Concerted efforts to reduce nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution from industry, improve the efficiency of their use in agriculture, and enhance their availability for use in fertilizer in food - insecure regions would have multiple benefits, including a reduction of climate risks.
Not exact matches
However, we are a long way
from achieving an equitable, efficient, and sustainable use of nitrogen and
phosphorus in agriculture, and we are not close to reducing nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution to tolerable levels.
Agricultural runoff, in combination with increased water temperatures, has caused considerable non-point source
pollution problems in recent years, with increased
phosphorus and nitrogen loadings
from farms contributing to more frequent and prolonged occurrences of anoxic «dead zones» and harmful, dense algae growth for long periods.
But
pollution also covers hundreds of chemicals which are fine or even beneficial at low levels but which if released in large quantities or in problematic circumstances cause «harm» — like
phosphorus (grows your veges but also leads to toxic cyanobacterial blooms which kill cattle), nitrogen (grows crops kills many native species of plants and promotes weed growth costing farmers), copper (used as an oxygen carrier by gastropods but in high concentrations kills the life in sediments which feed fish), hormones like oestrogen (essential for regulating bodies but in high concentrations confuse reproductive cycles especially with marine life) or maybe molasses
from a sugar mill (good for rum but when dumped into east coast estuaries used to cause oxygen sag in estuaries leading to massive fish kills).