Tag Archives: harvard

Climate Change Is Turning Your Produce Into Junk Food

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Climate skeptics like to point out that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stimulates plant growth—suggesting that ever-growing fossil fuel consumption will lead to an era of bin-busting crop yields. But as I noted last week, the best science suggests that other effects of an over-heated planet—heat stress, drought, and floods—will likely overwhelm any bonus from CO2-rich air. Overall, it seems, crop yields will decline.

And here’s more bad news: In a paper published in Nature this month, a global team has found that heightened levels of atmospheric carbon make key staple crops wheat, rice, peas, and soybeans less nutritious.

The team, led by Samuel Myers, a research scientist at Harvard’s Department of Environmental Health, grew a variety of grains and legumes in plots in the US, Japan, and Australia. They subjected one set to air enriched with CO2 at concentrations ranging from 546 and 586 parts per million—levels expected to be reached in around four decades; the other set got ambient air at today’s CO2 level, which recently crossed the 400 parts per million threshold.

The results: a “significant decrease in the concentrations of zinc, iron, and protein” for wheat and rice, a Harvard press release on the study reports. For legumes like soybeans and peas, protein didn’t change much, but zinc and iron levels dropped. For wheat, the treated crops saw zinc, iron, and protein fall by 9.3 percent, 5.1 percent, and 6.3 percent, respectively.

These are potentially grave findings, because a large swath of humanity relies on rice, wheat, and legumes for these very nutrients, the authors note. They report that two billion people already suffer from zinc and iron deficiencies, “causing a loss of 63 million life-years annually.” According to the Harvard press release, the “reduction in these nutrients represents the most significant health threat ever shown to be associated with climate change.” Symptoms of zinc deficiency include stunted growth, appetite loss, impaired immune function, hair loss, diarrhea, delayed sexual maturation, impotence, hypogonadism (for males), and eye and skin lesions; while iron deficiency brings on fatigue, shortness of breath, dizziness, and headache.

Wheat, rice, soybeans, and peas are all what scientists call C3 crops, characterized by the way they use photosynthesis to trap carbon from the atmosphere. C4 crops, which use a different pathway, include staples like corn and sorghum. Fortunately, C4 crops showed much less sensitivity to higher CO2 levels, the study found.

Meanwhile, in my post last week about the big National Climate Assessment and its finding on agriculture, I left out a key point on weeds. The report’s agriculture section notes that “several weed species benefit more than crops from higher temperatures and CO2 levels,” meaning that climate change will likely intensify weed pressure on farmers. And then it adds a bombshell: glyphosate, the widely used herbicide marketed by Monsanto as Roundup, “loses its efficacy on weeds grown at CO2 levels projected to occur in the coming decades.” And that means “higher concentrations of the chemical and more frequent sprayings thus will be needed, increasing economic and environmental costs associated with chemical use.”

In short, the era of climate change will hardly be the paradise of carbon-enriched bounty envisioned by fossil fuel enthusiasts. For a look at how farmers probably should adapt to these unhappy developments, see my 2013 profile of Ohio farmer David Brandt.

View the original here – 

Climate Change Is Turning Your Produce Into Junk Food

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Paradise, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate Change Is Turning Your Produce Into Junk Food

Stanford will dump its coal company investments

Suck it, Harvard

Stanford will dump its coal company investments

Hammerin Man

Stanford University’s endowment fund is a fat one — nearly $19 billion rich. And, moving forward, none of those riches will be sunk into the ghastly practice of coal mining.

The university – which is situated on the edge of Silicon Valley, a hotbed for clean technology companies like Tesla – announced on Tuesday that its board of trustees had approved a divestment resolution. According to the university’s statement, the fund will sell off stocks and abstain from buying any more in “publicly traded companies whose principal business is the mining of coal for use in energy generation.”

“Stanford has a responsibility as a global citizen to promote sustainability for our planet, and we work intensively to do so through our research, our educational programs and our campus operations,” Stanford President John Hennessy said in the statement. “Moving away from coal in the investment context is a small, but constructive, step while work continues, at Stanford and elsewhere, to develop broadly viable sustainable energy solutions for the future.”

The Washington Post reports that Stanford is “the twelfth and most prestigious university” to divest from fossil fuel companies:

Stanford’s move comes after protests last week by climate activists at other leading universities. Seven students at Washington University in St. Louis were arrested demanding Peabody Energy chief executive Gregory H. Boyce resign from the university’s board of trustees, and a student was arrested at Harvard University for trying along with half a dozen other students to blockade the office of Harvard president Drew Faust. More than 100 faculty members have signed a letter to Faust urging the university to divest. …

Stanford has also been pressed from within; its board of trustees includes Tom Steyer, a wealthy former hedge fund head who has devoted himself to promoting policies that might slow climate change. …

The divestment movement has convinced Seattle, San Francisco, Portland and other cities to shed fossil fuel firms. Other colleges that have divested include Hampshire College, Pitzer College, and College of the Atlantic.

But most colleges have not gone along.

As the Post reporter notes, the move to dump coal holdings might not just make ethical sense — it could be a prudent financial move, with many coal stocks flailing this year as the federal government starts to get at least a little bit serious about curbing climate change.


Source
Stanford to divest from coal companies, Stanford University
Stanford becomes the most prominent university yet to divest from coal, The Washington Post

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Grist is turning 15

Donate Now

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

See original: 

Stanford will dump its coal company investments

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, sustainable energy, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Stanford will dump its coal company investments

The Four Doors – Richard Paul Evans

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

The Four Doors

A Guide to Joy, Freedom, and a Meaningful Life

Richard Paul Evans

Genre: Self-Improvement

Price: $10.99

Publish Date: October 29, 2013

Publisher: Simon & Schuster

Seller: Simon and Schuster Digital Sales Inc.


From Richard Paul Evans, the author of the #1 New York Times bestseller The Christmas Box , “the most popular holiday tale since Tiny Tim” ( Newsweek ), a new holiday novel that sets a classic Christmas story in our time. More than a decade ago, Richard Paul Evans gave a talk to an auditorium full of students in Dayton, Ohio, about what he wished he had known at their age. The response that day was electric: the students took notes, cried, and, after a standing ovation, rushed up to the author to share with him their feelings and personal epiphanies. Since that initial presentation, he has given that talk hundreds of times and all around the world, in places as diverse as the Harvard Club and Sundance, the Utah State Penitentiary and Opryland—and to all kinds of groups, from recovering drug addicts to recently graduated Ivy League MBAs. Now, for the first time, the wisdom and insight that Richard Paul Evans has imparted to thousands is available in The Four Doors . This simple yet powerful approach to happiness is based on four essential components of joy and fulfillment: believing in your destiny, escaping internal captivity, leading a magnified life, and choosing a love-centered life. The Four Doors will set readers on the beginning of a journey to their own unique version of a meaningful life, providing life-changing inspiration to be shared with family and friends for generations.

Link: 

The Four Doors – Richard Paul Evans

Posted in alo, FF, GE, ONA, Pines, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Four Doors – Richard Paul Evans

Is Keystone XL a distraction from more important climate fights?

Is Keystone XL a distraction from more important climate fights?

Emma Cassidy

Say what you will about the anti-Keystone movement, but it’s gotten a lot of activists enraged and engaged.

A new article in Nature highlights a supposed rift among some scientists over Keystone XL: Is it a smart focus for climate activists or a distracting sideshow?

There doesn’t seem to be nearly as much of a rift as author Jeff Tollefson suggests, but he does talk to some scientists who are conflicted over the Keystone focus:

The issue has … divided the scientific community. Many climate and energy researchers have lined up with environmentalists to oppose what is by all accounts a dirty source of petroleum: emissions from extracting and burning tar-sands oil in the United States are 14–20% higher than the country’s average oil emissions. But other researchers say that the Keystone controversy is diverting attention from issues that would have much greater impact on greenhouse-gas emissions, such as the use of coal.

Some experts find themselves on both sides. “I’m of two minds,” says David Keith, a Canadian climate scientist who is now at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “The extreme statements — that this is ‘game over’ for the planet — are clearly not intellectually true, but I am completely against Keystone, both as an Albertan and somebody who cares about the climate.” …

For Ken Caldeira, a climate researcher at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, California, it is a simple question of values. “I don’t believe that whether the pipeline is built or not will have any detectable climate effect,” he says. “The Obama administration needs to signal whether we are going to move toward zero-emission energy systems or whether we are going to move forward with last century’s energy systems.”

In 2012, Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, tried to put the concerns about Canadian tar-sands oil into perspective:

He and a student calculated what would happen to global temperatures if the tar sands were fully developed. The proven reserves — those that could be developed with known technologies — make up roughly 11% of the global total for oil, and Weaver’s model suggested that full development would boost the average global temperature by just 0.03 degrees Celsius. Weaver says that the initial focus should be on coal, which he found would have 30 times the climate impact of oil if the world burned all proven coal reserves.

Still, the fact is that a vibrant climate movement has grown up around the anti-Keystone fight.

Many researchers who have sided with environmentalists on Keystone acknowledge that the decision is mostly symbolic. But in the absence of other action, says Harvard’s Keith, it is important to get people involved and to send industry a message that the world is moving towards cleaner fuels, not dirtier ones.

Says David Victor, a climate-policy expert at the University of California at San Diego, “As a serious strategy for dealing with climate, blocking Keystone is a waste of time. But as a strategy for arousing passion, it is dynamite.”

Our David Roberts made a similar point last year:

There aren’t many easy or obvious ways to make viscerally affecting stories out of the models and statistics of climate science. “Cap-and-trade” certainly stirred no one’s loins. Activists are now looking around for other stories.

In Keystone XL, they found one. Through whatever combination of luck, happenstance, and tenacity, this one worked. It’s an entrée to the climate fight that is immediate enough, vivid enough, to spark the popular imagination. …

From the perspective of activism and social change, such energy and enthusiasm is to be tended like a precious spark.

Does it make sense to critique the Keystone focus and argue for more attention to other aspects of the climate problem? Or should the critics put up or shut up — stop complaining about anti-Keystone activism until they form their own dynamic anti-coal or pro-carbon-pricing movements?

Jamie Henn of 350.org thinks the Nature article gets the frame all wrong:

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on Twitter and Google+.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Continued here: 

Is Keystone XL a distraction from more important climate fights?

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, oven, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Keystone XL a distraction from more important climate fights?