[TheClimate.Vote] June 7, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Sun Jun 7 15:00:20 EDT 2020
/*June 7, 2020*/
[first things, first]
*Coffee's robust back-up bean isn't as resistant to climate change as
once thought*
Farming of both Robusta and Arabica beans will have to adjust to a new
climate..
- - -
Unfortunately, a new study in Global Change Biology challenges the
long-held assumption that robusta will survive reliably in a warmer
world. The authors compiled 10 years of coffee yield and climate data
from nearly 800 farms in Vietnam and Indonesia. They then used the data
to figure out robusta's growing temperatures.
The power of using real climate and coffee-yield data over a ten-year
period is that scientists can directly see how climate and coffee
interact. Lab-based research is critical for exploring plant
physiological responses to individual stressors, but it has limited
implications for real-world growing scenarios. Previous estimates for
robusta's growing temperature were based on the temperature range in its
native habitat that were then tested in lab experiments, rather than
studies on real-world temperatures and peak yield. Robusta's growing
range, 22 to 30 degrees Celsius, is higher than arabica's. Using
real-world data, the new study found that although robusta cangrow in
this high temperature range, its optimal growing temperature is actually
lower, at 20.5 degrees C. Hotter than that, and coffee yields begin to
drop (about 14 percent per degree of warming). In short, robusta behaves
a lot more like arabica than previously thought, and we might be
overestimating the amount of coffee robusta will produce.
- - -
Although a lot of coffee research focuses on finding the best growing
temperatures, understanding how coffee plants respond to the extreme
values at either end of their temperature range is also important. As
tropical plants, coffee abhors frost. So temperatures below freezing are
out of the question. But low temperatures above freezing can still
decrease yields, especially while the plants are flowering. And although
robusta plants can grow at high temperatures -- up to 37 degrees Celsius
in a lab -- the plant goes haywire, with elevated photosynthesis rates
causing plants to flower too soon and and bean to grow too quickly. The
effects of rainfall on robusta also vary; a wetter growing season and
drier flowering season lead to the best yields, but rain can also
moderate some of the negative effects of hot temperatures. Robusta can
grow in suboptimal conditions, but the coffee bean quality suffers -- as
do local economies.
- -
"If the results turn out to be true, I would expect some level of
migration through farmers at higher elevations planting robusta instead
of arabica. Farmers' motivation to do this will vary. Overall, robusta
is a lower-quality coffee and the price is lower, [but] it is easier to
grow," she said in an email. "So, the shift to robusta will have to be
triggered, not just by global warming but by the inability of farmers to
grow arabica at elevations where they were growing it before global
warming."
No one trait or adaptation will be solely responsible for coffee's
survival or extinction. So while if climate change continues unimpeded,
coffee does risk going extinct, you won't have to change your morning
routine just yet
https://www.salon.com/2020/06/07/coffees-robust-back-up-bean-isnt-as-resistant-to-climate-change-as-once-thought_partner/
[a vanguard state]
*New Jersey becomes first US state to add climate change to kindergarten
curriculum*
The update is a result of new guidelines announced by the State Board of
Education and outlines plans for New Jersey's 1.4 million students to
study about climate crisis from kindergarten through to graduation
New Jersey students will start to learn about climate change at the
early age of four-to-six years, as the issue will soon be taught in
kindergarten across the US state.
The update is a result of new guidelines announced by the State Board of
Education and outlines plans for New Jersey's 1.4 million students to
study about climate crisis from kindergarten through to graduation.
First Lady Tammy Snyder Murphy, said: "In New Jersey, we have already
begun to experience the effects of climate change, from our disappearing
shorelines to harmful algal blooms in our lakes, superstorms producing
torrential rain and summers that are blazing hot.
"This generation of students will feel the effects of climate change
more than any other and it is critical that every student is provided an
opportunity to study and understand the climate crisis through a
comprehensive, interdisciplinary lens."
https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/06/07/new-jersey-becomes-first-us-state-to-add-climate-change-to-kindergarten-curriculum/
[Resilient opinion]
*If My House Were the World: The Renewable Energy Transition Via
Chickens and Solar Cookers*
By Richard Heinberg, originally published by Resilience.org
June 4, 2020
For the past two decades, my wife Janet and I have been trying to
transition our home to a post-fossil-fuel future. I say "trying,"
because the experiment is incomplete and only somewhat successful. It
doesn't offer an exact model for how the rest of the world might make
the shift to renewable energy; nevertheless, there's quite a bit that
we've learned that could be illuminating for others as they contemplate
what it will take to minimize climate change by replacing coal, oil, and
gas with cleaner energy sources.
We started with a rather trashy 1950s suburban house on a quarter-acre
lot. We didn't design a solar-optimal house from scratch the way Amory
Lovins did (we thought about it, but we just didn't have the time or
money). We did what we could afford to do, when we could afford to do it.
Our first step was to insulate our exterior walls, ceiling, and floors.
That was probably our best investment overall: it saved energy, and it
made the house quieter and more pleasant to live in. Then we installed a
small (1.2 kw) photovoltaic system, and planted a garden and
fruit-and-nut orchard. Gradually, over the years, we added battery
backup for our PV system, a solar hot water heater, a solar food dryer,
chickens, solar cookers, energy-efficient appliances (including a
mini-split electric HVAC system), and an electric car.
Here are ten things we learned along the way.
*It's expensive.* Altogether, we've spent tens of thousands of
dollars on our quest for personal sustainability. And we're
definitely not big spenders. We economized at every stage, and
occasionally benefitted from free labor and materials (our solar hot
water panels, for example, were donated, and we built our food dryer
from scrap). Still, once every few years we made a significant
outlay for some new piece of electricity-generating or energy-saving
technology. True, solar panels have gotten cheaper in the
intervening years. On the other hand, there are things we still
haven't gotten to: we continue to rely on an old natural gas-fired
kitchen cooking stove, which really should be replaced with an
induction range if we hope to be all-solar-electric.
*Some things didn't work. *Early on, we planned and built a
glassed-in extension on the south side of our house. Our idea was
that it would capture sunlight in the winter and reduce our heating
bills. As it turned out, we didn't get the window and roof angles
right, and so we receive relatively little heating benefit from this
add-on. Instead we use it as a garden room for starting seedlings in
the early spring. I suspect the global renewable energy transition
will similarly see a lot of good ideas go awry, and false starts
repurposed.
*Some things worked well. *Twenty years after purchase, we have an
antique PV system, with museum-quality Siemens panels still spitting
out electrons. We made a big investment up-front, and got free
electricity for two decades. This is a very different economic
bargain from the familiar one with fossil fuels, which is
pay-as-you-go. Similarly, making a rapid global energy transition,
though offering some economic benefits in the long run, will require
an enormous up-front expenditure. We learned that solar cookers are
extremely cheap and pleasing to work with--in the summer months.
Finally, we learned that keeping chickens is an economical source of
eggs, though hens are less cost-effective from a food-production
standpoint if you choose to treat them well (and continue caring for
them after their egg laying subsides), as we did. There can be
valuable side benefits: one hen, who's been with us for nearly 10
years, has become an emotional support animal who supplants our need
for more costly sources of psychological aid. I could say much more
about her--but that's for another occasion. Our chickens also
provide manure and eggshells that enrich our soil. We compost some
of our greenwaste and keep a worm bin, thus reducing energy usage by
diverting some of our waste that would otherwise go to a landfill;
we seasonally dry some produce in our solar dehydrator; and we can
some of our fruit. These activities require little financial
investment, but need a noticeable ongoing investment of effort.
*Energy storage is especially expensive.* Our solar panels have
lasted a long time, but our battery backup system didn't. It now
provides only about 20 minutes of power. True, our battery system is
far from being state-of-the-art (it consists of five high-capacity
lead-acid cells). Nevertheless, this proved to be the least-durable,
least cost-effective aspect of our whole effort. The truth is, on
both a diurnal and a seasonal basis, we rely almost entirely on the
grid for energy storage and for matching electricity supply with
demand. The lesson for our global energy transition: even though
batteries are getting cheaper, energy storage will still be a costly
engineering challenge.
*Reduce energy usage before you transition.* Because renewable
energy generation requires a lot of up-front investment, and because
energy storage is also costly, it makes sense to minimize energy
demand. For a household, that's not problematic: we were quite happy
shrinking our energy usage to roughly a quarter of the California
average. But for society as a whole, this has huge implications.
It's possible to reduce demand somewhat through energy-efficiency
measures, but serious reduction will have economic repercussions. We
have built our national and global economic systems on the
expectation of always using more. A successful energy transition
will necessarily entail moving away from a growth-based consumer
economy to an entirely different way of organizing investment,
production, consumption, and employment.
*Our house is not an industrial manufacturing site. *We don't make
our own cement or glass. If we had tried, it would have been a more
interesting experiment, but much harder. We were undertaking the
easy aspects of energy transition. The really difficult bits include
things like aviation and high-heat industrial processes.
Adding personal transportation to our renewable energy regime
shifted us into energy deficit mode. We like our electric car, but
charging it takes a lot of electricity (the energy needed to
manufacture the car is another story altogether). Once we bought the
car, we realized we need a larger PV system (that's on our to-do
list). For society as a whole, this suggests that transitioning the
transportation sector will require sacrifice (see number 5, above).
A renewable future will likely be less mobile and more local, and
will feature more bikes and ebikes than cars. We should start
shortening supply chains immediately.
*True sustainability and self-sufficiency would have required a lot
more money, a lot more work, adaptation to a lot less
consumption--or all three.* Our experiment was informal; we didn't
keep track of every way in which we were using energy directly or
indirectly (for example, via the embodied energy in the products we
purchased). We continue to depend on flows of energy and money, and
stocks of resources, in the world at large. We don't generate the
energy needed to mine minerals, or to manufacture cars, solar
panels, or other stuff we have bought, such as clothes, a TV,
computers, and books. The same holds for food self-sufficiency: we
get a lot of fruit, nuts, eggs, and veggies from our backyard with
minimal fossil energy inputs, but we buy the rest of what we eat
from a local organic market. The world as a whole doesn't have the
luxury of going elsewhere to get what it needs; the transition will
have to be comprehensive.
*You can't expect someone else to do it all for you.* Many people
assume that the cost of the energy transition will somehow be paid
by society as a whole--primarily, by big utility companies acting
under government regulations and incentives. But households like
yours and mine will have to bear a lot of the expense, and
businesses will have to do even more of the heavy lifting. If
households can't afford to buy new equipment, or businesses can't do
so profitably, that will make the transition that much harder and
slower. If we make the transition more through energy demand
reduction rather than new technology, that will require massive
shifts in people's (read: your and my) expectations and behavior.
*We're glad we did what we did. *Our experiment has been instructive
and rewarding. As a result of it, we have a much better appreciation
for where our energy and manufactured products come from, and how
much they impact the environment. We are more keenly aware of what
we formerly took for granted and how cluelessly privileged our
nation has been in its reliance on cheap fossil fuels. Our quality
of life has improved as our consumption declined.
We would do most of it all over again (though I'd put more effort into
designing the solarium that now serves as our garden room). I would have
thought, at the outset, that after 20 years we'd be more sustainable and
self-sufficient than we actually are. My take-away: the energy
transition is an enormous job, and people who look at it just in terms
of politics and policy have little understanding of what is actually
required.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-04/if-my-house-were-the-world-the-renewable-energy-transition-via-chickens-and-solar-cookers/
[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming - June 7, 2010 *
Washington Post writer Ezra Klein condemns Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
for her proposal to strip the EPA of its authority to regulate carbon
emissions.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/with_friends_like_lisa_murkows.html
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/Archive of Daily Global Warming News
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html>
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote
/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request>
to news digest./
*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries no
images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only messages
provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe,
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to
this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20200607/0981466d/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list