Vegetable gardeners spend a lot of time thinking about conditions that affect the successful growth…

The post Naturally Change the Soil’s pH for Healthy Veggie Plants appeared first on Earth911.

This story was originally published by Modern Farmer and is republished with permission.

Hans Schmitz, an Indiana wheat farmer, made a difficult decision this year. In a last-minute call, he planted only 100 acres of wheat, roughly half the amount of seed he usually grows. The soil just wouldn’t allow for any more. 

“We felt it was too dry. And when we did get rain right at the end of the planting window, we had some issues with flooding,” he says.

Instead, Schmitz opted to plant soybeans—a less lucrative crop. “We sacrificed on the scale of 100 bucks an acre.”

Schmitz isn’t the only farmer challenged by a changing climate. So far, however, those challenges have not resulted in lower crop yields. Just the opposite. American farmers are producing more than ever, USDA statistics show. 

The United States saw record yields across the board in 2021 at 894 pounds per acre—a 21-percent increase from the year before—according to the USDA. Yields were down slightly from those record figures in 2022, but they were still above average.

Crop production has improved by multiple metrics, says Ariel Ortiz-Bobea, an applied economist who studies the impact of climate change on agriculture at Cornell. “What you really want to know is how all the outputs are growing relative to the inputs [such as water and fertilizer],” he says. “That gives you a measure of how productive you are.”

Even by this measurement, agricultural productivity is on the rise, says Ortiz-Bobea, citing USDA data. Farm output is even outpacing population growth, he says, meaning farmers are still producing more than enough to feed everyone in the United States.

But researchers wonder how long those technologies and innovations can stay ahead of a warming world. A 2021 Cornell study, for example, found that farmers have lost seven years of productivity growth over the last 60 years because of climate change.

Ortiz-Bobea notes climate change decimated cropland in parts of the global south, leading to widespread malnutrition and mass migration, and he hopes the struggles in those regions are not a harbinger of what is to come in the United States as the world grows hotter and dryer.

How does climate change impact crops?

Production has trended upward in recent years, even as drought ravaged the southern sun belt and heavy spring rains overwhelmed midwestern fields. Farmers and experts attribute increased production to advances in agricultural techniques and a better understanding of how crops handle bad weather.

“Farmers have large, high-speed GPS-controlled planters, and they can plant a lot of crops in a short amount of time even though the window to plant might be shorter,” says Fred Below, a crop physiologist and professor at the University of Illinois.

Still, according to Below, “The weather is the number one factor that influences crop yield.” 

In some ways, a warming world helps farmers. Warmer weather extended planting seasons by between 10 and 15 days in the Midwest. But the harmful conditions far outweigh any benefits, experts say.

“We’re seeing warmer lows,” says Dennis Todey, director of the USDA Midwest Climate Hub. “Nights are not cooling down as much and that has a different look than if you have warmer daytime highs.” Higher nighttime temperatures stress crops. Soybeans, for example, grow more quickly in warmer conditions, which reduces yields.

“We see warmer temperatures in February and March, and small grains such as winter wheat will grow and enter reproductive stages earlier. Then you get a cold spell in April or May and you can see frost damage because [the plant is] triggered to grow earlier than it should,” says Laura Lindsey, a soybean and small grain agronomist at Ohio State University’s extension service.

But one of the most difficult changes to cope with is rainfall. As the climate changes, spring rains are growing more intense and summers are experiencing more prolonged droughts.

Total rainfall is rising in some parts of the country, but periods of rain are growing fewer and further between—rather than 15 days with two inches or rain, regions such as the midwest might experience 10 days with four inches of rain.

“One of the biggest things we’re seeing in Illinois is an increase in rainfall and rainfall intensity,” says Illinois State Climatologist Trent Ford. “It’s about five inches wetter, which wouldn’t be a big deal if patterned out in the right way. A lot of that is coming in increasing intensity, with really large amounts of rain.”

To make matters worse, soil can only absorb so much water and the excess erodes into nearby rivers and streams, taking expensive fertilizer with it.

“You’re left with a fraction of your fertilizer for the crop,” says Ford.

Agricultural resilience

Experts note that American farmers have an advantage over growers in less developed nations because the United States has a department of agriculture that researches growing conditions and land grant universities in every state, with extension services working directly with farmers. The USDA also offers monetary help such as crop insurance that gives farmers financial assurances.

Crops such as corn and soybeans are also bred to use less water or to grow to a shorter height, making it less vulnerable to the intense winds that come with climate change.

“There are marker-assisted genetics in corn that impart some water use traits,” says Below. “These contain marker-assisted genes that optimize water use.”

However, experts like Ortiz-Bobea warn that the same planting techniques helping farmers adapt now could hurt them in the future if drought proliferates. For example, corn farmers are planting rows of corn closer together to squeeze the highest yield out of limited acres.

In some respects, this strategy works. However, when roots are closer together, competition for scarce water intensifies, making the crop more vulnerable to drought, says Ortiz-Bobea.

How long can technology overtake climate?

Researchers disagree over whether or not the increase in crop yields is sustainable with climate change hovering over the agriculture industry like the sword of Damocles.

“Climate change is not the destroyer of agriculture in Illinois,” says Ford. “The negative impacts are making things a bit more complicated. It’s changing things, and so it really requires a broad perspective of how we’re doing agriculture in the Midwest and maybe we can do it more effectively in the face of these changes.”

However, data shows that a warming planet has made a difference. In a study of crop production last year, researchers at Cornell concluded that yields would be 21% higher over the past 50 years if the weather was consistent from year to year.

And the extreme rain and prolonged drought vexing farmers are only projected to get worse.

“These very bad years are going to become more frequent,” says Ortiz-Bobea.

While some experts are hopeful, no one can say with certainty that advances in science and technology will continue to make up for the increasing frequency of drought and extreme rain.

If the temperature and precipitation continue to change at the pace growers have seen in recent years, a warming world may eventually outpace farmers’ capacity to adapt to it.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Farmers are struggling with climate change, but yields continue to rise. What’s going on? on Jul 23, 2023.

This story was originally published by ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. 

In September 2020, the Hopi Tribe’s four-decade effort to secure its right to water culminated in a court proceeding. The outcome would determine how much water the arid reservation would receive over the next century and whether that amount would be enough for the tribe to pursue its economic ambitions. Under rules unique to Arizona, the tribe would have to justify how it would use every drop it wanted.

The monthslong ordeal in Arizona’s Superior Court unfolded in video calls over shaky internet connections.

Chairman Timothy Nuvangyaoma called it “the fight of our lives.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1908 that reservations have an inherent right to water. In the rest of the country, courts grant tribes water based on the amount of arable land on their reservations, relying on a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court precedent. But in 2001, Arizona developed its own method that was ostensibly more flexible to individual tribes’ visions for how they wanted to use their water by examining their culture, history, economy and projected population.

This new standard offered tribes an opportunity to shape their plans for economic development and growth beyond farming. But the Hopi case, the first adjudicated under this process, showed it also came at a high cost with uncertain outcomes.

Court records show that at the trial, experts brought in by the tribe, state and corporate water users argued over how many Hopi had lived in the area going back centuries and how much water they had used for crops and livestock. They debated the correct fertility rate of Hopi women and the viability of the tribe’s economic projects. And the court examined lists of sacred springs — sites the Hopi traditionally kept secret to preserve them — to decide how much water could be drawn from them for future religious ceremonies.

The legal battle, one of the tribe’s largest expenses in recent years, resulted in May 2022 with the court awarding less than a third of the water sought by the Hopi Tribe. That was the amount needed, the court said, “to provide a permanent homeland.”

“I would define it as modern-day genocide,” Nuvangyaoma said. “Withholding water, which is life for the Hopis, until an undetermined time is really a position to kill off a tribe that’s been here since time immemorial.”

The trial and decision carry profound implications for other Colorado River Basin tribes seeking water, especially in Arizona, where 10 out of 22 federally recognized tribes have outstanding claims. Water awarded to these tribes often comes out of the allocation states can use, leading to inherent conflict between tribes and states over the scarce resource. If the Hopi decree survives the tribe’s planned appeal, other tribes will be subjected to the same scrutiny of their way of life, said Rhett Larson, a professor of water law at Arizona State University.

“It’s a big deal for the history of water law in the United States of America and what it means to be a Native American tribe,” Larson said.

“To provide for our existence”

The Hopi Tribe has inhabited villages in northeastern Arizona for more than 1,100 years. In the time since white settlers arrived, the Hopi Tribe’s water supply has been decimated by drought and coal companies’ unchecked groundwater pumping.

The reservation, established by the U.S. government in 1882, is entirely surrounded by the Navajo Nation. Both tribes use the same aquifer, with wells reaching thousands of feet into the ground. Three-fourths of the Hopi citizens living on the reservation rely on well water tainted with high levels of arsenic, according to tribal leaders and studies conducted with the Environmental Protection Agency. A heavy metal that leads to increased risk of developing cancer, cognitive developmental disorders and diabetes, arsenic is naturally present throughout Arizona, but pumping can increase its concentration in groundwater.

According to Dale Sinquah, a member of the Hopi Tribal Council, concerns about the aquifer make it hard not only to find drinking water, but they also limit the construction of new homes and businesses allowing the community to grow.

The only other available water on the reservation is inconsistent, running in four major streambeds that are dry most of the year. Those four washes, which empty into the Little Colorado River, have likely been impacted by drought, with two showing a “significant decreasing trend” in recent years, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

“We need another source of water off-reservation to provide for our existence in the future,” Sinquah said.

The case involving Hopi water rights began in 1978, when the Phelps Dodge mining company filed suit against the state and all other water users to protect its claims in the Little Colorado River watershed. Under Arizona law, the only way to quantify a single water claim was to litigate all regional claims at once. Soon, the Hopi Tribe and thousands of others with claims became parties to the case in the Superior Court of Arizona.

The tribe put the court case on hold twice as it attempted to get water through out-of-court settlements. Those talks though would have required compromising with other users making claims to that water, including the Peabody Western Coal Co., which until 2019 pumped groundwater from the aquifer for its mining operations. Between 1965 and 2005, Peabody accounted for 63 percent of the water pumped out of the aquifer, and 31 percent between 2006 and 2019, according to the United States Geological Survey. Peabody did not respond to requests for comment.

In 2012, the Hopi Tribe appeared on the brink of a settlement with the state that would have provided the tribal nation with $113 million for pipelines and other infrastructure to bring groundwater to communities on the reservation. But that effort fell through when Hopi leaders refused to sign off on a guarantee in the settlement allowing Peabody continued access to the aquifer until 2044.

“We don’t think that’s feasible for you”

Unable to reach a settlement, the Hopi Tribe’s pursuit of water for its homeland continued in court through Arizona’s untested legal process.

Due to the large number of parties and the underfunding of both the state courts and Arizona’s Department of Water Resources, the case moved at a snail’s pace. The department filed a key technical report on water availability in 2008. It took until 2015 for the department to finalize it for the court.

By then, the case had been overseen by four judges. They appointed three separate special water masters, who are key to producing a proposed decree for the court. Susan Ward Harris, the water master who delivered the 2022 decree, was appointed in 2015. Harris did not respond to requests for comment.

When its day in court finally came, the Hopi Tribe explained it wanted water for an economically vibrant future with farms, cattle operations, coal mines and power plants.

More than 90 witnesses testified. They included a long line of experts — for the tribe; the federal government; the state; the northern Arizona city of Flagstaff; and the Little Colorado River Coalition, which represented small cities, utilities, ranchers and commercial interests. They discussed the tribe’s projected population, argued over the accuracy of the census count of the Hopi and offered predictions of what the numbers would be in the future.

In the end, the court went with the lowest population projections put forward by Flagstaff and the state, and it decided to only include people living on the reservation full time.

The reservation’s population, currently about 7,000, would peak at 18,255 by 2110, Harris decided.

She also decreed the tribe would get water to only irrigate 38 percent of farmland it planned to. It was denied water for a cattle operation, saying it “would not be feasible, practical, or provide economic benefits,” based on the court’s assessment of the current market. Harris also declared the coal operations were not “economically feasible.” Some $10 billion in economic development projects, presented in detail to the court, were deemed unrealistic.

Water for ceremonial and subsistence gardens was also denied. The court publicly listed nearly 100 sacred springs with limits on how much water the tribe was entitled to use for religious ceremonies.

In total, the tribe had requested at least 96,074 acre-feet a year of water, and the Arizona water master recommended awarding just 28,988 acre-feet, all of it from the same depleted, contaminated aquifer and seasonal streams the Hopi already use. After four decades, they ended up in the same precarious position they’d started.

Nuvangyaoma said the decree suggested the state and non-Native parties believed the tribe was incapable of carrying out its ambitious economic plans. It closed the door on future growth and, overall, was “insulting.”

By refusing to count members who live part time on the reservation as part of the population, the court ignored the connection many Native Americans have with their land, even when they don’t live there permanently, he said. Many leave so they or their children can pursue an education; for work; or to live in homes with reliable electricity and water. In short, Nuvangyaoma said, they seek the very things Hopi leaders hoped that the settlement would help bring to the reservation, and that the tribe needed water to do. But the court said that because the reservation was not growing at the speed the tribe claimed it could, it couldn’t have the water — a circular logic that hobbles the Hopi.

“It’s very frustrating that you’re told that your population will peak at a certain amount when we don’t see it that way,” Nuvangyaoma said.

Even with Harris’ decree on the books, the Hopi Tribe still faces a long road to access its allotted 28,988 acre-feet of water. Funding for dams, pipes and other infrastructure will likely require congressional action and involve more negotiation with other water users, including the Navajo Nation, which draws from the same groundwater. “I suspect I will not be alive when it comes to fruition,” Sinquah, the tribal council member, said.

Nuvangyaoma said the tribe will still pursue its plans for economic development, but with the understanding it cannot look to the state or federal governments for support.

Cities across the Southwest have, with government support, pursued economic development and growth in the ways they want, he said, whether it’s coal mining, raising cattle or farming the desert using water brought from far away.

“So why are we putting limitations on Hopi and making a decision for us saying, ‘Oh, well, we don’t think that’s feasible for you all?’” Nuvangyaoma asked. “Who has that right to tell us what is and what is not feasible for us?”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline In Arizona water ruling, the Hopi tribe sees limits on its future on Jul 22, 2023.

Citizen scientists visiting the Arctic have assisted an international research team in finding microplastics on remote beaches for a new study.

The amount of plastic being produced all over the world has led to the tiny pieces of plastic debris being found everywhere, including in sea ice, inside nature reserves and on the floor of the ocean.

Scientists are afraid ocean currents will cause plastic accumulation in the Arctic, damaging long-established and fragile ecosystems.

“Plastic pollution is now ubiquitous. It is found on land and in soil and most rivers of the world,” said Dr. Bruno Walther of the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Center for Polar and Marine Research and lead author of the study, as Frontiers reported. “It is even found in the polar oceans and the deepest ocean trenches.”

In order to fill in gaps in their knowledge of the type and scale of microplastics polluting the Arctic, the researchers asked tourists on cruises to collect samples.

The study, “Citizen scientists reveal small but concentrated amounts of fragmented microplastic on Arctic beaches,” was published in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science.

In 2016, 2017, 2021 and 2022, four cruises carrying tourists visited the Svalbard archipelago — the northernmost landmass in Europe — and collected samples of sediment, reported Frontiers.

At first, metal tools were used to take single samples from beaches and sent, along with photographs and metadata, to record sampling locations. This method was later expanded to entire beaches with sampling grids.

“Citizen science is possible even in remote Arctic beaches,” Walther said. “This helps to cut down on traveling time, CO2 emissions and costs for scientists, and it helps to engage citizens in a global environmental issue.”

After the samples were dried, weighed and measured, they were filtered to catch particles one millimeter or larger. The scientists theorized that smaller plastic particles don’t become airborne easily, which they tested.

The researchers discovered that microplastics of the larger size were very concentrated, but not widespread. However, the overall level of pollution was similar to areas that had been thought to have much more plastic pollution than beaches in the Arctic.

The team identified two types of sources for the plastic: polyester-epoxide particles, likely from ship equipment or color coating, and polypropylene fibers that were probably from a fishing net.

“Plastic debris from fisheries is the most direct point of entry to the marine realm, and is often particularly important in remote areas,” said author Dr. Melanie Bergmann of the Alfred Wegener Institute, according to Frontiers. “There is an active fishing fleet operating in the waters surrounding Svalbard but also in the North Sea and north Atlantic. Some of the waste that they emit drifts to the beaches of Svalbard.”

Conditions on the Arctic beach — continuous sunlight all summer, high humidity caused by fog and repeated freeze cycles — looked to have caused the netting to fragment very fast. If the same type of quick fragmentation was happening elsewhere, microplastics could be introduced there rapidly as well.

“We still need more sampling in the Arctic, in more places and in more regular time intervals to monitor the situation,” Walther said, as Frontiers reported.

“It should be noted that we only analyzed microplastics particles larger than 1mm. This was because of the citizen science approach and to avoid potential airborne contamination by small particles,” added Bergmann. “But our previous studies on Arctic water, ice, and sediment samples have shown that more than 80% of the particles were much smaller. So, we probably would have found more particles, if we had looked for smaller particles, too.”

The post Tourists Help Scientists Find Microplastics on Remote Arctic Beaches appeared first on EcoWatch.

The rules for oil and gas extraction on public lands have been stagnant for decades. Oil and gas companies have paid 12.5 percent in royalties to the federal government for drilling on public lands for more than a century, significantly lower than the rates many Western states charge. Companies must also post bonds, financial instruments that guarantee taxpayers aren’t left holding the bag for environmental cleanup if a driller goes bankrupt. But those bonds were set in 1960 at $10,000 per lease, a small fraction of the true cost of plugging and cleaning up oil wells that businesses leave behind. 

Good governance groups and environmentalists have long argued that these rules have functioned as a subsidy for fossil fuels, shortchanging taxpayers and encouraging oil and gas extraction at a time when the planet is warming at a dangerous rate. The Biden administration is now attempting to correct that imbalance. 

On Thursday, the Interior Department announced a sweeping set of reforms aimed at protecting public lands, saving taxpayers money, and holding oil and gas companies accountable for environmental cleanup. The new proposed rule hikes the minimum royalty rate to 16.7 percent, raises the minimum bid for leases from $2 per acre to $10 per acre, and increases the minimum bond from $10,000 to $150,000 per lease. The rule also prioritizes leasing in areas where oil and gas infrastructure already exists, leaving more space for developing renewables, and adds protections for wildlife habitats and cultural sites. 

“This proposal to update BLM’s oil and gas program aims to ensure fairness to the taxpayer and balanced, responsible development as we continue to transition to a clean energy economy,” said Tracy Stone-Manning, the director of the Bureau of Land Management, in a press release. “It includes common sense and needed fiscal revisions to BLM’s program, many directed by Congress.” (The Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s signature climate law, mandated higher royalty rates and minimum bids.)

When an oil and gas well reaches the end of its life, it needs to be properly plugged and decommissioned. By pouring concrete down a well, operators ensure that stray methane and salt water don’t bubble up to the surface and contaminate the land and air. But oil and gas companies sometimes go under, walk away from their cleanup responsibilities, and abandon wells. These “orphan” wells have been major headaches for public land managers. 

In such situations, bonds collected by the federal government are supposed to help cover cleanup costs. But since at least 1960, the BLM has required $10,000 per lease and $25,000 for multiple leases in a state. Since each lease can contain multiple wells, the government is often left with just a few thousand dollars or less to plug a single well even though the cost of plugging one on federal lands can range between $20,000 and $140,000. 

As a result, leaky abandoned wells dot the country’s public lands. The Department of Interior estimates that there are about 15,000 such wells on federal lands. In 2021, Congress appropriated $4.7 billion to clean up the mess, and the Interior Department has disbursed more than $1 billion of that amount to states and tribes. The Interior Department’s new proposal “aims to prevent that [financial] burden from falling on the taxpayer in future years,” the agency noted in a press release.  

Environmental groups had a mixed response to the news. Those that had been calling for reforms to the leasing program applauded the changes noting that they were “long overdue” and “common sense.” But many also noted that fiscal reforms alone weren’t sufficient to tackle the climate effects of oil and gas extraction and called on the Biden administration to wind down leasing altogether. The environmental nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity said the proposal is “cowardly” and that the Biden administration is “blowing an opportunity to end oil and gas extraction on public land as the world reels from one climate catastrophe to the next.”

“While these rules are helpful, the Biden administration’s proposal continues with the climate-destroying practice of leasing federal lands for drilling, which is entirely out of sync with the administration’s climate goals,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, in a statement. 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline For the first time in a century, the US is raising fees for drilling on federal lands on Jul 21, 2023.

Have you ever wondered why there aren’t electric flying taxis zipping between points around the city, like in Back to the Future Part II or The Jetsons? It turns out they’ll be here soon.

Brazilian plane maker Embraer said a new factory to make the “electric vertical take-off and landing” (eVTOL) aircraft will be constructed near São Paulo, reported BBC News. The company hopes the eVTOL taxis will be ready to fly by 2026. They will look like small helicopters and have enough room to transport six people.

The factory that will make the flying taxis will be located in Taubate, a city of 318,000 people about 87 miles from São Paulo.

Trips using the 100 percent electric craft will cost approximately $50 to $100 per passenger each way, sources from Embraer told AFP.

“We believe in the enormous potential of the global Urban Air Mobility market,” said Embraer president Francisco Gomes Neto, as AFP reported.

Initially, flights will have a human pilot, but the company is considering self-piloted aircraft in the future.

São Paulo, a city of 12.33 million, is home to the biggest helicopter fleet on the planet.

Because the taxis will be all electric, flights will be totally free of carbon emissions, making them much better for the environment than traditional aircraft.

Clients from several countries have already ordered 2,850 eVTOL aircraft, according to Embraer, including airlines, helicopter operators and flight-sharing programs. The orders thus far are worth around $1.5 billion.

Fort Lauderdale-based Eve Air Mobility, a subsidiary of Embraer, will make the electric taxis.

“We are equipped to efficiently scale the production volume sustainably to meet the demands of a growing market,” said Alice Altissimo, Eve Air Mobility vice president of program management and operation, as reported by AFP.

United Airlines has plans to partner with Eve Air Mobility on an electric air taxi service to bring commuters to and from the San Francisco International Airport beginning in 2026, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Last year, United Airlines invested $15 million in Eve Air Mobility and conditionally purchased 200 electric aircraft, with the option to buy 200 more.

United Airlines and Eve Air Mobility will be working to make sure the infrastructure, routes and areas for the craft to take off and land are in place before the electric taxis take to the skies around the City by the Bay.

“Our shared goal is to provide residents and visitors to the San Francisco Bay Area with efficient and cost-competitive transportation in one of the most densely populated urban areas in the U.S.,” said Andre Stein, co-CEO of Eve Air Mobility, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle. “The Bay Area is perfect for eVTOL flights given its size, traffic, focus on sustainability, innovation and commitment to add other options for mobility.”

The post Brazilian Plane Maker Says Electric Flying Taxis Could Be Ready for Takeoff by 2026 appeared first on EcoWatch.

An analysis of diets and farms led by the Livestock, Environment and People (LEAP) project at Oxford University found that vegan diets have a major reduction in environmental impacts, from land and water use to emissions to pollution.

The study, published in the journal Nature Food, analyzed diets of 55,504 people and reviewed 38,000 farms based in 119 countries. What they found is that regardless of where or how food is produced, animal-based diets had higher impacts on the environment than diets of people who consumed less or no animal-based products.

Vegan diets had about 75% less emissions and land use compared to diets with high meat consumption, defined as more than 100 grams of meat consumed per day. Vegan diets also had nearly 54% less water use than high meat diets and about 73% less water pollution via runoff. Plant-based diets also had less impact on biodiversity.

“Our dietary choices have a big impact on the planet,” Peter Scarborough, lead author of the study and professor of Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at Oxford, said in a statement. “Cutting down the amount of meat and dairy in your diet can make a big difference to your dietary footprint.”

Overall, people following vegan diets had about one-third of the environmental impact of people with high meat consumption. People who consumed low amounts of meat (less than 50 grams of meat per day) had about 30% less impact across different categories compared to those consuming 100 or more grams of meat per day.

“Even in ‘worst case scenarios’ where most foods that are eaten in low meat diets are produced by methods with high environmental impact and most foods that are eaten in high meat diets are produced with low impact methods, low meat diets still have substantially lower environmental impact,” Scarborough explained.

The negative environmental impacts of growing food and raising livestock is well-known. A separate study published in 2021 found that food-system emissions made up about 34% of total global emissions as of 2015, and agriculture makes up over 70% of freshwater use, a 2023 study reported.

But the recent analysis of various diets is one of the most comprehensive of its kind, showing that less meat consumption can lead to drastic reductions in environmental impacts.

“This study represents the most comprehensive attempt to link food consumption data to the data on the environmental impacts of food production,” said Richard Tiffin, professor at the University of Reading, as reported by The Guardian. “Encouraging high-meat-eaters to reduce meat consumption and encouraging vegetarians to become vegans should result in lower emissions. However, it’s hard to justify changes to the diets of moderate omnivores on the basis of these results, other than to switch to a completely vegan diet.”

According to the study, dietary changes will be necessary to feed more people as the human population continues to grow, while also limiting environmental impacts. The authors noted that high-income countries will need to greatly reduce the amount of animal-based foods and drinks they consume to keep environmental impacts within safe boundaries.

The post Vegan Diets Cut Emissions, Water Pollution and Land Use by 75%, Major Study Finds appeared first on EcoWatch.

Renewable energy will reconfigure the nation’s electricity infrastructure, a relic from an era of centralized…

The post Earth911 Podcast: Brevian Energy’s Rod Matthews on the Changing Economics of Microgrids appeared first on Earth911.