Image: Blair Bradshaw
In Brief
- Nitrogen pollution from smokestacks, tailpipes and heavily fertilized croplands creates a
host of challenges for the environment and human health. - Such ills are mounting as some countries burn more fossil fuels and pursue fertilizer-intensive endeavors, such as biofuels production.
- Synthetic fertilizer remains indispensable for meeting global food demands, but the world can—and should—do more with less.
Billions of people today owe their lives to a single discovery now a century old. In 1909 German chemist Fritz Haber of the University of Karlsruhe figured out a way to transform nitrogen gas—which is abundant in the atmosphere but nonreactive and thus unavailable to most living organisms—into ammonia, the active ingredient in synthetic fertilizer. The world’s ability to grow food exploded 20 years later, when fellow German scientist Carl Bosch developed a scheme for implementing Haber’s idea on an industrial scale.
Over the ensuing decades new factories transformed ton after ton of industrial ammonia into fertilizer, and today the Haber-Bosch invention commands wide respect as one of the most significant boons to public health in human history. As a pillar of the green revolution, synthetic fertilizer enabled farmers to transform infertile lands into fertile fields and to grow crop after crop in the same soil without waiting for nutrients to regenerate naturally. As a result, global population skyrocketed from 1.6 billion to six billion in the 20th century.
This article was originally published with the title Fixing the Global Nitrogen Problem.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
34 Comments
Add Comment"As a result, global population skyrocketed from 1.6 billion to six billion in the 20th century."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou make that sound like a good thing.
I'm sure the people given a chance at life regard it as a good thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWombat: I'm sure the extra 4.4 billion people appreciated their chance at life whether it cramps your lifestyle or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt will cramp EVERYONES lifestyle if we - all 6.5 billion (and more in the future) - cannot live sustainably.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRampant population growth is not a good thing just because there are more people.
"It will cramp EVERYONES lifestyle if we - all 6.5 billion (and more in the future) - cannot live sustainably."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBunk. We haven't even begun to tap the planet's resources. Human misery and poverty is not caused by too many people, but rather by too little capitalism.
capitalism is what is causing human misery as we speak. don`t worry about co 2. worry about the wall street scum
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSumatra67, that sounds good, but is irrational... what if it had been 20 billion or 100 billion... at some point it is too many, no matter how much those extra billions appreciate their chance at life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a HUGE ethical difference in killing existing people and simply not creating them in the first place.
It is entirely possible that a baby (or 4 billion babies) added to the world can be a net ethical wrong instead of a right. More is not always better. It is inane to make snarky comments about how a person might feel if they hadn't been born.... clearly if they are never born, then they never have any opinion about it whatsoever.... since THEY never existed.
Are parents that have a single chile somehow criminals because they didn't have two or three or eight children... I mean all those children they didnt' have would have loved their chance at life? By your logic, all adults are wrong not to constantly have as many children as they can until they are no longer physically able... I mean all those eggs and sperm deserve their opportunity...
Sheesh!
Sumatra67 – I have to conclude that you’ve never experienced starvation in a hopelessly unsustainable environment. I haven’t either, but I do not believe that people suffering those conditions in their life cannot regard anything but their own terrible condition. I agree with tharriss: the primary objective of those who are living comfortably and can affect change in the future must be to minimize human suffering. If we do not assume this responsibility our many children and/or theirs are most likely to suffer intolerable conditions in their life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, we have reached the point of diminishing returns in our efforts to improve large scale crop yields. The increasing population increasingly occupies what was once productive arable land. Oceanic fish yields, a critical source of nutrition for much of the world population, have been decreasing for many years and populations of many fish species have now reached unsustainable levels despite or because of more effective harvesting technology. Future resource levels will most likely not even sustain current population levels.
Continued, even modest, growth in the human population will very likely only produce potentially billions of suffering children who will, along with many adults, soon die a miserable death. Our best option for avoiding this horrible scenario is to somehow, compassionately, limit population growth. If this is not done, the population will be reduced without compassion for human suffering.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@frgough & conrad lingus,
The problem is NOT either too much or too little capitalism. The problem is the WRONG KIND of capitalism. Our present system incorporated one or two parts of feudalism as it became the dominant system. Those feudalist holdovers are destroying our system and have made it into the most hated system in the world with its concentration on greed, greed, greed.
@jtdwyer,
Absolutely right!
The efforts of dozens of agencies have failed to convince the people of many, many nations to limit their populations.
The folks who work in this field have failed to recognize that A) people "burn out" at a fairly young age in poverty stricken countries; usually about age 40. They know that by having 8 children, on average, they can expect 4 to live to maturity. Of those 4 they hope that at least 1 will do well enough in life to help support them in their "old age".
Trying to get them to use birth control measures is tantamount to asking them to die soon after they "burn out". There is a perfectly capitalistic means of solving this problem. Let us set up a program whereby, instead of "save the children" funds (which eventually only exacerbate the problem), let us set up, with recognized insurance companies, a "save the grannies" fund. This would be a simple retirement policy, that we in the wealthy nations could contribute to as we do to "save the children charities, which would guarantee those people an income after age 40 or 45.
With their old age financially secure, they'd no longer need to have so many children as their "retirement security" and they'd be amenable to using birth control measures.
This would, in the long run, be far less costly than continuing to support huge numbers of starving children. It would also allow populations to reduce to the point where the economies of those nations could then support them comfortably.
Once those populations begin to recede, our charity dollars can go toward schools and other things which can be useful in helping those folks to become able to sustain a m0dern society and economy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@frgough & conrad lingus,
The problem is NOT either too much or too little capitalism. The problem is the WRONG KIND of capitalism. Our present system incorporated one or two parts of feudalism as it became the dominant system. Those feudalist holdovers are destroying our system and have made it into the most hated system in the world with its concentration on greed, greed, greed.
@jtdwyer,
Absolutely right!
The efforts of dozens of agencies have failed to convince the people of many, many nations to limit their populations.
The folks who work in this field have failed to recognize that A) people "burn out" at a fairly young age in poverty stricken countries; usually about age 40. They know that by having 8 children, on average, they can expect 4 to live to maturity. Of those 4 they hope that at least 1 will do well enough in life to help support them in their "old age".
Trying to get them to use birth control measures is tantamount to asking them to die soon after they "burn out". There is a perfectly capitalistic means of solving this problem. Let us set up a program whereby, instead of "save the children" funds (which eventually only exacerbate the problem), let us set up, with recognized insurance companies, a "save the grannies" fund. This would be a simple retirement policy, that we in the wealthy nations could contribute to as we do to "save the children charities, which would guarantee those people an income after age 40 or 45.
With their old age financially secure, they'd no longer need to have so many children as their "retirement security" and they'd be amenable to using birth control measures.
This would, in the long run, be far less costly than continuing to support huge numbers of starving children. It would also allow populations to reduce to the point where the economies of those nations could then support them comfortably.
Once those populations begin to recede, our charity dollars can go toward schools and other things which can be useful in helping those folks to become able to sustain a m0dern society and economy.
Population is not a problem. Science to the rescue!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExoplanets are everywhere! Let's ship 'em there. Plenty of space (literally) even a 'water world' according to last month's SciAm.
So, keep screwing. We just need warp drive, now. Exoplanets for everyone!
Okay, sarcasm over.
First let's see if your e-news Journal will begin retracting all the blarney that you support with the Climate Change cause. Then we can have a discussion on nitrogen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou've scammed support behind the climate change and global warming agenda, only to have fall apart. And I'm not seeing too much retraction of the details of the IPCC and others who maliciously provided fraudulent materials, statistics and other information to government environmental agencies.
But now you are going after nitrogen a crisis issue. Well what's it going to be this time? Most every western government has more than ample environmental departments that test, and provide valuable resources to farmers and businesses to ensure that the air, grounds, and waters are not over burdened with a given substance. In this case nitrogen. If a person or business overwhelmes the environment with a substance serious governmental people will show up at your site and take immediate control of the situation and fine the living crap out of you for damaging the environment.
I'm sure that if your e-journal has any concerns or wishes to try on the environmental agency spill something on the ground and dont' take protective measures to contain the problem and even with that not notify them that a spill occurred and the "Wrath of Khan" will follow.
How indisputable this problem is between humans, indirectly almost religious
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“If our ancestors could see us now, surely they would think us gods”.
Fritz Haber also invented chemical weapons which he oversaw the deployment of. His chemical fertilizers have led to some of the worst pollution on the planet and vicariously has subjected many to health concerns. Not to mention the development of feedlots to feed the overabundance of corn to animals which never evolved to eat it. In return creating more pollution from their waste due to confined feeding operations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just picked up the book "Denialism" by Michael Specter. I've only read the introduction, but am already seeing his point in discussions here and elsewhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi jehartz - further to some of ,your points, pollution is being tackled in some countries. In Scotland many areas , defined by whatever river catchment they inhabit have nitrogen free zones where the amounts of nitrogen farmers can apply is controlled both in quantity and time of the year. River waters are constantly monitored and severe penalties are imposed on those causing pollution. Much of the worlds nitrate pollution will have come from sewage works from the large percentage of the population that live close to rivers. In UK grass fed beef is the preferred option as a large part of Britain is only suitable for grazing. I have often wondered how much is made of the large quantities of manure produced at feed lots, or has it been more economic to let it oxidise away. If that pollution loophole was plugged a great deal of pollution would be stopped.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore companies started selling ammonitrates to farmers, people grew crops associated with luzern, whose root nodules could convert atmospheric N2 into soil nitrates, directly assimilated by the roots of growing edible crops.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) To paraphrase Albert Bartlett, there are no problems facing humanity today (hunger, health, energy, clean air, clean water, whatever) that will be solved by an ever increasing population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2) A humane proposition for limiting world population growth: put women in charge of their reproductive choices. In addition to access to reliable birth control, include literacy and economic empowerment. The implementation will be monumentally difficult because such an idea is anathema to many of the world's religious doctrines (like Catholicism, Islam, and many Protestant denominations).
The ethical issues involved with human reproduction are very complex, of course, but it seems to me that sustaining a livable plant is more important than any Freudian or Victorian concerns about life creation vs. noncreation. Maintaining a sustainable lifestyle is of crucial importance. I think even though religious concerns often override sustainable type concerns, I think maintaining a livable plant and a sustainable lifestyle is the most ethical thing one can do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2281 Applewood Ct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReno, NV 89509
February 8, 2010
Letters to the Editor
Scientific American
75 Varick St., 9th floor
New York, NY 10013-1917
Dear Ms. DiChristina,
In Fixing the Global Nitrogen Problem (February, 2010) authors Alan Townsend and Robert Howarth make a very convincing case for the magnitude of the problem presented by reactive nitrogen in the environment.
The article, however, fails to clarify the chemistry of nitrogen in the soil and overlooks a solution that exists and is employable now.
The ammonium (NH4) in applied fertilizers is the only form of nitrogen usable by plants. The problem is that the ubiquitous bacterium nitrosomonas converts the ammonium back into its elemental form allowing it to be leached into the environment and released as nitric acid and nitrogen dioxide into the atmosphere.
Since the 1950s there has existed a chemical antidote to this that prevents the degradation of ammonia and thereby stabilizes ammonium in the soil. Called nitrapyrin (N-Serve� , Dow Chemical Co.) it possesses the ability to not only prevent the leaching of nitrogen into waterways and its release into the air but also to reduce the amount of nitrogen needed to grow crops by extending the half-life of ammonium.
Nitrapyrin represents an immediate solution to environmental nitrification and should be seriously considered in light of the risks posed by the authors. Safety data on nitrapyrin shows it to be as safe, if not safer, than the reactive nitrogen it helps to prevent.
Nitrapyrin can be the first salvo in the war on the global nitrogen problem while the other solutions, the same solutions that have been proposed for 40 years, take more time to materialize.
Terrence G. McGaw, M.D.
Reno, Nevada
Atmospheric NOx is also a big problem. It occurs because we don't burn our fuels at the correct temperatures. We need better combustion, controlled by microprocessors, which is not the whole solution but a big step in the right direction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood heavens; do ALL news articles produce the same rancor?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a simple statement of fact; synthetic ammonia fertilizer has allowed the population to grow.
The rest of the commentary seems off topic; although I might suggest to "Sez Me" that he proceed with his idea to fund middle age retirements in the third world out of his own resources. I am pretty sure that I have plans for my own labor that do not involve do-gooders spending my money on their projects.
Capitalism is not the most hated system in the world. I do not see much in the way of statistics or citations so I won't bother with such trivia either. However, Adam Smith hit the nail on the head with precision when he observed that humans' natural tendency to seek advantage, what you call "greed", is also the force for innovation and efficient organization of an economy (or at least that is what I take out of "Wealth of Nations" that is relevant to this bit).
So far as I know, all socialist economies suffer from horrible inefficiency and a spectacular lack of innovation as each member expects others to do everything, and in fact is required to wait for others to do everything. Or as T.H. White put it, "Everything not compulsory is prohibited" (speaking of ant society).
Sir Thomas More' reveals the perfect socialist society in "Utopia" and it seems incredible; it is also the playbook of the Democratic party of the US (or so it seems), with its clever "doublespeak" on many topics. Freedom of religion PROVIDED that it is a worhip of Mithra, abhorrence of war EXCEPT for a list of situations the last of which is to get the thing that they want, which their neighbor refused to give when asked politely. In other words, they go to war for any reason at all, while at the same time saying they abhor it. There is no money and you get your clothing for free -- but you get and must have exactly three white shirts, no more, no less, and only white. But they are free.
mggordon : How did anybody survive before the adoption of synthetic nitrate fertilisers? The answer is that they did, and achieved great feats of civilisation such as building pyramids and mechanical computers. Our present society is based on an idiotic 'capitalist' philosophy that is incapable of adapting population size to ressources, so that 1,000,000,000 people are dying of starvation and another 1,000,000,000 live on less than $1 per day. This is clearly not a proof of the success of 'free world' democracy. We need new guidelines.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"How did anybody survive before the adoption of synthetic nitrate fertilisers? The answer is that they did, and achieved great feats of civilisation such as building pyramids and mechanical computers. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is no answer; you asked "how".
A more correct answer is a combination of high birthrate and high deathrate. One source (cited below) declares that hunting/gathering societies tolerate a population density of 1 person per square mile, but farming allows 100 per square mile. A combination of disease and warfare produced a high death rate and very low average lifespan.
Modern farming methods have increased population limits and reduced warfare. Warfare is a product of competition for resources as societies reach Malthusian limits. Populations tend to crash rather than reach a graceful equilibrium.
Citations
http://www.fiu.edu/~grenierg/chapter5.htm Hunting and Gathering
Two quotes from the next citation:
"two-thirds of modern hunter-gatherers are in a state of almost constant tribal warfare, and nearly 90% go to war at least once a year."
"Constant warfare was necessary to keep population density down to one person per square mile. Farmers can live at 100 times that density."
http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/01/08/hunting-gathering-farming-farming-industrial-revolution
Interesting mathematics on predator-prey relationships:
http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/spatial/pred_prey/hunting_gathering.html
That doesn't make sense to me. People who don't exist don't yearn to exist because existing is a prerequisite for desire, knowledge, etc. Saying that those extra people appreciate "the chance to exist" is not logical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy that logic we could try to resurrect Neanderthals from their preserved DNA; after all, once alive, they will appreciate their chance to exist. Its a slippery slope argument, that's all. Families that were torn apart from genocides and find life in new lands wouldn't be possible without the atrocities - think of Armenian or Jewish diaspora. Those people too appreciate their unique chance to exist. Is that appreciation greater than what would happen if the tragic events never occured? (Meaning others would have been born, possibly in greater numbers in the home countries).
Regardless, even with a world population of 20 billion subsiding on a tiny fraction of the world's resources, every living breathing person who does not want to commit suicide (despite relatively worse living conditions) would qualify as appreciating their chance to exist.
What I think a more logical way - and more intellectually honest - to look at this is to consider existing people in reality first AND the value of outcomes we can effect (such as population control) to outweigh the hypothetical appreciations on non-existant future entities. That's just me.
@bcnuttall, absolutely correct! The best form of population control is women that are educated, treated as equals, and given access to birth control. The best part of that solution is that it is a win, win, win solution. Everyone benefits. That is one of many reasons the US should ratify CEDAW;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[The Treaty for the Rights of Women is the world’s most complete international agreement on basic human rights for women.
The Treaty is officially known as the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). It was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1979. The United States played an important role in drafting the Treaty, and President Jimmy Carter’s administration signed it in 1980.
A total of 186 nations have ratified the Treaty, as of October 2009, demonstrating the powerful principle that human rights of women are universal across all cultures, countries and religions.
The United States is now one of only seven countries not on that list, alongside Sudan, Somalia, Qatar, Iran, Nauru, Palau and Tonga.]
http://www.womenstreaty.org/facts_history.htm
Please take note of the countries that haven't ratified the treaty. It is a whos who of "rouge nations". Not surprisingly those same names appear on the list of refusers of many international treaties.
@ Less1Brain, we have heard enough from people such as yourself who willingly lie and misrepresent the truth in order to advance their agenda. All it demonstrates is your low moral character as none of you have presented any facts to support your claim. You are anti-science and that is it. If science took the contrary position that there is no global warming you would attack them for that. The issue you have with science is your own issue, your own defect. Instead of pointing fingers and making ridiculous claims why don't you fix your own personal intellectual corruption?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswell,fritz haber was not really german...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes the Haber-Bosch process to produce ammonia created the basis to the green revolution. But plants need more than just nitrogen to grow and the increased use of nitrogen fertiliser took with it increased exploitation of phosphorus, potassium and sulfur which are also used in chemical fertilisers. These are derived from limited mineral deposits. Availability of affordable phosphorus for one is deemed to peak within 20 years. The US affordable phosphorus reserves may be depleted within 25-30 years. And 90% of the world's reserves are found in only 5 countries (Morocco/West Sahara being the largest source). Use of chemical fertiliser needs to be regulated not just to prevent pollution from runoff but to better maintain the limited phosphorus reserves. Without this there is a risk that Leibig's law of the limiting factor will shift our view about the Haber-Bosch process from a boon to mankind to an unsustainable nightmare.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArno Rosemarin
Stockholm Environment Institute
One improvement on synthetic ammonitrate fertilisers is found in biochar technology. Biomass pyrolysis converts plant or animal biomass into a charcoal-like 'biochar', to which atmospheric nitrogen is reacted to form ammonium bicarbonate. This fertiliser is trapped in the biochar pores where it is released slowly, unlike synthetic ammonitrates which are rapidly leached away, causing pollution. Moreover, biochar technology is sustainable and carbon neutral.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee www.eprida.com for technical details.
A single plant is put into a lake that it will fill completely in 30 days. The plant doubles each day. At what day is the lake half full?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisans: day 29! and...the plant has been going along just fine in its world and here it is with still half the lake to go.
Capitalism is a religion developed by social scientists who do not understand the mathmatics of 1. limits and 2. exponential growth. The doubling time of current world population is about 35 years; but because the rate is exponential the next doubling time will be only 17 years....and so on. So, according to physics the only limit" to the economist's or capitalist's view of human population is a ball of human flesh expanding at the speed of light (which cannot exceed the speed of light, 186,000 mi/sec)
The point is moot. They are here now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPopulation growth is at the core of all problems.
Larger populations create geometrically larger populations.
We will, at some point, run out of food, water, and oil. Regardless of what economic philosophy you subscribe to.
Some will inevitably claim that technology will solve the problems. What technology will reach millions of people who have no infrastructure: no water system, no sewage system, no food storage system, no power system, etc. How many mothers bleed out at childbirth due to K deficiencies? How many children are still born with rickets?
There isn't enough money in the world to fix all these problems or buy half the world out of the 17th century.
Giving folks the internet and laptops will solve what problems?
Are you serious? You think we need more capitalism. Wow, that is the dumbest idea yet. That is what I call a Oboma supporter through more money at the problem and maybe it will correct it self. That is sure the way I understand you. We should just create more problems for yourselves. The trust is the earth goes through warm and cold cycles. Remember the to do your home work on the subject before sharing your wild idieas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, more stupid ideas being thrown a round. I think we should stop contributing to charities. The only people who benefit from charities are those of whom start these charities. Think about just taking care of our own families and not the rest of the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this