SEARCH

Studies Break New Ground Amidst Climate Worries According to ScienceDaily, two separate studies have broken ground—and altered previous concepts—about how plant roots know to grow deeper during heat and associated drought. Researchers hope their discoveries can assist plant breeders with efforts to help plants cope with rising global temperatures. A team of scientists at the Sainsbury Laboratory Cambridge University (SLCU) in the UK has discovered a molecular signaling-pathway that is activated when leaves are exposed to low humidity. This causes plant roots to grow towards water. Meanwhile, a team led by researchers from Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (MLU) in Germany, succeeded in demonstrating that roots are equipped with a temperature sensing and response system of their own. The team’s study, published in The EMBO Journal, provides new information on how roots themselves both detect and react to higher temperatures. As reported by ScienceDaily, Professor Marcel Quint from the Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences at MLU said, “Until now, it was assumed that the plant shoot controlled the process for the entire plant and acted as a long-distance transmitter that signaled to the root that it should alter its growth." Prof. Quint and team discovered that root cells increased production of the growth hormone auxin, which was sent to root tips to stimulate cell division, enabling roots to grow deeper into the soil. "As heat and drought usually occur in tandem, it makes sense for the plants to tap into deeper and cooler soil layers that contain water," Quint explains in the ScienceDaily report. The SLCU researchers, on the other hand, found that when the leaves of a plant are exposed to low humidity, they signal the plant's roots using the drought stress hormone abscisic acid (ABA) to direct them to continue growing. This was surprising because ABA is thought to be a growth inhibitor, rather than a growth promoter. Sources: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/07/230710113829.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/06/230626163430.htm

The US National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) compiled the following about key measurements for May: May 2023 was the third-warmest May since records began to be kept in 1850, or 174 years ago inclusive. The year-to-date (January–May) surface temperature of Earth was the fourth warmest of “such period” on record. The US National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI) is “virtually certain (> 99.0%)” that 2023 will rank as one of the top ten warmest years on record with an 89% chance of ranking in the top five. Ocean temperature hit a record global high for May, marking its second consecutive record-breaking month, when compared with 1985–1993. Amid unusually high May temperatures in North America, Canadian wildfires burned more than 6 million acres in late May and early June, causing widespread deterioration of Canadian and US air quality. Though Africa, Asia, and Europe each had a “top-20 warmest May,” Oceania’s May was cooler-than-average—the coolest May for the region since 2011. Antarctica, too, had a “cooler-than-average May.” The Arctic, on the other hand, experienced its fifth-warmest May on record. Source: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/global-climate-summary-may-2023

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has found that global seafood consumption (per capita) has more than doubled since the 1960s and reached a new record high. Average global consumption of seafood set a record in 2019 at 20.5 kg (45.19 lbs) per capita. This per capita seafood consumption measure has been trending higher since the 1960s, when it was 9.9 kg (21.83 lbs). Iceland has the highest national seafood consumption per capita at 91.19 kg (201.04 lbs). The second-highest seafood-loving nation is the Maldives, with consumption at 84.58 kg (186.47 lbs). Portugal and South Korea come in third and fourth, respectively, at around 57 kg (125.7 lbs) per person. Conversely, Afghanis only consume 0.24 kg (0.53 lbs) of seafood per person per annum, far below any other nation on the list. Also at the bottom of the fish-eating list were Germany, Brazil, and India. Source: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/11/chart-shows-countries-consume-fish-food-security/

Policies for Reducing Carbon Emissions Can Have Unintended Consequences By Dhanada K Mishra* From “global warming” to what some international leaders call “global boiling,” the Earth appears increasingly off-balance. Dramatic wildfires, floods, heat waves, sea temperature rise, and polar ice melting, which are expected to increase in “frequency and ferocity," as the World Economic Forum says, keep climate crises at the forefront on people’s minds. As countries worldwide strive to reduce their carbon emissions, there are potential unintended consequences that could threaten any progress made in combating climate change. Policymakers need to be aware of these unintended consequences that impact the economy and environment. For example, green policies pushing for efficiency and renewable energy have helped develop renewable energy technologies like solar, wind, hydropower, and green hydrogen, succeeding in generating energy mostly without greenhouse gases—except during initial construction and maintenance. From 2019 to 2020, renewable energy grew from 27% to 29% of the global electricity supply. Power from sun and wind alone increased from 7.8% to 10.1%. The use of fossil fuel coal decreased from 36.6% to 35.4%. However, some policies have increased energy consumption and created more, often hidden, emissions rather than reducing them. As a result, alternative, market-driven mechanisms—such as carbon credit policies—are also expected to play an important role in addressing climate change. Carbon Credits to the Rescue? Carbon credits, or cap-and-trade or emission trading systems (ETS), constitute a market-based approach to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. They provide financial incentives for individuals, companies, or countries to reduce their carbon footprint by funding projects that reduce or remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Carbon credits, or cap-and-trade or emission trading systems (ETS), constitute a market-based approach to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon credit policy refers to the use of carbon credits for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as a way to mitigate climate change. Carbon credits are certificates representing quantities of greenhouse gases that have been kept out of the air or removed from it, either by avoiding emissions (for example, refraining from cutting down rainforests), reducing emissions (by improved energy efficiency), or enhancing removals (carbon capture and planting forests). Carbon credits can be traded or sold in voluntary or compliance markets, depending on whether the buyers are motivated by their environmental goals or regulatory obligations. One good example of the earliest functioning carbon credit system is the California Cap-and-Trade Program, which covers about 85% of the state’s emissions from various sectors, such as electricity, industry, transportation, and natural gas. Another example is the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the world’s largest carbon market that covers more than 11,000 power plants and industrial facilities in thirty-one countries. How Do Carbon Credits Work? Each carbon credit represents 1 ton of carbon or CO2eqv. Each identified emitter is assigned a certain number of credits representing its emission limit. As the company or organization reduces its emissions below the assigned limit, it generates credits that can be retained for future use or traded in the compliance carbon market overseen by a regulatory body. The CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017 found that 71% of all global emissions from 1988 to 2015 came from just 100 companies worldwide. Carbon credits primarily focus on reducing emissions rather than addressing the root causes of climate change. The need for transformative changes in energy systems, industrial practices, and consumer behavior is often overlooked. When companies rely heavily on carbon credits, they divert attention and resources away from efforts to reduce emissions at the source. Carbon credits primarily focus on reducing emissions rather than addressing the root causes of climate change. The Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets (TSVCM) estimates an increase of demand for carbon credits by a factor of fifteen or more by 2030 ($50 billion) and by a factor of up to 100 by 2050 (more than $300 billion). While carbon credits effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are also some potential unintended consequences of market-oriented carbon credit policies. Here are a few examples: Carbon leakage occurs when companies move their operations to countries with lower environmental standards to avoid emissions regulations and take advantage of cheaper carbon credits. This can lead to an increase in emissions in the relocation countries, offsetting the emissions reductions achieved by other companies in the country of their origin. Carbon markets can be volatile, with prices for carbon credits fluctuating based on supply and demand. This can create uncertainty for companies and organizations relying on carbon credits to offset emissions. Some companies may use carbon credits to create the appearance of environmental responsibility without reducing their emissions. This is known as greenwashing and can undermine the effectiveness of carbon credit policies. It's important to note that these unintended consequences are not inherent to carbon credit policies but rather can arise due to the way these policies are designed and implemented. The Good and the Bad An example of an effective carbon credit project is the Renewable Biomass Project developed by Sustainable Carbon in Brazil. This project aims to replace non-renewable biomass (such as native wood) with renewable biomass (such as sawdust or rice husk) as fuel for producing ceramic bricks and tiles. By doing so, the project reduces greenhouse gas emissions, preserves native forests, improves air quality, and supports local communities. On the other hand, one of the most egregious examples of a carbon credit project gone awry is the HFC-23 destruction project in China and India, registered under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol. This project involved the destruction of hydrofluorocarbon-23 (HFC-23), a potent greenhouse gas that is a byproduct of chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22) production, which is used as a refrigerant and a feedstock for other chemicals. The project claimed to avoid emissions of more than 100 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually and generated millions of carbon credits that were sold to European countries. However, several studies have revealed that the project had serious flaws and negative impacts, such as: Creating perverse incentives: The project paid more for destroying HFC-23 than for producing HCFC-22, which encouraged the expansion of HCFC-22 production and increased the consumption of ozone-depleting substances. This is a perfect example of the cobra effect, where a policy achieves the opposite of its intended outcome. Overestimating emission reductions: The project assumed a high baseline emission factor for HFC-23, which was not representative of the actual performance of the chemical plants. This resulted in inflated emission reductions and excess carbon credits that did not reflect real environmental benefits. Undermining climate goals: The project flooded the carbon market with cheap and dubious carbon credits, which lowered the carbon price and reduced the incentives for other emission reduction actions. The project also allowed European countries to meet their emission targets without making domestic abatement efforts. What Can Be Done? The role of climate policies such as carbon credit has its strong supporters and detractors, and the results so far have been mixed at best. What can be done? At the individual level, consumers and investors can demand more transparency and accountability from carbon credit providers and projects and choose high-quality credits with clear environmental and social benefits. They can also educate themselves and others about the role and limitations of carbon credits and advocate for more ambitious and effective policies at the national and international levels. Consumers and investors can demand more transparency and accountability from carbon credit providers and projects and choose high-quality credits with clear environmental and social benefits. At the society level, civil society organizations, media outlets, academic institutions, and other stakeholders can monitor and evaluate the performance and impact of carbon credit projects and markets and expose cases of fraud, corruption, or malpractice. They can also promote best practices and standards for carbon credit accounting, verification, and reporting, and foster dialogue and collaboration among different actors in the carbon credit value chain. At the global level, governments, intergovernmental organizations, and industry associations can harmonize and strengthen the rules and regulations for carbon credit markets and ensure that they are aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. They can also support innovation and development of new technologies and methodologies for measuring, reporting, and verifying carbon credits, and facilitate access to finance and capacity building for carbon credit projects in developing countries. In conclusion, it is critical that policymakers consider both short-term and long-term impacts of each decision they make to assure that progress is not reduced by its sometimes-unintended consequences, either economically or environmentally. Only careful consideration and planning will mitigate damage caused by current human activity so that future generations will live on a habitable Earth. *Dhanada K Mishra has a PhD in Civil Engineering from the University of Michigan and is currently based in Hong Kong. He writes on environmental issues, sustainability, climate crisis, and built infrastructure.

An Introduction to Recycling and Reuse By Robin Whitlock* The world was introduced to plastics in 1907, when Belgian chemist Leo Baekeland created the first synthetic plastic with two ingredients (formaldehyde and phenol). Its popularity has been phenomenal—by 2021, some 391 million metric tons of plastics were produced worldwide, according to Statista 2023. Unfortunately, the constant demands for plastics—which were created to be durable—have led to a world that is literally awash with plastic pollution, on both land and sea. The first plastics recycling plant opened in 1972 in Pennsylvania, US, and, today, UK-based ENF Recycling keeps a global directory of 26,300 plastics recycling plants. But, as the UN Environment Programme describes it, with 7 billion metric tons of plastic waste created every year and less than 10% of it recycled, “Our planet is choking on plastic.” The sheer variety of plastics remains a major barrier to effective recycling. Plastics require specific recycling methods to deconstruct their molecular structures, and although some public education has been done about plastics recycling, there are many questions about how to sort the types and what can be done to improve the recycling success rate. The realities of plastic recycling and what can be done to reduce plastic pollution are examined below. The Various Types of Plastic Most plastic packaging is labeled with a number from 1 to 7, identifying what the type of plastic is. Each type has unique properties with varying degrees of recyclability, as given below: 1 - Polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE) (e.g. water bottles, plastic trays) PET is a thermoplastic polymer resin related to polyester and thus is often used for clothing fiber. It is also used for single-use bottled drinks because it is lightweight, easy to recycle, transparent, and has a reduced risk of leaching harmful substances into the environment as the plastic breaks down. More than 82 million tons of PET were produced globally in 2021, and, because of this, PET is one of the largest sources of plastic waste. However, it is also the most commonly recycled type of plastic. Fifty-two percent of PET is recycled in Europe compared with just thirty-one percent in the US. Most recycled PET (from bottles) in Europe does not become material for more PET bottles, according to a report produced in 2022 by Zero Waste Europe. Instead, it is turned into plastic trays, fibers, film, or strapping. Only thirty-one percent of recycled PET plastic becomes more bottle material, with sixty-nine percent being allocated to the manufacture of other PET products. 2 - High-density polyethylene (HDPE) (e.g. milk cartoons, shampoo bottles) HDPE is a thermoplastic polymer obtained from ethylene (or sometimes called “polythene” when used for HDPE pipes). This material has a high strength-to-density ratio and is often used for the production of plastic bottles, shopping bags, corrosion-resistant pipes, geomembranes, and plastic planks as an alternative to wood. It has a high melting point and so is resistant to heat until high temperatures are reached. However, when the melting point (about 130 °C or 266 °F) has been reached, it is very malleable and can be quickly and efficiently molded for a variety of purposes. It is easily recycled and is often accepted by recycling centers across the world, but the necessity of sorting it from other types of plastic means that only about ten to fifteen percent of it is recycled in Europe currently. This reuse rate needs to increase because HDPE is not biodegradable, and, worse still, constituent pollutants can leach out into the environment when it is landfilled. Because HDPE can hold large volumes of goods without breaking, it is commonly used for retail and grocery shopping bags. While some US communities are seeking to ban these “plastic bags” or penalize users (charging them a nickel a bag, as in Baltimore, Maryland), there are also many retailers that offer collection points where the bags can be deposited and recycled. 3 - Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (e.g. piping) Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is another widely produced synthetic polymer, available in both rigid and flexible forms. The former is suitable for constructing pipes, doors, and windows and also for plastic bottles, packaging, and credit and debit cards. Meanwhile, the latter form, with the addition of plasticizers, becomes softer and more flexible and can be used in plumbing, electrical cable insulation, flooring, signage, inflatables, and rubber substitutes. When fibers, like cotton or linen, are blended with PVC, it can be used for producing waterproof tarpaulins, canopies, and vehicle and furniture covers. There is a common misconception that PVC cannot be recycled, but this is erroneous as there are a number of ways in which the material can be recycled. These include reuse, regrinding, melting, and repeated extrusion. However, it must be recycled separately from other plastic waste because of its high chlorine content and the high levels of hazardous additives it contains. 4 - Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) (e.g. food bags) LDPE is made from ethylene and was first produced in 1933 by Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI). It is often used to produce transparent plastic film, such as food plastic wrap; bubble wrap; and plastic bottles. The more rigid forms of LDPE are often collected by curbside recycling operatives. Its low-density forms can also be recycled, but not as easily since it can be contaminated by the substances it was used to wrap. 5 - Polypropylene (PP) (e.g. margarine tubs, ready-meal trays) PP is similar to polyethylene, but it is slightly harder and more heat resistant with a high chemical resistance. It can be recycled to produce a wide variety of products, but polypropylene bags must be collected, sorted, shredded, separated based on color, and then it needs to be compounded before it can be recycled effectively. Not all local recycling centers can handle PP, so there are particular companies that do this. 6 - Polystyrene (PS) (e.g. plastic cutlery) PS (known as Styrofoam) is made from the aromatic hydrocarbon styrene and can be either solid or foamed. Its solid form is usually clear, hard, and brittle. It is not an effective barrier to oxygen or water vapor and has a low melting point, despite being one of the most widely used plastics. It is commonly used for protective packaging but is not biodegradable and, especially in its foam form, presents a serious source of litter pollution. Furthermore, while expanded polystyrene (EPS) can be recycled, classic polystyrene cannot, due to its origins as a product of hydrocarbon styrene. 7 - Others—such as polycarbonates (PC) PCs are usually viewed as the plastics that are the hardest to recycle—if they can be recycled at all. However, PCs are translucent and resistant to impacts, which make them popular among manufacturers, especially as alternatives to glass. They are less likely to be used for food packaging due to evidence showing that they can release harmful bisphenol A (BPA). Some countries have even banned PCs for use in baby bottles for this reason. There is a large group of additional plastic types, many of which either cannot be recycled or can be recycled only by specialist recycling companies. This group includes materials such as nylon, polycarbonate, melamine, and other substances. Current Practices of Recycling, Reusing and Repurposing Plastic Plastics recovered by curbside recycling teams are sent to either a Materials Recycling Facility (MRF), which separates plastic waste from other non-plastic materials, or a Plastic Recovery Facility (PRF), which sorts plastic waste by type. An optical sorter is used to distinguish the different types of plastic. The plastics are then sent to a reprocessing plant, where they are washed, shredded, and subjected to further sorting. The third stage in the process is melting them down into plastic pellets, which are then sold for use in manufacturing other plastic products. According to a 2017 study, only nine percent of plastics produced from 1950 to 2015 were recycled due to the complexity of the processes involved. Furthermore, a recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicts that global plastic use will nearly triple (to 1,230 Mt) by 2060, meaning that global plastic pollution will more than double (to 1,014 Mt) from 2019 levels. Another update, published by Greenpeace in 2022, lists five main reasons for the low rate of plastic recycling: Plastic waste is difficult to collect. Mixed plastic is difficult to sort. Plastic recycling poses environmental risks. Recycled plastics have toxicity risks. Plastic recycling has poor economics. Reusing Plastics at Home or Out and About At home or out and about, there are a number of ways in which plastic can either be avoided or reused. Many people, for example, are now carrying their own reusable straws or drink containers around with them, which can be used in cafes and restaurants instead of plastic items. Likewise, sturdy canvas or plastic bags that have been kept for reuse can be used for shopping instead of accepting new plastic bags from a retailer. When actually buying products, consumers can be selective, choosing only those goods that are packaged in truly recyclable containers, such as glass, paper, or cardboard. Many plastic containers can be reused in the garden, for example by making hanging planters out of them. Simply fill them with soil, insert a plant or seeds and hang from a suitable location using garden twine. A Clever Approach to Recycling Given the low rate of recycling currently, the best thing for reducing plastic waste is to think foremost about personal consumption patterns and approach. Perhaps the first stage in this process would be to find out from local authorities exactly what materials they recycle. A second step would be to avoid, as far as possible, buying products using plastic packaging. The final step would be to reuse, as far as possible, the plastics at home in various ingenious ways. *Robin Whitlock is an England-based freelance journalist specializing in environmental issues, climate change, and renewable energy, with a variety of other professional interests, including green transportation.

Investing issues were dominant in a recent report, “7 Sustainability Trends that Will Shape Business in 2023,” based on public data and published by AccountAbility, a leading consultancy and standards firm. Trend 1: Achieving Net Zero More than 40% of the largest global corporations have set net zero targets, an increase of 20% from December 2020. However, only about half of companies with net zero targets include “interim GHG [greenhouse gas] emission reduction targets” in their plans. Trend 2: Stakeholder Activism Globally, of some 20,000 adult and teen Gen Zs surveyed by Edelman, 57% think that brands have more power than governments to “solve social ills and societal problems.” A record number—282—of US corporate shareholder votes were held on Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) issues in the 2022 proxy voting season. Trend 3: Geopolitics Almost all (94%) of global business executives agreed their company was impacted by “unexpected geopolitical risks” in 2021. Globally, about 25% of boards “regularly” consider geopolitical risk. Trend 4: Building “Future-Focused” Boards of Directors About 27% of board seats globally were held by women as of May 2022. More than 70% of newly elected board members come from a professional background “versus 15% from blue collar backgrounds.” Trend 5: ESG Disclosure Reports Some 96% of the world’s largest companies report on “ESG matters.” About 49,900 companies are expected to report under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, up 422% from “current levels of sustainability disclosure.” Trend 6: Sustainable Supply Chain Some 74% of companies surveyed globally had supplier codes of conduct in 2021, compared with 64% in 2019. Globally, about 51% of companies surveyed had a “sustainable procurement policy” in 2021, compared with 38% in 2019. Trend 7: Ecosystem Services Over half of global GDP ($44 trillion) is “moderately or highly dependent on ecosystem services.” Exposure to risk due to nature loss is highest in India and Indonesia, where “highly dependent sectors respectively comprise 33% and 32% of national GDP,” respectively. Source: https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/777271-accountability-7-sustainability-trends-2023-report-shaping-global-business

Innovations in Production, Storage, Power, and Transport are Expanding the Hydrogen Economy Worldwide By Rick Laezman* Recently, hydrogen has emerged as a leading candidate to help the world shed its dependence on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Numerous breakthroughs around the globe favor an expanding market for this ubiquitous resource. Why Hydrogen? Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and plentiful on Earth. It is also clean: The only byproduct of a hydrogen fuel cell is water. Effectively harnessed, it could fuel a clean power transformation around the globe. Entire industries, like transportation, as well as electricity generation and power storage, would have a vast fuel source to help them become “green.” Nevertheless, hydrogen faces many challenges: Reliable, clean, and safe methods for extracting, transporting, and consuming hydrogen must be developed, refined, and commercialized on a mass scale. Mining for Hydrogen In May of this year, a French energy producer that focuses on those challenges, La Française D’Énergie (FDE), announced the discovery of “significant concentrations” of natural hydrogen, so-called “white hydrogen.” It is naturally occurring hydrogen found in geological underground deposits. FDE discovered the deposit in one of its previously drilled wells in Lorraine, a region in the east of France. The company confirms that fluids within the mining basin measure a hydrogen concentration of 15% at a depth of 1,000 meters (0.6 mi) and 98% at 3,000 meters (1.8 mi). According to researchers at the University of Lorraine, who collaborated with the company on the measurements, the deposits “could be the largest potential natural hydrogen ever discovered in Europe.” According to researchers at the University of Lorraine the deposits “could be the largest potential natural hydrogen ever discovered in Europe.” According to those same researchers, the Lorraine basin could contain 46 million tons of natural hydrogen—equivalent to half the world’s current hydrogen production. The company has now applied for an exclusive permit to extract the hydrogen from the mining basin. Gaining access to this volume of naturally occurring hydrogen would solve one of the greatest challenges energy producers face when considering hydrogen as a potential fuel source. In most instances, it must be separated from its natural state as a molecule that attaches to others. The process can be very energy and resource-intensive and is not always “clean.” Extracting raw hydrogen from deep wells underground eliminates this challenge. Hydrogen occurs naturally on Earth through various processes. For example, serpentinization, a geological process that forms minerals known as serpentines, produces hydrogen-rich fluids when ultra-basic rocks (with less than 45% silica by weight) react with water. Biological processes involving bacteria or algae also release hydrogen, and natural degassing (removal of dissolved gases) releases hydrogen from the Earth’s crust and mantle. These and other processes offer a tremendous renewable resource, just like the wind and the sun, that will replenish itself after consumption. However, these deposits are not easily discoverable because hydrogen is an odorless and colorless gas, and the underground element is typically masked by naturally occurring microbes that eat it. So, the first challenge is to figure out where to find the hydrogen. Once it is found, it must be extracted. This poses the next big challenge because geologic hydrogen is found in extremely remote and deep locations. That has not deterred some from pursuing this resource. For example, several large oil companies, including Shell, BP, and Chevron, are part of a consortium with the US Geological Survey and the Colorado School of Mines to study the potential of geological hydrogen. Meanwhile, the energy sector will have to rely on other less convenient separation methods to tap into this tremendous resource's potential. Shipping Hydrogen Within those methods, other challenges remain. One of the greatest challenges is transport. Unlike other fuels, hydrogen must be highly pressurized or liquified when transported. For the fuel to be available on a scale supporting mass consumption, existing infrastructure would have to be modified to accommodate these unique needs. Public and private enterprises are teaming up across national boundaries in the South Pacific to find innovative solutions. Last year, the Australian government announced what it described as the “world's first shipment of liquified hydrogen.” The specially built Suiso Frontier vessel transported super-cooled, liquid hydrogen from Victoria’s Port Hastings in Australia to Kobe, Japan. The 116-meter (380 ft) vessel is the world’s first purpose-built liquefied hydrogen carrier. Last year, the Australian government announced what it described as the “world's first shipment of liquified hydrogen.” The milestone is part of the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain (HESC) pilot project between the two countries. As part of that project, a consortium of Australian and Japanese companies built a hydrogen production plant in Australia's Latrobe Valley, producing 99.99% pure hydrogen. This hydrogen was then trucked to a different facility to be cooled to -253 degrees Celsius to liquify it. It then was loaded with less than 800 times of its gaseous volume onto the Suiso Frontier for transport. The Australian government estimates that the HESC could produce an estimated 225,000 tons of carbon-neutral liquefied hydrogen when it reaches commercial scale. Following the success of last year's maiden voyage, the hydrogen economy is poised to grow. Last June, Japanese, Singaporean, and Australian companies joined in a project investing $117 million AUD to build one of Australia’s largest green hydrogen production facilities at Gladstone in Queensland. The project will use renewable energy to produce green hydrogen. It is designed to generate 200 tons of green hydrogen per day by 2028, with a production capacity of up to 800 tons per day by 2031. The green hydrogen will then be liquefied and exported to Japan and Singapore. Hydrogen from the Sea Hydrogen can be shipped over the sea, and someday soon, it may be extracted from seawater, too. Hydrogen can be acquired from water through a chemical process known as electrolysis, separating hydrogen atoms from oxygen atoms in water. Water can be a plentiful source of hydrogen. However, fresh, clean water is in high demand. Using it to produce hydrogen on the scale that would be needed to supply the world's insatiable appetite for fuel could, at the same time, put a severe strain on the water supply. Using seawater could solve this problem. According to the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Water Science School, 96.5% of all Earth's water is found in the oceans as salt water. 2% of the Earth’s water is stored as fresh water in glaciers, ice caps, and snowy mountain ranges. Only 1% of the Earth’s water is available for daily water supply needs. These numbers make a strong case for seawater as a source of hydrogen. However, seawater poses its own challenges, typically requiring desalination and purification, which are expensive and energy-intensive processes that would otherwise make seawater an impractical choice. Researchers announced they achieved near 100% efficiency in extracting hydrogen from untreated seawater using a specially designed electrolyzer. Publishing their findings in the scientific journal Nature Energy in January, the researchers at the University of Adelaide have found a way to overcome these obstacles. They announced in their article that they achieved near 100% efficiency in extracting hydrogen from untreated seawater using a specially designed electrolyzer that incorporates a low-cost catalyst made of cobalt oxide coated with chromium oxide. The researchers say they are working on a larger version of their electrolyzer that can be used on a commercial scale. Hydrogen Valleys As hydrogen continues gaining momentum, the industry will need more than the occasional breakthrough to carry it to the mainstream. Concentrated and sustained innovation is required to guide researchers and developers toward a unified and expanded marketplace. The European Clean Hydrogen Partnership (formerly known as the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking) defines hydrogen valleys as “a geographical area, such as a city, a region, an island or an industrial cluster, where several hydrogen applications are combined into an integrated hydrogen ecosystem that consumes a significant amount of hydrogen, improving the economics behind the project.” In June of this year, a Finnish consortium of energy companies announced they had come together to develop an industrial hydrogen valley in the Uusimaa region of Finland. It would combine green hydrogen infrastructure, storage, and fuel transmission. It would serve those that produce hydrogen as well as its consumers. (The consortium comprises the Finnish energy companies Neste Corporation, Helen, Vantaa Energy, and Gasgrid, Finland.) Hydrogen valleys are catching on in other parts of the world, too. This month, the North Adriatic Hydrogen Valley (NAHV) project, a transnational project by Slovenia, Croatia, and the Italian Region of Friuli Venezia Giulia, received the official green light for its implementation on September 1, 2023. Closer to home, “at least twenty groups from across the US have submitted final applications this year to the Department of Energy (DOE) hoping to receive up to $1.25 billion in federal funding to become one of six to ten clean hydrogen hubs,” according to S&P Global Commodity Insights. The applicants are vying for Funding from the DOE's Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs program–or H2Hubs. It includes up to $7 billion to establish regional clean hydrogen hubs across America. Funding comes from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (H.R. 3684) passed in 2021. A Future Fueled by Hydrogen Hydrogen has the potential to be the clean fuel of the future. Like other sources of green energy, it faces many hurdles and challenges in entering the mainstream. Recent developments demonstrate a strong commitment from investors, researchers, and energy providers that hydrogen can overcome those hurdles. With continued commitment, a future powered by hydrogen may not be far off. *Rick Laezman is a freelance writer in Los Angeles, California, US. He has a passion for energy efficiency and innovation. He has covered renewable power and other related subjects for over ten years.

Leading Scientists Discuss Ways to End ‘Hidden Hunger’ A team of renowned environmental scholars met to discuss the topic of “hidden hunger” at the Twenty-Sixth International Conference for the Unity of the Sciences (ICUS XXVI) in February 2020. Rodale Institute Chief Operating Officer Andrew Smith, PhD, began the event with an introduction to how modern agriculture produces more food but also contributes to the unintended consequences of stressing the environment and creating a new “hidden hunger.” His presentation sparked remarks from a distinguished group of discussants that included Ohio State University soil scientist and World Food Prize winner Rattan Lal [see The Earth & I August 2021] and the late Nobel Laureate Mario Molina. The following are edited excerpts from their discussion, which include updates from recent Rodale Institute trial studies. Dr. Andrew Smith, Chief Operating Officer, Rodale Institute, USA: The global population is currently 8 billion and is expected to grow to 9.7 billion by 2050 and to 10.8 billion by 2080. Food production and harvest, as currently practiced, are putting tremendous strain on the Earth’s natural resources, while the health and well-being of all life on Earth depend on these natural resources. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) estimates that 821 million people suffered from chronic malnourishment or hunger in 2017. That is 1 in 9, or approximately 11% of the global human population at the time. While progress has been made to eradicate hunger over the past fifty years, the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goal to cut 1990–1992 hunger levels in half by 2015 fell short. Drastic measures need to be taken immediately in order to meet the current UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) of zero hunger by 2030. It is imperative that this is achieved with no additional environmental harm unless such achievement would jeopardize other SDGs. How We Got Here The progress made over the past fifty years or more to reduce hunger was mostly due to the adoption of contemporary agricultural production methods sparked by the Green Revolution, starting in the early part of the twentieth century. In 1969, approximately 37% or 961 million people in just the developing world suffered from hunger. Hunger fell sharply from 2003 to 2017, going from 15.1% of the population to 10.8%, although this percentage has risen since 2015. These improvements were fueled by new crop varieties (mostly cereals), increased use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and investment in irrigation. In the forty years from 1960 to 2000, global cereal output more than doubled, and from 1960 to 2015, global food production tripled. In the middle of the twentieth century, this new form of chemical-based agriculture became the conventional system adopted by the majority of the world’s farmers and was hailed as a savior that would finally free society from the bondage of hunger. However, it is now recognized and mostly accepted that this form of agriculture has negatively affected the natural world. More than one-third of the Earth’s soils are degraded, limiting their potential to produce food and adequately provide ecosystem services. Loss of soil productivity from agricultural activity results in deforestation and encroachment on marginal lands, exacerbating the loss of biodiversity. Chemicals applied for agricultural purposes contaminate surface and groundwater sources, jeopardizing fisheries and human heath; hasten the release of greenhouse gases from the soil to the atmosphere; and bio-magnify to the extent that all mammals, including humans, on the planet store these chemicals in their fat tissue, at times at levels detrimental to reproduction and health. Consider that over 5 billion pounds of active ingredients from persistent chemical pesticides are applied globally each year to control insects, disease, and other pests. The use of synthetic pesticides is again on the rise, as sensible integrated pest management approaches developed in the latter half of the twentieth century have never fully been implemented, while “new technologies” such as genetically modified crops and systemic pesticides have been adopted instead. A New Type of Hunger Conventional agriculture also contributes to another form of chronic malnourishment termed “hidden hunger.” Hidden hunger occurs when individual caloric demands are met, but levels of micronutrients, such as iron, selenium, magnesium, vitamin A, and zinc, are too low to maintain proper health. It is estimated that more than half of the world’s population suffers from this form of hunger. There is a rising obesity epidemic in developed and developing countries, and in the United States half of the population suffers from at least one chronic disease that could be prevented with lifestyle and diet changes. Hidden hunger occurs when individual caloric demands are met but levels of micro-nutrients such as iron, selenium, magnesium, vitamin A, and zinc are too low to maintain proper health. Several factors are causing hidden hunger. In developing countries, a greater proportion of the diet consists of high-caloric cereals, while consumption of high-protein pulses (such as beans and lentils) has decreased. As cereals were bred for higher yields, the concentration of vitamins, minerals, and protein declined while starch increased. In addition, the increased use of fertilizers improves yields but results in the dilution of the concentration of nutrients within crops. More recently, climate change has become another factor in crop nutritional declines. Macrocosm studies that control carbon dioxide levels of rice fields found that increased atmospheric CO2 levels reduced the concentration of protein, iron, zinc, and B vitamins, which could have serious consequences for societies that rely on rice as a staple food. We can produce enough healthy, nutrient-rich foods to feed the human population while preserving the environment. The Farming Systems Trial at Rodale Institute, a forty-year side-by-side comparison of conventional and organic grain crop production, has demonstrated that crop yields comparable to the conventional approach can be obtained without the use of synthetic chemicals. This is largely achieved by regenerating soil health through diverse crop rotations, cover crops, green manures, and compost. The result is higher soil carbon levels and increased water infiltration and water-holding capacity that leads to higher yields during periods of drought stress and heavy rainfall. [Recent Rodale trial-based studies (2022) have compared how tillage reduction affects organic and conventional farming systems. One trial suggests that soil health in organic systems was determined more by diversified crop rotations and sufficient organic inputs than by reducing tillage frequency. It was shown that conventional farming systems, on the other hand, might need help from “other co-adapting soil health practices” to alleviate the surface compaction that can result when reduced tillage is used in conventional systems. Another recent Rodale study demonstrated how reducing tillage does not affect the “long-term profitability of organic or conventional field crop systems,” which is good news, especially for those concerned with the economic viability of organic farming systems.] Enough Food, Too Much Waste We currently produce enough food to feed the world, but it is estimated that one-third of it is lost before it reaches the table or is thrown away, where it can become an environmental pollutant and release greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. We currently produce enough food to feed the world, but it is estimated that one-third of it is lost before it reaches the table or is thrown away, where it can become an environmental pollutant and release greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. In developing countries, as much as 40% of crops can be lost due to pests in the field or poor storage, while in developed countries, 40% of food may be discarded as post-consumer waste. Discussion Dr. Cliff Davidson, Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Syracuse University, USA: What about the advantages of being vegetarian in terms of soil preservation and use of Earth’s resources to provide vitamins and essential elements, as well as calories? Dr. Rattan Lal, Distinguished Professor, Soil Science, Ohio State University, USA [See The Earth & I, August 2021]: A plant-based diet is the best option. I think it is well established that the nutrients, water, and land area required for animal-based protein are much higher than for plant-based. In the long term, ignoring personal bias, it is important to objectively consider a strategy of feeding eleven billion people with a healthy diet. The present animal-based diet—not only followed in the Western world but also getting popular in the emerging economies—requires careful consideration. The populations of India and China, with a 15% increase in animal-based diet per year, are transitioning toward an animal-based diet, which may not be healthy for people or the planet. It is thus important for human nutritionists, soil scientists, agronomists, plant physiologists, and so on to critically discuss this issue. I very much support the Meatless Monday movement. However, it may not be enough. An even bigger cut may be needed in consuming animal-based food products. Indeed, it is possible to live without meat. Hon. Danielle Nierenberg, Co-founder and President, Food Tank, USA [see The Earth & I April 2023]: I could not agree more, but I also think that we give meat a bad rap. With the regenerative agriculture movement taking a big hold across the US and the world, I think we need to remember that to improve soil quality and the health of the environment, we need animals in a lot of ways. They provide a natural source of fertilizer that does not come out of a bag, and they can be part of a healthy food system. What I do think we need to reduce is the amount of meat we eat. Dr. Lal mentioned Meatless Mondays, and there are initiatives all over the world that encourage people to eat less meat or no meat on certain days, but I think we need to refine our meat sources and select meat that comes from different, more sustainable sources that do not have a big impact on the environment. I think industrialized farming operations contribute to all sorts of public health effects and have taken the dignity out of animal farming. We need to bring that dignity back. Lal: We should communicate with children right from kindergarten onward: where is food produced, how is it produced, how is it consumed, how food should be respected as a gift from nature, that it should not be taken for granted. We also need to educate the engineers who design the fertilizers and the salespeople who sell the produce. “We should communicate with children right from kindergarten onward: where is food produced, how is it produced, how is it consumed, how food should be respected as a gift from nature, that it should not be taken for granted.” Our knowledge as scientists needs to be translated into action. Positive trends are already there, and we scientists need to work with policymakers, to seize the moment and work with them, to be at their disposal. There will always be policymakers who resist taking action, but that is a transient situation; nothing is permanent, it will change. We need to have patience, wait for the right time, and then seize the moment when an opportunity arises. Nierenberg: We also need science to connect to farmers themselves and break down the silos that separate all the communities that need to be involved. One example is that in sub-Saharan Africa, extension services have declined dramatically and farmers now get their information about fertilizers from salespersons. There are rights that are universal and the human right to food is one of them. I think we need to keep reinforcing that right because it is not being followed by countries. The lack of accessibility is crucial. We are always talking about how poor people should eat better, they should eat healthier food. But if they do not have access to those foods and cannot afford them, they are never going to get out of this cycle of poverty and hunger and obesity. Lal: I fully agree. Another point is urbanization. We now have twenty-eight megacities of over 10 million population with Lagos, Nigeria predicted to be the world’s largest city with 93 million people by 2100. A megacity of 10 million people needs 6,000 tons of food per day. We also need to recycle the nutrients coming into a city to produce food within the city limits. Urban farming, home gardening, even growing a couple of tomato plants in a pot is something small that can be done. My hope is that perhaps 20% of the food consumed within a city is grown within the city by the consumers themselves. Not everyone can grow their food in a city, but that is the track we have to take. We also have to learn how to collect solid and liquid human waste separately and understand how to use them in a hygienic way to recycle the nutrients. Dr. Mario Molina, Distinguished Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA: There are certain agricultural practices in countries, such as the US and Brazil, where agriculture is used to produce fuel, not food. This Is subsidized by the government in the US to use corn to produce ethanol. In Brazil alcohol is produced using sugarcane. Already in 2019 it became very clear that there are now technologies that are very competitive, cheap enough so that you can produce this fuel, namely ethanol and possibly fuel for airplanes, from agricultural waste. It does not make any sense to keep using agriculture to produce fuels instead of food. Many countries have been trying to use agricultural waste to produce fuel, but it was too expensive—the first treatment, in particular, had to use a lot of sulfuric acid. Now there are new technologies, among them those with electron bombardment and so on, but they are already proven to be cheap so that should dismantle the government subsidies for the use of agriculture for fuel. That does not make sense to me. Lal: Nature has no waste. Soil becomes poor because the so-called “waste” from a crop—which is food for soil-friendly organisms—is taken away. You can convert that waste to energy or convert it into humus (compost) and return it to the soil as an amendment rather than depending entirely on chemical fertilizers. There is no justification to take land out of food production and into fuel production. Food is the most basic right. My philosophy is to use grain for people and residues for the soil. Otherwise, the soil will rebel—and it has rebelled, when it is so degraded that ecosystem services are severely jeopardized. Nierenberg: We often think of farmers as just food producers, but they are businesswomen and businessmen who need to make money, and if we can make sure that they are making money in an environmentally, socially, and economically responsible way, then we are going to do a lot to change the food system.

Grass-Fed Farming Done Right Can Regenerate Soil and Farm Livelihoods The following article contains edited highlights from Prof. Richard Teague’s* presentation at the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences (ICUS XXV), “Managing Grazing to Regenerate Soil Health and Farm Livelihoods.” A growing number of scientists are hard at work to make farms and ranches more sustainable. They understand that cattle can play a role in returning degraded land, especially in semi-arid regions, to fertility and associated ecosystem stability. One grasslands management tool they are researching and testing is managed grazing. Semi-arid grazing ecosystems take up about one-third of Earth’s land mass. These lands are being degraded mostly because of poor land use. Maintaining artificially high numbers of grazers [cattle]—with no time for the grazed vegetation to recover—has led to widespread overgrazing, degradation of vegetation and soils, declines in productivity and biodiversity, and a reduction in ecosystem resilience. There are huge economic and social costs associated with the degradation of these ecosystems. At least one billion rural and urban people depend on them for their livelihoods, often through livestock production, and for essential ecosystem services that affect human well-being. Manage for Improvement, Then Sustainability Trying to persuade land managers to adopt sustainable ecosystem management systems is common, but humans have degraded nearly every ecosystem they have lived in and managed. Sustaining a degraded situation makes no sense. Instead, the focus should be on regenerating ecosystem function, which is the basis for providing livelihoods of people living in these ecosystems and all the living beings who depend on the ecosystem services provided. Fortunately, worldwide there are numerous land managers who have done so. We have studied how they have done so in dry to wet grazing ecosystems. Improving or sustaining the long-term productivity and resilience of semi-arid rangelands requires management strategies based on an understanding of the feedback between vegetation and livestock in a changing environment. Adaptable decision-making strategies are required to make decisions under constantly changing circumstances. In other words, there must be a way to take advantage of positive events and reduce the damage of negative events. Soil Health is Fundamental to Sustainability Restoring soil health is fundamental to achieving sustainable agriculture. For instance, the biggest limiting factor in grazing land ecosystems is not the amount of rainfall received, but the amount of rainfall infiltrating the soil and how long it stays there. But, of course, this is not the only important ecosystem function. Ensuring optimal ecosystem function also requires efficient solar energy capture via photosynthesis, soil organic matter (SOM) accumulation and retention, efficient nutrient cycling, and ecosystem biodiversity. Soil health is fundamental for ecosystem function because 90% of soil function is mediated by microbes. There is a mutual dependency among microbes, plants, and animals. Plants, for instance, enable microbial life. They also benefit from nutrients released through the synergistic interdependence between plants and archaea, bacteria, fungi, and other microbial and eukaryotic species. The major portion of energy required to facilitate ecosystem functions comes from plants capturing energy in the process of photosynthesis and conversion into carbohydrates that provide the energy for the ecosystem community to function. How plants are managed in grazing or cropping ecosystems is critical to maintaining or regenerating full ecosystem function. The major portion of energy required to facilitate ecosystem functions comes from plants capturing energy in the process of photosynthesis and conversion into carbohydrates that provide the energy for the ecosystem community to function. The Synergistic Networks in Soil Synergistic networks of soil organisms provide many ecosystem services. They improve soil aggregation, aerate and stabilize soil, improve its water holding capacity, improve nutrient acquisition and retention for the ecosystem community, cycle nutrients to improve their availability, enhance tolerance for biotic and abiotic stress, and buffer the impact of environmental factors on plants. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are tiny keystone species in these terrestrial ecosystems, particularly grasslands, as they maintain plant diversity, mediate interactions among plants and other microbes, and positively impact plant photosynthesis. Plants increase photosynthesis in symbiosis with AMF and legumes for a dual association with rhizobia and AMF that enhances photosynthesis by 50% on average. AMF contribute directly to the soil organic matter pool and through secretion of soil glycoproteins, increase water-stable soil aggregates that enhance soil water infiltration and aeration vital to ecosystem function. Grasslands Management for Optimal Outcomes Grasslands management decisions support profitable operations and help with sequestering carbon and providing ecosystem services. Good examples of management approaches that have restored degraded grassland ecosystems are seen where ranches are managed to achieve resource conservation goals. Improved management, such as adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing, has been shown to reverse degradation by decreasing bare ground, restoring productive plant communities, increasing water infiltration rates and soil water storage capacity, increasing fungal-to-bacterial ratios, and increasing soil carbon. The best examples of grazing management have been produced by farmers who manage specifically to enhance soil health and ecosystem function. This is the foundation for improving profitability, and these leading farmers have achieved substantial improvements in ecosystem function, plant species composition and productivity, soil carbon and fertility, water infiltration and water-holding capacity, biodiversity, wildlife habitats, and profitability. Successful farmers use multiple paddocks [fenced areas] per herd with short grazing periods and long recovery periods. These successful farmers use multiple paddocks [fenced areas] per herd with short grazing periods and long recovery periods. They also adapt when biomass, animal numbers, and growing conditions change within and between years. It is becoming increasingly clear that the key to sustainable recovery from land degradation involves using well-planned and adaptively managed multi-paddock grazing management protocols that match forage biomass with stock [farm animals] numbers to achieve desired resource and financial goals, while avoiding unintended consequences such as soil loss and decline in function, and reduced plant biomass and species makeup. Improved Grazing Lowers Carbon Footprint One of the major concerns in grazing-land ecosystems is the quantity of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted by ruminant [cud-chewing] livestock. Although many scientists have concluded that ruminant production systems are a particularly large source of GHG emissions, others have found it is possible to convert ruminant-based production into net carbon (C) sinks by changing management. Previous assessments of GHGs such as natural methane (CH4) uptake in grazed rangeland ecosystems have not considered improved livestock management practices and have underestimated potential for GHG uptake. Appropriate adaptive stocking, moderate grazing with adequate recovery, and intensification of livestock grazing management significantly contribute to GHG mitigation potential. As soils can be a significant sink of carbon, depending on management practices, soil carbon (C) dynamics are an important part of calculating accurate ruminant lifecycle-assessments (LCAs)—LCAs are tools for measuring environmental impacts. However, changes in C have usually been unaccounted for in LCAs, even though such changes have been found to have a large impact on net GHG footprints when explicitly included in calculations of the net carbon footprints of alternate combinations of agricultural management options. When conducting LCAs on emissions from ruminants in a food production chain, it is fundamentally important to include all elements in the chain that are influencing the net carbon footprint in the whole system under review. This includes accounting for the beneficial ecosystem services—such as those from carbon sequestered in grazing ecosystems—that well-managed grazing systems can provide. Most cattle in North America are finished in feedlots on grain-based feeds. Proponents of this finishing method claim that this results in lower GHG emissions per kilogram of beef produced and a lower carbon footprint because it reduces the overall production time to slaughter and the enteric fermentation [a stage in the animal’s digestive process] during this time, relative to grass-based finishing. However, these authors do not consider the full food-chain carbon footprint of grain-based finishing because they do not account for the full GHG emissions associated with the production of grain-based feeds, inorganic fertilizer, and other elements adding to C footprint levels and soil erosion. The full food-chain carbon footprint of grain-based finishing does not account for the full GHG emissions associated with the production of grain-based feeds, inorganic fertilizer, and other elements adding to C footprint levels and soil erosion. Ruminant dams [mother cows] and their offspring spend most of their lives on perennial grass, during which the C sequestered by the grassland they graze exceeds their emissions. This needs to be considered when calculating the complete carbon footprint through any food-chain option. In developed countries—that routinely finish ruminants on grains—another factor decreasing the C footprint of a production chain is the crop finishing of ruminants based on regenerative cropping practices with a negative GHG footprint (C sink). This practice reduces the carbon footprint considerably. Modification of agroecosystem production systems and conversion to regenerative cropping and AMP-based, grass-finished livestock would also provide other important ecological benefits, as mentioned earlier. In addition, human food supplies would increase by 70% if crop production currently used for animal feed and biofuels and such were instead used for human food products. This change would provide sufficient resources for billions of people. Conclusions To ensure long-term sustainability and ecological resilience of agroecosystems, agricultural production should be guided by policies that ensure regenerative cropping and grazing-management protocols. Changing current unsustainable, high-input agricultural practices to low-input regenerative practices enhances soil and ecosystem function and resilience, improving long-term sustainability and social resilience. A primary challenge is increasing the scale of adoption of land-management practices that have been documented to affect soil health positively. In areas where no cropping is possible, grazing of ruminants in a manner that enhances soil health will reduce the C footprint of agriculture much more than reducing domesticated ruminant numbers to reduce enteric GHG emissions. This will also provide highly nutritious food that has sustained pastoral livelihoods and cultures for centuries. Ruminant livestock are an important tool for achieving sustainable agriculture and, with appropriate grazing management, can increase C sequestered in the soil to more than offset ruminant GHG emissions. They also support and improve other essential ecosystem services for local populations such as better water infiltration, less soil erosion, improved nutrient cycling, soil formation, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, and wildlife habitat. Research conducted on managed landscape shows that ecologically managed AMP grazing strategies incorporating short, high-impact grazing with long recovery periods can regenerate ecosystem function on commercial-scale agroecological landscapes. These include: 1) build soil carbon levels and soil microbial function; 2) enhance water infiltration and retention; 3) control erosion more effectively; 4) build soil fertility; 5) enhance watershed hydrological function; 6) improve livestock production, economic returns, and the resource base; 7) enhance wildlife and biodiversity; and 8) increase soil function as a net greenhouse gas sink. Collectively, conservation agriculture aims at regenerating soil health and ecosystem function, supports ecologically healthy resilient agroecosystems, improves net profitability, and enhances watershed function. To accomplish all of this, it is important for scientists to collaborate with environmentally progressive managers who have excelled financially by improving their resource base; identify the processes associated with improvement; and convert experimental results into sound environmental, social, and economic benefits regionally and globally. *Richard Teague, PhD, is Professor, Department of Ecosystem Science and Management, Texas A&M University and Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Vernon, Texas, USA.

By Gerald H. Pollack* The following is the first part of an edited talk given by Gerald H. Pollack, PhD, professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, Seattle, at the First International Conference on Science and God (ICSG I), in February 2020. The practical applications of understanding the “Fourth Phase of Water” are immense, as it should open new ways to clean water, generate energy, and heal the human body, as will be covered in Part 2. Everyone knows about the three common phases of water: solid (ice), liquid, and gas (vapor). I want to talk about a fourth phase of water and focus on how light unexpectedly influences water. I started my career doing something else, beyond water. We studied the molecular mechanism of muscle contraction for a couple of decades at least. Then I met Gilbert Ling, who passed recently, just shy of 100. Gilbert had a novel idea that was widely despised. The idea was that inside a living cell, water is different from the drinking water in a glass. He said that the water inside the cells of your body differs, with the molecules being lined up. Inside the cell we have lots of macromolecules, mostly proteins, and the surfaces of the proteins are charged. Each water molecule might be considered a dipole, positive at one end and negative at the other, and they would tend to line up with these charges on the surfaces. Gilbert argued, contrary to what most physical chemists believed at the time, that this water would form multilayers of ordered water. Exclusion Zone (EZ) Water One of the characteristics of that water is that it is like a crystal, with the molecules lined up. The idea is that when you have a crystal, the same thing would happen as when ice forms: It pushes out solutes and particles, thereby obtaining a pure crystal. Here, we knew there ought to be a region where molecules of water are lined up, and where they exclude particles and solutes. Within a year we found it. We could see that next to a gel there was a substantial region where the particles just did not go. In this early case the particle-free zone is about 50 μm, about half the thickness of a strand of human hair. We kept finding this again and again. It turned out that someone had published it forty years earlier in the Journal of Physiology, having almost exactly the same result. We decided to call it the exclusion zone (EZ) because it is a zone that excludes. We call this EZ water for short. We found this EZ water next to many hydrophilic (“water-loving”) surfaces, which spread out water droplets instead of having them bead up like they do on Teflon. Many of these surfaces generate exclusion-zones and a lot of solutes are excluded. Then we go back to the question of whether this water really is different from ordinary, bulk water. We have a lot of evidence that EZ water is physically different from bulk water. By measuring the electrical potential using tiny electrodes, we found that the EZ builds right next to the hydrophilic surface and has a negative charge. The EZ usually has a negative charge. By measuring the electrical potential using tiny electrodes, we found that the EZ builds right next to the hydrophilic surface and has a negative charge. The region beyond that has an equal, complementary amount of positive charge. Each water molecule has an oxygen atom with two negative charges and two hydrogen atoms each with a positive charge. The water molecule gets cleaved by some energy so that on one side of the cleavage you have two minus and one plus charges. This dipole aligns itself with the hydrophilic surface and builds this way, layer-by-layer (see Figure). Meanwhile, the proton is cast off and finds itself distributed in the bulk water. What you get is a separation of negative and positive charges, which is effectively a battery made of water. To summarize, the EZ structure looks something like the image above. It shows the material and the water beside the material. These EZ layers of water are built one at a time, with a hexagonal motif, which is very common throughout nature. If you were to look at one of these planar surfaces, you could see the hexagonal motif built of oxygen and hydrogen atoms, and if you were to count in one unit cell the number of oxygen and hydrogen atoms, you would find that it is not H2O anymore. You would not expect it to be H2O, because H2O is neutral, and we need a negative charge. We think the unit structure is actually H3O2, and it has a negative charge. We think the unit [EZ] structure is actually H3O2, and it has a negative charge. How might this apply to the insides of a living cell? The inside of a cell is really crowded, meaning that all the water inside the cell is near these proteins or other macromolecules, so that all of it will be EZ water, which has a negative charge. You can see oxygens situated at each of these vertices. It turns out that each oxygen atom has not just two states but five different oxidation states: –2, –1, 0, +1, and +2. The theoretical capacity for information storage in the EZ, which is in the cells in your body, is huge. I think we calculated about seven or eight orders of magnitude greater than what is in a flash drive right now. EZ Water Reacts to Light Is EZ water physically distinct from bulk water? The answer is, “Yes,” as there are many features that distinguish it. It is a layered honeycomb structure as best we can surmise, it has information storage capability, and it may also respond to intention. I pointed out that this is a battery, and everybody knows batteries need charging. Your cell phone will not work if you forget to charge it overnight. The question is, what charges this battery—what kind of energy can create this potential difference? I must admit that for two or three years we could not figure it out. Then a student working in the laboratory found out that it was actually light. He shined the lamp on the chamber and asked me to look at what was happening. This black here is a hydrophilic material, which in this case is Nafion, a polymer we use often, although not exclusively. It produces nice exclusion zones as you can see here with the particles beyond. Wherever my student was shining the light, the exclusion zone expanded greatly. When he turned off the light, after a few tens of seconds the EZ went back down to the original size. If light is expanding this zone, then maybe the photons provide the energy that builds this exclusion zone and the separation of charge that comes with it. Our experiments showed that the most effective wavelength is infrared, especially at 3 μm, almost a thousand times more powerful than visible light. Our experiments showed that the most effective wavelength is infrared, especially at 3 μm, almost a thousand times more powerful than visible light. Because infrared is everywhere, it means that if you have a hydrophilic material next to water, you will always have a certain amount of EZ water next to the hydrophilic surface. More infrared results in a bigger exclusion zone. Once the infrared light is taken away, it comes back down to the original size. In terms of energy for buildup, we know that EZ is powered by light, or photonic energy, which orders the water, reduces the entropy, and charges the water battery. A glass of water is not at equilibrium with the environment. It is constantly absorbing energy from the environment. Then, the question arises, can you harvest this energy from the water? An example comes from another undergraduate student. I asked him to put a Nafion tube into a chamber with water and some particles, and to use the microscope to see whether an exclusion zone was building either outside or just inside the wall of the tube. Once he did that, he was shocked to see that water kept flowing through the tube without stopping because usually you need pressure to drive water, which has viscosity, through a tube. In your body, the heart develops pressure to send blood through the arteries. In our experiment, there was no pressure gradient to drive the flow because the tube was lying horizontally, and the pressure at each end of the tube was identical. The only energy supply available was the absorption of light, especially infrared, which could be the power source for all of this. Here is how it works. You can take a tube, fill it with water, making sure there are no air bubbles, and then stick it into a chamber containing a bath of water and microspheres. Then look through the microscope to see what happens. We used green light to reduce the total amount of light, as shown below. We could not easily find materials that were narrow enough and had hydrophilic properties, so we created our own. We took a gel, and while it was still a liquid, we stuck a wire through it. Then, as it was gelling, we pulled the wire out. This gave us a chunk of gel (polyacrylic acid) with a tunnel running through it. We took this tube of gel and stuck it into a bath of water and microspheres. When we put it in the water with microspheres, the first thing that happens is that the EZ grows, pushing all the microspheres toward the center line. We have now tried eight different gels. We get the same result, but the flow rate is different. Work is done, so energy is required. The only energy that the system has come into contact with is the energy from the infrared light absorbed by the water in the chamber. This water, then, is a transducer that transduces light energy into mechanical energy. In conclusion, the main point I want to mention is that we have all learned that water has three phases: solid (ice), liquid, and vapor. I have presented to you evidence that there is a fourth phase. The structure of the EZ is not so different from the structure of ice. In fact, if you want to freeze water, we found it is obligatory to go through the EZ phase to get to ice; and conversely, if you melt ice, you must also pass through EZ water to get to liquid water. *Gerald H. Pollack, PhD, is a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, Seattle. He is also the executive director of The Institute for Venture Science and cofounder of 4th-Phase Inc.

By Gordon Cairns* Since humans first evolved from nomadic hunters to settled farmers tens of thousands of years ago, humanity has doubly benefitted from animal husbandry, not only in the meat and clothing they provide but also in using their manure on our crops. Today’s animal farms have grown larger to cope with the growing demand for meat, but livestock populations are now creating too much waste to be used as fertilizer. This excess waste can leak into water systems, creating health problems for humans and animals alike, as well as slowly suffocating lakes, rivers, and waterways. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which oversees water quality, has attempted to curb pollution through regulation but critics argue this is to limited effect. Last year, more than fifty environmental and citizen groups petitioned the EPA to improve its oversight of water pollution from industrial-scale concentrated animal feeding operations, arguing that stricter regulation of large farms is needed to meet the target set by the federal Clean Water Act. Larger Farms, Larger ‘Outputs’ What used to be known as farms or ranches are now less romantically termed Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), a regulatory term that describes the living conditions where the vast majority of livestock is kept. Over 90% of animals that are farmed for food will spend most of their lives inside the confined space of a CAFO. These factory farms are grouped by size: Large CAFOs contain more than 1,000 heads of cattle or 10,000 sheep, while smaller ones may have less than 300 cows or less than 3,000 sheep. Between 1992 and 2012, the average size of a herd of dairy cows in the US increased almost nine times, from 101 to 900. “A lack of high-quality water can have a negative impact on our ecosystem as a whole, and negative effects on different species,” says assistant professor Lorrayne Miralha, a hydrologist and water quality expert at the Food, Agriculture, and Biological Engineering Department at Ohio State University. The CAFO methods of dealing with waste are impacting water, she says. “These food systems tend to produce a lot of ‘output’—and by output, I mean manure.” “If we think about how we handle our human waste in a city, we directly connect to our sewage systems and the waste management programs we have in place,” she says. “We do not have sewer systems implemented on an animal farm,” so “we have to do something with the waste that all of these facilities produce.” According to figures released by the US Government Accountability Office in 2008, a dairy CAFO with 1,200 cows can produce 30,500 tons of manure annually. The EPA also has 2007 and 2017 estimates of animal manure nitrogen and phosphorous by each State. For example, in Iowa there are more than 9,000 animal farms, and manure from animal feeding operations is either stored onsite in a surface lagoon or spread onto farmland. Both methods can lead to leaks into surface water during heavy rain or snowmelt or if the manure spread on top of the ground cannot be absorbed. Manure is heavy and expensive to transport, so farmers tend to dump it close to their facility. “Iowa is one of the states where we have found associations with CAFOs and nitrogen ground water contamination, as it is just leaking down into the water.” Prof. Miralha adds: “Iowa is one of the states where we have found associations with CAFOs and nitrogen ground water contamination, as it is just leaking down into the water.” Nitrogen pollution from farming has decreased Iowa’s drinking water quality, according to a 2021 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists, with rural Iowan dwellers expected to pick up the majority of the bill to pay for the clean-up caused by their CAFO neighbors. While urban Iowans pay $2 per person annually for nitrate treatment of their drinking water, rural residents can pay up to $1,200 per person. However, CAFOs are not solely to blame. The Practical Farmers of Iowa—a farmers’ investigation and information sharing organization—points out that changes in the landscape and fields not having crops all the year round has led to an increase in nitrogen seeping into the water supply. They suggest pasture growth, diversified rotations, and cover crops year-round to help reduce nitrates in the water supply. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the larger operators causing the problems. In their report, “The spatial organization of CAFOs and its relationship to water quality in the United States,” Prof. Miralha and colleagues looked at the water quality surrounding both large and smaller farms. It found that the clustering of less regulated smaller CAFOs was associated with higher total phosphorous and total nitrogen concentrations. Prof. Miralha wanted to investigate how CAFOs were organized and found that smaller enterprises tended to operate in close proximity to each other: “The problem with clustering is that the food system is all in one place. They are producing so much manure that they cannot handle it in the local community; because of that potential for large amounts of manure staying close to the area [where it was created], we have water quality issues.” Focusing on the smaller farms, she adds: “As they tend to be lightly regulated, they tended to cause more waste. Small farms are taking advantage of their size to do whatever they want—and as the smaller farms tended to be clustered together, they were producing a lot of waste which led to the water quality problem.” “Small farms are taking advantage of their size to do whatever they want—and as the smaller farms tended to be clustered together, they were producing a lot of waste which led to the water quality problem.” Manure is rich in nitrogen and phosphorus, so when these nutrients combine, this leads to a huge impact in water. Excessive amounts of these nutrients in water can cause algae blooms that lead to high levels of toxins, killing fish as the green algae consumes all of the oxygen in the water, creating serious health problems. Furthermore, Prof. Miralha raises concern of CAFOs’ environmental impacts from natural disasters: “If we have more flood events happening in these areas, as is happening in North Carolina where there are thousands and thousands of swine and cattle farms, this becomes a global risk because once it floods in the manure field, it is very likely manure will end up in the water we are drinking.” She adds while consumers can avoid meat reared on a CAFO by going organic, not everyone can take this approach. “There is a huge demand for people who want to eat meat but struggle to afford it. These animal farms can produce meat in [a] significantly affordable way.” Prof. Miralha, whose parents are farmers in her home country of Brazil, is not trying to stop these farms from operating, but she does think they should be more highly regulated. “My role is to create solutions so that we can operate in a smart way, in a sustainable way where we can grow food without destroying our ecosystems by discharging manure into the water.” Although CAFOs in the US must obtain a permit from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System before discharge is allowed, cases of sewage runoff can occur, such as one reported by the Volunteers for Environmentally Concerned Citizens of South Central Michigan in June this year. “Manure is not waste; it is a very valuable product that can help us grow other types of food. Can we turn these outputs into a good form of waste and create a circular sustainable food system? Can we create something to use all of the manure nutrients and to put manure on the crops we are likely to eat?” One example of such outputs being put to good use is in the biogas sector. In Milford, Utah, methane captured from pig manure from twenty-six farms is being converted into energy for homes, businesses, and transportation, reducing annual emissions by 100,000 metric tons. This clean energy releases less greenhouse gas than the original methane while providing enough energy to heat 3,000 homes and businesses when at full capacity. Innovative ideas such as this are just the modern approach to what farmers have been doing with animal waste for thousands of years. *Gordon Cairns is a freelance journalist and teacher of English and Forest Schools based in Scotland.

How the ‘True Price’ Movement is Helping Repair the Broken Food System By Marion W. Miller* There is an increasing awareness today that the current global food system is not sustainable, as evidenced by the popularity of regenerative agriculture, farmers markets, the Farm-to-Table concept, and the fair-trade movement. There is also great and growing demand for organic products—necessitating their importation from developing countries. Enter the True Price movement. This innovative concept seeks to alert consumers to the “true price” of food, which goes beyond the “retail” price by incorporating the hidden environmental and social costs incurred during production. This revolutionary idea is designed to help shoppers make healthy and sustainable choices more easily—and contribute to a better food system. The Inadequacy of the Current Pricing System According to economic theory, prices are determined by the relationship between supply and demand. However, in the modern food supply chain retail prices do not actually reflect true costs due to negative "externalities." For example, a 2021 report by the Rockefeller Foundation says that Americans spent $1.1 trillion on food in 2019. However, the actual cost that year of food production, packaging, and transporting, plus immense “hidden costs” of $2.1 trillion, resulted in a total of $3.2 trillion, nearly three times the initial amount. The hidden costs, or externalities, included adverse impacts on health—such as diet-related diseases—environmental degradation, and social and economic inequities. To tackle this kind of incongruity in pricing, two enterprising young men from the Netherlands—a country with a history of seeking to tackle food sustainability issues—stepped up. In 2012, after an epiphany of sorts, Michel Scholte and Adrian de Groot Ruiz co-founded True Price, a groundbreaking social enterprise dedicated to educating consumers about how food is produced and marketed, while giving concrete ways to help make a difference. Executive Director Scholte and Director de Groot Ruiz met in college, where Scholte was studying sociology, and de Groot Ruiz was working toward a doctorate in economics. They discovered that they shared a passion for economics as well as concerns for the structural problems contributing to poverty and detrimental environmental practices. Subsequently, they joined Worldconnectors, a Dutch think tank promoting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, where they discussed what economists call externalities, i.e., the environmental and social production costs that are not considered in transactions. The pair realized that governments were often unwilling to pass laws that restrict ecologically damaging practices of agricultural companies, which result in the pollution of the natural environment and ecosystems’ biodiversity loss. At this point, they had the brilliant inspiration to bring the problem directly to the consumer, and thus, True Price was born. The True Price movement seeks to work directly with retailers to alert consumers to the need for more sustainable farming practices, and to remedy social issues such as child labor and underpayment of producers. The True Price movement seeks to work directly with retailers to alert consumers to the need for more sustainable farming practices, and to remedy social issues such as child labor and underpayment of producers. This is accomplished by presenting a two-tiered price system. The first price is the retail price of an item, and the second is the higher “true price,” which incorporates the hidden environmental and social costs incurred during the item’s production. By comparing the true price of similar items, such as two or three bars of chocolate, consumers can see which candy bar caused more environmental and social damage in its production. Then, the consumer can choose to buy the bar with the lowest true price—indicating lower environmental and social costs. Moreover, the consumer could voluntarily choose to pay the “true price” rather than the “retail price,” thus donating the difference toward greater environmental health and social equity. This transparent two-tiered pricing is sometimes called “nudge marketing.” Scholte and de Groot Ruiz make the case that true pricing would have been impossible in the past. However, it is possible today because of the advanced level of information technology, which makes it feasible to collect all the data needed from around the world to calculate the true prices of items. Does the True Price Initiative Affect Consumer Behavior? The food system, or food chain, is the path that food travels from field to plate. The promise of True Price is that it will help educate consumers about the negative external costs in the food chain and enable them to contribute to offsetting these costs with the goal of remedying them. Thus, significant questions examining the True Price movement are: “Does True Price effectively influence consumer behavior? Will consumers buy items with a lower true price, indicating fewer negative externalities in their production? Will consumers pay the higher true price rather than the normal retail price, thus donating the difference toward remedying the externalities?” To answer these questions, researchers from Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands—which specializes in the fields of health and environmental issues—interviewed two groups of consumers. They wanted to know if a consumer’s choice of a food product could be influenced by giving specific information about the item’s true price. The first group comprised regular customers of the organic supermarket De Aanzet in Amsterdam. The second group consisted of various consumers from all over the Netherlands. They gave both groups the same information about: the true price of products, ensuring that the product stories are accurate; the redistribution of the extra funds collected, indicating that 100% would be used to remedy social and environmental ills; and how the customer would get a boost in social status by being among the first people in the Netherlands to pay the true price for products. The researchers found that consumers in the first group, at De Aanzet, were more likely to pay the higher true price, since they were already committed to buying healthier, organic fruits and vegetables. Nearly two-thirds of respondents were willing to pay the optional, higher true price for products under certain circumstances. But an important result the researchers discovered was that nearly two-thirds of respondents were willing to pay the optional, higher true price for products under certain circumstances. These were: if the information was conspicuously displayed, if they trusted the information, if they thought that by paying the true price they could boost their social status, and/or if they thought that their donation had a positive social and environmental impact. The owner of De Aanzet, Maarten Rijninks, reports in a 2022 article in The New Yorker, that, since adopting the True Price system, business volume has increased by about 5%, and many patrons say that they like it. “The problem is that customers don’t have the tools to lower their social and environmental impact,” he told The New Yorker. “But they are willing to do it.” Supermarket chain Albert Heijn provides an example of how the extra money donated through the True Price system is used. According to Food Matters Live, “All coffee sold at Albert Heijn’s ‘to go’ branches comes from Rainforest Alliance-certified coffee plantations, according to the retailer. If customers are willing to pay the true price of their coffee instead of the retail price, Albert Heijn says it will invest the extra money in Rainforest Alliance improvement projects in the coffee supply chain.” Early in its history, True Price realized it could also work directly with companies, such as the Dutch chocolate company Tony’s Chocolonely, to help them reduce their negative externalities. Tony’s Chocolonely has found the True Price analysis useful in setting goals and assessing the progress of its initiatives. According to The New Yorker, the company pays higher-than-average prices for its beans, and “runs a supply-chain-traceability initiative and a child-labor-monitoring system.” It also spends 1% of its annual revenue on “investments in community infrastructure and on lobbying for better legislation regarding supply chains.” Going Mainstream Indeed, in 2018, True Price created a spin-off social enterprise called the Impact Institute, Powered by True Price. True Price continued as a non-profit. The mission of the new Impact Institute is to empower organizations to transform themselves and facilitate a global system shift toward the realization of the impact economy. They describe their vision as “an economy where everyday work, entrepreneurship, innovation, and technology lead to a better world.” One of the requirements for this change is to have “a common language for impact and integrating this language into every aspect of our economy.” All services and new methods and technologies development have been spun off from True Price to the Impact Institute. True Pricing and true cost accounting are becoming mainstream. The Impact Institute has ongoing projects with European businesses and governments. Recently, true cost accounting was a major topic of discussion at the United Nations’ Food Systems Summit in Rome, Italy (UNFSS+2), July 24-26, 2023. In his keynote address there, UN Secretary-General António Guterres said with great urgency: “Global food systems are broken—and billions of people are paying the price.” True Price—an idea whose time has come—is helping customers make healthy and sustainable choices easily and allowing them to contribute to a better food system. At the same time, the Impact Institute, powered by True Price, has now grown into a global social enterprise providing consulting services in the field of true pricing, with the vision of creating a better world economy for all. *Marion W. Miller is a French bilingual researcher, writer, and editor now residing in Northern Virginia. She has master’s degrees in Business and Economics, and in International Economics and Economic Development. She has also ministered for community development and world peace. As a grandmother of eight, she is deeply interested in environmental stewardship and preserving natural wonders for future generations. She has traveled to many natural sites in countries around the world and now escapes to the gorgeous Shenandoah Valley National Park whenever time allows.