Future of agriculture

This page will contain links to articles and videos about how our agriculture can develop and grow for the future.

Lets start with why this is important to look at. The following study was done by the ETC Group. Who will feed us? Peasant Food Web vs. The Industrial Food Chain.

Farms could slash pesticide use without losses, research reveals



Regeneration International

Cool the Planet. Feed the World.

This Tiny Country Feeds the World

This story appears in the September 2017 issue ofNational Geographic magazine. In a potato field near the Netherlands’ border with Belgium, Dutch farmer Jacob van den Borne is seated in the cabin of an immense harvester before an instrument panel worthy of the starship Enterprise.


A selection of stories from The New Yorker’s archive: Revisiting “Silent Spring”

is a big topic and we have broken it down in specific pages for each area.

EPA – Environment Protection Agency

Climate change

Clean water

is under attack these days by the new administration.

It all started out by removing the ‘Stream Protection Rule’ that was installed to stop coal companies from dumping coal in streams. To most Americans it would sound logical to stop mine companies from polluting streams. There are people living further down that would be affected. Not to mention animals and forests that will be affected. And the rule would only affect about 124 jobs. However, the rule was removed in February 2017.

“Appalachian Voices, an environmental group, estimates that coal companies have buried over 2,000 miles of streams in the region through mountaintop removal mining since the 1990s. And there’s growing evidence that when mining debris and waste gets into water supplies, the toxic metals can have dire health impacts for the people and mostly rural communities living nearby.”


The next one on the chopping block will not be so easy to remove. This one is already approved, but held in courts at the moment. Then Pruitt will have to come up with a better plan that is scientifically based. Without EPA’s scientists I am not sure how he will be able to do that!





Environmental Protection Agency was created on December 2, 1970 by President Nixon. He combined several committees and organized them in to EPA. This was in the wake of “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson and the focus around environment and pollution. Nixon declared that its mission would center on:

  • The establishment and enforcement of environmental protection standards consistent with national environmental goals.
  • The conduct of research on the adverse effects of pollution and on methods and equipment for controlling it; the gathering of information on pollution; and the use of this information in strengthening environmental protection programs and recommending policy changes.
  • Assisting others, through grants, technical assistance and other means, in arresting pollution of the environment.
  • Assisting the Council on Environmental Quality in developing and recommending to the President new policies for the protection of the environment.

What are the consequences of shutting down EPA?

From The Guardian:

“Taken literally, Trump’s proposal to abolish EPA is a recipe for dirty air and legal chaos. EPA doesn’t just invent its regulations out of thin air. It is the agency charged with implementing laws such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which have been passed by Congress. It studies pollutants that are harmful to human health, writes rules to curb those pollutants, and monitors compliance. If Congress abolished EPA but did not repeal the laws that require the federal government to limit pollution, the result would be total incoherence. The government would have legal obligations it could not meet.

As The Guardian explained in a February article:

Scrapping the EPA … would cause an unravelling of basic protections of air and water. …

Robert Percival, director of the environmental law program at the University of Maryland, said ditching the EPA was a “ridiculous idea.”

“It reflects a lack of understanding over the US legal system, you’d have to fundamentally repeal or change all our environmental laws,” he said. …

“Trump is demagoguing. It plays to the far-right base but it would have enormous consequences for people’s health.”

If Trump actually managed to kill EPA, Percival predicts that a race to the bottom would ensue, with states deregulating pollution and toxic chemicals in order to attract dirty industries. But it could be even more chaotic than that: Liberal states, environmental and public health organizations, and affected communities could sue the federal government, arguing it is failing to meet its legal obligations. That could lead to court orders that the executive branch would not be able to comply with unless Congress reestablished the agency or something like it.

Of course, there is a relatively simple solution to this problem, which would be to repeal the pollution-control laws themselves. That would be principled, if unpopular, small-government conservatism (not that Trump is actually an advocate of small government). But Trump and other Republicans haven’t taken that politically risky stance. Most voters may dislike bureaucracy, but they like clean air and clean water.”

EPA in the media

MSNBC: Tip exposes Trump lockdown of EPA, also USDA and other US agencies.

CEPR.net: Donald Trump Promises that Drill Everywhere Energy Plan Will Increase Wages by 0.04 Percent Over Next Seven Years!

DailyKos.com: Trump’s promise to gut environmental regulations may be a more difficult road than he thinks

Climate Change


  1. Climate change is real and yes, it is man-made. Even federal scientists are backing that. Not the politicians.
  2. It is stupid for businesses to avoid making more energy conscious products. In a five to ten years time they will loose their market shares and go bankrupt.
  3. The only ones benefiting temporarily from other companies not investing in energy efficiency, is oil and coal companies. However, that is also a short term reality. Solar and wind is already cheaper than fossil fuels.
  4. U.S. will loose an opportunity to be the leader in the world. Most likely to China.
  5. The U.S. militarily forces are dependent on knowing what is happening with climate change. This is because it will affect their planning of bases, shipments, weather patterns, opening up ship traffic north of Russia etc.
  6. The insurance companies need to know what is likely to happen because they are setting rates for houses being built and for disasters.
  7. Planners for all states that are close to sea have to plan for what to do when the sea level rises. This is already felt in Louisiana, Florida and California. In Florida officials are no longer allowed to say climate change, but they are going to feel the changes over the next 20 years.
  8. The climate change effects will only worsen if we keep using oil and gas as we do today. We need to reduce the pollution.
  9. The CO2 levels are affecting the nutrion in the plants. Hidden shift of the ionome of plants exposed to elevated CO2 depletes minerals at the base of human nutrition.

What would be a wise approach for the U.S.?

Obviously the only way to go is forward. The oil and coal barons of the past will either have to adapt and go in to solar and wind projects or they will be out of a job. Here is what I would do as the CEO of an oil company:

  1. Get an analysis of how oil usage will go if you look forward.
  2. Look at the prospects of all the solar and wind companies that are around. Get expert opinions about the different approaches to harvesting them. The southern states have a lot of sun. The north, more wind. What about mixing technologies?
  3. Buy or join some of these companies and invest in states where the potential is the biggest for income first.
  4. Sell and install for home owners and power farms. The more legs to stand on, the better.
  5. Track markets, nations and continents and see where future investments are worth going in to.
  6. See if it is worth it to go in to projects that might not give a profit today, but testing of new technology might give experience for other markets.


Below is a link to old research on climate change research. You can download the article here.


Research and science

The great thaw of America’s north is coming

Federal report blames humans for global warming and its effects

The full U.S. federal report is here. Please let me know if it is taken down from the site. I have a copy.

Statistics yield better results from climate models

Hidden shift of the ionome of plants exposed to elevated CO2 depletes minerals at the base of human nutrition.

Polar areas

NASA project reveals vulnerability of Greenland glaciers

A project to map Greenland’s coastal glaciers and fjords is under way and the initial results are in. New maps depict Greenland’s coast at an unprecedented level of detail.

The results so far indicate that Greenland’s west coast is more vulnerable to ocean melt than the east coast, according to OMG team member Mathieu Morlighem from the University of California, Irvine, speaking to the Washington Post.


A key Antarctic glacier just lost a huge piece of ice — the latest sign of its worrying retreat