I have no idea, but you could ask either one of them, I bet they would be happy to tell you. Organic farming/gardening doesn't use fossil fuels, so you get CO2 locked up, rather than released, by the very nature of things.
That's not entirely true, robinson. That's what I meant by my reply. Organic farming still uses fossil fuels as much as an "ordinary" farmer because they still have to work the land just as much as anyone else. Merely because organic farms don't use some forms of pesticides and fertilizers does not in any way mean that they don't use pesticides and fertilizers on their crops. There are many fertilizers and pesticides that qualify as being organic. Also, CO2 is only "locked up" until it's released back into the natural cycle after harvest, just like conventional farming.
If you are doing it right it does.
The only way any type of farming will take carbon out of the cycle is if the inedible portions of the crop are sequestered in such a way that the carbon does not recycle. Otherwise, whatever carbon was trapped in biota will re-enter the biosphere. Sorry.
See? Synthetics and pesticides, as well as livestock additives and any other chemicals all require fossil fuel, for production and transportation. An organic garden reduces Carbon, it doesn't produce any, except for the CO2 you are breathing out when you work on it.
No, sorry. You misinterpreted what you read. The quote states that organic farmers avoid
synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. It does not say that they avoid all pesticides and fertilizers. There's still enough "organic" pesticides and fertilizers used in organic farming that also require the use of fossil fuels that the difference is negligible.
Both men in the article are using solar, wind and organic gardening. The competition is on who can do it best.
Robinson, as much as I respect you, I believe you've fallen prey to the weasel-wording of the organic movement. Solar and wind generation have their costs in polluting industries just as much as any other technology, including pesticides and soil amenders. There really is no going to a monoculture and protecting it with "natural" defenses. Many of the natural defenses are way more toxic than the technological fixes. Many of the crops we enjoy today were too toxic for human consumption before breeders cultivated their modern archetypes.
I think you are confusing the issue. Organic gardening doesn't use carbon fuels to fertilize or kill insects. The net gain is locking up CO2, not producing more of it.
No, robinson, that is plainly not true. Organic farms use organic fertilizers and pesticides which require as much fuel to synthesize, purify and transport as conventional farming. And, the any carbon locked up in the inedible portions of crops is undone as soon as these are plowed under to enrich the soil.
I don't understand your reasoning. Gardening without using fossil fuels not only reduces the CO2, it saves even more fossil fuels because you don't have to buy produce that depends on fossil fuels for cultivation, harvesting, transportation, refrigeration, and other cost involved with agribusiness.
As I've written previously, organic farms use organic pesticides and fertilizer that also need fossil fuels for production and transport. Do you really believe that the soil on organic farms needs no amendment but conventional farms do? Where do the carbon, phosphorous, sulfur, etc come from that are required to produce a vigorous crop? There's no magic in organic farming. The crops still require the very same nutrients and protection as the conventional crops do.
It is a simple point, one that both Begley and Nye seem to grasp.
The main point of the article seems to be a silly race to be "greener'. These two have not made any statements that support your claims. I think you need to do more research into what is acceptable in organic and conventional farming. The two really are quite similar except that one is not as productive as the other.
I guess it must have sprouted out of Zeus' head? Perhaps you're confusing gardening with fantasy?
