Imagine for a moment you’re an executive for a fertilizer company. And let’s say you have a genuine commitment to the triple bottom line: people, planet, profit. Worldwide demand for fertilizer is off the charts, so that’s good for your company’s finances (profits). You sell a terrific product that dramatically increases crop yields, making a meaningful contribution to the world’s food supply (people) and to increased biofuel production (planet).

End of story, right? Well, not exactly. A New York Times article on the worldwide fertilizer shortage gets at some of the potentially agonizing tradeoffs in following a commitment to sustainability.

First, the good (taken from the article):

“Putting fertilizer on the ground on a one-acre plot can, in typical cases, raise an extra ton of output,” said Jeffrey D. Sachs, the Columbia University economist who has focused on eradicating poverty. “That’s the difference between life and death.”

And now the bad:

Environmental groups fear increased use, particularly of nitrogen fertilizer made using fossil fuels. Because plants do not absorb all the nitrogen, much of it leaches into streams and groundwater. That runoff has long been recognized as a major pollution problem, and it is growing. A barometer of the pollution is the rising number of dead zones where rivers meet the sea. In the Gulf of Mexico, for instance, nitrogen runoff from fields in the Corn Belt washes downstream and feeds plant life in the gulf. The algae blooms suck oxygen from the water, killing other marine life. More than 400 dead zones have been identified, from the coasts of China to the Chesapeake Bay, and the primary reason is agricultural runoff, said Robert J. Diaz, a professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

You’re the fertilizer executive. With one hand you’re helping to eradicate poverty, plus you’re creating good jobs in your company because your product is in such high demand. With the other, you’re helping to destroy marine life and adding to greenhouse gas emissions because of the fossil fuels required to make a usable form of nitrogen.

My in-laws and their ancestors have been farming in Oregon since the 1850s. I remember my mother-in-law saying awhile back that it wasn’t until chemical fertilizers came along in the 1950s and 60s that they were able to move out of pure survival mode. For them, it meant the difference between a family farm that remains in operation today and one that would have long ago been plowed under.

I believer her, and I still wish the runoff from agriculture wouldn’t find its way into the murky Willamette River running through my hometown of Portland.

I understand why the financial bottom line rules in business. Who really wants to confront the choice of feeding the poor or destroying ecosystems?