WSP08344 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ 1 abandon such systems, we need to consider their potential to produce 2 food in the future, and come to grips with the question of how the popu- 3 lation that survives because of them will be fed when they fail. It's 4 no longer enough to blithely exclaim "hang the cost, if people are .. 5 hungry, let's feed them," for, in reality, we are bein-g generous '.-lith 6 someone else's resource. The fossil energy we expend belongs not only 7 to us, but also to future generations. 8 Failure to count the energy cost is not a unique failing of 9 irrigation system designers. American agricultural scientists often 10 ~ake pride in the tremendous increase in farm productivity they have 11 achieved. But, most gains in productivity have resulted from huge 12 expenditures of energy, not from sheer scientific genius. In a per- 13 manent sense, this expenditure has not solved our problems. It has .' .. 14 simply bought time, delaying the day when we must plan for permanent 15 solutions. We now face a problem that cannot be solved by simply 16 spending more energy. Sooner or later, we must learn to live on our 17 energy interest, not our capital. _,,_.r 18 Although'it is true that green revolution agriculture now requires 19 high energy inputs in terms of fertilizer, water, and pesticides, the 20 rel"-,,ant question is what .is the possible j:eturn in food per unit 21 ene~gy. input when the whole technology package is put together with a 22 goal to conserve energy. It's not enough to extrapolate energy 23 efficiencies from a past where the cost of energy has been ignored. 24 Putting the technological package together elegantly, in a way that 25 ooes not leave out some critical input that causes all others to be 26 wasted, will be necessary to maximize food output per unit energy 27 input. Ineff.icient irrigation that increases the quantity of wat9:r '-,' r nQ ~ L;U~~v~