Vertical Farming: A Viable Solution?

The United Nations predicts that the planet will have over 9.1 billion people by 2050. As the amount of arable land continues to decline, how will we be able to provide enough food for 9.1 billion people? Providing a sufficient amount of food for 9.1 billion people would require increasing current food production by 70 percent. Many are skeptical that we will be able to meet this vast target; however, this skepticism has not stopped scientists from coming up with alternative solutions.

One of the proposed solutions is called vertical farming. The idea of this approach is to grow agriculture on each floor of a building, all year-round in cities across the world.

The benefits of vertical farming are noteworthy: lower transportation costs, a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions associated with food transportation, and less food spoilage. The idea of growing food in cities seems logical due to higher population density.

The main challenge with vertical farming is the prodigious amount of artificial lighting (and energy) that is required. However, the energy required to power this artificial lighting can be obtained through the installation of solar panels on building rooftops. Solar energy prices have dropped dramatically over the past ten years, with prices being almost equal to coal generated electricity. 

What do you think of vertical farming? Is it a viable alternative, or should we simply accept that our earth is incapable of supporting 9.1 billion people?

Check out this video from The Economist for more details:

By Trevor S.

Climate-Change deniers have a point

It's been a while since I last posted, too busy with med school these days. But after reading this Naomi Klein article and realizing that this website - http://www.friendsofscience.org/ - is the second item that pops up when "critique of canada's position on global climate change" is googled, I can no longer keep silent.

I don't mean that I'm now going to bash the climate-change deniers. On the contrary, when I read what Naomi Klein wrote, and what "Friends of Science" says, I can't help but think that a few of the denier's denials actually have a point.

(Don't worry, I haven't turned to the Dark Side...just making a suggestion to help all environmentalists become more successful. Let me explain.)

True, environmentalists aren't "sacrificing humans to the gods like the Aztecs". But we all know there are some environmental groups out there who put the environment above all else, even above the needs of fellow humans (ie. greenpeace cutting down whole fields of crops).

In fact, I used to be like this myself back in first/second year undergrad, trying to enforce my own values and standards upon fellow students in getting them not to waste food in the Queen's University cafeterias.

But this attitude is dangerous.

It only weakens support for the environmentalist's worthy ideals, and ostracizes the environmentalist group from society at large.

The environmental movement needs to shift it's focus - from one of "environmentalism" to "humanity-ism".

As David Suzuki says, the world will survive no matter what the humans do. The real question is whether humanity will survive or not, both in the short and in the long term.

The survival of the human race for many, many generations on Earth should be goal of environmentalists. In order to do that, environmentalists need a much more balanced approach - emphasizing the social, economic, and environmental aspects of sustainability, instead of just "environmentalism".

People who truly care about the future of humanity on Earth should not be forcing less privileged members of our society to make the same degree of sacrifice they themselves are making. Until people have their basic needs met and are happy with their lives, it will be virtually impossible for them to care about the natural environment.

So - instead of solely advocating for the environment at all costs, people who care about the planet/human race should advocate for environmental friendliness along with social justice, economic equality, and the like.

This ideal triad of economic, social, and environmental sustainability is not new. But it is much more complicated than just "environmental activism" alone.

Nonetheless, until environmentalists embrace this more balanced perspective, they and their worthwhile ideals will always be vehemently opposed by a significant chunk of our society.