land

Reducing Air Pollution With Plants | Earth Wise

January 15, 2020 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

New research by Ohio State University suggests that adding plants and trees to the landscapes near factories and other pollution sources could reduce air pollution by an average of 27%. In addition, the study indicates that, in many cases, plants may be a cheaper option for cleaning the air than more technological approaches.

The study looked at public data on air pollution and vegetation on a county-by-county basis across the lower 48 states. It then calculated what adding additional trees and plants might cost. The calculations included the capacity of current vegetation to mitigate air pollution as well as the effects that restorative planting might have on pollution levels.

In 75% of the counties analyzed, it was cheaper to use plants to mitigate air pollution rather than add technological interventions such as smokestack scrubbers to the sources of pollution. The results varied according to the pollution source. For example, technology is cheaper at cleaning the air near industrial boilers than ecosystem approaches. For the broad manufacturing industry, one approach or the other was favorable, depending on the type of factory.

Adding trees or other plants generally can lower air pollution levels in both urban and rural areas, although success rates depend on a variety of factors including how much land is available to grow new plants and current air quality.

Reducing air pollution is critical to public health. An estimated 4 in 10 people in the U.S. live in areas with poor air quality, leading to health issues including asthma, lung cancer, and heart disease. The study shows that nature should be part of the planning process for industry to deal with air pollution.

**********

Web Links

Nature might be better than tech at reducing air pollution

Photo courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Another Hot November

January 3, 2020 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

This past fall saw yet more of the high temperatures the world has been experiencing in recent times. Both the season (September through November) and the year to date were the second hottest in recorded history. November itself was the second-hottest November in the 140-year global climate record.

The high temperatures were felt at both ends of the world. Sea ice coverage across both the Arctic and Antarctic oceans fell to near-record lows in November. Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 13% below the 1981-2010 average, while Antarctic coverage was 6.35% below average.

The average global land and ocean surface temperature for November was 1.66 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20^th century average. The year-to-date global temperature was 1.69 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20^th century average. These numbers correspond to almost a 1-degree Celsius increase, which should be compared with the Paris Climate Accord goal of keeping that increase to no more than 1.5 degrees.

November was the hottest November on record for South America, Africa, and the Hawaiian Islands. The Caribbean had its second-hottest November, and Europe had its seventh hottest on record.

The world’s average sea surface temperature ranked second warmest for the year to date and was only 0.05 degrees cooler than the all-time record.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issues monthly global climate reports and for quite some time, these reports seem to all be the same. Another new record for heat or at least another near record. We have to expect that this trend will continue at least until the world starts making progress in dealing with its root cause.

**********

Web Links

November 2019 was 2nd hottest on record for the planet

Photo, posted July 20, 2016, courtesy of Salehin Chowdhury via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Ocean Acidification And Mass Extinction

November 26, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Since the industrial revolution, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased due to the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes. The ocean absorbs about 30% of the CO2 that is released in the atmosphere. As the levels of atmospheric CO2 increase, so do the levels in the ocean.

When CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, a series of chemical reactions occur, resulting in seawater becoming more acidic. Ocean acidification threatens calcifying organisms, such as clams and corals, as well as other marine animals, like fish. When these organisms are at risk, the entire marine ecosystem may also be at risk.

In fact, according to research recently published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, fossil evidence from 66 million years ago has revealed that ocean acidification can cause the mass extinction of marine life. Researchers analyzed seashells in sediment laid down shortly after a giant meteorite hit earth. This strike wiped out the dinosaurs and 75% of marine species. Chemical analysis of the shells revealed a sharp drop in the PH of the ocean over hundreds of years after the meteorite strike. The meteorite impact vaporized rocks, causing carbonic acid and sulphuric acid to rain down, acidifying the ocean. The strike also resulted in mass die-off of plants on land, increasing atmospheric CO2.

Researchers found that the pH dropped by 0.25 pH units in the 100 to 1,000 years after the meteorite strike. Alarmingly, scientists expect the pH of the ocean to drop by 0.4 pH units by 2100 if our carbon emissions continue as projected.

**********

Web Links

Ocean acidification can cause mass extinctions, fossils reveal

Photo, posted March 16, 2017, courtesy of Zachary Martin via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Geoengineering And Volcanoes

November 14, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Solar geoengineering is a theoretical strategy for curbing the effects of climate change by introducing aerosol particles in the upper atmosphere to reflect some of the Sun’s radiation back into space and thereby cool the planet. It would basically be intentionally tinkering with the climate system on a global scale.

The concept is fraught with the danger of unintended consequences and most experts consider the idea almost unthinkable. But there are those who see it as a last resort if all our other efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change are unsuccessful.

Proponents of the idea like to describe the technique as being like a human-made volcano. Major volcanic eruptions spew ash particles into the atmosphere which can linger for as long as a few years. The result is cooler temperatures, sometimes across much of the globe. The Krakatoa eruption of 1883 lowered average Northern Hemisphere temperatures by more than 2 degrees and created chaotic weather patterns until about 1888.

Researchers at the Carnegie Institution and two Chinese research institutions used sophisticated modeling techniques to compare the effects on the climate of a volcanic eruption with long-term geoengineering deployment.

They found that the volcanic eruption created a greater temperature difference between the land and sea than the geoengineering and resulted in very different precipitation scenarios. In both cases, there would be less available water for people on land.

Overall, the study demonstrated that volcanic eruptions are imperfect analogs for geoengineering and that scientists should be very cautious about extrapolating too much from them. It is important to evaluate geoengineering from an informed position, but the truth is that it represents a great and perilous unknown.

**********

Web Links

Geoengineering Versus A Volcano

Photo, posted November 1, 2002, courtesy of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Agrivoltaics

September 24, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

A new study by Oregon State University has found that the most productive places on Earth for solar power are farmlands. In fact, if less than 1% of agricultural land was converted to solar panels, it would be sufficient to fulfill global electricity demand.

The concept of co-developing the same area of land for both solar photovoltaic power and conventional agriculture is known as agrivoltaics.

The synergy between agriculture and solar power is not surprising. People have been growing crops around the planet for at least 8,000 years and, long ago, farmers found the best places to grow them which turn out to also the best places to harvest solar energy. The needs for solar panels are pretty similar to those of food crops. The efficiency of the panels decreases if they get too hot. Barren land is hotter than cropland, so the productivity of solar panels is less in such places.

The Oregon State Study analyzed power production data collected by Tesla, which had installed five large grid-tied, ground-mounted solar electric arrays owned by Oregon State. The researchers monitored air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction, soil moisture, and incoming solar energy. With the data, they developed a model for the best conditions for solar panel productivity and they coincide with excellent conditions for agriculture. Solar panels are kind of like people with regard to the weather: they are happier when it is cool and breezy and dry.

Previously-published research shows that solar panels actually increase crop yields on pasture or agricultural fields.

These new results have implications for the current practice of constructing large solar arrays in deserts. Agricultural lands may be a much better option for both solar production and crop production.

**********

Web Links

Installing solar panels on agricultural lands maximizes their efficiency, new study shows

Photo, posted April 20, 2011, courtesy of U.S. Department of Agriculture via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Decline Of Earth’s Largest Freshwater Creatures

September 23, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

While nearly 70% of the globe is covered by water, only 2.5% of it is freshwater. The rest is saline and ocean-based. And only 1% of our freshwater is easily accessible, with much of it locked away in snowfields and glaciers.

Despite freshwater only making up a small fraction of all water on the planet, it’s home to one third of all vertebrate species. Some have survived hundreds of millions of years, but many of the world’s largest freshwater creatures – including fish, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals – may soon find themselves on the brink of extinction.

According to a study recently published in the journal Global Change Biology, scientists from the Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries and international colleagues have quantified the global decline of freshwater megafauna for the first time. In four decades since 1970, the global populations of these freshwater giants have declined 88% – twice as much as the loss of vertebrate populations on land or in the oceans.

Freshwater megafauna include all freshwater animals that weigh 30 kilograms (about 66 pounds) or more, such as certain dolphins, beavers, crocodiles, turtles and sturgeons.

Overexploitation is one of the main threats to freshwater megafauna. (These animals are often targeted for their meat, eggs, and skin). The other main threat is the loss of free-flowing rivers. Many of the world’s large rivers are already highly fragmented, which impacts access to spawning and feeding grounds. The research team says another 3700 large dams are planned or under construction, including 800 in habitats rich with freshwater megafauna, including the Amazon, Congo, and Ganges river basins.

Current conservation measures are clearly failing our freshwater creatures.

**********

Web Links

88 percent decline of big freshwater animals

Earth’s largest freshwater creatures at risk of extinction

Photo, posted March 25, 2012, courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Climate Change And Nutrients

August 15, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Ending hunger isn’t a question of producing enough food. Globally, enough food is produced to feed all 7.7 billion people on the planet. But despite this, approximately 1 in 9 people go hungry. Conflict, natural disasters, and extreme poverty are some of the main drivers of global hunger.

Climate change is another. The more frequent and intense extreme weather events increase food insecurity and malnutrition by destroying land, livestock, crops, and food supplies. Climate change makes growing crops harder every year, especially for those who lack the tools and technology to adapt.

But the challenge of reducing hunger and malnutrition is to not only produce foods that provide enough calories, but to also produce foods that make enough necessary nutrients widely available. According to new research, climate change is projected to significantly reduce the availability of critical nutrients such as protein, iron, and zinc over the next 30 years. The total impact of climate change could reduce global per capita nutrient availability of protein, iron, and zinc by 19.5%, 14.4%, and 14.6%, respectively.

While higher levels of carbon dioxide can boost growth in plants, wheat, rice, corn, barley, potatoes, soybeans, and vegetables are all projected to suffer nutrient losses of about 3% on average by 2050 due to the elevated CO2 levels.

The study, which was co-authored by an international group of researchers and published in the peer-reviewed journal, Lancet Planetary Health, represents the most comprehensive synthesis of the impacts of climate change on the availability of nutrients in the global food supply to date.

Climate change is complicating the quest to end global hunger and malnutrition.

**********

Web Links

Rising CO2, climate change projected to reduce availability of nutrients worldwide

Photo, posted April 30, 2015, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Sunlight As A Cash Crop

July 10, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

It isn’t so easy to be a farmer these days. Farming has always involved long hours, hard work and the uncertainties of weather and yield. The 21st Century has added new and unique challenges such as increasingly unpredictable weather, insect infestation and disease, and low commodity prices. Add in sudden tariffs and farmers struggle even more to make ends meet. The default rate for farmers’ loans is the the highest in at least nine years.

One thing that remains reliable for farmers is the sun. It rises in the morning and goes down at night. The sun can be trusted, unlike politicians, rain, or commodity prices. These days, many farmers are taking advantage of the dependability of the sun to make money from a new cash crop: solar energy.

The trend is spreading. North Carolina has been a leading solar energy state for several years and a 2017 report found that solar energy generates 30% of the income of many farms. Typical annual rent payments for farmland by solar companies range from $500 to $1,400 per acre in North Carolina.

A growing list of states have clean energy mandates targeting 100% use of renewable energy. These mandates provide incentives for farmers that make installing solar a financially smart decision and falling prices for solar installations make it an even better deal.

Solar works well when co-located on a farm and can be built in ways that minimizes impact. It is quiet, uses almost no water, doesn’t pollute, and if it is decommissioned, the land can go back to its previous use. If the solar facilities are raised up, the same land can be used to graze livestock or grow shade-tolerant crops.

**********

Web Links

Harvesting the sun is the new cash crop

Photo, posted December 25, 2017, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Climate Change Is Not Natural

July 5, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

It has been the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community for a long time that human activity and other external factors are responsible for the continuing rise in global temperature. Despite this widespread agreement, there have been those who argue that natural ocean cycles might be influencing global warming over the course of multiple decades.

A new study, published in the Journal of Climate, provides an answer to the question of how much influence natural cycles might have, and that answer is very little to none.

The study looked at observed ocean and land temperature data since 1850 and, apart from human-induced factors such as greenhouse gas concentrations, took into account other occurrences such as volcanic eruptions, solar activity, and air pollution peaks. The findings demonstrated that slow-acting ocean cycles do not explain the long-term changes in global temperatures.

Based on the study, the researchers can state with confidence that human factors like greenhouse gas emissions and particulate pollution, along with year-to-year changes caused by natural phenomena like volcanic eruptions or El Niño, are sufficient to explain virtually all the long-term changes in temperature. The idea that the oceans could have been driving the climate either in a colder or warmer direction for multiple decades in the past and therefore will do so in the future is unlikely to be correct.

A number of previous studies have compared flawed observations with flawed modeling results to claim that naturally-occurring ocean cycles have played a large role in global temperatures. The new study shows that such cycles have little influence on the climate. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is really what we need to do.

**********

Web Links

Global temperature change attributable to external factors, confirms new study

Photo, posted November 13, 2007, courtesy of Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Drilling In California

May 16, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

More than one million acres of public and private land in California may soon be opened up to oil drilling and hydraulic fracturing, according to a plan recently released by the Trump Administration. The proposal raises environmental concerns, and comes at a time when opposition to oil and gas drilling in the state is growing.

The plan, put forth by the Bureau of Land Management, would end a five-year moratorium in the state on leasing federal public land to oil and gas developers. In 2013, a federal judge put the moratorium in place until the environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, could be better evaluated.

Fracking is the process of injecting liquid at high pressure underground in order to crack open rocks and extract oil or gas. Well-documented risks associated with fracking include air and water pollution, as well as increased risks of oil spills and earthquakes.

Nevertheless, the Bureau of Land Management, which is part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, released its 174-page environmental impact statement with the proposal to open up 1,011,470 acres of land to fossil fuel extraction, impacting the California counties of Fresno, Kern, Kings, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare, and Ventura.

Unsurprisingly, the draft plan has been praised by industry groups who say concerns are misguided, and slammed by environmentalists who say the move poses a serious public health risk and could lead to a “fracking frenzy.”

The proposal is now subject to a 45-day period for public comment, after which the Interior Department will determine how to proceed. A link to weigh in on the proposal can be found here .

*********

Web Links

Trump fracking plan targets over 1 million acres in California

Bakersfield Field Office Hydraulic Fracturing Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Photo, posted March 14, 2010, courtesy of Mike Baird via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Whopping Change

April 10, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Burger King, the global hamburger fast food giant, recently made a huge announcement: Customers will soon have the option to select either a beef patty or a plant-based patty when ordering the iconic Whopper sandwich.

Burger King’s plant-based patty will be made by Impossible Foods, a California startup founded in 2011 with the explicit goal of decreasing the world’s reliance on animal agriculture. Impossible Foods signature product, the Impossible burger, has already debuted as a slider in White Castle’s 380 or so stores. It’s also being added to the menu at all 570 Red Robin locations. Other plant-based innovators, such as Beyond Meat, have also found some mainstream success. But the Impossible Whopper and the planned national roll-out at Burger King’s 7,200 locations is the biggest deal to date.

Impossible Foods’ major innovation comes from its use of heme, which is an iron-rich protein that in essence is what makes meat taste like meat. Impossible Foods cultivates heme directly from plants – soybean plant roots to be exact – and then mass produces it using yeast. This is then mixed with other plant-based ingredients to achieve the nutty texture of ground beef.

Meat production is one of the biggest single contributors to climate change. The Impossible burger represents a better choice for the environment. It requires 87% less water, 96% less land, and produces 89% fewer greenhouse gas emissions when compared with beef burgers. At Burger King, the Impossible Whopper will have the same amount of protein as the regular Whopper, but 15% less fat and 90% less cholesterol.

Meatless continues to push into the mainstream.

**********

Web Links

Behold the Beefless ‘Impossible Whopper’

Photo, posted November 27, 2018, courtesy of Sarah Stierch via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Humans And Vertebrate Mortality

April 9, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

According to a new study, more than one-quarter of the planet’s land vertebrates die because of humans. This is a “disproportionately huge effect” on the other land vertebrates that share planet’s surface with us.

Researchers from the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry and the U.S. Department of Agriculture reviewed 1,114 published studies in which nearly 43,000 animals had perished. Their study, which was recently published in the journal Global Ecology and Biogeography, found that 28% of the animals’ deaths were directly attributable to humans. The other 72% died from natural sources.

Mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians that died between 1970 and 2018 in the Americas, Asia, Africa, Europe, and Oceania were the foundation of the study. All of these vertebrates had been either collared or tagged as part of other research projects.

The researchers point out that humans are only one among more than 35,000 species of terrestrial vertebrates globally. The fact that humans are responsible for more than one-quarter of their deaths illustrates the profound magnitude of the problem. And that statistic is just the direct causes. According to the researchers, when urban growth and other land use changes that erode habitat are considered, the human impact is likely even greater.

The study found that the impact of humans across all the different species was not equal. In fact, larger animals were more likely to be killed by humans than smaller animals. Adult animals were more likely to be killed by humans than juveniles.

The researchers conclude that humans are such a major contributor to terrestrial vertebrate mortality that they could potentially impact both evolutionary processes and ecosystem functioning.

**********

Web Links

On the land, one-quarter of vertebrates die because of humans

Photo, posted March 6, 2019, courtesy of USFWS Midwest Region via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Saving Beaches With Seagrass

February 22, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Almost a quarter of the Gross Domestic Product of places around the Caribbean Sea is earned from tourism. Preserving the beaches in the region is an economic imperative. With increasing coastal development, the natural flow of water and sand is disrupted, natural ecosystems are damaged, and many tropical beaches simply disappear into the sea.

With such high stakes, expensive coastal engineering efforts such as repeated replenishing of sand and the construction of concrete protective walls are common strategies. Rising sea levels and increasingly powerful storms only increase the threat to tropical beaches.

Researchers from The Netherlands and Mexico recently published a study in the journal BioScience on the effectiveness of seagrass in holding onto sand and sediment along shorelines.

Seagrasses are so-named because most species have long green, grass-like leaves. They are often confused with seaweeds but are actually more closely related to flowering plants seen on land. Seagrasses have roots, stems and leaves, and produce flowers and seeds. Seagrasses can form dense underwater meadows and are one of the most productive ecosystems in the world. Seagrasses provide shelter and food to an incredibly diverse community of animals, from tiny invertebrates to large fish, crabs, turtles, marine mammals and birds.

The researchers performed measurements of the ability of seagrass along Mexico’s Yucatan Peninsula coastline to keep sand in place and prevent erosion. They found that the amount of erosion was strongly linked to the amount of vegetation. Quite often, seagrass beds have been regarded as a nuisance, rather than a valuable asset for preserving valuable coastlines. The study opens opportunities for developing new tropical beach protection schemes in which ecology is integrated into engineering solutions.

**********

Web Links

Seagrass Saves Beaches and Money

Photo, posted October 13, 2010, courtesy of NOAA via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Examining Sea Level Rise

January 17, 2019 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

It’s no secret that sea levels along the East Coast of the United States are rising. But what’s less known is that the water isn’t rising at the same rate everywhere. As the climate continues to change, some cities may remain dry while others struggle to keep water out.

During the 20th century, sea levels rose about 18 inches near Cape Hatteras in North Carolina and along the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia. During that same time period, New York City and Miami experienced a 12 inch sea level rise, while the waters near Portland, Maine only rose 6 inches. According to a study recently published in the journal Nature, there’s an explanation for this.

The variation is a result of a phenomenon called “post-glacial rebound.” During the last ice age, huge sheets of ice once covered land areas in the Northern Hemisphere, including parts of the Northeast U.S. The weight of the ice weighted down the land like a boulder on a trampoline. At the same time, peripheral lands such as the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast rose up. As the ice melted, the previously weighted-down regions rebounded while the peripheral lands began to sink. While these ice sheets disappeared some 7,000 years ago, this see-sawing of post-glacial rebound continues to this day.

Researchers combined data from GPS satellites, tide gauges, and fossils in sediment with complex geophysical models to produce this comprehensive view of sea level change since 1900. While post-glacial rebound accounts for most of the sea level variation along the East Coast, researchers noted that when that factor is stripped away, “sea level trends increased steadily from Maine all the way down to Florida.”

**********