High-rise veg at a high cost
Farming goes urban on a big scale in the city of Linköping in Sweden, where the world’s first vertical greenhouse is being built.
It will use excess heating and carbon dioxide from nearby industries, and costs and environmental damage involved in transportation will be cut by delivering the leafy produce directly to the end users in urban areas. Funding comes from the Swedish government, among others.
Local consumers can look forward to tasty-sounding vegetables such as white celery mustard, kailaan, osaka purple and oriental saladini, all species suitable for this kind of production.
With a ground footprint of 10,000 square metres, the vertical greenhouse equals 100,000 square metres of cultivated land.
Supporters of the project believe it paves the way as the sustainable agricultural solution and primary food source for growing future city populations.
The Plantagon Greenhouse is seen as setting new standards of social responsibility.
Plantagon say they are in discussion with other cities, such as Singapore, Stuttgart, Barcelona and Shanghai, about similar projects.
Theoretically, every drop of water and nutrient will be recycled within these closed system greenhouses, with light and temperature optimised for plant development.
But why is it necessary in affluent, well-fed Sweden?
And is the estimated cost of a 25-storey vertical greenhouse, at €200-400 million, the best way to invest in feeding the world?
The answer seems to be yes for those who believe that farming as we know it cannot feed growing populations.
However, many extra mouths could be fed if €300m was spent, for example, in under-developed countries where more than 30% of crops are spoiled after the harvest.
All they need is better storage and transportation — even in countries as near to Sweden as the Ukraine.
On the topic of effective spending to feed the world, millions and billions of euro have been wasted on the propaganda war waged by supporters and rivals of futuristic efforts such as genetic modification, cloning, and test-tube foods.
While many go hungry, decision makers seem to have got caught up in the politics of food.
Meanwhile, conventional farmers across the world do not even have access to simple, well proven methods which could greatly improve their productivity.
There is huge spending on lofty ideas, while there is isn’t enough for basic research, or for subsidising farmers trying to survive in hostile market conditions.
In the EU, for example, even though genetic modification is effectively barred from the food sector, millions are spent every year by the EU institutions and by pressure organisations, in monitoring GM, and in arguing over its merits or demerits — money which would be better spent on incentivising farmers.
