How a plant‑rich diet can help fight climate change and reduce stress

by Kathleen Kevany, The Conversation

Regularly changing crops can help keep nutrients and carbon in the soil. Credit: Shutterstock

We have heard a lot about climate change, and we need to hear more about what we can do, individually and collectively, to address it.

How might we confront the challenges of the climate crisis—the environmental concerns, mental anguish, physical ailments and political entrenchment? How might we bring about the critical change that these times call for?

Plant-based diets offer one way forward—they have the potential to simultaneously help tackle the climate crisis, prevent disease and improve mental health.

For the past two decades, I have worked with colleagues to examine social, environmental and political challenges from a holistic perspective called systems thinking. This approach focuses on the way a system's components interact and how different systems relate to one another. The approach helps identify systems solutions to current needs—and those in the future.

I have recently edited a book—Plant-Based Diets for Succulence and Sustainability —that offers systems analyses to address many of the drivers of the global climate crisis.

Plant-based diets for climate

An international coalition of scientists has recently measured, mapped and modelled solutions for stopping global warming, including managing refrigerants, building onshore wind turbines, reducing food waste and shifting to plant-rich diets.

Animal foods demand a greater input of resources like water, fuel and land, and contribute to deforestation and biodiversity loss, than plant-based foods. For example, the carbon cost of beef is about 20 times more per gram of protein than it is for beans.

More sustainable land-use practices, a focus on restoring ecosystems and a shift away from resource-intensive diets could help decrease greenhouse gas emissions from food production. For example, cultivating plant-based foods, like dry peas and lentils in crop rotations enable the channeling of resources, like water, land and fuel, to increase the amount of food produced, reduce emissions from agriculture while enhancing soil health.

Eating to tackle disease

There's compelling evidence to suggest that plant-rich diets offer health benefits.

Large studies of people living in western countries who consume diets richer in vegetables, legumes and grains show some protective effects. They are less likely to be overweight or suffer from ischemic heart disease (the build-up of plaque in the arteries) and are less likely to die from cardiovascular disease and kidney disease, for example, compared to people who regularly consume meat.

Mediterranean-type diets, which emphasize plant-based foods and protein sources, can decrease the risk of heart disease.

Mediterranean diets are rich in vegetables, fruits, herbs, nuts, beans and whole grains, and include small amounts of dairy, poultry, eggs and seafood. Credit: Shutterstock

Nutrition for mental health

Canadians rank climate change as one of their biggest concerns for the future. This is leading to the phenomenon of eco-anxiety—feelings of intense anxiety or stress about a future where climate change will dramatically disrupt life as we know it.

Being angry or anxious about climate change isn't a pathology. It is normal to have reactions to adversity—like feeling grief when a body of water is polluted or loss when a woodlot is cut down—and such reactions should not be considered abnormal or dysfunctional.

An individual's response to that anxiety can have positive impacts on the planet. One might fly less, choose a plant-based diet or walk more. These actions can also offer additional benefits, like better health, more pride of place and a greater sense of personal efficacy.

Frances Moore Lappé, author of Diet for a Small Planet, recently advised readers not to give into despair but to take suitable action.

When eco-anxiety takes on the forms of depression, paralysis or loss of well-being, however, it becomes more troubling. Yet some research shows that what you eat can affect your mood.

One study of healthy Seventh Day Adventist men and women found that vegetarians reported less negative emotions than those who ate an omnivorous diet. Another study found vegan men were less anxious and vegan women had lower stress scores than those who did eat meats.

Governments need to lead

Governments can adopt policies and practices that support more efficient, ethical and sustainable production of food. Not only would this help reduce emissions from food systems, showing environmental leadership would alleviate some of the anxiety mounting in many citizens.

Some governments, industries and citizens have been acting together for greater sustainability by envisioning and articulating a Green New Deal for Canada.

The collection of evidence is compelling that reducing food waste, increasing plant-rich diets, practicing conscious consumption and improving food systems can help to improve mental and physical health and displace anxiety.

Collectively and individually we can heed the best in science, while also bringing out the best in humanity, by adopting proven strategies to address these pressing challenges.

Rising eco-anxiety means we should address mental health alongside food security

---

Provided by The Conversation 

No food, no fuel, no phones: Bushfires showed we're only ever one step from system collapse

by Anthony Richardson, The Conversation

Credit: Australian Navy

This summer's bushfires were not just devastating events in themselves. More broadly, they highlighted the immense vulnerability of the systems which make our contemporary lives possible.

The fires cut road access, which meant towns ran out of fuel and fell low on food. Power to towns was cut and mobile phone services stopped working. So too did the ATMs and EFTPOS services the economy needs to keep running.

In a modern, wealthy nation such as Australia, how could this happen?

In answering this question, it's helpful to adopt "systems thinking." This approach views problems as part of an overall system, where each part relates to each other.

In other words, we need to look at the big picture.

Through a systems lens

Systems are everywhere, from the coral ecosystem of the Great Barrier Reef to the vast technology networks of global financial markets. In a human sense, social systems range from the small, such as a family, to large organizations or the national or global population.

The systems I mentioned just now are "complex" systems. This means they are connected to other systems in many ways. It also means a change in one part of the system, such as a bushfire in a landscape, can set off unpredicted changes in connected systems—be they political, technological, economic or social.

All complex systems have three things in common:

1. they need a constant supply of energy to maintain their functioning
2. they are interconnected across a range of scales, from the personal and local to the global and beyond
3. they are fragile when they have no "redundancy," or Plan B.

The case of East Gippsland

To better understand a complex system collapse, let's examine what happened in Victoria's East Gippsland region, particularly the coastal town of Mallacoota, during the recent fires.

This case demonstrates how one trigger (in this case, a bushfire) may start a cascade of events, but the intrinsic fragility of the system enables total collapse.

Transport-wise, neither East Gippsland nor Mallacoota itself are physically well connected. Fires cut both the only transport connection to East Gippsland, the Princes Highway, and the lone road out of Mallacoota.

Smoke haze prevented air transport. This meant the only way out was by sea, in the form of intervention by the Australian Navy.

Second, there were no reserves of food, fuel, water, medical supplies or communications at hand when the fires had passed. Supplies ran so low there were reports of a looming "humanitarian crisis".

Defence and civilian authorities clear a tree blocking a road near Mallacoota in January. Credit: Aus. Dept Defence

These shortages are no surprise. In Australia, as in most developed countries, food and fuel distribution systems run on a "just in time" model. This approach, originally developed by Japanese car manufacturer Toyota, involves organising supply networks so materials are ordered and received when they are needed.

Such systems remove the need to store excess goods in warehouses, and are undoubtedly efficient. But they are also extremely fragile because there is no redundancy in the system—no Plan B.

Implications for Australia

Australia as a whole is, in many ways, just as fragile as Mallacoota.

We import 90% of our oil—a figure expected to rise to 100% by 2030. Much of that fuel passes through the Straits of Hormuz and then through the Indonesian archipelago. We have few alternative routes.

Nor do we maintain sufficient back-up reserves of fuel. Australia is the only International Energy Agency (IEA) member that does not meet the obligation to keep 90 days of fuel supplies in reserve.

As East Gippsland and Mallacoota have shown, many other connected systems, such as food distribution networks, are critically dependent on this fragile fuel supply.

A close shave

On January 3 this year—the very day HMAS Choules evacuated people from Mallacoota – the US killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani by drone strike.

If Iran had responded by disrupting the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, throwing global oil supply into turmoil, Australia may have faced nationwide fuel shortages at the height of the bushfire crisis.

Late last year Australia reportedly had 18 days of petrol, 22 days of diesel and 23 days of jet fuel in reserve.

A global fuel crisis was avoided only due to restraint by both the US and Iran. Australia might not be so lucky next time.

The need for reserves

Our communities, especially in bushfire-prone areas, need more redundancy to make them resilient to disasters. This might mean towns storing water, non-perishable food, blankets, medical supplies, a generator, a satellite phone and possibly fuel, in protected locations.

More broadly, Australia needs a national fuel reserve. This should be in line with the IEA's 90-day obligations. In December last year, Australia reportedly had just 54 days' worth of reserves.

The federal government has recently looked to bolster reserves through possible deals with the US and Holland. But overseas supplies will not be very helpful in an immediate crisis.

The implications of the bushfire crisis are clear. At a national and individual level, we must improve the resilience of the systems that make our daily life possible.

Thousands trapped on Australia beaches encircled by fire

As big cities get even bigger, some residents are being left behind

by Sajeda Tuli and Shakil Bin Kashem, The Conversation

Credit: Cromo Digital/Shutterstock

The concentration of growth in major cities, driven by the knowledge economy and the changing nature of work, may also increase their social inequality. Our research looked at cities in the US and Australia. We compared measures of the knowledge economy and social vulnerability of their metropolitan areas and plotted them together. 

Cities with above-average knowledge economies and below-average levels of social vulnerability are better placed to cope with the dual challenges of technological change and social inequality. Australia has only two cities in this category.

Australia's biggest cities score high on knowledge economy capacity but also have high levels of social vulnerability. And some cities score poorly on both measures. This makes them doubly vulnerable to economic change and social inequality.

Winners and losers in the one city

One factor in these contrasting trends of concentrated growth and rising social vulnerability is the changing nature of work. Cities are the site of the Fourth Industrial Revolution as the world economy clusters in major centers. It's driven by the benefits of agglomeration – the productivity and efficiency gains from having many producers and people located near one another.

Already, 600 cities generate 60% of global economic output. The world has 21 mega-cities of over 10 million people compared to three in 1975. By 2040, 65% of the world population will live in cities.

Knowledge Cities Index (KCI) and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) of US cities. Higher KCI is to the right of the average line, higher SVI is above the average line. Author provided

In the US, jobs were lost all over the country during the Great Recession of 2007-09. But the recovery is concentrated in 25 urban cores. Some 60% of US job growth is expected to take place in these centers.

This over-concentration of employment opportunities may lead to social inequality and vulnerability within these cities. At the same time, other older and smaller cities have struggled to revamp their economies.

In Australia, too, the top five capital cities are growing bigger. Growth is dominated by Sydney and Melbourne, but economic and social inequalities are increasing.

Despite economic growth, homelessness is increasing in both Australian and US cities. For some US cities such as Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco, it is at a tipping point. These same cities are home to the most educated and richest citizens too.

How do US and Australian cities compare?

Combining various socioeconomic and demographic data (including Australian Census, US Census, American Community Survey and IPUMS data) at the metropolitan level, we created a Knowledge Cities Index (KCI) and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). The chart below plots the KCI and SVI scores of 104 US metropolitan centers.

Knowledge Cities Index (KCI) and Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) of Australian cities. Higher KCI is to the right of the average line, higher SVI is above the average line. Author provided

The middle two lines show the averages of these scores. Cities with higher knowledge city scores (right side of the line) and lower social vulnerability scores (below the line) are better placed to cope with the dual challenges of technological shift and social vulnerability. These cities include New York-Newark-Jersey City, Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, and Boston-Cambridge-Newton.

The chart below shows only two Australian cities—Brisbane and Adelaide—are in this category.

Cities with higher KCI scores but also higher SVI scores include Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Perth.

Some major US metro areas in this category are San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach and Washington-Arlington-Alexandria. These cities are doing well in terms of knowledge generation and innovation, but have greater inequality and social disparities among their residents. These cities need strategies and policies to make themselves more inclusive and resilient.

The benefit of agglomeration economics may concentrate and benefit knowledge workers while segregating them from the rest of the society and increasing inequality.

The map below shows the concentration of knowledge industries in Sydney. Sydney CDB has the highest concentration for most of the knowledge industries, except high-tech manufacturing.

Distribution of knowledge industries in Sydney metropolitan area. Data: ABS, 2016, Author provided

We found some cities with very low KCI scores and high SVI scores. US examples include McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, Portland-South Portland and Memphis. In Australia, cities in this category include Sunshine Coast, Bunbury, Central Coast, Townsville and Gold Coast-Tweed Heads.

These cities are the worst off. Their lack of knowledge capacities and high social inequality make them highly susceptible to both technological shifts and social vulnerability. Solid strategies and policies are needed to increase the knowledge bases and improve the social conditions of these cities.

What does this mean for policy?

One suggested solution is polycentric cities. But this approach depends on overcoming the challenge of coordinating transport with land uses.

The knowledge economy is increasingly important for cities to compete in the age of automation. But it can also compound the risk of increased social exclusion or vulnerability. Affected cities may then become less capable of withstanding impacts on other frontiers of social change.

The belligerent rate of automation may make the situation worse. Despite its cost-efficiencies, automation has other human costs.

These impacts require policy intervention. The two indices of our study examine both the urban opportunities and the downsides of inequality and social vulnerability that the knowledge economy creates. The policy challenge will be how to make socially vulnerable populations more resilient to the changing nature of work and reduce its negative impacts.

A blanket ban on toxic 'forever chemicals' is good for people and animals

by Jonathan Van Hamme, The Conversation

PFAS are a class of about 5,000 compounds found in firefighting foam, flame retardants and non-stick cookware. Credit: Shutterstock

Lowe's recently joined the Home Depot and other major retail chains in phasing out the sale of products treated with poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, toxic chemicals more commonly known as PFAS. Specifically, Lowe's said it would stop selling indoor residential carpets and rugs treated with the PFAS by the end of 2019.

PFAS are a family of chemicals known for their non-stick, water-repellent and stain-resistant properties. They are used in cookware, clothing, carpets, cosmetics, and military and industrial applications.

But PFAS are persistent and have been detected in drinking water, in soil, rain, fog and ice, and in humans, plants and animals. Even polar bears and ringed seals in the Arctic have PFAS in their blood. A recent report found that almost all U.S. drinking water sources may be contaminated with PFAS, and the chemicals have been found to be widespread in Canadian rivers and creeks. Despite the evidence that PFAS cause a range of health problems, chemical companies often contradict those claims.

Although some countries have banned some types of PFAS, many remain on the market and new ones are regularly introduced. Perhaps it is time to ask whether wider bans on PFAS production and use are needed.

Non-stick for 80 years

PFAS are slow to break down in the environment. This stability can be traced to the strong bonds between fluorine atoms and chains of carbon atoms in the backbone of the molecules.

The first fluoropolymer was synthesized in Germany in 1934. It was soon followed by the accidental synthesis of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) in 1938 by a chemist working for the chemical company DuPont. Within a few years PTFE was commercialized as the non-stick coating Teflon, and applied to everything from pans to paints.

Despite the history of PFAS, and the introduction of new products every decade since 1940, it was not until the turn of the century that PFAS manufacturers, academics and regulators had the analytical tools to begin to understand the pervasive nature of PFAS in the environment and the risks to human health.

Health problems

People are exposed to PFAS through food and water, and by inhaling dust. The chemical has been found in the blood of infants, young children and their mothers. Those working in the PFAS manufacturing industry or living near chemical plants have higher rates of exposure.

These compounds can build up, or bioaccumulate, in the tissues of people and other animals, with a preference for the liver, kidneys and blood. They are water soluble, meaning that they are excreted in urine, feces and in breast milk.

Recent laboratory tests found drinking water in dozens of U.S. cities is contaminated with PFAS chemicals at levels exceeding safety standards. Credit: Shutterstock

Research has linked PFAS to a variety of toxic effects, including liver damage, decreased fertility, thyroid disease, testicular and kidney cancer and a decreased immune response to vaccines. Growing concern about the potential health risks of PFAS has led some companies to discontinue their use.

On the manufacturing side, the 3M Company was the first to announce in 2000 that it would stop making perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), the active compound in Scotchguard and other products, and one of the older types of PFAS. At the time, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it was on the verge of taking steps to remove the product from market because of the risk it posed to the environment and human health.

Despite evidence to the contrary, including company records that have been made public in lawsuits, some in the chemical industry continue to argue that the chemicals do not pose human health risks.

Only a small fraction of PFAS have been tested for human health and safety before they were released to the market. With an estimated 3,000-5,000 untested PFAS being used in products today and only 75 PFAS identified by the EPA for future toxicity testing, it is not difficult to muddy the waters of evidence.

Regulations for public good

Hundreds of industrial, aviation and military sites across North America are contaminated with PFAS, and are at risk of polluting drinking water and food sources. By one estimate more than 110 million people in the U.S. may be drinking PFAS-contaminated water.

From a regulatory perspective, most of the attention has been placed on the two most common types, PFOS and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

Canada declared PFOS a toxic substance in 2008, and it was added to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2009. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been working with companies for more than a decade to stop the production and import of long-chain PFAS, including PFOS and PFOA.

The U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill in January that would regulate PFAS in drinking water, and the EPA has established a database to map the known health effects of PFAS. Although Canada lists drinking water screening values for 11 types of PFAS, it also warns that only "PFOS and PFOA have been studied sufficiently" to develop guidelines to protect Canadians' health.

Companies continue to introduce new types of PFAS they say are safer, although studies show that they may not be. In addition to the health risks these chemicals pose, they persist in the environment because they cannot be broken down by natural biochemical processes. As part of my research, I study bacteria and fungi that might be used to clean up environments contaminated with PFAS chemicals.

It is time for government to ban all long-chain PFAS, and forever eliminate these forever chemicals from our ecosystems.

Fecal excretion of PFAS by pets

Provided by The Conversation 

SEE NC State researchers find high levels of firefighting foam chemical in Cape Fear bass

Framing the climate crisis as a terrorism issue could galvanize action

by Jennifer Zhang, Earth Institute, Columbia University

Thousands of civilians evacuated from Baghuz, Syria, in March 2019 as Syrian Democratic Forces attempt to capture an Islamic State stronghold. Credit: Voice of America via Wikimedia CC

In many vulnerable regions of the world, the climate crisis has exacerbated loss of farmable land and increased water scarcity, fueling rural-urban migration, civil unrest, and violence. As a result, worsening geopolitical instability has aided the rise of terrorism and violence in the Middle East, Guatemala, and the Lake Chad Basin of Africa. Yet when people hear the words, "global warming," they typically don't think of terrorism. If they did, politicians would be far more likely to undertake drastic action to address the climate crisis.

Syria after 2011 is one example of how the climate crisis multiplied existing threats. Water scarcity, which had been worsening over the years, contributed significantly to the outbreak of conflict. The increased death of livestock, reduced arable land, and rise in food insecurity made it significantly easier for the terror organization calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to locally recruit over two thirds of its fighters. Extreme weather phenomena offered ripe opportunities for ISIS to increase support among locals. When a vicious drought swept through Iraq in 2010, ISIS distributed food baskets to local inhabitants. When high winds destroyed vegetation in 2012, ISIS handed out cash to affected farmers. By offering a source of income and opportunity for people when their livelihoods were destroyed by droughts and other extreme weather, ISIS was able to cultivate support and draw members from local populations. In other words, the climate crisis increased geopolitical instability and aided the growth of terrorism.

The US is vehemently opposed to terrorism as a matter of national security. According to the Pew Research Center, in early 2018, over three-quarters of American adults believed terrorism should be a top policy priority for the government, the highest of any given option. Over 46 percent of American adults favored increasing spending on anti-terrorism defenses, though the US military budget is already larger than the next seven highest-spending countries combined. The same survey showed that less than half of American adults believed climate change should be a top policy priority, ranking the second lowest of given issues.

Most Americans see "global warming" as an environmental, scientific, and political issue. Over half of Americans do not see it as a national security issue. While it is informative to present the climate crisis primarily through scientific data on global temperatures, atmospheric carbon concentration, and emissions levels, it does not galvanize people to action nearly as much as characterizing it as a matter of immediate national security. Doing the latter would make it a much higher priority for people in power.

The U.S. military already quietly recognizes climate change as a matter of national security, in part because it sparks conflict and unrest in other countries. In order to conceptually link the climate crisis to national security for the broader public, climate activists should expand and increase rhetorical focus on how the climate crisis worsens migration, foments geopolitical instability, and thereby aids terrorist organizations. Presenting the climate crisis in security-centric concerns and consequences ensures that all Americans—including right-leaning voters and people who would not be swayed by conventional appeals to ecological conservation or species preservation—become aware of how consequential it is. Security-centric framing would also help to shift the tone of climate activism toward addressing immediate threats, rather than simply encouraging global cooperation for the sake of future generations.

Reorienting climate rhetoric around national security also brings the action to a level that feels more achievable—at the national rather than global level. Whereas preserving the planet for future generations sounds aspirational and spiritually uplifting, it is an intrinsically international goal that calls upon many countries to work together for success. Framing plans to deal with the climate crisis in a way that requires concerted goodwill tends to encourage cynicism and blame-shifting when countries fail to meet carbon emission reduction targets. The vast majority of countries are failing to lower emissions to levels that would keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, as the 2015 Paris Agreement aspires to do. This collective failure dissipates blame and often disincentivizes countries from shouldering the burdens of emission reduction. Furthermore, focusing overtly on country-level climate reduction targets conceals the fact that emissions are largely generated by a handful of international corporations—over a third of all carbon and methane emissions since 1965 have been produced by 20 companies, including Saudi Aramco, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell.

Holding corporations accountable for emissions requires immense political momentum, which is more easily galvanized by framing climate action as a necessary defense against immediate danger than as a voluntary restriction of certain economic activities for global well-being. While global cooperation to reduce emissions is what the international community should strive for, using nation-centered rhetoric that focuses on security threats can be an effective conduit to achieving this broader goal. Furthermore, linking the climate crisis to terrorism could increase the motivation and capital for countries to press hard in climate negotiations; in the face of immediate danger, the inertia of other countries or companies seems a paltry excuse for inaction.

Saving nature vital to beating climate crisis, says WWF report

Just being around your cellphone affects your thinking, study finds

by Tim Christie, University of Oregon

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

As smart phones have become a pervasive part of daily life over the last decade or so, they've changed the way people socialize and communicate. They're always around and always within reach, or nearly always.

So what happens to people's brains and bodies when their phones are out of reach, or within reach but not usable?

That's what Dave Markowitz, assistant professor in the School of Journalism and Communication, and colleagues sought to find out in a recent study published in PLOS One, a peer-reviewed, open-access scientific journal.

Markowitz is interested in understanding the psychology of communication behavior, including language patterns and how media affects social and physical processes. As part of his doctoral thesis at Stanford University, he devised a study examining how subjects responded when exercising self-control with their phones.

He recruited 125 participants for the study, who were assigned to one of three groups and then directed to sit alone in an empty room for six minutes, though they weren't told the duration. Here's how the groups were divided up:

• Members of one group were told to entertain themselves with their mobile phone, except no phone calls and no texting.
• Members of the second group were told to leave their phones outside the room, sit alone without their device and entertain themselves with their thoughts.
• Members of the third group were allowed to keep their phones but told to turn them face down on the table in front of them and not use them. They were also told to entertain themselves with their thoughts.

A fingertip device was used to measure skin conductance, an indicator of arousal. Participants' level of enjoyment, concentration difficulty, mind wandering and general mood were measured using post-study questionnaires.

Markowitz and colleagues found that participants without their phones had more difficulty concentrating and more mind wandering compared to those who used their phone. And those who had to resist using their phone had greater perceived concentration abilities than those who sat without their phone.

"The surprising finding for me was the reduction in concentration difficulty when people had to resist" using the phone, Markowitz said.

One possible reason that resisting the phone led to perceived improvement concentration? Most people think phones are valuable and seeing it front of them, even though they could not use it, offered something to think about compared to sitting without their phone, he said

"At least having it front of you was psychologically better than not having it all," he said. "Having some form of external stimulation, even if it wasn't used, I think that can focus the mind a bit.

It suggests having the phone present is better than not, but what's not clear is whether the phone is special, or if the participants would have reacted the same way with a book in front of them that they weren't allowed to read or pick up, he said.

Markowitz's findings fit with research by Tim Wilson at the University of Virginia, who found that when people were given time for "just thinking," they experience psychological consequences—less enjoyment, more difficulty concentrating, more mind wandering—compared to if they had some form of external stimulation.

"The mind can wander and lose focus when you're not given a thinking aid," which can be less psychologically positive for people, he said.

Markowitz said his study also fits in a framework of trying to understand if technology, or media in general, are mirrors or modifiers of human behavior.

If technology is a mirror, then mediated experiences reflect how people also act offline. If technology is a modifier, then in some cases it's changing the way we behave, think and feel in the world, he said.

"That's still really an open question," he said. "There are some cases where mediated and nonmediated experiences show consistencies in behavior, but other cases where mediation plays a crucial, modifying role. I'm interested in exploring these boundaries.

Put down the phone and live in the moment, says psychiatrist

---

More information: David M. Markowitz et al. Psychological and physiological effects of applying self-control to the mobile phone, PLOS ONE (2019). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224464

Biodiversity yields financial returns

IT WAS CALLED TRUCK FARMING IN THE THIRTIES

by Ori Schip­per, ETH Zurich

A meadow with more than ten species yields more than a meadow with only one species. Credit: Valentin Klaus

Farmers could increase their revenues by increasing biodiversity on their land. This is the conclusion reached by an interdisciplinary research team including the fields of agricultural sciences, ecology and economics at ETH Zurich and other universities.

Many farmers associate grassland biodiversity with lower yields and financial losses. "Biodiversity is often considered unprofitable, but we show that it can, in fact, pay off," says Nina Buchmann, Professor of Grassland Sciences at ETH Zurich. In an interdisciplinary study at the interface of agricultural sciences, ecology and economics, Buchmann and her colleagues were able to quantify the economic added value of biodiversity based on a grassland experiment that examined different intensities of cultivation. Their paper has just been published in the journal Nature Communications.

Creating higher revenues

"Our work shows that biodiversity is an economically relevant factor of production," says Robert Finger, Professor of Agricultural Economics and Policy at ETH Zurich. If 16 different plant species grow in a field instead of just one, the quality of the forage remains more or less the same, but the yield is higher—which directly correlates to the income that can be made from milk sales. "The resultant increase in revenues in our study is comparable to the difference in yield between extensively and intensively farmed land," says Sergei Schaub, lead author of the study and a doctoral student in Finger's and Buchmann's groups.

Switzerland has so-called ecological compensation areas, i.e., grasslands for which farmers pay particular attention to promoting biodiversity. However, these areas often have poor soils and the yields they produce cannot be compared with those of high-quality grassland. Fortunately, the researchers were able to use data from the long-term Jena Experiment, which—among other questions—compared different farming practices at the same site.

"Our results show that biodiversity has an economically positive effect on all areas, regardless of whether farmers mow and fertilize them four times a year or just once," Schaub says. The more intensely the land is farmed, however, the more difficult it becomes to maintain a high level of biodiversity, because only a few plant species can withstand fertilization and frequent mowing, he notes. Finger adds that Swiss farmers already take more advantage of this economic effect than their counterparts in other countries. Generally speaking, biodiversity on the areas used for forage production in Switzerland is already relatively rich in biodiversity because the seed mixtures are adapted to local conditions, he explains.

Biodiversity as risk insurance

The researchers didn't expect their results to be so conclusive. And there's another economic aspect that they didn't even factor in: "Biodiversity is also a kind of risk insurance," Buchmann says. Diverse grasslands are better off to cope with extreme events such as droughts or floods, he explains, because different plant species react differently to such environmental influences, which partially compensates for any losses arising. "This means yields become more stable over time," Buchmann says, as the research team demonstrated in other recent studies.

The researchers believe their results are a clear indication that it's worthwhile for farmers to increase the diversity of plants growing on their land. "Preserving or restoring diverse grasslands can be a win-win situation," the researchers note at the end of their paper. Not only because this increases farmers' yields and operating revenues, but also because it improves and promotes important ecosystem services such as pollination or water quality.

Biological diversity as a factor of production

---

More information: Sergei Schaub et al. Plant diversity effects on forage quality, yield and revenues of semi-natural grasslands, Nature Communications (2020). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-14541-4

New material created to clean up fossil fuel industry

by University of Sydney

Credit: Pixabay

Researchers at the University of Sydney have created a new material that has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions released during the refinement process of crude oil by up to 28 percent.

Silica-alumina materials are among the most common solid acids that have been widely commercialised as efficient and environmentally-friendly catalysts in the petrochemical and bio-refinery industries.

In a world first, a team of researchers at the University of Sydney led by Associate Professor Jun Huang, have produced a new amorphous silica-alumina catalyst with stronger acidity than any other silica-alumina material created before.

"This new catalyst can significantly reduce the amount of CO2 emitted by oil refineries, which has the potential to make the fossil fuel industry much greener and cleaner," Associate Professor Huang from the Faculty of Engineering and Sydney Nano Institute said.

A significant amount of carbon is emitted during the refinement of crude oil to produce products like petroleum, gasoline and diesel. Estimates suggest 20 to 30 percent of crude oil is transferred to waste and further burnt in the chemical process, making oil refineries the second largest source of greenhouse gases behind power plants.

Credit: University of Sydney

Silica-aluminas with strong Brønsted acidity—a substance that gives up or donates hydrogen ions (protons) in a chemical reaction—are becoming increasingly important to various sustainability processes, including the fields of biomass conversion, CO2 capture and conversion, air-pollution remediation, and water purification.

"Renewable energy is important to achieving a more sustainable energy supply, but the reality is that we will still be reliant on fossil fuels in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we should do all we can to make this industry more efficient and reduce its carbon footprint while we transition to renewable energy sources

"This new catalyst offers some exciting prospects, if it were to be adopted by the entire oil refinery industry, we could potentially see a reduction of over 20 percent in CO2 emissions during the oil refinement process. That's the equivalent of double Australia's crude oil consumption, over 2 million barrels of oil per day."

"The new catalyst also has the potential to develop the biomass industry. We can now look to biomass material like algae to be part of sustainable energy solutions."

The next steps for the researchers are to work on manufacturing the new catalyst at a large, industrial scale.

A greener, simpler way to create syngas

---

More information: Zichun Wang et al. Acidity enhancement through synergy of penta- and tetra-coordinated aluminum species in amorphous silica networks, Nature Communications (2020). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-019-13907-7