Nitrogen pollution is poisoning waterways. In Iowa, where the problem is the worst, only 25% of waterways are healthy [1]. I travelled through there recently and anecdotally counted 4 out of 5 lakes as poisoned, with 2 of 5 completely poisoned (so green with algae - it looked like grass you could walk on. There were dead ducks floating in them).
CO2 drives greenhouse effect. To my knowledge, C02 eeenrichment of plants does not come close to offsetting the overall addition of CO2. If it did, why are atmospheric CO2 ppm counts going up?
What did you mean by "just find a new greenfield instead"? I assumed you were saying that nitrogen and carbon dioxide pollution impaired the fertility of fields, which is obviously untrue. Suppose you're suffering from nitrogen pollution, giving you increased crop yields. Why would you switch to a new, lower-yield field?
'Greenfield' as in the programmer terminology. Essentially a new location, untouched virgin land. Sorry to mix terminologies, that would have been ambiguous.
Nitrogen pollution is from the nitrogen that blows and runs off of farms. It is a staggering amount: "globally farmers apply around 115 million tonnes of nitrogen to our crops every year. Only around 35% of this is used by them, meaning 75 million tonnes of nitrogen runs off into our rivers, lakes and natural environments. This is our “excess nitrogen”. It is quite staggering that almost two-thirds of our applied nitrogen becomes an environmental pollutant." [1]
I talked to a compost expert recently. He claimed if the nitrogen were fermented first to be bio available, it would require less and no longer be a pollutant. There are solutions, but until then farmers just accept that one third of nitrogen applied actually makes it into the farm soil
CO2 drives greenhouse effect. To my knowledge, C02 eeenrichment of plants does not come close to offsetting the overall addition of CO2. If it did, why are atmospheric CO2 ppm counts going up?
[1] https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/03/15/more-than-half-of...