Environmentalist should create realistic plan for reducing or eliminating use of chemical fertilizer. I'm already aware of the importance of organic farming methods, planting crops that fix nitrogen (though this removes some land from food production), and building the soil so it retains fixed nitrogen. But there is still no evidence that this alone can eliminate chemicals.

I encourage you to look at the bright side of genetic engineering... modifying crops so they fix their own nitrogen or modify cover crops so they fix more nitrogen. Neither GMO would increase the use of chemicals or harm animal life. Furthermore, if the domesticated plants are already dependent on human intervention for survival, it is not likely they would escape and destroy other ecosystems. Indeed, they might reduce the area that must be cultivated and permit enlargement of natural areas.

Please reject reckless use of technology, not the technology itself.

Plenty of organic fertilizer will be a byproduct, as well as clean natural gas energy.

Conventional chemical fertilizer uses up natural gas, organic produces it.

GMO in basic food products is downright dangerous.  It is like throwing a monkeywrench in a clock to fix it.  The complex interactive web of life that feeds us needs to run as naturally as possible.  Mess with mother nasture at your peril, especially the design itself, DNA.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

The worst visibility is not out west but in the Appalachian Mountains such as in Shenandoah Park.  That said, visual ranges out west of 200 miles have become seriously impaired. To say it is mainly agricultural and CAFO sources is extremely misleading. /sam

Onward through the fog