[bsa_pro_ajax_ad_space id=2]
[bsa_pro_ajax_ad_space id=17]
[bsa_pro_ajax_ad_space id=6]
[bsa_pro_ajax_ad_space id=4]
[bsa_pro_ajax_ad_space id=5]

Vertical farms: a solution looking for (and like) a problem

Bright green techno-optimists love the idea of vertical farming, but vertical farms are failing. another great provocative article by SA’s BS-beating writer, Ivo Vegter….

There are many kinds of environmentalists. Most have a fairly poor grasp of economics, treating productivity and resource use as if it were a zero-sum game.

They often end up opposing economic growth, opposing industrialisation and opposing free market capitalism, thinking that the root of environmental degradation is a simple matter of the over-use of natural resources.

Some turn alarmingly misanthropic, believing that only a smaller human population can save the planet, telling people not to have children, and telling children their parents destroyed the planet and that they’re doomed to die young as a result.

I prefer strains of environmentalism that recognise the legitimacy of human economic development, and that apply market-based economic thinking to the conservation of nature. Call it free-market environmentalism.

A closely related brand of eco-thought describes itself as bright green. In contrast to the pessimism, misanthropy and anti-capitalism of ‘dark green’ environmentalism, it posits instead the more optimistic view that prosperity and technological progress can achieve environmental sustainability.

I love the techno-optimism of such people, and their idealism. In principle, I agree with the view that the solution to our environmental problems can only be solved by human ingenuity and economic progress.

We cannot have a sustainable environment without human prosperity, and vice versa. Any ideologies that reject this principle are either doomed to failure, or are misanthropic and immoral.

Practically useless

The problem with techno-optimism, however, is that while it may in general be a valid position – after all, the entire history of economic progress is one of technological progress – this does not mean that any specific technology is a good idea.

Many technologies that look attractive to environmental idealists are, in fact, practically useless.

One such technology is vertical, indoor farming.

On paper, it looks amazing. It uses very little land. Growing conditions can be minutely controlled. Sunlight can be reliably simulated using LED lights. It uses very little water because it loses almost no water to evaporation. Plant nutrients can be precisely managed. It can provide physical barriers to pests, instead of relying upon insecticides. It can produce crops year-round, and at far higher yields than traditional farms. They can be built in urban areas, close to markets, reducing the need for polluting transport.

According to a recent article in Farmers Magazine, a South African online publication, the advantages include space efficiency, resource conservation, climate resilience, reduced environmental impact, freshness and quality.

According to its boosters, indoor vertical farming is ‘reshaping the food and beverage industry’ in South Africa. It empowers communities through ‘green growth, job creation, and reduced carbon footprint’.

It can ‘aid in enhancing food security, establishing sustainable livelihoods, and addressing the environmental issues that African farmers face by making the most of available space, preserving water, and boosting crop yields’.

It has many benefits, they say, ‘such as contributing to sustainability and food security. South Africa also has good farming conditions to accommodate vertical farming.’

It is ‘a beneficial technique, especially in areas such as South Africa’, where ‘the land for agriculture is very limited, so vertical farming is becoming very popular’.

Bubble burst

There’s just one problem. Globally, capital has stopped flowing into vertical farming companies. The bubble burst in 2023.

Bowery Farming, one of the first unicorns in the sector (a unicorn being a startup with a $1-billion valuation), has reportedly ‘conducted multiple rounds of layoffs and has slowed its growth mode as its valuation plummets, making it the latest unicorn to show financial stress as funding for the sector dries up.’

And it’s not the only one. Many vertical farming companies have laid off staff or gone bankrupt.

Industry boosters call this the ‘bleeding edge’, and say they aren’t particularly alarmed by the churn, but it all has a bit of a stiff upper lip feel about it.

So much lettuce

Many problems bedevil the idea of vertical farming. Let’s start with the most obvious. Go look up images of vertical farming. I’ll wait. Back?

Did you notice how much lettuce there was? So much lettuce! There’s a little spinach and some leafy green herbs, and somewhere down the page you get some tomatoes, but that’s it.

No grains or cereals. No vegetables or fruits (other than tomatoes, peppers, strawberries and cucumbers). Just things that are dead easy to grow and don’t require much by way of fancy picking or processing.

Yet cereals, coarse grains and oil crops make up over 80% of all cropland. Vegetables, of which vertical farming produces only a small number, account for only 3.3% of land under crops.

For indoor, vertical farms to make significant inroads into agriculture at all will not take years. It will take decades of technology development…..

Read the full article here: Daily Friend

Related reading:

Indoor agriculture faces a reckoning

Investors went wild for the utopian promise of tech-driven vertical farming. Now the industry is on the brink of collapse — can it survive by following in traditional agriculture’s footsteps?