... or Little Lawn of Horrors. The Mortgage Finance Gazette (UK) reports that lenders may not give mortgages on properties with an invasive species, Japanese Knotweed. Knotweed is classified as a controlled waste in the UK. My friend John Peter Thompson at Invasive Notes (http://ipetrus.blogspot.com), who brought this to my attention, informs me that some US states had considered sanctions on property owners for invasive species infestations. It makes me wonder if this would clog the courts with suits and countersuits when a noxious weed spreads from one property to neighbors.

It does beg the question of how society can assign responsibility for managing the spread of harmful organisms. This is sure indication that prevention is the best cure. And yet, there are those in Congress who want to cut the Agricultural Research Service, a key component of our arsenal against noxious and pestilent organisms. Wicked problem indeed.

Amplify’d from www.mortgagefinancegazette.com

Japanese Knotweed could make homes unsaleable

People who have Japanese Knotweed growing in their garden, or even nearby, might find it difficult to sell as some lenders won’t grant a mortgage.

Hugh Greenhouse, a surveyor and founder of www.homebuyeronline.co.uk, said: "A number of main banks and building societies will not provide mortgages on property where Japanese knotweed is found. This comes as a huge shock to manhomeowners, that the weed may have made their home unsaleable."

Japanese knotweed was first introduced to the United Kingdom in the early 19th century as an ornamental plant and has now established itself across the country.

It is the most invasive species of plant in the country which can spread extremely quickly. It is very difficult to eradicate and can cause significant damage to buildings. Knotweed is now classed as controlled waste under the environmental protection act 1990.

Greenhouse says it is very important that Japanese Knotweed is identified before purchasing a property. Surveyors will be able to identify knotweed at a property in their Homebuyer Report and give appropriate advice. Read more at www.mortgagefinancegazette.com

reposting from my old blog, www.green-hand.net, which I'm phasing out.

Lester Brown thinks so.  And will it burst?  Interviewed in New Scientist on February 10 he describes a food bubble as inflated food production through unsustainable uses of water and land.  Let’s set aside unsustainable uses of water and land for a moment.  In my February 15 post on The Resilient World I discussed how invasive species, including noxious weeds, could thrive in an atmosphere with elevated CO2 levels, substantially reducing agricultural productivity.  This is on top of the probability of stresses to crops from higher temperatures and changing weather patterns.  Throw in growing demand through a growing population and competing uses for land and water, and well, let’s just say that we have some work to do.

Zeroing in on unsustainable water use, Brown calls our attention to the fact that 130 million people in China and 175 million people in India depend upon fossil water, from aquifers that will not be replenished, to grow the grain they eat.  Some call the phenomenon “peak water.”  (We can add this to the list of things to keep us up at night along with peak oil and peak phosphorus).

Is Brown a prophet of doom and gloom?  Well, he certainly does pull back the curtain and what he shows isn’t pretty. But like the ghost of Christmas pass, his message is one of choices, some of which lead to redemption.  Our job must be to build resilience into our systems.  “Civilisation as we know it”,  Brown cautions “can't withstand the stresses of continuing with business as usual.”

Brown stays on point:  We've got to move, almost on a war footing, to cut carbon emissions, eradicate poverty, stabilise population. We must also restore the economy's natural support systems: forests and aquifers and soils. No civilisation ever survived that kind of destruction; nor will ours. We haven't gone over the edge, but we're much closer than most people think. If the heatwave that hit Moscow in 2010 had been centred on Chicago instead, we would be in deep trouble. The Russians lost 40 per cent of their 100-million-tonne grain crop, but we would have lost 40 per cent of our 400-million-tonne crop - a massive global setback.” (New Scientist Feb 10 2011).

So how do we build resilience? That’s the harder question.  A smaller footprint. Maintaining fallback options when systems fail.  Removal of perverse incentives. Better and more informed choices.    One strategy involves harnessing the marketplace through product labeling.  Most of us have seen plenty of product labels. Underwriter Laboratories (in the USA). Organic and Fair Trade certifications.  Forest Stewardship Council wood products and Marine Stewardship fish products.  The Alliance for Water Stewardship is creating a labeling scheme for sustainable water management.  I don’t want to claim that certifying water supplies is actually going to solve the peak water challenge worldwide.  What it can do, and should do, is provide the nucleus for resilient communities and regions using the principle of sustainable water management as an organizing theme.  This is how you build the future - a brick at a time, at least until episodes of rapid change occur. Read more at www.green-hand.net

Ah, another doom and gloom screed. Not quite - well yes, but only if the warnings are ignored, which they tend to be until the markets respond, by which time food prices are driven to unsustainable levels, you get riots in the Middle East etc etc.

The resilient world take-home message is that sustainable agricultural practices can recycle nutrients like phosphorus. Rising phosphorus costs may make such farming practices more economical, and negate the economic incentives to pollute rivers and coasts. A big question is; will the lag time before markets respond mean that the transition is too little, too late? TBD. With the right policies and institutions in place, this is a great opportunity to advance resilient communities. With the wrong ones, well, that food that is going to get more expensive due to climate change might get even more expensive. Expensive enough to pose a security risk.

Oh, and BTW, it is spelled p-h-o-s-p-h-o-r-u-s.

Amplify’d from www.physorg.com

(PhysOrg.com) -- Recalculating the global use of phosphorous, a fertilizer linchpin of modern agriculture, a team of researchers warns that the world's stocks may soon be in short supply and that overuse in the industrialized world has become a leading cause of the pollution of lakes, rivers and streams.

Phosphorous is an essential element for life. Living organisms, including humans, have small amounts and the element is crucial for driving the energetic processes of cells. In agriculture, phosphorous mined from ancient marine deposits is widely used to boost crop yields. The element also has other industrial uses.

But excess phosphorous from fertilizer that washes from farm fields and suburban lawns into lakes and streams is the primary cause of the algae blooms that throw freshwater ecosystems out of kilter and degrade water quality. Phosphorous pollution poses a risk to fish and other aquatic life as well as to the animals and humans who depend on clean fresh water. In some instances, excess phosphorous sparks blooms of toxic algae, which pose a direct threat to human and animal life.

Bennett and Carpenter argue that agricultural practices to better conserve phosphate within agricultural ecosystems are necessary to avert the widespread pollution of surface waters. Phosphorous from parts of the world where the element is abundant, they say, can be moved to phosphorous deficient regions of the world by extracting phosphorous from manure, for example, using manure digesters. Read more at www.physorg.com