if it would scale, meaning we would theoretically be able to grow a lot more food on a lot less land, it would only mean that we'd grow more food and especially that we'd have even cheaper food. The Jevons paradox is real.

Sure, maybe PA will not scale. But re: over-production and runoff of nutrients, tech can help, as evidenced by small-scale experiments in PA.

There's nothing about PA that guarantees more food from less land. It may. The goal I've seen is same food with less waste.

Like insulating your coffee machine. it doesn't produce more coffee, but it uses less electricity.

Compounding factors.

> a great narrative for profits

Pollution from Soviet collective farms isn't any better.

Does that not still boil down to profits? Political, financial or something else the system demanded?

No, "something the system demands" is not a useful definition of anything. "The system" demands people have food to eat. Survival is not profit in any meaningful sense.

The parent used the term profits to distinguish free-market and state-controlled activities, and to assert that state-controlled food production has historically been just as environmentally damaging.

Consider what I was replying to, which laid pollution at the doorstep of profits.

Thanks for this clarification.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com