什么是气候智能型农业?

引用您现在可能已经听说过“气候智能型农业”。这是本周联合国气候峰会的口号,也是我来纽约参加关于如何在气候变化的世界中为日益增长的人口实现粮食安全的小组讨论的原因。

20多个国家的政府和30个组织宣布将加入新成立的全球气候智能农业联盟,该联盟旨在使全球5亿农民从事气候智能农业。太好了但这在实际中是什么意思?

My colleagues 和 I have been asking 我们的selves this question since the concept was originally introduced by the UN’s Food 和 Agriculture Organization in 2010. Over the past four years, we’ve done some hard thinking on which practices, precisely, will get us to a point where we can keep pace with the food demands of a growing global population increase the resiliency of 我们的 food systems to the harsh impacts of 气候变化.

定义流行语

现代农民 简而言之,“每个人都同意气候变化已经并将对农业产生灾难性的或至少是巨大的影响”,但每个人不一定都同意采取适当的行动。

我们在定义和订阅可以开始实现气候智能型农业的一系列下一步工作方面取得了一些实质性进展。

加州稻田

加州稻田

首先,我们需要找到根本原因。 我们需要鼓励农民放弃或大大减少对增加温室气体排放量的做法的依赖。毕竟,如果我们不努力减缓气候变化,那么适应气候变化又有什么意义呢?通过减少当今的温室气体排放,我们减少了未来适应需求的可能性和频率。

我们已经在加利福尼亚州看到了这种情况的例子,加利福尼亚州空气资源委员会已在该州发布了开发该飞机的标准草案。 碳补偿 适用于希望通过减少温室气体排放获得信贷的农民。通过减少稻谷种植产生的甲烷量,加利福尼亚稻农可以产生碳信用额度,该信用额可以出售给公司以抵消其碳排放量,从而为农民带来新的收入来源并减少了总体排放量。

接下来,我们需要重新考虑日常业务。 Current 农业 strategies are not going to cut it in a world with more mouths to feed 和 more unpredictable climate conditions. With more frequent 和 severe weather events, transforming landscapes 和 increasingly unreliable supplies of water 和 other inputs, we need strategies that are more flexible, efficient 和 adaptable than ever before.

Mike De Smet是新墨西哥州的有机原料奶农

Mike De Smet是新墨西哥州的有机原料奶农

在新墨西哥州,有机的原始奶农Mike De Smet拥有 应对干旱 通过提高效率。他已经对所有田地进行了激光平整,并过渡到免耕和最低耕种,以支持牧群的生产力并节约用水。通过提高灌溉效率和管理水平,迈克希望在未来五年内将其畜群增加到满负荷(约100头),同时节水。

最后,我们需要获得高科技。 为了减少温室气体排放并提高效率,我们需要对可帮助农民实现这一目标的新技术进行大量投资。

在俄亥俄州,肥料径流在 伊利湖 威胁到清洁饮用水,娱乐和公共卫生,正在开发新的工具和技术,以帮助农民优化肥料的应用,以最大程度地减少空气和水中的养分流失,同时增加或保持产量。我们共同开发了平台(例如Adapt Network),用于测试氮,磷的速率,时间和位置,以提高效率并减少污染。

考虑到接下来的三个步骤,我相信我们可以在实现气候智能型农业方面取得重大进展。

We also have to remember that, while the term may be relatively new, there are countless farmers out there already practicing climate-smart 农业.  Sustainability is 和 always has been at the core of what farmers, ranchers 和 other producers do as daily stewards of 我们的 working lands. Many of them have already proven that these climate-smart practices not only help reduce emissions 和 increase efficiencies, but also increase yields 和, ultimately, revenue.

既然我们已获得联合国的明确承诺,我期待有一天,希望在不久的将来,我们在全球范围内实现了气候智能型农业。

此条目发布在 气候适应力, 生态系统, 可持续农业, 西部水和tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 。收藏 永久链接。目前,评论和引用均已关闭。

评论

  1. 詹姆斯·马洛尼
    发表于2014年9月29日上午11:58 | 固定链接

    肖博士指出自己显然对食物系统感到担忧“we’ve done some hard thinking on which practices, precisely, will get us to a point where we can keep pace with the food demands of a growing global population 和 increase the resiliency of 我们的 food systems to the harsh impacts of 气候变化.”我同意食品体系需要改革,但我反对她的评估是因为她使用了复数人称代词“us” 和 “we.” We should radically reduce 我们的 consumption of meat 和 we should increase 我们的 consumption of fish 和 we need significant investments in new 和 developing technologies etc. lack an antecedent for exactly whom “we” refers to. “We”包括消费者和农民,共和党和民主党议员,饲料,设备和肥料制造商,营养学家,学者,学生,所有社会经济阶层以及所有国家和种族的人们。即使目前假设他们都可以平等地获取您所写的信息,并且都知道农业的状况,他们也不会都同意您的分析,即问题出在哪里或您做出正确的选择。我不建议您不知道这一点,只是让您的读者(也许是默认情况下全心投入食品的消费者,或者他们不会占用您的文字)可能并且可能肯定不知道这一点。

    我是一位退休的有机奶农。奶农必须学会寻求来自广泛人群的建议,其中包括联邦政府和州政府,大学推广机构和贸易杂志,其中没有一个人将喂养人群作为其首要目标。农民也不是。他们的首要也是唯一的优先考虑是生存。

    佛蒙特州是唯一“farming”在新英格兰州,我们是一个虚拟的岛屿:我们三边都有水,还有一片广阔的农业沙漠,从我们的南部边界一直延伸到新泽西州或宾夕法尼亚州。但是我们不“feed the world”我们没有能力,也没有任何责任。我们甚至不养活自己。同样,我并不是要暗示您不知道这一点。但是,您不必用地缘政治的方式来界定或圈定您所讨论的问题,然后基于我们很快将在地球上拥有9B人员的理由,为整个世界规定一个单一的解决方案。“we” have to feed them. This is a conceit. There are three spheres of 农业: the world, whose nutritional problems are unimaginably vast 和 most probably intractable, the nation, whose nutritional problems are merely maddeningly intertwined with 我们的 politics 和 therefore contentious 和 Vermont, whose agricultural problems are complex but not unmanageable. Vermont, with a population of only 600,000 people, considers itself a 农业 state. We too comprise farmers, legislators, feed, equipment 和 fertilizer dealers, nutritionists, academics, students 和 people of all socio-economic classes 和 yet we do not have consensus on the food 和 water crisis or what should be done about it. That is largely because (i) Vermonters are still in thrall to the Jeffersonian agrarian ideal, which prevents 我们的 thinking realistically about what 农业 once was, what it became after WWII 和 what is is today; (ii) few understand that 我们的 regional 农业 和 water quality issues are not decided on the farm or in Montpelier but in Washington 和 (iii) Vermont’的农民,绝大多数是传统的奶农,他们只有600人,即人口的1%的1/10,生产2.6B磅的商品奶,在您意识到这几乎不占全国供应量的1%之前,这似乎是一个很大的数目甚至是常年12B lb国家盈余的四分之一。不方便的事实:如果全部佛蒙特州’的奶农明天就倒闭了,没人会注意到。杂货店仍将白天和黑夜存放其他州的农民损失的牛奶。这与官方规定背道而驰,因为我们的农民必须有远离法规的安全港,因为“they make ‘our’ food 和 keep ‘our’ land open.” Operating from this fallacy, 我们的 legislators have enacted a set of policies which assert that even though we do not provide them with a market, Vermont must subsidize farmers to keep them in business. The most conspicuous results of the $60/80M/year the legislature appropriates for farmers 和 the $10M it spends to clean up after them is the resilience of farm attrition 和 lake pollution, the two problems the appropriation is always intended to address.

    因此,如果像我一样采取框架“Vermont 农业,” then “we” —仍然是一个很大的包容性概念,但比您的要小得多—只需要解决问题“we” face here. I see the problem this way: conventional 农业 was invented after WWII to raise yields 和 lower costs, which it accomplishes by replacing traditional methods of mechanical weed control, soil fertility 和 labor with cheap toxic chemicals, the residues of which it discharges into the environment. The paradigm works but because it over produces its markets, it drives farm prices down, which drives farm attrition, consolidation 和 expansion. That in turn drives greater reliance upon artificial fertilizers 和 herbicides on more land in the annual flood plain 和 therefore more lake pollution. The paradigm was designed to favor urban consumers 和 food manufacturers. Farmers like it because they want naturally enough to raise their own yields 和 lower their own costs. But the paradigm was designed without regard to exogenous systems like water quality 和 the health of the rural economy 和 that is where “we”进入图片。 “We”如果农民想在他们的运营中投资2/300万美元,整天和整夜地工作,以用廉价的牛奶补贴城市居民,应该没有问题。但是传统范式负责污染公地,“we” cannot permit that. That in turn gives society the right to prevent 农业 methods that trespass on the rights of others, which raises fifth Amendment takings issues 和 private property issues, which farmers 和 consumers do not generally understand.

    Organic 农业 was exquisitely invented as an antidote to these problems 和 since it does not allow these toxins 和 nor, as above, do we depend upon Vermont 农业 for 我们的 food, we should demand that if we are going to farm, 和 I strenuously agree that we should, we must convert all 我们的 农场 to organic. But the highest most persistent obstacle to the success of organic is the universal availability in the marketplace of its cheap, environmentally destructive alternative, conventional milk. “We” cannot achieve island status for Vermont organic to say nothing of 我们的 water quality standards unless 和 until “we”淘汰常规乳制品。