Scientific American Earth 3.0 Special Issue: Solutions for Sustainable Progress

Letter to the Editors (Published here in case they do not publish it there)

I do not expect a Scientific American Special Issue on Sustainability to contain an article of such doubtful value as that in Earth 3.0 by Mark Fischetti on Dickson Despommier’s vision of Verticality in the food system. As an agronomist, let me tell you what is wrong and inaccurate about this article. We’ll begin with the text box on Pros and Cons. 1. Fossil fuel for plowing fields and trucking food to market is not needed. Wrong. Are you really suggesting that people may eat only the food produced in their own building? And that a building can produce enough for 365 days of the year? Who will till that soil and with what? 2. Fertilizer and pesticides are eliminated. Wrong. Even hydroponic production requires nutrient inputs, and how many people have had aphids on their houseplants, and had to give them a shot of insecticide? Nature abhors a sterile environment, and pests will come in the revolving door with the residents. Who would want to breathe those pesticides on a daily basis? 3. Crops grow 24 hours a day, year-round, for greater yields. Two fallacies: crops generally ‘dislike’ a 24-hour day (many require a dark period, for physiological reasons) and yields generally follow the dictum energy in, energy out, i.e. requiring high intensity illumination to achieve the necessary photosynthesis. Are you sure you want this on your personal utility bill? 4. Consumers receive fresher food. Do you want to trade a sufficient diet for an apparent gain in some subjective measure of freshness? Other fallacies: ‘Pigs and poultry could be reared there, too’. Heard about the urban types who move out of town and try to rid the rural environment of all those nasty smells? And this sounds like a public health disaster waiting to happen.

I could go on in like vein, but it seems to me that Mr Despommier is a bit of an ostrich, with his head in the sand of ignorance when it comes to judging what doesn’t work in agriculture and what would work in an urban environment. Urban people have become used to a very rich, diverse and sizeable diet. Rural people work hard to supply it. He would like to see urbanites revert to a potato or two, a spinach leaf and a skyscraper factory chicken, now and again. He should be the first to go on this diet.

Sustainability is about the wise and renewable use of resources. It can be done within the current agricultural landscape without all the costs that Mr Despommier would like to see added. There are many possible strategies, in some of which trees must play a part. If you doubt what I say, please see my own blog, where you will also find this letter.