When Sri Lanka Banned Synthetic Fertilizers, the Country Imploded
reason.comFertilizer is in short supply globally. Sri Lanka is heavily loaded with foreign debt. Being so short on cash and credit, it might not have been able to obtain sufficient fertilizer even without the ban.
The implosion of the country is due to many factors, generally exacerbated by heavy debt load making it less resilient to missteps like with its agricultural policy. It's absurd to say that the collapse was caused by the fertilizer ban.
How’s it absurd when that’s exactly what happened? Sure the foundations weren’t solid - neither are most developing countries.
Another in a long line of disasters this year because of poorly thought out economic policies in the name of environmentalism
It is disappointing that in a supposedly intellectual forum it's necessary to point out that correlation does not imply causation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_c...
Don't you think the environmentalism was used to cover up political incompetence? When I read your comment it sounds like it worked because you take issue with the environmentalists rather than politicians.
You know, there are agricultural practices that reduce the quantity of fertilizer needed through very reasonable methods. Preventing soil erosion also prevents fertilizer run off. That fertilizer that is being flushed away is liquid money being flushed away. Caring about the environment isn't some irrational thing, it is good for business over the long term.
It's like saying that a valley was flooded because a dam collapsed; It's a correct description of what happened, but it doesn't explain why it happened. It would be more useful to say, for instance, that the flood happened because the central government reduced funding and the local council deferred maintenance on the dam because they considered it a low priority, resulting in a critical failure not being identified and corrected, which in turn resulted in the dam collapsing.
>"Synthetic fertilizers are a friend to saving nature because they reduce how much land we need."
Is this actually true or do we just use fertilizer to avoid improving the quality of our land?
>Farmers are already doing that. Fertilizer is expensive, so farmers have an incentive not to waste it.
Are they actually doing or are they just saying they are doing it?
>The pursuit of a chemical-free world is insane. Modern technologies like synthetic fertilizer make people's lives better. They especially make poor people's lives better. Banning them brings disaster.
Okay, just like Sri Lanka banned fertilizer, other countries should ban farming without fertilizer. Or maybe the problem isn't environmentalism or a lack of anti environmentalism but politicians banning fertilizer or non usage of fertilizer to cover up their corruption.
Something doesn't sit right with me in this article. The author doesn't actually care about Sri Lanka, he also doesn't care about reducing fertilizer usage, he also has the opposite extremist idea. Instead of choosing to restrict people's freedoms by anti environmentalism and pro environmentalism authoritarians maybe we should let them do whatever they want and adjust the tax system to account for pollution and externalities?
No, that would go against the current doctrine of left and right wing politics.
>The pursuit of a chemical-free world is insane.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwoGCDdCzeU&t=1200
It is insane indeed, it is insane how well it works.