SIX WIND POWER FAQS THAT WILL MAKE YOU A MAJOR FAN

One of the other big subjects at today's forum in RI:  The amazing development of wind.

Thanks to Climate Realty for sharing this with us and you:

SIX WIND POWER FAQS THAT WILL MAKE YOU A MAJOR FAN

Wind power is flying high. Learn why this clean energy source is so popular with the public and growing rapidly – and how much we can do with it.

The news has been nothing but great lately for the wind energy industry. From plunging costs to exploding growth to a fast-expanding job market, recent developments in wind have proven clean energy can both create real economic opportunity and help us stop climate change. To put it another way, the fact that wind is supplying more and more of our power while putting more and more people to work and reducing our dependence on carbon-emitting, climate-harming fossil fuels has turned us into very big fans.

Still, there is an awful lot most people don’t know about this game-changing energy source. So, let’s jump right in.

FIRST, GIVE IT TO ME STRAIGHT – CAN WIND REALLY PROVIDE AS MUCH POWER AS FOSSIL FUELS?

It sure can – and then some! And we mean it, too: by some estimates, wind could supply worldwide electricity consumption more than 40 times over.

When we talk about that level of potential, we don’t mean it in some big, theoretical “If all the wind in the entire world were able to be captured and turned into power…” kind of way, either. In a far-reaching study published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers from Harvard University and VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland found that a network of land-based 2.5-megawatt (MW) wind turbines – restricted to non-forested, ice-free, nonurban areas (i.e., places we really could build them) – operating at as little as 20 percent of their full capacity could easily supply that much electricity. Which would be more than five times the total energy the world uses in all forms (including oil, coal, and natural gas).

That same PNAS study found that in the United States, the Central Plains states – an area identified by researchers as “extending northward from Texas to the Dakotas, westward to Montana and Wyoming, and eastward to Minnesota and Iowa” – could alone accommodate wind facilities producing as much as 16 times the total current demand for electricity in the United States.

The potential is very much there – we just need to harness it.

HOW EXACTLY DO WIND TURBINES WORK?

It’s pretty simple, really. Wind turns the turbine’s blades, which spin a shaft that is connected to a generator. The generator converts the kinetic energy in the wind into electricity.

There are two basic types of turbines: horizontal-axis and vertical-axis turbines. A vertical-axis turbine kind of looks like an eggbeater, but you are probably much more familiar with horizontal-axis wind turbines. These are the turbines that have two or three large propeller-like blades that face into the wind. Wind turbines can be built on both land and – increasingly and to great effect – offshore in large bodies of water like oceans and lakes.

SO, HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY COMES FROM WIND IN THE US RIGHT NOW?

Not nearly as much as it should (but we’re working on it). Wind energy currently powers about 5 percent of the nation’s total overall electricity demand – though, how much electricity a given place is getting from wind power varies greatly from place-to-place and frequently day-to-day. Wind provided 66.4 percent of the power in Colorado at one point in November 2015, and at one point that same month, it reliably met more than 43 percent of Texas’ electricity demand,according to the state’s primary grid operator. 

Wind power represented the largest source of new US electricity in 2015, making the country second in the world in annual wind additions that year. But when it comes to actual wind energy penetration (or how much of the total market wind generation accounts for) we trailed well behind market leaders like Denmark, which generated 42 percent of its electricity from wind power in 2015.

All of which is to say that, even as we build the infrastructure to get more and more of our electricity from clean wind energy, we continue to be far more reliant on the status quo – generating energy from environmentally harmful fossil fuels – than we really need to be.

If the industry flourishes as expected, the US Department of Energy estimates that wind could provide more than one-third of the nation’s power by 2050. Where there’s a will there’s a way, and the conditions are just right for wind power to blow up here in the US.

(OK, we’ll stop!)

WHICH STATES ARE THE BIGGEST WIND ENERGY PRODUCERS?

Texas is by far the biggest wind energy-producing state in the US, with nearly 18,000 MW installed and accounting for about 10 percent of overall in-state electricity production in 2015. That may seem like a surprise for a state well-known for its robust oil industry, but it makes a great deal of sense when you consider its vast, generally flat topography and just how good an investment wind power has become (more on that below).

The distant runners-ups in 2015 were Iowa (with about 6,200 MW of wind capacity) and California (with close to 5,700 MW of wind capacity). However, even though they might have less wind capacity than Texas, wind power nevertheless supplied a larger share of overall electricity generation in many of these states. In Iowa, for example, wind power met more than 31 percent of overall electricity demand in 2015, the highest percentage in the nation. Kansas and South Dakota were not far behind, as both of them also generated more than 20 percent of their electricity from wind last year. States like these are proving that wind is far from a niche technology and can reliably meet a substantial portion of electricity demand.

BUT ISN’T WIND ENERGY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN ENERGY FROM CONVENTIONAL SOURCES?

Not at all – and it’s getting even less expensive very quickly. This wasn’t always the case, something the fossil fuel industry trumpets to mislead consumers today, but since peaking in 2008–09, the cost of wind energy has fallen dramatically.

Wind turbine prices have fallen 20 to 40 percent from their 2008 highs, per a recent report from the US Department of Energy and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), and the average levelized long-term price from wind power sales agreements has dropped to an average of around 2 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), after reaching a nearly 7 cent/kWh high in 2009.

It’s important to note that 2 cents per kWh is a nationwide average dominated by projects hailing largely from the very windy (and consequently lowest-priced) Central Plains states. But even when looked at a little more broadly, rates for electricity generated by today’s better-than-ever wind farms are currently comparable to wholesale electric power prices of 2.5-3.5 cents/kWh. Moreover, current wind energy contract prices compare very favorably to the projected future costs of electricity generated from fossil fuels.

And wind energy costs are expected to get even better in the very near future. Wind turbines are getting bigger, and as you might expect, taller installations with bigger blades can harness the power of more wind and generate more power, driving down prices even further.

Because of this and rising installations, the cost of electricity generated by wind is expected to plunge. Top experts in the field estimate that by 2030 the cost of wind-generated electricity could fall by as much as 30 percent – and even further by mid-century.

CHEAPER ELECTRICITY AND NEW INDUSTRY GROWTH SOUND AWESOME, BUT HOW WILL IT IMPACT JOBS?

The growth of the wind power industry is going to create many, many new jobs in fields such as development, construction, transportation, manufacturing, operations, and supporting services.

By the end of 2015, the wind power industry already employed 88,000 Americans – 24,000 of those in Texas alone.

The forecast is even better. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, wind turbine service technician is projected to be the fastest-growing occupation in the US through 2024. Just as exciting, the median annual wage for the gig is $48,800 – that’s $13,260 more than the median annual wage among all 15 projected fastest-growing occupations.

Now, with those numbers in mind, consider that the Department of Energy (DOE) estimates wind power could support up to 426,000 jobs by 2030 and 670,000 by 2050.

By that same year, assuming the DOE’s estimates bear out and wind energy grows unabated (and without obstruction), the agency estimates that the US could avoidthe emission of more than 12.3 gigatonnes of greenhouse gases; save 260 billion gallons of water (because generating electricity from wind power uses virtually no water) and $108 billion in public health costs by cutting air pollution; and prevent 22,000 premature deaths.

Just a quick reminder that we could do all of this while creating hundreds of thousands of new, well-paying jobs across the country.

JUST HOW POPULAR IS WIND ENERGY – AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?

Maybe it’s the image of a turbine at work in the breeze without any pollution in sight, but wind energy is remarkably popular. Seventy-three percent of Americans “prefer emphasizing alternative energy, rather than gas and oil production.” That’s pretty firmly in line with the 70 percent of registered voters who have a favorable impression of wind energy, specifically. 

Perhaps even more telling is wind power’s popularity in the very states where it is flourishing. In Iowa, a poll conducted by WPA Opinion Research found that 91 percent of respondents supported wind energy, and in Texas, the Texas Clean Energy Coalition similarly found that 85 percent of registered voters in the Lone Star State support growth in clean energy like wind power.

We could go on and on, but you see where we’re going – both in this piece and as a nation with clean energy. The good news is that today Americans actually have the chance to help support this growing sector and cut greenhouse gas emissions by speaking up for the EPA’s Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP). As part of the agency’s Clean Power Plan, the CEIP encourages states to invest in clean energy sources like wind, helping build a sector that already employs thousands and thousands of Americans and is helping the US reduce emissions in a big big way.

Add your name today to support clean energy and support an industry creating good jobs for all Americans.

Giant Coral Reef

We just came back from covering Senator Whitehouse's event here in RI, showcasing great energy and environmental leaders.  Coral reefs, we found out there from the experts, play a remarkable role in protection our coast line from storm surge and flooding.  There are many examples where areas protected by sea grass and healthy coral reefs had little or no damage, and no deaths, during major events, unlike other nearby areas that were devastated.

Giant Coral Reef in Protected Area Shows New Signs of Life

By KAREN WEINTRAUBAUG

A giant clam in the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. Credit Craig Cook/Undersea Medical

In 2003, researchers declared Coral Castles dead.

On the floor of a remote island lagoon halfway between Hawaii and Fiji, the giant reef site had been devastated by unusually warm water. Its remains looked like a pile of drab dinner plates tossed into the sea. Research dives in 2009 and 2012 had shown little improvement in the coral colonies.

Then in 2015, a team of marine biologists was stunned and overjoyed to find Coral Castles, genus Acropora, once again teeming with life. But the rebound came with a big question: Could the enormous and presumably still fragile coral survive what would be the hottest year on record?

This month, the Massachusetts-based research team finished a new exploration of the reefs in the secluded Phoenix Islands, a tiny Pacific archipelago, and were thrilled by what they saw. When they splashed out of an inflatable dinghy to examine Coral Castles closely, they were greeted with a vista of bright greens and purples — unmistakable signs of life.

“Everything looked just magnificent,” said Jan Witting, the expedition’s chief scientist and a researcher at Sea Education Association, based in Woods Hole, Mass.

Global climate change is wreaking havoc on corals worldwide. Coral bleaching has caused extensive damage to regions extending from the Great Barrier Reef to the Caribbean and nearly everywhere in between.

“Threats to tropical coral reefs worldwide have escalated to a level that imperils the survival of these complex, diverse and beautiful ecosystems,” Janice M. Lough, an Australian researcher, wrote in a February opinion piece in Nature.

Coral can be severely damaged by rising water temperatures, which cause acidification, as well as by pollution and human activity like tourism, fishing and shipping – prompting some governments to restrict such activities.

If Coral Castles can continue to revive after years of apparent lifelessness, even as water temperatures rise, there might be hope for other reefs with similar damage, said another team member, Randi Rotjan, a research scientist who led and tracked the Phoenix Islands expedition from her base at the New England Aquarium in Boston.

No one actually knows what drives reef resilience or even what a coral reef looks like as it is rebounding. In remote, hard-to-get-to places, our understanding of coral is roughly akin to a doctor’s knowing only what a patient looks like in perfect health and after death, Dr. Rotjan said.

Coral Castles’s revival might be an isolated situation, a fluke in a faraway place. But Dr. Rotjan and her team are on a quest to find out why this coral and other reefs nearby came back to life.

“There’s a recipe book that can be developed out of what we’re learning here,” Dr. Witting said. “You need to make a strong case that this can work before anyone else will try it.”

Divers from the New England Aquarium surveying reefs in the Phoenix Islands Protected Area last September. Credit Craig Cook/Undersea Medical

The lagoon sits in the middle of the largest of the Phoenix Islands, which are inhabited by just a few dozen people, part of the island nation of Kiribati (pronounced KIRA-bas).

The eight-island chain has been listed as a World Heritage Site for its beauty and abundance of wildlife: birds, sea turtles, schools of fish, deepwater sleeper sharks and 200 species of coral. The area has also been a cemetery for sunken ships since voyagers first set out across the Pacific.

To understand the stresses facing corals — from pollution and climate change, for example — researchers would like to isolate each problem. Almost everywhere on Earth, corals must endure climate change and human activity. But not in the 157,626-square-mile Phoenix Islands Protected Area, created by the government in 2008. Shipping lanes skirt the preservation area. Commercial fishing there ceased last year.

Dr. Rotjan, who is also the chief scientist for the area’s conservation trust, said the recent protections might have fostered the coral rebound. The algae that live in corals may also be evolving to cope with warmer temperatures, or hardier coral species may be supplanting others, she said.

In a letter published in Nature earlier this year, another global team of researchers reported a similar coral recovery after they reduced the acidity in three lagoons in the southern Great Barrier Reef, off Queensland, Australia. Carbon emissions increase the acidity of seawater.

“It’s encouraging, because if we do the right things, health might restore in a pretty responsive manner,” said Rebecca Albright, one of the paper’s authors and a postdoctoral scientist at Stanford University.

NASA Monitors

Back to the Arctic for a look at rising sea levels threatening villages as we just reported on.

NASA Monitors 'Normal' Levels of Ice in Arctic Ocean

By Sky Selrach

The rapid melting of the ice in the Arctic Ocean has yet to alarm NASA. In fact, these levels are still considered "normal."

The ice levels in the Arctic Ocean continue to melt at an alarming rate. Yet, little to nothing has been done. In fact, even NASA is accepting the "normal" levels of ice in the Arctic despite the obvious effects of climate change.

"A decade ago, this year's sea ice extent would have set a new record low and by a fair amount. Even when it's likely that we won't have a record low, the sea ice is not showing any kind of recovery. It's still in a continued decline over the long term. It's just not going to be as extreme as other years because the weather conditions in the Arctic were not as extreme as in other years," explained Walt Meier, sea ice scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "Now, we're kind of used to these low levels of sea ice - it's the new normal."

ADVERTISEMENT

While scientists have yet to discover a way to prevent the ice from melting further, observing the ice caps are the next best step. Scientists are figuring out a way how to measure the levels of ice from orbit. Though satellites can measure anything on Earth, the presence of salt in the ocean water is apparently interfering with the satellite radar.

Yet a satellite slated for launch in 2018 could change all that. The satellite called Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2) will be using lasers and a "precise detection instrument." This will try to get even more complete answers about sea ice thickness. Using the laser altimeter, it would measure the heights of the Earth's surface.

Of course, scientists still need to go beyond the above-water height measurements, as well as perform calculations to account for a few factors. These factors include densities of frozen layers or the snow on top of the ice. For now, scientists are eager to see measurements turned into data involving sea ice thickness.

"If we want to estimate mass changes of sea ice, or increased melting, we need the sea ice thickness," said Thorsten Markus, cryosphere lab chief at Goddard, adding, "It's critically important to understanding the changes in the Arctic."

U.S. village in Alaska

This is twice we've brought you stories on moving communities away from coastal areas and the worst possible zones for flooding and storm surge.  Clearly we've reached a tipping point when people flee their homes and seek higher ground.

U.S. village in Alaska votes to relocate due to climate change

By Sebastien Malo 

NEW YORK—A Native American village in the U.S. state of Alaska has voted to relocate its entire population of some 600 people due to the threat of rising seas, officials said on Thursday.

Shishmaref, located on a tiny island north of the Bering Strait that separates the United States and Russia, is losing up to 10 feet (three meters) of shoreline each year, according to research by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Alabama-based Auburn University.

Shishmaref is one of dozens of indigenous villages in Alaska that face growing threats of flooding and erosion due to global warming, according to a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Shishmaref residents, who are members of the Inupiat tribe, voted 89 to 78 to relocate, said Donna Barr, secretary of the Shishmaref Council. Voting took place earlier this week, but the official count has not yet been formally certified and a handful of absentee ballots remain unopened.

This is not the first time Shishmaref residents have made such a decision. They voted in 2002 to relocate but that effort stalled.

A few other U.S. communities in Alaska, Washington and Louisiana have decided recently to relocate as well due to climate change and shoreline erosion, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Arctic Institute.

Several others are likely weighing options to move, said Christina DeConcini, a spokeswoman for the Washington, D.C.-based World Resources Institute.

"It's not going to be the last time that the United States has to deal with communities severely threatened by climate change and impacts and whether or not they can stay there," she said.
In Shishmaref, Tommy Richter, pastor of the Lutheran Church, the island's only church, said the community was torn over leaving its heritage behind.

"There are people here who have been here for generations and don't want to leave at all," he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

The cost of relocation has been estimated at some $180 million, and authorities are seeking state and federal funding, according to local media.
Where to relocate remains to be decided, the clerk said. Two vacant sites on the mainland are being considered.

Relocation could take more than ten years, according to a private feasibility study conducted for Shishmaref and published in February.

The island, which is seven square miles (18 square kilometers), lies five miles off the mainland. Its economy is based largely on fishing and hunting.

Scientists attribute coastal erosion in Shishmaref to global warming that has thawed sea ice that once shielded the island from storm surges. Its permafrost, the layer of permanently frozen soil on which it is built, is melting as well.

The village already has moved several homes and a National Guard Armory away from its coastline and built sea walls that have had limited success, according to Alaska authorities.

In March, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced $6.5 million in funding to help Native American communities find ways to deal with climate change.

Since 2014, more than 140 tribes and tribal organizations have gotten government funding to help address the impacts of global warming, it said.

Vietnam Promoting Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in A Big Way

More evidence of world cooperation in reshaping our use of energy.  Vietnam is running in high gear.  Their industrial base is solid and growing.  In many ways they are competing favorably with Asia's powerhouse, China.  Yet, as seen here, they are small and nimble enough to fast track on more efficient ways of growing an economic base:

The November event looks like a great showcase of their technology and investments in green.  We hope to bring you reports then.

Vietnam sees great business potential for renewables, while at the same time they're embracing the opportunity to build a society that can benefit in more ways than one when it comes to clean energy. And on November 11, they'll be showcasing to the world how they are going about promoting their efforts with the RE & EE VIETNAM 2016 Exhibition.

There are just two months to go until the doors open on Vietnam's leading renewable energy and energy efficiency exhibition -- RE & EE VIETNAM 2016. The exhibition, from 9 to 11 November 2016, is co-located with Vietnam's leading international water supply, sanitation, water resources and purification event, VIETWATER 2016, at the Saigon Exhibition and Convention Center (SECC), Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

This is Vietnam's leading renewable energy and energy efficiency trade show and it is organised by UBM Asia and supported by the Vietnam Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency Association, Vietnam Automation Association, Energy Conservation Center Ho Chi Minh City and the EU-Vietnam Business Network.

RE & EE Vietnam 2016 is a unique showcase welcoming leading exhibitors and international pavilions (the EU, Singapore, Thailand, Taiwan and many others) in different segments of the renewable energy and energy efficiency sectors. It covers a wide range of innovations and solutions using industrial boilers, waste heat recovery, drying process, heat exchange process in power plants and the private consumer as well as breakthrough technologies, including solar panels, electric machines, bioethanol technology and control systems, among others.

Mr. Yoshimasa Kitada, Sales Manager, Mitsubishi Electric Vietnam, one of the leading exhibitors at RE & EE Vietnam 2016, said, "As a leading corporation in the manufacture & provision of electronic equipment for home, commercial and industrial use, we at Mitsubishi Electric believe that VietWater and RE & EE Vietnam 2016 will be a good business platform for energy & water industry players to showcase the best solutions and we are expecting to meet up with the right partners and find more potential customers here."

Running alongside RE & EE Vietnam 2016 is the Conference. The Conference theme this year is "Vietnam Energy Forum: Towards Sustainable Energy Development in Vietnam." Presented by leading industry experts such as Dr. Do Huu Hao, Chairman, Vietnam Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency Association, and Mr. Huynh Kim Tuoc, Director, Energy Conservation Center Ho Chi Minh, this forum is about sharing information on the Vietnam energy market and trends as well as some recent renewable projects in Vietnam.

In addition, there will be B2B Networking Meetups inside the hall of the RE & EE Vietnam 2016 Exhibition. With the support of the Energy Conservation Center Ho Chi Minh City and the EU-Vietnam Business Network, RE & EE Vietnam 2016 is a business bridge for professionals to meet and connect with their target partners who are interested in their own business.

- See more at: http://www.renewablenow.biz/the-sustainable-community.html#sthash.cDIaA6hl.dpuf

Can we feed 10 billion people

We just asked the same question on the radio side when we had Organic Valley on with us.  Not sure, would be our take on it.

Yet it is worth trying.  You will see the financial and environmental benefits to farmers and consumers of using organic practices.  The food system would be much different in this scenario.  Production would be more local and diverse.  Transportation of food would get cut way back.  We'd see significant output come from non-traditional sources, including off of urban roof tops of large buildings.  Software would play a key role in making farms less water dependent and resilient.  

Maybe we should re-phrase the question and ask if we can feed some number in a healthy manner?  That we can do.

Can we feed 10 billion people on organic farming alone?

Organic farming creates more profit and yields healthier produce. It’s time it played the role it deserves in feeding a rapidly growing world population

by John Reganold

In 1971, then US Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz uttered these unsympathetic words: “Before we go back to organic agriculture in this country, somebody must decide which 50 million Americans we are going to let starve or go hungry.” Since then, critics have continued to argue that organic agriculture is inefficient, requiring more land than conventional agriculture to yield the same amount of food. Proponents have countered that increasing research could reduce the yield gap, and organic agriculture generates environmental, health and socioeconomic benefits that can’t be found with conventional farming.Organic agriculture occupies only 1% of global agricultural land, making it a relatively untapped resource for one of the greatest challenges facing humanity: producing enough food for a population that could reach 10 billion by 2050, without the extensive deforestation and harm to the wider environment.

That’s the conclusion my doctoral student Jonathan Wachter and I reached in reviewing 40 years of science and hundreds of scientific studies comparing the long term prospects of organic and conventional farming. The study, Organic Agriculture in the 21st Century, published in Nature Plants, is the first to compare organic and conventional agriculture across the four main metrics of sustainability identified by the US National Academy of Sciences: be productive, economically profitable, environmentally sound and socially just. Like a chair, for a farm to be sustainable, it needs to be stable, with all four legs being managed so they are in balance.

We found that although organic farming systems produce yields that average 10-20% less than conventional agriculture, they are more profitable and environmentally friendly. Historically, conventional agriculture has focused on increasing yields at the expense of the other three sustainability metrics.

The flower petals and the labels represent different sustainability metrics that compare organic farming with conventional farming. They illustrate that organic systems can better balance the four areas of sustainability: production (orange), environment (blue), economics (red) and social wellbeing (green).

In addition, organic farming delivers equally or more nutritious foods that contain less or no pesticide residues, and provide greater social benefits than their conventional counterparts.
With organic agriculture, environmental costs tend to be lower and the benefits greater. Biodiversity loss, environmental degradation and severe impacts on ecosystem services – which refer to nature’s support of wildlife habitat, crop pollination, soil health and other benefits – have not only accompanied conventional farming systems, but have often extended well beyond the boundaries of their fields, such as fertilizer runoff into rivers.

Overall, organic farms tend to have better soil quality and reduce soil erosion compared to their conventional counterparts. Organic agriculture generally creates less soil and water pollution and lower greenhouse gas emissions, and is more energy efficient. Organic agriculture is also associated with greater biodiversity of plants, animals, insects and microbes as well as genetic diversity.

Despite lower yields, organic agriculture is more profitable (by 22–35%) for farmers because consumers are willing to pay more. These higher prices essentially compensate farmers for preserving the quality of their land.

Studies that evaluate social equity and quality of life for farm communities are few. Still, organic farming has been shown to create more jobs and reduce farm workers’ exposure to pesticides and other chemicals.

Organic farming can help to both feed the world and preserve wildland. In a study published this year, researchers modeled 500 food production scenarios to see if we can feed an estimated world population of 9.6 billion people in 2050 without expanding the area of farmland we already use. They found that enough food could be produced with lower-yielding organic farming, if people become vegetarians or eat a more plant-based diet with lower meat consumption. The existing farmland can feed that many people if they are all vegan, a 94% success rate if they are vegetarian, 39% with a completely organic diet, and 15% with the Western-style diet based on meat.

Realistically, we can’t expect everyone to forgo meat. Organic isn’t the only sustainable option to conventional farming either. Other viable types of farming exist, such as integrated farming where you blend organic with conventional practices or grass-fed livestock systems.More than 40 years after Earl Butz’s comment, we are in a new era of agriculture.During this period, the number of organic farms, the extent of organically farmed land, the amount of research funding devoted to organic farming and the market size for organic foods have steadily increased. Sales of organic foods and beverages are rapidly growing in the world, increasing almost fivefold between 1999 and 2013 to $72bn. This 2013 figure is projected to double by 2018. Closer to home, organic food and beverage sales in 2015 represented almost 5% of US food and beverage sales, up from 0.8% in 1997.

Scaling up organic agriculture with appropriate public policies and private investment is an important step for global food and ecosystem security. The challenge facing policymakers is to develop government policies that support conventional farmers converting to organic systems. For the private business sector, investing in organics offers a lot of entrepreneurial opportunities and is an area of budding growth that will likely continue for years to come.

In a time of increasing population growth, climate change and environmental degradation, we need agricultural systems that come with a more balanced portfolio of sustainability benefits. Organic farming is one of the healthiest and strongest sectors in agriculture today and will continue to grow and play a larger part in feeding the world. It produces adequate yields and better unites human health, environment and socioeconomic objectives than conventional farming.

Land carbon storage swelled

Sometimes it feels as though we have everything going against us in trying to re balance the environment and economy.  Natural cyclical weather changes, like with putting out a fire, can make it harder or easier for us to reduce carbon levels.  Atmospheric warming, unfortunately, potentially, as you will see here, could release more carbon as it heats up.

One of the solutions might be to master the efficiency of building carbon storage facilites.  Then, find a commercial use of the stored material.  

Regardless, balancing an eco-system is a complicated process.  Our heavy independence on dirty industrial production pushes some of the natural balance completely out of whack.  How do we get that back and still feed and cloth 7 billion people?

It is one of our greatest challenges, but has also been defined as our greatest economic opportunity...ever.  Let's focus on the positive avenues opening for us and drive down the clean highway to a brighter future.  

Land carbon storage swelled in the Little Ice Age, which bodes ill for the future

---

When temperatures dipped between 1500 and 1750, the world's landscapes responded by storing more carbon. Now, with temperatures climbing, it's possible they will do the opposite and release even more.

---

The dip in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels during the Little Ice Age wasn’t caused by New World pioneers cutting a swathe through native American agriculture, as had been previously thought.

Instead, our new analysis of the climate record contained within Antarctic ice cores suggests that the fall in atmospheric CO₂ levels during the cold period from 1500 to 1750 was driven by increased net uptake of carbon by plants.

This in turn suggests that if plants reacted to falling temperatures by taking up more carbon, they are likely to react to the current rising CO₂ levels by releasing yet more of it into the atmosphere.

Historical atmospheres

Atmospheric CO₂ concentrations were fairly stable from around 2000 years ago until the start of the Industrial Revolution, since when they have begun to climb dramatically. However, along the way were relatively small shifts, such as that seen during the Little Ice Age (LIA).

Recommended

What happens if the permafrost disappears?

Carbon dioxide naturally cycles between the atmosphere, the land and the ocean. On land, it is removed from the atmosphere by plant photosynthesis and returned when plant material decomposes. Normally these processes balance out, but a change in the rate of one of these processes can shift atmospheric CO₂ levels to a new equilibrium.

If decomposition increases as it warms, this will slow or reverse the rebalancing uptake, leaving more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, warming the climate still further and so on, in a positive feedback.

The LIA corresponded with the start of European colonisation of the New World. European diseases devastated populations in the Americas, and one theory held that this led to a decrease in indigenous agriculture, which in turn let forests grow back and took up significant amounts of CO₂ from the atmosphere. This had been suggested as the first geologically recognisable signature of human impact on the globe, and thus the start of the Anthropocene epoch.

But was this actually the case? Our study suggests not, because while we can be relatively certain the LIA change in CO₂ levels was due to differences in the behaviour of land plants, our results suggest that the change was a response to the changing climate, and not to human-driven changes in vegetation cover.

Looking for clues

How can we tell? We know that the process involved terrestrial plants, because the atmosphere during the LIA was even lower in CO₂ containing the isotope carbon-12, which is preferred by photosynthesising plants.

But how do we know if the changes were due to changes in vegetation cover, or to climate feedbacks. To answer that we looked at another gas, carbonyl sulfide (COS), which is also trapped in air bubbles along with the carbon dioxide. This molecule has almost the same structure as CO₂, except one of the oxygen atoms is replaced with sulfur.

This is close enough to trick the plants, which take it up during photosynthesis. But unlike CO₂, COS it is not released when plant material decomposes so an increase in photosynthesis leads to a decrease in atmospheric COS.

Antarctica can tell us a surprising amount about the past behaviour of forests. Author provided

This means that the “early Anthropocene” hypothesis has a testable consequence: it should have led to an observable reduction in COS concentrations within the ice cores. However, when we looked at the ice core record we found that there was an increase. This suggests that photosynthesis actually decreased during the LIA, rather than increasing as we would expect if the difference was due to forest regrowth.

This means that the drop in atmospheric CO₂ during the LIA was more likely to have been a direct response to the dipping temperatures. The cool climate of the LIA reduced photosynthesis but also slowed down plant respiration and decomposition, with the net effect that more CO₂ was taken up by the land biosphere during cool periods.

What about the future?

Frozen in time: icy bubbles capture ancient environments. Author provided

The flipside of this is that the reverse may happen when temperatures rise, as they are now. Rising temperatures are likely to mean even more CO₂ being released from the terrestrial biosphere. While plants continue to increase their photosynthesis as Earth warms, our findings suggest that plant decomposition will increase even more, meaning that less carbon stays in the soil.
This is concerning, because as we know, humans have opened the tap on a new source of carbon: fossil fuels that were previously locked away underground. We are rapidly returning lots of this stored carbon to the atmosphere, and the land and ocean are only removing about half of what we add.

Our discovery suggests that every degree increase in temperature will result in about 20 parts per million extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is about the middle of the expectation from climate models. It means that, if we want to keep global warming to within 2℃ of average pre-industrial temperatures, in line with the Paris climate agreement, we need to factor in this positive feedback loop, which means that the more temperatures climb, the more extra CO₂ will be released from the world’s landscapes.

A luxury cruise ship sets sail for the Arctic, thanks to climate change

This is a bit ironic.  Our warming climate opens up new lanes for cruise ships to venture and make money.  We wonder how the polar bears feel about cruise ships moving into their home?

A luxury cruise ship sets sail for the Arctic, thanks to climate change

By Brady Dennis and Chris Mooney

The Crystal Serenity, shown during a trip to Antarctica, is embarking on a first-ever Arctic cruise Tuesday. (Crystal Cruises.)

 

The once forbidding Arctic region, home to polar bears and ice-covered seas, has melted enough that this summer it’s open not only for shipping but high-end tourism.

The proof lies in the Crystal Serenity cruise, a luxury tour of the Arctic that promises to carry passengers through the storied Northwest Passage and across the roof of the world. The controversial cruise was scheduled to set sail Tuesday from Seward, Alaska, and dock 32 days later in New York City.

Scientists have long predicted this moment, although as recently as last year, a scientific study found the Northwest Passage would remain too unpredictable for regular shipping for some time to come. But that hasn’t stopped some commercial shipping vessels from already making the journey.

Nor did it stop the planning for the Arctic’s inaugural cruise — a journey that will mark the first case of mega-scale tourism in one of last virtually untouched landscapes left in the world.

As many as 1,700 passengers and crew were expected to be on board the Crystal Serenity, which will transit the Bering Strait and visit Greenland. Tickets for the historic journey started at about $22,000 and went into the six figures. That price doesn’t include extras that guests can book, such as a helicopter ride or side excursion to a Greenland glacier.

Despite the cost, the trip sold out quickly, and the company behind it said a second journey is already in the planning.

The location might be the Arctic, but the Crystal Serenity’s 1,100 guests aren’t exactly roughing it. The $350 million ship is 820 feet long and has 13 decks and 535 state rooms. It has a driving range and putting green, a casino, a movie theater, half a dozen restaurants, multiple pools and a library with thousands of books, games and DVDs. There’s also a spa, fitness center, hair salon and 24-hour complimentary room service.

More than anything, the cruise is a symbol, a harbinger of the tourism and commercial traffic that is likely to fill the once-isolated, ice-choked waters of the Arctic. Many scientists have projected that the ocean could become virtually free of ice during summers at some point, perhaps as soon as the next few decades.

That would leave the passage open to a wave of ships that could transform what, until now, has been among the least traveled places on Earth. Such a scenario has caused angst among those eager to explore the Arctic as well as those who want it protected.

The expedition also has raised safety concerns. The Northwest Passage is extremely isolated and remote. The small towns that dot its shores could hardly handle an influx of patients if there were a major medical emergency. And were the ship to somehow get stranded or need help, sending aid could be dangerous, uncertain and massively challenging.

“If the entire ship — all 1,000 passengers, all 600 crew — require search and rescue, for instance, if the ship sinks, then that would actually break the Canadian search-and-rescue system,” Michael Byers, a research chair in global politics and international law at the University of British Columbia, told the CBC news.

“The area is plagued by a lack of adequate nautical charts, virtually no navigation aids, poor communication systems, and a lack of infrastructure,” Roger Rufe, a former vice admiral of the U.S. Coast Guard, said recently. The Bering Strait, which includes a passage as narrow as 55 miles in one location, is of “principal concern,” he said.

Even as the first cruise begins, the Coast Guard is continuing to study the safety and efficiency of navigation through the strait. A report is expected soon.

“The [Crystal Serenity] is the most recent example of why the Coast Guard’s port access route study can’t come soon enough. Rules of the road are essential for getting ahead of shipping and preventing accidents and impacts, rather than reacting after the fact,” said Henry Huntington, director of Arctic Ocean projects at the Pew Charitable Trusts.

That’s not to say there hasn’t been huge amounts of preparation for the voyage. U.S. and Canadian government and Coast Guard officials have worked closely with Crystal Cruises to plan for the trip — and for any emergencies that might arise along the way. The ship will be be accompanied by an ice-breaking boat and two helicopters.

“Crystal Cruises has safely operated its ships routinely in remote areas, including long trans-oceanic voyages for over 25 years, and, in fact, the Northwest Passage is not as remote as one might expect,” said Paul Garcia, director of global public relations for the company. “During the transit, Crystal Serenity will be passing many communities, including ones where commercial jets provide regularly scheduled air service.  Furthermore, Crystal Serenity plans to transit during the period of when ice concentration is minimal. … Anticipated ice conditions are within safe operating parameters for Crystal Serenity.”

The ship will be getting constant updates from the Canadian Ice Service, Garcia said. It features “two ice searchlights, forward looking sonar, a thermal imaging camera and software to improve the ability to pick up small contacts on the radar such as small amounts of ice.”
Yet two researchers told the Washington Post Monday that the passage is hardly ice free — which is not to say that it’s anything the ship can’t handle.

“The southern route (Amundsen’s route) is now fairly clear of ice, but that does not mean no ice at all,” Mark Serreze, who heads the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo, noted by email. “Last I checked, ice could be seen (broken up floes) in … satellite images.  Today, it is pretty cloudy in the region, so it’s hard to pin down what is going on. However, I expect that the ship will be able to navigate.”

Christian Haas, a researcher at York University in Canada, consulted Canadian Ice Service data and added that some ice remained in the southern Beaufort Sea plus Peel Sound and significant ice in Victoria Strait and M’Clintock Channel. “From our surveys we know that the ice in Peel Sound is only first-year ice and will probably disappear soon and completely,” Haas said via email. “However, the ice in the other regions are remnants of multiyear ice, and thick chunks of that will very likely survive the summer. Apart from those well defined ice regions, there will be chunks of ice lingering here and there.”

But then, perhaps that’s just what Crystal Serenity’s passengers are paying for.