No Man is an Island
Like it or not, we cannot live out our lives apart from nature. Scientists from all of the subdisciplines of ecology have independently come to the same conclusion; namely, that all of life on earth is linked either directly or indirectly to each other in mutually dependent life-renewing cycles. It is the foundation upon which that science is built. Without our interference, life would go on in an equitable manner, with all the life forms living within a given eco-zone sharing their part of the energy budget provided to them each day by the sun. We have always been part and parcel of that scheme, but only recently in our history, just over the last fifty years or so, have we come to appreciate these intimate connections from a formal, scientific perspective. Today, we find ourselves looking around somewhat embarrassed, wondering why we have been so unfair to the rest of the life forms on the planet. Not all human societies have behaved that way, however. Many native cultures that depend solely upon nature for their livelihood have survived quite well without the benefit of modern technology, for example, the Australian Aborigines in Arnhem Land and the Yanomami of Brazil. They learned to live in balance with their environment by closely observing their surroundings, and have established long-term relationships with the life forms that comprise their world. To them, spoiling nature would be tantamount to committing suicide at the societal level. Destroying the very thing that keeps them alive would never even occur to them. Most natural cultures have no word for garbage or waste, for example. Many societies that did not realize this intrinsic relationship perished long ago, as author Jared Diamond describes in his book Collapse. Overharvesting and greed translate to extinction in any language. As some cultures grew in numbers, their biological needs increased disproportionately. They now had the capacity for advanced reasoning and creativity, and used these two intellectual attributes to invent farming, and eventually the rest of our technology-driven world.
Connectivity
Nonetheless, despite all of our cleverness, the connections between us and the rest of the world remain strong and immutable. The air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we consume are examples of our ties to natural processes that help us survive, even today in the most sophisticated, advanced societies. Nature ensures that these things are made available and are safe to consume. In contrast, we who live in the techno-sphere have consciously chosen not to integrate our lives with nature, at the expense of the biosphere. Fortunately, we have not yet learned to directly control the hydrological cycle or any of the other biogeochemical cycles that ensure that matter gets reused. Once again, it’s the science of ecology that has redefined these natural cycling processes in terms of services. They have both intrinsic and apparently economic value as well; it is estimated that all the ecological services on earth may be worth as much as $60 trillion. These services are sometimes referred to as “natural capital” by some who feel the need to put a dollar figure on the very processes that keep us alive. In my view, the things that life on Earth have evolved into—that reinforce processes that keep us all alive—are absolutely essential, and therefore to couch their worth to us in terms of money is crass and degrades the concept of life itself. It is obviously a character flaw in the human genome and, I would imagine, also highly offensive to the rest of the organisms who all share a common evolutionary ancestry with the first life forms on the planet. The need to reduce all of nature to an economic paradigm is indicative of our need to anthropomorphize virtually everything to conform to our worldview that we are at its center. Nothing could be further from the truth. How could we have so quickly forgotten the most important lesson of all, taught to us by none other than Copernicus: The universe does not revolve around us, and neither does the biosphere. Deny and/or ignore our relationships with the rest of the world and we will surely perish. That is the simple truth.
All of the available scientific evidence points to the fact that the most destructive force on earth is our penchant for encroaching into natural systems, mostly for the purpose of producing more food. But, locked into our present mode of food procurement, what choice do we have? We have indeed become trapped, held prisoner by our own device (shades of “Hotel California”), locked into an ancient, outdated system of food production that requires us to use more and more land to address the demands of a rising human population. If we continue down this dead-end road, then Malthus will indeed have been correct, if a tad premature in his predictions. Unless, of course, another set of technological breakthroughs once again comes to the rescue and pulls us off the tracks of impending doom. However, what is most required at this point in our history is not yet another quick techno-fix, but rather a permanent overhaul in the way we behave as a species. I believe there must be ways to satisfy both our needs and the needs of those creatures who do us no harm. I think that creating sustainable food-generating systems within the urban landscape would be an excellent first step, and would solve a number of problems associated with environmental destruction. A city-based agricultural system would allow us to carry out our lives without further damaging the environment. In fact, by relieving a sizable portion of the land of its food-production obligations, we would become two-time winners; we’d still get our food, and we would begin to regenerate the ecological services we unwittingly forfeited when we encroached into natural systems for the sake of our own benefit without any thought to much else.
Doomsday will have to wait, I’m afraid, barring some catastrophic hit from a Manhattan-size meteor or the sun unexpectedly going supernova on us, for what I am about to present in detail is a realistic, workable solution addressing food production and environmental repair. By applying state-of-the-art controlled-environment agricultural technologies as an integrated system contained within a multistory building—vertical farming—the world could rapidly become a much better place to welcome the next generation of humans. City life is what we are all about, and creating a balanced coexistence with the rural remainder is not only achievable, but highly desirable and economically viable. Considering the cost of addressing rapid climate change in the $70–80 trillion range (The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change), which is the total value of ecological services on this planet, and urban farming in tall buildings becomes, please pardon the cliché, a “no-brainer.”
The advantages of growing the majority of our crops inside the city limits in vertical farms are listed in the table. Many of them also apply to controlled-environment agriculture in single-story greenhouses. The differences relate to food harvesting, storage, and shipping issues, as well as to the size of their respective ecological footprints. Almost all high-tech greenhouses lie well outside the city limits, because, as pointed out, land is much cheaper there. The farther away food production gets from the urban center, however, the larger its ecological footprint. Undoubtedly there are many other good reasons for establishing vertical farms that will become apparent after a few are up and running. Over the years, I have brainstormed at length about the idea and have, so far, come up with no significant disadvantages, save for the initial costs of construction and the question of what to do about displaced farmers. Even here I think we have viable long-term solutions. For the farmers, I would lobby long and hard for a political solution allowing them to reap the benefits of sequestering carbon. Abandoned farmland rapidly returns to its ecological setting; witness the entire Northeastern portion of the United States. For an elegantly written treatise on this subject, I highly recommend A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold, which documents in lucid, beautifully descriptive language how his father’s farm in Sauk County, Wisconsin, grew back into a hardwood forest. Pricing carbon at its true value would create an economic incentive for farmers, most of whom are on the edge of eking out a living, to finally make a decent wage and at the same time help to restore damaged ecosystems. Allowing the trees to grow back would help slow down climate change by sequestering carbon from the atmosphere, and would also increase the biodiversity of impoverished, fragmented woodland. As far as
the expenses incurred in the “invention” of a vertical farm, I would venture to guess that any first edition of an invention is going to cost a lot. As the invention becomes accepted and demand for it increases, the price of each one will go down. Take any one of our modern conveniences—air travel, the hybrid car, plasma screen televisions, the cell phone, the handheld calculator, for example—and you get the idea. I fully expect that vertical farms will succeed when we realize their true worth, not only for us, but for the rest of nature, as well.
In summary, implementation of the vertical farm employing large-scale hydroponics and aeroponics inside the cityscape is a potential solution for two problems: production of food crops to feed a growing urban population without further damaging the environment, and freeing up farmland and allowing it to return to its ecological setting. In most cases, this means restoration of hardwood forests.
Advantages of the Vertical Farm
Year-round crop production
No weather-related crop failures
No agricultural runoff
Allowance for ecosystem restoration
No use of pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers
Use of 70–95 percent less water
Greatly reduced food miles
More control of food safety and security
New employment opportunities
Purification of grey water to drinking water
Animal feed from postharvest plant material
1. Year-round Crop Production
Since the beginning of agriculture, crop production has been linked to the seasons, even in tropical climates. The time of year and patterns of weather, together with the soil types found there, determine the yield of a particular crop in any region. Failure to produce maximum yields has traditionally been associated with adverse weather conditions that either arrive late in the growing season or are associated with reduced or increased amounts of rainfall. Such has been the case lately for the otherwise highly dependable monsoons. For example, for the last ten years, throughout most of India, the monsoons have been late in coming and too short in duration, but produce the same amount of rainfall. The difference between the past and the present, of course, is that now not enough water soaks into the ground to last the year, and floods are a regular occurrence. As a consequence, topsoil is being lost at an alarming rate, and crop failures abound due to water shortages near the end of the growing season. In many places throughout India, agricultural runoff is out of control. An intense increase in the rate of urbanization for all major urban centers in India, due in large measure to the migration of farmers and their families to the cities, is another unwanted consequence of an erratic monsoon season, and places an even greater burden on municipal services, many of which had already been stretched to the maximum and beyond. Other regions that rely on the monsoons for almost everything associated with water are suffering a similar fate.
The advantage of not having to be concerned with conditions outside is obvious to everyone. It means that a farmer can plan to grow any crop at any time, and anywhere. Not only is this a better, more reliable strategy for sustainable food production, but it also allows the farmer to take advantage of seasonal markets that may permit a crop to be sold at a much higher than normal price. A good example is the sale of tomatoes in Europe each year during the late summer months. When the crops are in season, trade agreements go into effect that favor the sale of local produce. When sales drop off as the season progresses, tariffs go down. This is when controlled-environment agriculture shines, since a farmer in Morocco, for instance, can plant hydroponic tomatoes to mature at just the right time to be able to sell them at their highest prices in Spain, extending the season for tomatoes there until the next year, when the tariffs once again go into effect.
2. No Weather-related Crop Failures
Indoor farmers do not have to pray for rain, or sunshine, or moderate temperatures, or anything else related to the production of food crops, for that matter. That is because they get to control everything: the temperature and humidity, as well as the amount of light and the density of the plants. Over the last few years, there have been catastrophic weather events on a global scale that have permanently altered the way food is produced. Floods, droughts, tornadoes, hailstorms, cyclones, hurricanes, and high winds are some of the reasons why outdoor farming is a precarious occupation at best. In the United States, hurricanes, protracted periods of rain, and droughts have been the main villains. On August 24, 1992, the category 5 Hurricane Andrew ravaged the lower one-third of Florida and left $34 billion in damage in its wake. Most of it was property related, but there was also a significant portion of farmland destroyed. Florida is the second-largest cattle producer in the United States and one of the largest sugarcane growing regions in the Western Hemisphere. The following list of produce was supplied by the State of Florida Department of Agriculture for the year 2005:
56 percent of the total U.S. value of production for oranges ($843 million)
52 percent of the total U.S. value of production for grapefruit ($208 million)
53 percent of the total U.S. value of production for tangerines ($68.4 million)
53 percent of the total U.S. value of production for sugarcane for sugar and seed ($433 million as of 2004)
49 percent of the total U.S. value of sales for fresh market tomatoes ($805 million)
44 percent of the total U.S. value of sales for bell peppers ($213 million)
31 percent of the total U.S. value of sales for cucumbers for fresh market ($73.7 million)
31 percent of the total U.S. value of sales for watermelons ($127 million)
While many well-off Florida farmers were able to recoup their losses via crop insurance, some who were most affected by the storm decided to scrap traditional planting and harvesting methods and reinvent themselves as indoor agriculturists. One strawberry farmer who wishes to remain anonymous decided to replace his now destroyed 30 acre farm by constructing a high-tech greenhouse with a 1 acre footprint. Using hydrostackers, he was able to produce the equivalent of 29 acres’ worth of fruit, with year-round production. He elected to return the rest of his farm to its natural setting by simply leaving it alone. Within two years, the understory had returned and the biodiversity of the land improved dramatically. It’s instructive to remember the old axiom: “Nature abhors a vacuum.” Perhaps this farmer’s main concern now will be how to keep the alligators and water snakes out of the family swimming pool. Everybody, including the wildlife, was finally happy!
As previously discussed, flooding has become a chronic problem throughout much of Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Droughts, too, have recently taken their toll on agricultural productivity, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, the American Southeast, and Australia. Without water to irrigate, farming always fails. Floods and droughts result in loss of topsoil, too, the world’s second most serious agricultural problem after the toxic effects of runoff. Replacing lost soil by natural processes takes years. Indoor soilless crop production using water-conserving hydroponics is the only reasonable approach to avoid this outcome.
3. No Agricultural Runoff
The USDA unequivocally states: “Agricultural nonpoint source pollution is the primary cause of pollution in the U.S.” (http://www.ars.USda.gov/). Even if flooding is not considered, significant runoff from farming still occurs as the result of the majority of irrigation practices (the exception being drip irrigation). Runoff is essentially unpreventable, given the fact that in order to maximize yields with conventional outdoor crop production, almost every plant species requires more water than the amount they receive from rain events. Runoff in most advanced farming operations is laden with silt, fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides, and usually ends up in some river on its way to the estuary. In both of these aquatic environments agrochemicals take their toll on wildlife, including mollusks, crustaceans (shrimp and crabs), and fish. The nitrogen portion of fertilizers scavenges oxygen from the water column, creating a “killing f
ield” for fresh- and saltwater organisms. For this reason, the United States is forced to import nearly 80 percent of its seafood. A similar situation exists in many other places where agriculture is dependent on the heavy use of these environment-altering compounds. What’s more, those organisms that do survive the onslaught of pollution are certain to contain versions of many agrochemicals in their flesh due to bioaccumulation up through the food chain. This has raised havoc with fish and amphibians that breed in freshwater.
California is divided into three agricultural regions: north, central, and south. In the north, land in the Sacramento River basin produces 20 percent of California’s revenue from agriculture and has always had chronic problems associated with urban as well as farm runoff. The Sacramento River supplies some drinking water to San Francisco, and to all other communities in the northern Central Valley, so concern in this case is not just for what happens to the wildlife of the Sacramento estuary. The biggest offender appears to be a pesticide, diazinon, employed as a generic insect control agent on a variety of crops. Coalitions of concerned residents who live within the watershed of that river have brought political pressure to the state government to improve the monitoring of the entire drainage basin. It is an ongoing battle that has public health as its main concern.
The lower half of the agricultural region of California is divided between the central and southern zones. In the south, the Colorado River is diverted to supply water for irrigation in Arizona and California, and then what’s left of it empties into the Gulf of California. The central zone is much larger in area and in crop production. Eleven of the top twenty California counties for agriculture are located there, and the San Joaquin Valley has eight of them. The Central Valley derives its water from many rivers that originate in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Several of them terminate in lakes within the Central Valley, or connect with the Sacramento River. However, none of the rivers in the southern portion of the Central Valley flows through its landscape to the Pacific Ocean, which creates an unusual situation with respect to agricultural runoff. As detailed earlier, the irrigation water simply soaks into the ground. It has nowhere else to go but down. Eventually, à la some Edgar Allan Poe horror story—“The Cask of Amontillado” is the one that comes to mind for me—when the toxin- and salt-saturated water table eventually rises to the level of the deepest taproots, the death knell for the entire region will have sounded, and agriculture as we know it will cease to exist in Steinbeck’s land of milk and honey. If current irrigation practices continue for another twenty-five to thirty years, California will begin to feel the effects of this impending disaster. Losing all of its crop-growing potential could cost that state as much as $30–50 billion in annual agricultural revenue. All of the damage caused by runoff can be prevented by shifting to an indoor cultivation strategy. The water used to grow food inside could even be re-circulated and used again and again, provided that nutrients are replaced at the same rate that they are taken up by the hydroponically grown plants.
The Vertical Farm Page 10