The recent shift in the United States from coal to natural gas as a primary feedstock for the production of electric power has reduced the intensity of sectoral carbon dioxide emissions, but—due to gaps in monitoring—its downstream pollution-related effects have been less well understood. Here, I analyse old units that have been taken offline and new units that have come online to empirically link technology switches to observed aerosol and ozone changes and subsequent impacts on human health, crop yields and regional climate. Between 2005 and 2016 in the continental United States, decommissioning of a coal-fired unit was associated with reduced nearby pollution concentrations and subsequent reductions in mortality and increases in crop yield. In total during this period, the shutdown of coal-fired units saved an estimated 26,610 (5%–95% confidence intervals (CI), 2,725–49,680) lives and 570 million (249–878 million) bushels of corn, soybeans and wheat in their immediate vicinities; these estimates increase when pollution transport-related spillovers are included. Changes in primary and secondary aerosol burdens also altered regional atmospheric reflectivity, raising the average top of atmosphere instantaneous radiative forcing by 0.50 W m−2. Although there are considerable benefits of decommissioning older coal-fired units, the newer natural gas and coal-fired units that have supplanted them are not entirely benign.
Women empowerment (WE) is increasingly viewed as an important strategy to reduce maternal and child undernutrition,1–3 which continues to be a major health burden in low- and middle-income countries causing 3.5 million preventable maternal and child deaths, 35% of the disease burden in children younger than 5 years, and 11% of total global disability-adjusted life years.4,5Global data show that one of the worst affected regions is sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), where about 20% of children are malnourished.6,7 Benin is no exception, as the prevalence of stunting, wasting, and underweight was 37%, 5%, and 17%, respectively, among children aged 6 to 59 months in the 2006 Benin Demographic and Health Survey (DHS),8 while 9% of women had chronic energy deficiency in the 2012 DHS.9 Greater rates were observed in rural areas where stunting was found in 40% of children, underweight in 19%, and wasting in 5%, while 10% of women had chronic energy deficiency.8,9 Additionally, Beninese women and children have a limited dietary diversity score (DDS), with diets predominately composed of starchy staples with little or no animal products and few fresh fruits and vegetables.10,11 Government, United Nation agencies, and nongovernmental organizations in Benin recognize that the state of maternal and child undernutrition requires multiple types of interventions.12
However, women’s low empowerment status in Benin can hinder the improvement in women’s and children’s undernutrition. Indeed, although females accounted for 47% of the economically active population in 2014,13 social and civil legislation is strongly influenced by tradition and customs, as women continue to be required to seek their husband’s authorization in certain areas such as family planning or health services.14 Rural women provided labor to the families’ commercial plots, were responsible for household food production and processing, and also had to work in the cooperative structures set up by the state in addition to their household tasks.14 In a more recent study of productivity differences by gender in central Benin, researchers noted that female rice farmers are particularly discriminated against with regard to access to land and equipment, resulting in significant negative impacts on their productivity and income.15 As in other areas of West Africa, women also have the responsibility of caring for children and preparing food for the household,16 but they may be vulnerable to food insecurity owing to unequal intrahousehold food distribution and their willingness to forego meals in favor of children during times of scarcity.17 Finally, no study to date has examined links between women’s empowerment and nutrition in Benin.
In addition, the evidence backing the effect of women’s empowerment on maternal and child undernutrition is inconsistent.18 Using the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI), Malapit et al19 reported positive and significant association between women’s group (WG) membership, control over income, overall empowerment, and women’s health (as measured by body mass index [BMI] and DDS) in Nepal. However, in Ghana, women’s aggregate empowerment and participation in credit decisions were positively correlated with women’s DDS, but not BMI.20 Mixed findings were also observed between women’s empowerment and child anthropometry. Moestue et al21 found a positive association between maternal involvement in social groups and length-for-age z score of 1-year-old children, but De Silva and Harpham22showed a negative association in 6- to 18-month-old children. Shroff et al23 found positive association between decision-making and child weight-for-age z score (WAZ), but Begum and Sen’s24 analysis of Bangladesh DHS data did not reveal any significant associations. Therefore, information about which domains of WE are associated with nutritional status is limited,20 and this lack of knowledge constrains the set of policy options that can be used to empower women and improve nutrition.
In addition to a limited set of studies in SSA, examinations of the effects of WE on nutrition outcomes are constrained due to interstudy differences in population characteristics, settings, or methods/conceptualizations of WE.25–27 For example, despite recognition of the complex, multidimensional, and culturally defined nature and influence of empowerment on nutrition,20,26,28,29 only a few studies considered the multidimensional structure of empowerment domains in Africa or examined the varied relationships between each measure of WE and maternal and child nutrition status.30,31 Furthermore, in 2012, the International Food Policy Research Institute developed WEAI constructed from 5 prespecified domains of empowerment,32which may not be equally relevant in all areas. In contrast, in 2015, the United Nations adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), but the specific indicators for the SDG empowerment targets are largely equality metrics.33 To address the need for multidimensional and contextual examinations of WE and its influence on maternal and child health outcomes, we draw from the concepts put forward in the WEAI and the SDGs but took an approach more along the lines of the World Bank which gathers indicators, both equity and empowerment related, that can be used in contextually appropriate ways.34 The aims of this study were therefore to first explore the structure and domains of WE in Kalalé district of northern Benin and then to examine the effects of these constructs on nutritional status of women and their children in the region.
In 2007, "solar market gardens" were installed in 2 villages for women’s agricultural groups as a strategy for enhancing food and nutrition security. Data were collected through interviews at installation and 1 year later from all women’s group households (30–35 women/group) and from a random representative sample of 30 households in each village, for both treatment and matched-pair comparison villages. Comparison of baseline and endline data indicated increases in the variety of fruits and vegetables produced and consumed by SMG women’s groups compared to other groups. The proportion of SMG women’s group households engaged in vegetable and fruit production significantly increased by 26% and 55%, respectively (P < .05). After controlling for baseline values, SMG women’s groups were 3 times more likely to increase their fruit and vegetable consumption compared with comparison non-women’s groups (P < .05). In addition, the percentage change in corn, sorghum, beans, oil, rice and fish purchased was significantly greater in the SMG women’s groups compared to other groups. At endline, 57% of the women used their additional income on food, 54% on health care, and 25% on education. Solar Market Gardens have the potential to improve household nutritional status through direct consumption and increased income to make economic decisions.
We explored the potential to colocate solar installations and agriculture.
Water use at solar installations are similar to amounts required for desert plants.
Co-located systems are economically viable in some areas.
Colocation can maximize land and water use efficiency in drylands.
Solar energy installations in arid and semi-arid regions are rapidly increasing due to technological advances and policy support. Although solar energy provides several benefits such as reduction of greenhouse gases, reclamation of degraded land, and improved quality of life in developing countries, the deployment of large-scale renewable energy infrastructure may negatively impact land and water resources. Meeting the ever-expanding energy demand with limited land and water resources in the context of increasing demand for alternative uses such as agricultural and domestic consumption is a major challenge. The goal of this study was to explore opportunities to colocate solar infrastructures and agricultural crops to maximize the efficiency of land and water use. We investigated the energy inputs/outputs, water use, greenhouse gas emissions, and economics of solar installations in northwestern India in comparison to aloe vera cultivation, another widely promoted and economically important land use in these systems. The life cycle analyses show that the colocated systems are economically viable in some rural areas and may provide opportunities for rural electrification and stimulate economic growth. The water inputs for cleaning solar panels are similar to amounts required for annual aloe productivity, suggesting the possibility of integrating the two systems to maximize land and water use efficiency. A life cycle analysis of a hypothetical colocation indicated higher returns per m3 of water used than either system alone. The northwestern region of India has experienced high population growth in the past decade, creating additional demand for land and water resources. In these water-limited areas, coupled solar infrastructure and agriculture could be established in marginal lands with low water use, thus minimizing the socioeconomic and environmental issues resulting from cultivation of economically important non-food crops (e.g., aloe) in prime agricultural lands.
It is August again, and my wife and I are back on our farm. We have a medium-sized operation in east-central Iowa that produces soybeans, alfalfa, and corn, and that also supports an Angus cow-calf herd. These summers are supposed to be quiet, relaxing times away from the bustle of Stanford University. However, the days here seem anything but tranquil. Two years ago my almanac report dealt with one of the worst droughts in Iowa’s history; last year the focus was on flooding and the wettest planting season on record. I suppose it is only fair that wind should be the main topic this year. For our rural neighborhood, only problems, not answers, seemed to have been blowin’ in it.
Two evenings after our arrival from California, we were sent scurrying to our doubly reinforced “safe” room in the basement. Warning sirens blared, all television stations went on emergency broadcasting, and the spontaneous neighborhood phone line magically got activated. Everything was for real, and all hell broke loose. Eighty-five m.p.h. flat-line winds, grape-sized hail, and buckets of rain. The power went out, and our safe-room conversation centered on whether or not to start our small generator—not for lights, but to assure that the sump pump continued working!
For a swath three miles wide and 15 miles long the tornado danced—jumping here and skipping there. Some farms were spared; others were pretty much demolished. We were moderately lucky. We lost an infinite number of branches and our largest oak tree—a four-foot diameter, 70-foot tall specimen. Entire trees were twisted off like toothpicks. Shingles from roofs went missing, as did white fencing. But we were among the lucky ones—no major buildings were lost and no people or animals were injured.
Two farms over, the five-bin corn storage unit took a direct hit. Two 120-foot tall elevators that lift grain to the top (called legs, although the anatomy analogy makes no sense) lay in a crumpled mess. These bins hold some 240,000 bushels of corn and there are massive amounts of steel involved. The broken legs looked, at 120X scale, like an angry third-grader had deliberately slammed his Lego creations onto the ground. The difference is that the repairs, labor costs, and replacement parts for the bins and legs total $750,000. Farmers soon began re-reading their insurance policies about acts of God, depreciation allowances, and the rules for full versus partial replacement.
The morning following the storm, an eerie calm was soon replaced by a different form of energy. Other work seemed to stop in a region larger than the storm-hit area. No one arranged it, but neighbors suddenly appeared at each other’s farmsteads with tractors, loaders, pickups, and chainsaws. Small mountains of brush, trees, and building parts began to emerge, to be burned at a later date—no doubt with generous burn permits being granted by the county.
At the time of the storm, corn was about waist high. Like the trees, it took a serious beating throughout the storm’s path. The corn stalks were tightly packed in narrow rows as a consequence of the changed density of planting—from 20,000 kernels per acre 20 years ago to 35,000 currently. (Bags of seed corn containing 80,000 kernels now typically sell in excess of $300, putting seed costs per acre about on a par with the cost of nitrogen fertilizer.) This tightly woven carpet of corn was now leaning at 45 degrees—or worse. The question was whether the stalks would straighten up. And the answer turns out to be “sort of.” Many of them are “goose-necked,” a much used word now in farmer conversations. The concern is, IF large ears develop, will the stalks be sturdy enough to support them? Or, will a large amount of “ear droppage” seriously reduce yields and profits? We continue to be optimistic, and are still hoping for corn yields of 190 bushels per acre, not far from our best year of 220 bushels.
Morning coffee conversations at the old limestone café have been fairly somber affairs this summer. (The general store has changed hands, but unfortunately, the watery coffee and the stale cookies have not improved.) Farmer faces were grim even before the storm, mainly because of what has happened to corn prices. In August 2012, local farmers were being offered $7.65/bushel [56 pounds] of corn; in August 2013, the price was $6.20/bushel, and on August 20, 2014, the price was $3.60/bushel. Suddenly the rush to buy new pick-ups and large harvesting equipment slowed drastically. John Deere, the major farm-equipment manufacturer, has already laid off hundreds of workers at various Iowa sites.
Orders have not stopped entirely, however, largely because of crop insurance. Virtually all farmers have either 75% or 85% revenue protection. If a combination of yield and/or price declines cause revenue to be less than 75% (85%) of normal, farmers are reimbursed by private insurance companies. The premiums for this revenue-protection insurance are heavily subsidized by the federal farm program. Taxpayers underwrite more than 60% of the total insurance premiums, which last year resulted in subsidies to farmers of about $9 billion. Historic yields are used in the insurance contract, and this year the early insurance lock-in price was $4.62/bushel. That price looked low in the spring, but now looks extremely favorable. Unfortunately, many of my neighbors chose the “wrong” insurance option. They were able to purchase 75% revenue protection for about $4.50/acre, whereas the 85% protection cost about $19/acre. For a farmer with 1500 acres of corn, the difference in insurance premiums was more than $20,000. But given declining corn prices, the cheaper insurance option for 2014 will surely turn out to be the most costly choice at the end of the season. Farm decision making these days is mostly about risk management, and that is why crop insurance was such a big element in the new farm program.
Perhaps the hottest topic of conversation at morning coffee centered again on wind, but not of the tornado variety. It turns out that “the wind comes sweeping down the plain” in Iowa as well as in Oklahoma. Iowa is the third-largest producer of wind energy, and wind power supplies a hefty 27 percent of Iowa’s total energy use. So why are my neighbors upset? It is something called the Rock Island Clean Line (RICL), and a bit of history is in order.
Image
The old Rock Island Line was a rail company—made more famous than it really deserved to be by Johnny Cash. The line ran five miles south of our farm, and yes, it was a “mighty fine line” that did carry cows, sheep, pigs, and mules. But it went bankrupt in 1975. The Rock Island Clean Line originally planned to use some of the old right-of- way for quite a different purpose—transporting wind-generated power from northwest Iowa on huge towers, with cables carrying direct-current electricity into the Illinois market to the east. It turned out, however, that too much of the old right of way went through urban areas and was unsuitable, so RICL will purchase some 500 linear miles of farmland right-of-way for the towers.
Farmers are rationally and irrationally furious. (The line was originally scheduled to go across the full length of our farm, so we have been directly involved in the discussions.) It has been extremely difficult to get straight answers about the line, with the company and the Iowa Utilities Board doing a dance in which neither wants to lead. There is no doubt that these140-foot towers create an ugly line of sight; they complicate farming with large machinery; and they seriously impact adjoining fields during the construction phase. The company believes that it is offering generous one-time compensation—the equivalent of $10,000 to $15,000 per acre in most cases—but it then retains easement rights to this land forever, including the authority to sell the rights. Farmers are livid—they basically do not want the line from which they will receive no benefits—but they are being faced with potential eminent domain proceedings if they do not agree to sell. All sorts of NIMBY arguments are being brought forward, from the “government can’t tell us what to do,” to “the lines will emit electrical forces that will cause health effects,” to “they are not paying enough,” to “why should we use good Iowa soil to transport electricity rather than to produce food for the hungry?” The last of these comments is the one I have heard most often. When I inquired as to whether the coffee group was also against ethanol—since 40% of Iowa corn is going into gas tanks rather than hungry mouths—I was NOT regarded as a helpful contributor to the conversation!
In the end, I suspect that the Rock Island Clean Line will prevail, and that farmers and their families will learn to accommodate the power towers. Many farmers will grumble publically, but smile privately en route to their banks with rather large checks. However, both the process and outcome have stirred up deep passions about who controls the land.
Not all farmers are sad this summer, and the winds of good fortune have blown in the direction of cattle feeders. The structure of cattle feeding in Iowa has changed enormously in recent times. I am the son of a mid-sized feeder, and spent a good deal of my youth working with cattle and driving cattle trucks. Most east Iowa farms these days are strictly grain farms, in large part to free farmers from the 24/7 burden of animal care. My neighbor talks about his corn-Texas crop rotation—growing corn in the summer and going to Texas for the winter.
Two black angus calves.
There are only two large cattle feeding operations left in Linn County where I live, and both are within four miles of our farm. I was invited by one of the owners to attend a cattle auction with him, and to see for myself just how much things had changed. He owns his own 18-wheeler, and almost every week takes a load (36 head) of prime beef to the auction. Cattle are taken to the auction pens the night before the sale and are taken off of feed and water. These steers weigh between 1400 and 1500 pounds, and buyers want assurance that the animals have not gorged on feed and water just before crossing the scales. The cattle are weighed early the morning of the sale, and weights are then flashed on a scoreboard as the animals enter the sale ring.
There is still an amazing amount of ritual at a cattle auction—I had forgotten just how much! Prime steers are typically sold in lots of 12 animals. They enter the ring from one side, and are moved about by a “ring man” so that buyers can get a good view of them. Part of the ritual is where various people sit. A small group of farmers/sellers sits in one section, typically bantering about whom has the best cattle and whose will “top the sale.” The buyers sit near the top of the bleachers, in the same spot each week, but separated from each other. (They would not want a casual conversation between them to be construed as collusion!) There is also the auctioneer with his chatter, mile-a-minute delivery, and selling antics. The sale itself happens very rapidly. There are typically two to four bidders for a particular lot of animals, and the bids go back and forth among them at lightning speed. The bidding cues are highly personalized—one buyer uses the flip of his tally sheet, another raises his index finger, and one simply arches his eyebrow. In less than 45 seconds, the winning buyer has spent $27,000! And then the next lot appears. Cattle from this sale went to packing plants in Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, and Illinois.
On the 25-mile ride home, my neighbor talked about how pleased he was with what had happened. His steers had gained well and had topped the market in terms of price at $1.57 per pound. He said that corn was very cheap, as was distiller’s grain—the high protein by-product from making corn-based ethanol—which is now an important part of cattle feeding rations. There would be a healthy profit from this load of steers that had grossed about $80,000.
But then he turned somber. What should he do about next year? The price of 600-pound calves that he would put into the feedlot for feeding and sale next year are selling at the astronomical price of $2.50 per pound and even higher. Perhaps next year, he said, was the year to stay out of the ring and go to Texas or Arizona for the winter. Risk had reared its ugly head once again. But my neighbor is first and foremost a cattle feeder, with a cattle feeder’s mindset toward risk. My conjecture is that he will somehow find a rationale for purchasing replacement calves, and that he will do everything all over again next year.
[See video interview with Chris Field and David Lobell here].
Biofuels such as ethanol offer an alternative to petroleum for
powering our cars, but growing energy crops to produce them can compete
with food crops for farmland, and clearing forests to expand farmland
will aggravate the climate change problem. How can we maximize our
"miles per acre" from biomass?
Researchers writing in
the May 7, 2009, edition of the journal Science say the best bet is to
convert the biomass to electricity rather than ethanol. They calculate
that, compared to ethanol used for internal combustion engines,
bioelectricity used for battery-powered vehicles would deliver an
average of 80 percent more miles of transportation per acre of crops,
while also providing double the greenhouse gas offsets to mitigate
climate change.
"It's a relatively obvious question once you ask it, but nobody had really asked it before," said study co-author Christopher B. Field, director of the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution.
"The kinds of motivations that have driven people to think about
developing ethanol as a vehicle fuel have been somewhat different from
those that have been motivating people to think about battery electric
vehicles, but the overlap is in the area of maximizing efficiency and
minimizing adverse impacts on climate."
Field, who is
also a professor of biology at Stanford University and a senior fellow
at Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment, is part of a
research team that includes lead author Elliott Campbell of the University of California-Merced and David Lobell of Stanford's Program on Food Security and the Environment.
Bioelectricity vs. ethanol
The
researchers performed a life-cycle analysis of both bioelectricity and
ethanol technologies, taking into account not only the energy produced
by each technology, but also the energy consumed in producing the
vehicles and fuels. For the analysis, they used publicly available data
on vehicle efficiencies from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and other organizations.
Bioelectricity was the clear
winner in the transportation-miles-per-acre comparison, regardless of
whether the energy was produced from corn or from switchgrass, a
cellulose-based energy crop. For example, a small SUV powered by
bioelectricity could travel nearly 14,000 highway miles on the net
energy produced from an acre of switchgrass, while a comparable
internal combustion vehicle could only travel about 9,000 miles on the
highway. (Average mileage for both city and highway driving would be
15,000 miles for a biolelectric SUV and 8,000 miles for an internal
combustion vehicle.)
"The internal combustion engine just isn't very efficient, especially
when compared to electric vehicles," said Campbell. "Even the best
ethanol-producing technologies with hybrid vehicles aren't enough to
overcome this."
Climate change
The
researchers found that bioelectricity and ethanol also differed in
their potential impact on climate change. "Some approaches to bioenergy
can make climate change worse, but other limited approaches can help
fight climate change," said Campbell. "For these beneficial
approaches, we could do more to fight climate change by making
electricity than making ethanol."
The energy from
an acre of switchgrass used to power an electric vehicle would prevent
or offset the release of up to 10 tons of CO2 per acre, relative to a
similar-sized gasoline-powered car. Across vehicle types and different
crops, this offset averages more than 100 percent larger for the
bioelectricity than for the ethanol pathway. Bioelectricity also offers
more possibilities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through
measures such as carbon capture and sequestration, which could be
implemented at biomass power stations but not individual internal
combustion vehicles.
While the results of the study clearly favor bioelectricity over
ethanol, the researchers caution that the issues facing society in
choosing an energy strategy are complex. "We found that converting
biomass to electricity rather than ethanol makes the most sense for two
policy-relevant issues: transportation and climate," said Lobell. "But
we also need to compare these options for other issues like water
consumption, air pollution, and economic costs."
"There is a big strategic decision our country and others are making:
whether to encourage development of vehicles that run on ethanol or
electricity," said Campbell. "Studies like ours could be used to ensure
that the alternative energy pathways we chose will provide the most
transportation energy and the least climate change impacts."
Biomass energy sources are among the most promising, most hyped, and most heavily subsidized future energy sources. They have real potential to heighten energy security in regions without abundant fossil fuel reserves, increase supplies of the liquid transportation fuels, and decrease net emissions of carbon to the atmosphere, per unit of energy delivered.
Two black angus calves.