Earth Wise

A look at our changing environment.

You are here: Home / Archives for farming

farming

Agrivoltaics | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

According to a study last year at Oregon State University, co-developing land for both solar photovoltaic power and agriculture could provide 20% of total electricity generation in the United States with an investment of less than 1% of the annual U.S. budget.  Widespread installation of agrivoltaic systems could reduce carbon emissions by 330,000 tons annually and create more than 100,000 jobs in rural communities.

Agrivoltaics could provide the synergistic combination of more food, more energy, lower water demand, lower carbon emissions, and improved local prosperity.  The problem with agrivoltaics to date is that the existing implementations have used solar arrays designed strictly for electricity generation rather than to be used in combination with agriculture.  They are not that well suited to co-exist with growing crops or grazing animals.

A new project is underway at Oregon State that will help researchers to optimize agrivoltaic systems.  The five-acre Solar Harvest Project is being built at the university’s North Willamette Research and Extension Center in Aurora, Oregon in partnership with the Oregon Clean Power Cooperative. 

The solar array for the project is designed specifically for agrivoltaics research and uses panels that are more spread out and able to rotate to a near vertical position to allow farm equipment to pass through.  The project will allow researchers to study the impact of solar panels on soil health, water use, and plant physiology and yields.

Electricity generated from the 326-kW solar system will be available for purchase by Oregon State and community members. 

**********

Web Links

Construction starts on Oregon State agrivoltaics farm that will merge agriculture and solar energy

Photo, posted April 5, 2020, courtesy of Sean Nealon / Oregon State University via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Tepary Beans | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Tepary beans are an ancient crop native to the northern part of Mexico and the southwestern part of the U.S..  They have been grown in those places by native peoples since pre-Columbian times.  They are still grown in Native American reservations in Arizona’s Sonoran Desert.  One can purchase them from some small farms in that region. 

What sets tepary beans apart from other beans is that they are among the most drought- and heat-tolerant legume crops in the world.  They can be grown without irrigation under conditions that are not viable for other crops.  They can be consumed by people like many other kinds of beans, and they can also provide forage for livestock with better nutrition content than many other plants.  They seem to be a very attractive option for a crop in the changing climate.  What is lacking, at present, is large supplies of tepary seeds to be planted.

Researchers at Texas A&M have been funded to bring tepary beans into modern cropping systems and diets.  The goal is to develop tepary bean cultivars with high biomass and yield that are still well-suited to drought and heat conditions.  Getting the beans to the point of widespread commercialization will take several years.  The end result should be of interest to pulse growers, seed industries, and food companies across the U.S.

Tepary beans are higher in fiber and protein than most other beans.  They come in several different colors, each of which has unique flavor and texture characteristics.  The white ones have a naturally sweet flavor.   The brown beans are slightly nutty in flavor and are similar to pinto beans.  If the Texas program is successful, we may all be eating tepary beans some day.

**********

Web Links

Tepary Beans Offer Producers A Low-Input, Climate-Resilient Legume Alternative

Photo, posted August 25, 2017, courtesy of Katja Schulz via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Reshaping Our Planet | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Human activity – especially agriculture – has altered 70% of the land on our planet.  According to a new report from the United Nations, damage to the Earth’s lands has put the planet on “crisis footing”.

Our health, our economy, and our well-being depend on land.  The food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe all rely on status of the land to at least some extent.

According to the report, up to 40% of the planet’s land is already degraded, affecting half of the people alive today.  At current rates, an additional area nearly the size of South America will be degraded by 2050.

Degradation of land occurs in various ways, including deforestation, desertification, and the loss of wetlands or grasslands.  All of these things are caused by human activities.  As forests, savannas, wetlands, and mangrove swamps are converted to agriculture or are lost to urban expansion, greenhouse gas emissions rapidly increase, adding to the effects of climate change.  The climate crisis, biodiversity loss, and land degradation are integrally linked.

Much of the blame for degraded landscapes is on humanity’s ever-expanding need for food and the modern farming systems that produce it.  The global food system is responsible for 80% of the world’s deforestation, 70% of freshwater use, and is the greatest driver of land-based biodiversity loss.  Modern agriculture has altered the face of the planet more than any other human activity.

The report urges efforts at restoration of land.  Restoration can take multiple forms, including planting forests and shrubs or grazing livestock and growing crops between trees instead of clearing existing forests.

**********

Web Links

UN Report Says Humanity Has Altered 70 Percent of the Earth’s Land, Putting the Planet on a ‘Crisis Footing’

Photo, posted June 20, 2010, courtesy of Nicholas A. Tonelli via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Declining Flying Insects | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

In recent years, there has been increasing awareness of the global decline in insect abundance.  A recently published survey of the abundance of flying insects in the UK has revealed very troubling results.

The Kent Wildlife Trust and Buglife – two UK-based conservation groups – compared the number of dead insects on vehicles in 2004 and 2021.  In this Bugs Matter Citizen Science Survey, the data was collected by roughly 20,000 ordinary citizens using a smartphone app.

The results were that the number of flying insects in Britain dropped nearly 60% over that time period.  The insects declined most in England and Wales, with drops of 65% and 55%, respectively. 

It is possible that 2004 was a particularly good year for British insects and 2021 an especially bad one, but the findings of this study are consistent with other research around the world showing an alarming decline in insects.  A series of studies in 2019 found that the global mass of insects is shrinking by 2.5% a year and that insects are going extinct eight times faster than reptiles, birds, or mammals.

Insects face multiple overlapping threats including the destruction of wild habitats for farming, urbanization, pesticides, and light pollution.  On top of these things is climate change which is disrupting ecosystems in multiple ways.

Insects play a vital role in pollinating crops, consuming organic waste, killing pests, and as essential parts of multiple ecosystems.  Severe insect declines can potentially have dire global ecological and economic consequences.

**********

Web Links

Flying Insects Have Declined by 60 Percent in the U.K., Survey Finds

Insect decline in the Anthropocene: Death by a thousand cuts

Photo, posted May 6, 2007, courtesy of Richard Giddins via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Rock Dust And Carbon | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

According to a new study by Cardiff University in the UK, Britain could achieve nearly half of the carbon removal needed to meet its climate goals by adding basalt rock dust to crop fields.  The process is known as enhanced weathering and has been the subject of ongoing research in the U.S. at Cornell University and the University of California, as well as in the UK, Canada, and Australia.

Adding rock dust to agricultural lands speeds up the chemical reactions that lock up carbon in soil.  Basalt contains magnesium, calcium, and silica, among other components.  When basalt is pulverized and applied to soils, magnesium and calcium are released and dissolve in water as it moves through the soil.  The minerals in the soil react with the water, and the carbon that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere instead forms bicarbonates, which can hang around in water for thousands of years.  It can also eventually make its way to the oceans where it precipitates out as limestone and can stay on the seafloor for millions of years.

Basalt is a waste stream byproduct of mining and manufacturing and is found all over the world.  Mining waste is the largest waste stream in the world, so there is no shortage.

According to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, applying rock dust to agricultural lands on a global basis could theoretically remove 2 to 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide from the air each year, which is between 34-68% of the global greenhouse gas emissions produced by agriculture annually.

The added rock dust would in fact be good for the soil and for crops.  Whether the economics of producing and transporting it make sense remains to be determined.

**********

Web Links

Adding Rock Dust to Farmland Could Get UK Almost Halfway to Its Carbon Removal Goal

Photo, posted April 24, 2011, courtesy of the State of Israel via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Managing Pests With Cover Crops | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The use of pesticides in global agriculture brings with it many problems including the killing of non-target, beneficial species as well as reversing pest-management gains from the use of conservation agriculture methods.

In a newly published study by researchers at Penn State University, the use of plant cover, such as cover crops, was shown to potentially be more effective at reducing pest density and crop damage than the application of insecticides without the downsides.  Cover crops reduce insect pest outbreaks by increasing pest predator abundance.

Cover crops are plantings that are primarily used to slow erosion, improve soil health, enhance water availability, smother weeds, and help control pests and diseases.  Typical cover crops include mustard, alfalfa, rye, clovers, buckwheat, and winter peas.  Most cover crops are fairly inexpensive to plant.

Plant cover can provide habitat for populations of natural enemies of pests.  Winter cover crops can harbor pest predator populations outside of the growing season of the cash crop.  When the cover crop is killed off to allow the growth of the cash crop, residues of the cover crop remain on the soil during the growing season, so they still enhance the habitat for pest predators.

Conservation agriculture includes methods like cover crops, no-till planting, and crop rotation.  The use of cover crops constitutes a form of preventive pest management that is an alternative to planting seeds treated with systemic insecticides to control early-season pests.  There is also the possibility for integrated pest managements, which is an approach in which insecticides are applied but only when pest numbers exceed economic thresholds despite the use of nonchemical tactics.

**********

Web Links

Cover crops more effective than insecticides for managing pests, study suggests

Photo, posted August 8, 2011, courtesy of USDA NRCS Montana via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Healthy Soil Is Healthy For People | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

A new study by researchers at the University of Washington looked at the impact of regenerative farming practices on the nutritional content of the food that is grown. 

Regenerative agriculture involves farming practices that not only “do not harm” to the land but actually improve it by regenerating and revitalizing the soil.  The practices focus on topsoil regeneration, increasing biodiversity, improving the water cycle, and enhancing ecosystem services.  Examples are soil-building techniques that minimize plowing, the use of cover crops, and the planting of diverse crops rather than monocultures.

The study included 10 farms across the U.S. that followed soil-friendly practices for at least five years. The results were that the crops from those farms had a healthier nutritional profile than the same crops grown on neighboring, conventional farms.  In particular, there was a boost in certain minerals, vitamins and phytochemicals that are beneficial to human health.  Across the board, regenerative practices resulted in crops with more anti-inflammatory compounds and antioxidants.

The participating farms grew one acre of a test crop – peas, sorghum, corn, or soybeans – for comparison with the same crop grown on a neighboring farm using conventional agriculture.  Analysis showed that the farms practicing regenerative agriculture had healthier soils, as measured by their organic matter – or carbon – content and by other tests. 

Organic farms avoid chemical pesticides, but they operate with a variety of farming processes.  Nonetheless, they have also been found to produce crops with higher levels of beneficial nutrients.  The biology of the soil in which crops are grown is an important factor for human health.  It isn’t just what we eat that matters; it is how we grow it.

**********

Web Links

Farms following soil-friendly practices grow healthier food, study suggests

Photo, posted January 10, 2020, courtesy of Les via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Corn Ethanol And The Climate | Earth Wise

By 1 Comment

The Renewable Fuel Standard legislation, first passed in 2005 and updated in 2007, requires billions of gallons of renewable fuel to be added to the country’s transportation fuel supplies.  It created the world’s largest biofuels program.

The standard was hailed as a major victory for the climate as well as a way to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.

The intent of the legislation was to encourage various forms of renewable fuels – especially cellulosic ethanol from plant and wood fiber – to become an increasing part of the fuel mix.  That has yet to happen.  Instead, corn ethanol has been the backbone of the program.

Back in 2007, the EPA determined that ethanol from corn would lead to a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases compared to gasoline.  But the next year, a study published in the journal Nature projected that corn ethanol would double greenhouse gas emissions over 30 years because demand for corn would drive farmers to plow up increasing amounts of carbon-rich forest and grassland.

A new study published by researchers at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, has again concluded that corn-based ethanol may actually be worse for the climate than fossil-based gasoline as well as having other environmental downsides.  According to the study, since the fuel standard was passed, farmers have expanded corn production on nearly 7 million acres each year, causing the conversion of lands to cropland.  The result is that the carbon intensity of corn ethanol could be as much as 24% higher than gasoline.

The issue is still being debated in Congress, but if these results are verified, the time has come to revamp the terms of the renewable fuel standard.

**********

Web Links

Corn-Based Ethanol May Be Worse For the Climate Than Gasoline, a New Study Finds

Trots den höga effektiviteten leder inte vissa patienter som tar läkemedlet till en förbättring av erektion. Detta beror på felaktig användning av medicinen eller på att ED helt enkelt är en följd online apotek viagra av en annan sjukdom. I sådana fall är det obligatoriskt att konsultera och undersöka en läkare.

Photo, posted October 23, 2011, courtesy of the United Soybean Board via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

An Indoor Farm In Upstate New York | Earth Wise        

By Leave a Comment

Vertical farming is the practice of growing crops in vertically stacked layers, generally under controlled environments and using soilless farming techniques like hydroponics, aquaponics, and aeroponics.   Vertical farms are housed in structures such as buildings, shipping containers, tunnels, and abandoned mineshafts.

The potential advantages of vertical farms are that they are very efficient in terms of the amount of land required to produce a given amount of crop, they are resistant to weather, and they allow crops to be produced in close proximity to where they will be used.

The vacant third floor of a building in downtown Glens Falls, New York is about to become the home of a small vertical farm.  The facility will be used to hydroponically grow things like fresh basil, lettuce, and fruits to be used by nearby restaurants.  In fact, the first floor of the building is a restaurant that will be a customer for the crops growing upstairs.  Other local restaurants are likely to benefit as well.

Th pilot program is being funded by a grant from the Smart Cities Innovation Partnership that the city applied for in 2020.  Glens Falls is partnering with Re-Nuble, a New York City-based renewability and sustainability firm.  Apart from the vertical farm project, Re-Nuble also advises on reduction of food waste by composting and on the selection of energy-efficient equipment.

The pilot program will run for a year and the results will be used for scaling it up to a larger vertical farm.  Vertical farms like these are not intended to replace conventional farms but can supplement the existing food stream and provide items that are hard to obtain during the year.

**********

Glens Falls is fitting a farm inside a downtown building

Photo, posted July 15, 2007, courtesy of Toshiyuki Imai via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Cleaning Up Abandoned Wells | Earth Wise      

By Leave a Comment

There are 130,000 documented abandoned oil and gas wells in the US, according to the Department of the Interior.  The key word is documented.  According to an EPA study in 2018, the actual number of abandoned wells could be as high as two or three million.  According to an analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund and McGill University, about nine million people in the United States live within a mile of one of these wells.

Some of these wells might be fairly harmless, and others might be quite dangerous.  Wells can emit a variety of gasses, including methane, which is a far stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.  Leaking wells are a major source of air and groundwater pollution.  Apart from methane, substances such as arsenic can continue to leak from wells even after they are no longer operational.

At the end of January, the Biden Administration announced a series of new actions to tackle methane pollution.  Among these measures is $1.15 billion in funds from the Department of the Interior that states can use to seal up abandoned oil and gas wells.  That funding comes from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law passed in November, which sets aside $4.7 billion for a federal program dedicated to orphaned wells.

Addressing the largely ignored problem of abandoned wells is important from the standpoint of climate pollution as well as human health.  Efforts to plug the wells will also provide high-paying jobs

Other methane-reduction measures include increased enforcement from the Department of Transportation on reducing pipelines leaks, research funding for limiting methane emissions from beef and dairy farming, and technical assistance from the Department of Energy on well-plugging efforts.

**********

Photo, posted March 23, 2011, courtesy of David Stone via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Removing Carbon With The Oceans | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

There is increasing concern that reducing carbon emissions alone will not be sufficient to stabilize the climate and that technologies that actively remove carbon dioxide from the air will be needed.  There has been a fair amount of analysis of the efficacy of storing carbon in agricultural soil and in forests, but there has not been comparable studies of the risks, benefits, and trade-offs of ocean-based strategies. 

The oceans currently absorb about a quarter of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.  There are multiple ways in which oceans could be induced to store much more.  A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine looks at several ocean carbon dioxide removal strategies in terms of efficacy, potential costs, and potential environmental risks.

One approach involves adding nutrients to the ocean surface to increase photosynthesis by phytoplankton.  The approach has a medium to high chance of being effective and has medium environmental risks.

Another approach is large-scale seaweed farming that transports carbon to the deep ocean or into sediments.   It has medium efficacy chances but higher environmental risks.

Protection and restoration of coastal ecosystems including marine wildlife would have the lowest environmental risk but only low to medium efficacy.

Chemically altering ocean water to increase its alkalinity in order to enhance reactions that take up carbon dioxide would be highly effective but a medium environmental risk.

The report describes some other approaches as well.  It recommends a $125 million research program to better understand the technological challenges as well as the potential economic, social, and environmental impacts of increasing the oceans’ absorption of carbon dioxide.

**********

Web Links

Oceans Could Be Harnessed to Remove Carbon From Air, Say U.S. Science Leaders

Photo, posted August 21, 2016, courtesy of Quinn Dombrowski via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Capturing Methane To Feed Fish | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Methane in the atmosphere is an extremely potent greenhouse gas.  Its warming potential is about 85 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.  It also worsens air quality by increasing atmospheric ozone.  Many human activities add methane to the atmosphere, notably emissions from landfills and oil and gas facilities.

Capturing methane from these sources for subsequent use is currently uneconomical but new research from Stanford University analyzes the market for using the methane to feed bacteria to produce fishmeal.

Methane-consuming bacteria called methanotrophs can be grown in chilled, water-filled bioreactors containing pressurized methane, oxygen, and nutrients.  The bacteria produce a protein-rich biomass that can be used as fishmeal in aquaculture.  This could offset demand for fishmeal made from small fish or plant-based feeds that require land, water, and fertilizer.

Some companies already do this using natural gas provided by utility pipelines, but it would be far better for the environment to use methane emitted at large landfills, wastewater treatment plants, and oil and gas facilities.

Consumption of seafood has more than quadrupled since 1960, depleting wild fish stocks.  Farmed fish now provide half of all the animal-sourced seafood we eat.

The Stanford research analyzed the cost of methanotrophic fishmeal production under various scenarios and found it to be very competitive with and in some cases considerably cheaper than current market prices for fishmeal. 

According to the study, this process could profitably supply total global demand for fishmeal with methane captured in the U.S. alone.

**********

Web Links

Stanford researchers reveal how to turn a global warming liability into a profitable food security solution

Photo, posted April 30, 2017, courtesy of Artur Rydzewski via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Food And Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

According to a study published in the journal Nature Food, the world’s food systems are responsible for more than one third of global greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities. 

‘Eat Local’ is often recommended as a way to minimize the carbon footprint of our diet.  But from a climate impact perspective, eating local only has a significant impact if transportation is responsible for a large portion of a food’s final carbon footprint.  And in many cases, greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation make up only a small portion of the emissions from food and what we eat is far more important. 

There are massive differences in the greenhouse gas emissions of various foods. 

For example, producing one pound of beef generates 60 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions.  This is more than double the next closest food (lamb), and more than 60 times greater than some plant crops like corn and cassava. 

For most foods – especially the largest emitters – greenhouse gas emissions from land use change combined with the emissions from processes at the farm stage account for more than 80% of the environmental footprint.  Meanwhile, transportation accounts for less than 10%, and its contribution for the largest emitters is even smaller.  For example, transportation accounts for 0.5% of emissions from beef production.

Eating beef or lamb has many times the carbon footprint of most other foods.  It matters very little in terms of emissions whether it was grown locally or shipped from another part of the world.  It’s not the location that makes the carbon footprint of our dinner large.  It’s what is on our plate that matters.

**********  

Web Links

Food systems account for over one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions

You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food?

Photo, posted November 7, 2018, courtesy of Preston Keres / USDA via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Benefits Of No-Till Farming | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

No-till farming is not new.  In fact, it was used as far back as 10,000 years ago.  But during the 18th and 19th centuries, tilling became popular because it allowed farmers to plant seeds more efficiently.

Tilling (or ploughing) is the process of preparing the soil for the cultivation of seeds by overturning the soil.  The practice works animal manure, weeds, and other surface residues deep into the soil.  While this all sounds like a good thing, it’s not. 

Tilling removes plant matter and loosens the soil, leaving the soil bare and vulnerable to erosion.  Tilling also displaces the millions of microbes and insects that form healthy soil biology.  The long-term use of tilling can turn healthy soils into lifeless growing mediums dependent on chemical inputs.  

But no-till farming also tends to rely on chemical inputs like glyphosate for weed control.  According to a new study recently published in Agronomy Journal, researchers at Penn State have found that farmers using no-till farming can reduce herbicide use and still maintain crop yields by implementing integrated weed-management methods.   

The research team conducted a nine-year experiment using herbicide-reduction practices in a crop rotation, which included soybean, corn, alfalfa, and canola.  Some of the practices used to reduce herbicide inputs included seeding small-grain companion crops with perennials, and plowing once in six years to terminate the perennial forage rather than killing it with an herbicide. 

While there was more weed biomass in the reduced herbicide treatment, the researchers found that the added weed pressure did not substantially affect crop yields. 

It is possible to make agriculture more environmentally-friendly and sustainable without sacrificing productivity.

**********

Web Links

No-till production farmers can cut herbicide use, control weeds, protect profits

Photo, posted February 11, 2019, courtesy of the United Soybean Board via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Promoting Biodiversity In Agriculture | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The organic foods industry is one of the fastest growing agricultural segments in the United States.  According to the Organic Trade Association, U.S. organic sales reached $61.9 billion in 2020, a jump of more than 12% over the previous year. 

Organic food has many benefits.  Organic food is free of antibiotics, growth hormones, and GMOs, and is grown using fewer pesticides.  Organic farming tends to be better for the environment by reducing pollution, conserving water, reducing soil erosion, increasing soil fertility, and using less energy.   And it’s also better for the health of nearby wildlife as well as the people who live close to farms. 

But when it comes to promoting biodiversity in agriculture, is organic farming the only alternative to conventional agriculture? It turns out it’s not – at least according to a new study recently published in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 

According to an international research team led by the University of Göttingen in Germany, a landscape mosaic of natural habitats and small-scale and diverse cultivated areas is the key to promoting biodiversity on a large scale in both conventional and organic agriculture.

According to the research team, areas cultivated to organic standards have one third more species, but don’t reach the yield level of conventional farming.  This means that more land would need to be cultivated organically in order to produce the same amount of food.  But as larger areas are cultivated, the advantages for biodiversity would disappear.    

Landscapes with small fields, long edges, high crop diversity, and at least 20% near-natural habitats can promote biodiversity significantly more than just organic certification.   

**********

Web Links

U.S. Organic Industry Survey 2021

Promoting biodiversity-friendly landscapes – beyond organic farming

Photo, posted August 29, 2019, courtesy of Lance Cheung/USDA via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Understanding Geoengineering | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The most recent report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change includes discussion of a number of extreme and untested solutions to the climate crisis.  Among these are solar geoengineering – modifying clouds or spraying tiny reflective particles into the upper atmosphere in order to block some of the sun’s light and thereby cool the planet.  The underlying principles are relatively straightforward.

There have been various models that predict the extent to which solar geoengineering would lower the earth’s average temperature.  What hasn’t been modeled to any real extent is what other effects it would have.

The new report discusses the results of models that predict how temperatures would vary at different latitudes and how geoengineering would affect rainfall and snowfall.  According to the models, releasing sulfate aerosols into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight would lower average precipitation.  But every region would be affected differently.  Some regions would gain in an artificially cooler world, but others might, for example, suffer by no longer having suitable conditions to grow crops.

The drop in temperature would allow the planet’s carbon sinks (plants, soils, and oceans) to take up more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.  However, as long as people continue to pollute, carbon dioxide would continue to make the oceans more acidic, causing significant harm to marine ecosystems.  Furthermore, solar geoengineering would have to be an ongoing process that would go on indefinitely and if it were to suddenly stop, it would lead to rapid warming.

The more we learn about geoengineering, the more it becomes clear that there would be many side effects as well as serious moral, political, and practical issues.  Society has to consider if all these things represent too much danger to allow us to seriously consider such a strategy.

**********

Web Links

In the New UN Climate Report, a Better Understanding of Solar Geoengineering

Photo, posted September 9, 2012, courtesy of Kelly Nighan via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Seeds And Climate Change | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Farmers and agricultural communities around the world are on the frontlines of climate change.  They are among the first to feel the impacts of hotter temperatures as well as more frequent and intense droughts and precipitation. These challenges pose a massive threat to both farmer livelihoods and global food security.

As the planet continues to heat up, many arid regions that already have marginal conditions for agriculture will be increasingly under stress. As a result, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the King Mohammed VI Polytechnic University in Morocco are working on a promising new way to protect seeds from this stress during their crucial germination phase. Their simple and inexpensive process, which was recently described in a paper published in the journal Nature Food, also provides plants with extra nutrition at the same.

The research team has developed a two layer coating for seeds designed for tackling issues related to drought. Drawing inspiration from natural coatings that occur on some seeds like chia seeds, the first layer is designed to protect the seeds from drying out. It provides a gel-like coating that grips any moisture that comes along and surrounds the seed with it.  The second (inner) layer of the coating contains preserved microorganisms called rhizobacteria, as well as some nutrients to help the seeds grow. 

The materials for the coatings are biodegradable, readily-available, and often used in the food industry already.  According to researchers, early tests using common beans have demonstrated encouraging results in Morocco, and more field tests of the seeds are currently underway.

As the climate continues to change, more innovations like this will be necessary for global food security.

**********

Web Links

Engineering seeds to resist drought

Photo, posted September 17, 2010, courtesy of Stacy via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Saving Coffee From Global Warming | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The global coffee market is valued at over $450 billion a year and supports the economies of several tropical countries.  About 100 million farmers depend upon coffee for their livelihoods. 

Coffee bushes grow best in a narrow range of temperatures.  The existing coffee market is dominated by two species Coffea arabica and Coffea canephora, the latter commonly called robusta.  Arabica, the most preferred coffee, thrives in average temperatures between 64 and 72 degrees Fahrenheit.  Robusta does not flourish above 75 degrees.  Therefore, the warming climate is making growing coffee increasingly difficult.

There are actually well over 100 species of coffee.  Many of them grow in warmer places than those preferred by robusta and arabica, but are considered to have poorer flavors, smaller beans, and lower yields.

Researchers at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Britain came across a paper written in 1834 about a species of coffee from the lowland hills of Sierra Leone called Coffea stenophylla.  According to the paper, stenophylla supposedly has a flavor superior to arabica’s. 

It turns out that stenophylla still grows in parts of Africa with temperature ranges between 75 and 80 degrees.  It was actually farmed until the 1920s but was abandoned because robusta was found to have higher yields.

Extensive taste testing verified the positive attributes of stenophylla.  Whether it should be cultivated directly tolerating potential yield issues or crossbred with existing commercial coffees remains to be determined.  But the prospects for finding more heat tolerant coffees should be encouraging news for coffee addicts.

**********

Web Links

How to save coffee from global warming

Photo, posted October 30, 2012, courtesy of Coffee Management Service via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Climate Change And Farming Productivity | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

The future potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change on global agricultural systems has been well studied, but how human-caused climate change has already affected the agricultural sector is not as well understood.  But a new study led by researchers at Cornell University and supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the National Science Foundation examined this issue. 

Despite important agricultural breakthroughs in technology, fertilizer use and global trade during the past 60 years, it turns out that the climate crisis is already eroding farm productivity.  According to the study, which was recently published in the journal Nature Climate Change, global farming productivity is 21% lower than it could have been without climate change.  This is the equivalent of losing approximately seven years of farm productivity increases since the 1960s. 

The researchers developed a model linking annual changes in weather and productivity with output from the latest climate models over six decades to quantify the effect of anthropogenic climate change on what economists call “total factor productivity.” This measure captures the overall productivity of the agricultural sector. 

The research team reviewed 200 variations of the model, but the results remained largely consistent:  anthropogenic climate change is already slowing down global food production.  The researchers say the historical impacts of climate change have been larger in naturally warmer climates, like in parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.   

Climate change is not some distant problem to solve in the future.  It is already having an impact on the planet and it needs to be addressed now.

**********

Web Links

Climate change cut global farming productivity 21% since 1960s

Photo, posted October 2, 2013, courtesy of the United Soybean Board via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Protecting Nature Is Valuable | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

A study by the University of Vermont, the University of Cambridge, and several other institutions compared the value of protecting nature at particular locations with that of exploiting it.   The study concluded that the economic benefits of conserving or restoring natural sites outweigh the profit potential of converting them for intensive human use.

The study analyzed dozens of sites across the globe – from Kenya to Fiji and China to the UK across six continents.  It was published in the journal Nature Sustainability.

The analysis utilized a methodology devised ten years ago called TESSA (the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment) which enables users to measure, and in many cases, assign monetary values to services provided by sites – clean water, nature-based recreation, crop pollination, and so on.  This is then compared with the economic benefits that can be derived by converting the site for farming, logging, or other human uses.

A major economic benefit of natural sites comes from their ability to sequester carbon and thereby help regulate the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  If one assigns a value to global society of $31 a ton of carbon removed, over 70% of the sites surveyed had a greater value to society when kept natural rather than being converted.  Many scientists actually consider this carbon price to be conservative.  Nevertheless, if carbon is assigned the paltry cost of $5 a ton, 60% of the sites are still more valuable in their natural state.

Beyond these economic calculations, there is the pressing issue that current rates of habitat conversion are driving a species extinction crisis unprecedented in human history.  But even if one is only interested in dollars and cents, conserving and restoring nature is now very often the best bet for human prosperity.

**********

Web Links

Economic Benefits of Protecting Nature Exceed Value of Exploiting it, Global Study Finds

Photo, posted June 7, 2017, courtesy of Mouli Choudari via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

WAMC Northeast Public Radio

WAMC/Northeast Public Radio is a regional public radio network serving parts of seven northeastern states (more...)