Climate
Paragraphs

The potential impacts of climate change on crop productivity are of widespread interest to those concerned with addressing climate change and improving global food security. Two common approaches to assess these impacts are process-based simulation models, which attempt to represent key dynamic processes affecting crop yields, and statistical models, which estimate functional relationships between historical observations of weather and yields. Examples of both approaches are increasingly found in the scientific literature, although often published in different disciplinary journals. Here we compare published sensitivities to changes in temperature, precipitation, carbon dioxide (CO2), and ozone from each approach for the subset of crops, locations, and climate scenarios for which both have been applied. Despite a common perception that statistical models are more pessimistic, we find no systematic differences between the predicted sensitivities to warming from process-based and statistical models up to +2 °C, with limited evidence at higher levels of warming. For precipitation, there are many reasons why estimates could be expected to differ, but few estimates exist to develop robust comparisons, and precipitation changes are rarely the dominant factor for predicting impacts given the prominent role of temperature, CO2, and ozone changes. A common difference between process-based and statistical studies is that the former tend to include the effects of CO2 increases that accompany warming, whereas statistical models typically do not. Major needs moving forward include incorporating CO2 effects into statistical studies, improving both approaches' treatment of ozone, and increasing the use of both methods within the same study. At the same time, those who fund or use crop model projections should understand that in the short-term, both approaches when done well are likely to provide similar estimates of warming impacts, with statistical models generally requiring fewer resources to produce robust estimates, especially when applied to crops beyond the major grains.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Environmental Research Letters
Authors
David Lobell
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The Stanford Center at Peking University (SCPKU) held its second annual Lee Shau Kee World Leaders Forum at the center on Oct 13.  This year’s conference, titled “Climate Change and Clean Energy,” was keynoted by Dr. Steven Chu, the William R. Kenan, Jr., Professor of Physics and Professor of Molecular and Cellular Physiology in the Medical School at Stanford University; the 12th U.S. Secretary of Energy; and co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for laser cooling and atom trapping.  Two panel discussions with a diverse set of experts from academia, government, and industry were also part of the event.

After welcoming remarks by SCPKU Director Jean C. Oi and Xiamen University Dean of the School of Energy Research Ning Li, the conference kicked off with the first panel, “Paths to Clean Energy” which centered around two questions:  Is renewable energy feasible and how does China move away from coal as a dominant energy source?  The second panel, “Challenges and Opportunities to Clean Energy,” focused on barriers preventing China from being progressive on climate change.   China’s National Energy Advisory Committee, British Petroleum-China, and the U.S. Commission on Natural Resources Protection were among the organizations represented by panelists.

 

[[{"fid":"224612","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"Panelists discuss climate change and clean energy at SCPKU's World Leaders Forum held October 13.","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"Stanford University","field_caption[und][0][value]":"Panelists discuss climate change and clean energy at SCPKU's World Leaders Forum held October 13.","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","attributes":{"width":"870","style":"width: 600px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]

Panelists discuss climate change and clean energy at SCPKU's World Leaders Forum held October 13.
Courtesy of Stanford University

 

Steven Chu’s keynote wrapped up the forum, which touched on new data reflecting the risks of climate change and the need to continue progress on the development of clean energy.  Regarding the pressing issue of pollution, he cited data from a British study inferring that the risk of contracting lung cancer is 29x higher in Beijing than other cities and highlighted Stanford’s research on nano-fiber filtration as a possible solution.  Chu also spoke on the topic of energy storage and how the full cost of renewable energy needs to account for backup generation capacity, transmission and distribution systems, as well as the storage itself.  Two things, he said, will likely play large roles in the future: high voltage lines (HVDC), and machine learning, which will be needed for largely autonomous management of the electrical grid.  Nuclear energy will also be important to mitigate blackouts when transitioning to clean energy.  In closing, Chu shared a poignant phrase from ancient Native Americans: “We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” 
 

The purpose of the forum is to raise public understanding of the complex issues China and other countries face in the course of development.  Funded by a generous gift from the Lee Shau Kee Foundation, the forum seeks to increase support for Asia-Pacific cooperation and turn ideas into action.  

 

[[{"fid":"224609","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"Steven Chu poses with SCPKU World Leaders Forum attendees after delivering keynote.","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"Stanford University","field_caption[und][0][value]":"Steven Chu poses with SCPKU World Leaders Forum attendees after delivering keynote.","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","attributes":{"width":"870","style":"width: 600px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]

Steven Chu poses with SCPKU World Leaders Forum attendees after delivering keynote.
Courtesy of Stanford University

 

[[{"fid":"224614","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"Reception following SCPKU's World Leaders Forum featuring the China National Symphony Orchestra Concert Quartet in the center's courtyard.","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"Stanford University","field_caption[und][0][value]":"Reception following SCPKU's World Leaders Forum featuring the China National Symphony Orchestra Concert Quartet in the center's courtyard.","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","attributes":{"width":"870","style":"width: 600px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]

Reception following SCPKU's World Leaders Forum featuring the China National Symphony Orchestra Concert Quartet in
the center's courtyard.
Courtesy of Stanford University

Hero Image
dsc 5531
Steven Chu keynotes SCPKU's second World Leaders Forum. | Stanford University
All News button
1
Authors
News Type
Commentary
Date
Paragraphs

Walter Falcon, the Helen Farnsworth Professor of International Agricultural Policy in Economics (emeritus), writes from an unusual perspective. During the academic year he serves as a senior fellow with the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. He spends the summers on his family farm near Marion, Iowa. He returns to campus each year with reflections on the challenges and rewards of faming life in his "Almanac Report." Falcon is former deputy director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment. 

It is now the end of summer for what has been a milestone year for my wife and me. This essay, itself a mini-milestone, is the fifth annual report from our farm. As readers of prior Almanac postings will know, my day job is as professor of international agricultural policy at Stanford University; however, we also own a medium-sized farm in east central Iowa that produces corn, soybeans, alfalfa and beef from a cow-calf herd. Our friends laughingly refer to our operation as a corn-California crop rotation. 

The 2016 crop year has been nothing short of phenomenal. Planting was early, the weather was warm – sometimes downright hot – and the rains were ideal. On average, our county receives nine inches of rain during the critical growing months of June and July. This year we received more than 12 inches, quite unlike the two inches I wrote about in 2012.

Both corn and soybeans are about two weeks ahead of their maturity schedules for what promises to be record production. Corn yields of 225 bushels per acre on our farm look probable. Soybeans are more uncertain; they are loaded with pods, but all of the rain has left them susceptible to a fungal disease known as sudden-death syndrome (SDS). This fungus, present in many Iowa soils, enters the roots and emits a toxin. Plants looking healthy one day can suddenly wither a few days later. The exact amount of bean loss is mainly a function of how close the plants are to being ripe. We are almost past that maturity barrier now, so even if SDS strikes, it should not lower our yields very much. Unfortunately, record yields do not equate to record incomes, an important point that I return to later.

Image
youtube

The perfect summer and record crops were complemented by two milestone events of a more personal nature. In June, my wife and I celebrated our 60th wedding anniversary. Then in September, we both celebrated our 80th birthdays. There has never been a day when I have not known my wife. We grew up on nearby farms and are fourth-generation caretakers of land that was settled in the late 1850’s. And, we have both seen the most extraordinary changes over our eight decades. Even with a 50-year hiatus while at Harvard and Stanford universities, Iowa has always been home. 

Anniversaries are the time for reminiscing and looking at old pictures. Not surprisingly, a major topic of conversation at our gathering was the change in farming practices. As the younger son in our family, I remember a long list of chores, even when I was small – gathering eggs, filling the watering tanks for pigs and “going after” the cows in the evening. But I really took notice of agriculture when I was about 10.

It was shortly after Word War II, and at that time we used a four-year crop rotation: corn, corn, oats, clover. We were in the transition from horses to tractors, with the corn still being planted with a two-row horse-drawn planter. This was a task reserved for my father (a.k.a. Buck), for no one else could get the rows sufficiently straight to suit him. On a really long day, when the horses were in good condition, father could plant 15 acres. He used 42-inch rows, wide enough for the horses, and planted about 18,000 kernels of seed per acre. The seed was “checked”, which meant that cornfields could be cultivated for weeds both via the length of the field and across it. 

Image
johndeere

The contrast between then and now is stark. An 18-row planter, dispensing 36,000 seeds per acre in 20-inch rows, can now plant 40 acres per hour – almost three times what my father could do in an entire day. Unlike horses, the tractors do not get tired. And they have lights. Steering the tractor is no longer a problem, since the fields and tractors are now synchronized with global positioning systems. For the most part, farmers are just along for the ride, and to keep awake on mile-long rows, several have become Sudoku fanatics! The planting system is wonderful except for one large problem – a new 24-row planter costs upwards of $225,000, not including the tractor.

When I was 12 my father decided that he needed more help and that I was his newly designated “hired man.” To reinforce the point, he decided that I needed my own tractor. He purchased a new Farmall “C” for me, including a two-row cultivator for attacking weeds. The grand total cost of this equipment was $1600! (Perhaps what I remember most is driving myself around the block in my hometown on the day we took delivery.)

Image
farmall

For the next 10 years, I spent most of my summers on that damned tractor fighting morning glories (that would tangle and often require dismounting every 100 yards), thistles, button weeds and all manner of other species. Now, herbicides, Roundup-ready seeds and no-tillage farming are the norm. What took a summer for me to do is now completed easily in a day or two with a high-clearance sprayer with long booms that cover 48 rows at a time.  

What the future will bring is an interesting question. For 20 years or more, farmers have used and overused highly effective herbicides such as Roundup.  And predictably, there is increasing weed resistance to these herbicides. In our county, there has been a devastating spread of Palmer amaranth—a tall spiky plant that produces thousands of seeds. It is highly resistant to commonly used herbicides, and whether its control lies in yet another new herbicide remains to be seen. For the moment, however, it is a menace.

For years, our entire crop rotation was constrained by labor availability at harvest. The picking of ear corn by hand was time-consuming, and typically a cold, miserable task. I can still hear my father saying, “the mark of a man is whether he can pick 100 bushels of ear corn, and then shovel them into a crib before nightfall.

Several things happened almost simultaneously, however, that fundamentally changed rural Iowa life: the switch from horses to tractors; the availability of cheap commercial nitrogen fertilizer; and the large-scale introduction of soybeans.  The departure of the horses was a joyful occasion in itself – tractors neither kick nor need their sheds cleaned.

Moreover, much less land was now needed to provide hay, oats and straw for the horses. A new crop rotation evolved that took the form of corn, soybeans, corn, soybeans. Commercial nitrogen helped maintain the soil fertility; hybrid corn seeds offered new genetic potential as yields on our farm went from 70 bushels per acre in 1946 to more than 200 bushels per acre currently; herbicides more or less controlled the weeds; and perhaps most of all, the mechanical corn picker broke the critical labor bottleneck at harvest.

Image
case

To the extent that my family ever celebrated, we partied the night our first new Case corn picker was delivered in 1948. (Father may have even had one of his carefully hidden beers that evening!) It was a one-row snapper that was simple beyond belief – just rollers that stripped the corn ears from the stock and elevated them into a trailing wagon.

It was the start of a new era, however, and the one-row pull machine quickly gave way to two-row pickers that mounted directly on a tractor, which in turn gave way to self-propelled picker-combines that used multiple “heads” for harvesting either corn or soybeans.  These machines are huge – and are extraordinarily costly. A new 12-row combine fitted for corn harvest costs on the order of $600,000. Unlike picking by hand, when 100 bushels per day was the norm, the new behemoths can harvest 10 acres per hour – some 20,000 bushels per day – provided that the farmer has enough trucks and collector wagons to move the grain from the combine to market or to on-farm storage units. Many are the farm spouses who now drive massive grain trucks during the harvest season!

[[{"fid":"223842","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_caption[und][0][value]":"","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","attributes":{"width":"870","style":"width: 400px; float: left; margin: 6px; height: 239px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]Despite the serenity of the summer, the record crops and the jaw-dropping technology that is everywhere, there is now a kind of malaise that overlays the community. The early morning gatherings for (what passes as) coffee in the old country store in Waubeek have a tone that is different from earlier years. The number of new pickups – my index of farmer prosperity – is down, and there are many more comments, sometimes said jokingly but many times not, about “what my banker thinks.”

The coffee crowd is delighted that the traffic from presidential politicians across Iowa is down substantially from last summer, but the two remaining candidates seemingly have yet to say anything meaningful to my neighbors. Farmers are feeling economically trapped and politically abandoned. “None of the above” would certainly win the election if it were held today. While Iowa shows as a dead heat in the presidential polls, it is the most unenthusiastic 50/50 that I have ever seen on both sides.

Most farmers truly enjoy their work and lifestyle, but they are now hurting. It is easy to understand how the hurt arises. In the last 36 months, corn, soybean and fed-cattle prices have dropped about 50 percent, 33 percent and 25 percent, respectively. The $600,000 machines that (perhaps!) were feasible economically with $7 per bushel corn now look like a mechanical albatross with corn at $3.50 or less per bushel.

Even with low interest rates, many farmers find themselves overcapitalized and with heavy debt burdens. During the prior period of high prices, many borrowed against the equity they had in land, only to see local land prices go from about $9,200 to roughly $7,800 per acre. Solvency has become a serious question for some. Interestingly, the younger, most modern, and most aggressive young farmers seem in the most trouble, whereas some of the older, more conservative farmers using rebuilt machinery are coping better.

The morning coffee conversations are also punctuated by several environmental topics, especially nitrogen and water runoffs.  The state of Iowa is pressing hard for voluntary conservation approaches. But farmers are truly puzzled and worried about what they should do. For 100 years they have been urged to improve their land by tiling, that is, to lay clay or perforated plastic pipe three to four feet underground such that wet portions of fields could be drained to facilitate greater yields. Often these tiles have outlets into creeks or ditches.

But now there is a dilemma. The EPA is asserting that water from tiles is running water, and therefore subject to EPA regulation under the Clean Water Act. Given uncertainty about the regulations, farmers fear the worst. Moreover, much of the nitrogen runoff from cornfields is via drainage into those same tiles. While better placement and timing of fertilizer applications can help, it is hard to envisage major curtailment of nutrient runoff without also taking up the tile issue. 

Tiles are virtually in all fields, and the implications of potential new regulations are enormous. As a consequence, groups like the Farm Bureau are pushing new voluntary conservation measures very strongly. They are also going after EPA’s attempt to regulate farm waters in an all-out war. In the meantime, farmers wait uneasily and hope for the best.

[[{"fid":"223844","view_mode":"crop_870xauto","fields":{"format":"crop_870xauto","field_file_image_description[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":"","field_credit[und][0][value]":"","field_caption[und][0][value]":"","field_related_image_aspect[und][0][value]":"","thumbnails":"crop_870xauto"},"type":"media","attributes":{"width":"870","style":"margin: 6px; float: left; width: 365px; height: 323px;","class":"media-element file-crop-870xauto"}}]]

My final comment for the summer is not a “cock and bull” story, although it borders on one. (Definition: “an absurd, improbable story presented as the truth.”) It was partly motivated by “Desperado,” the 2,972-pound Angus bull that won the “Super Bull” contest at the Iowa State Fair. (Lest I be accused of being gender insensitive, I should also report that the life-sized cow, sculpted in butter, is still doing well and now stands beside a sculpturefrom “Star Trek”, also in butter.  Do not ask me why!)

Image
bull2
I have done no formal surveys on the topic, but my conjecture is that in rural areas, the word “bull’ is most often used as the adjective in an expletive. An adjective form is also used to describe markets. For example, the July 14 issue of Bloomberg Businessweek headlined a story, “A Bull Market You Haven’t Seen.” Farmers also watch the stock market carefully, and this watching was done with mixed emotions. To see the Dow-Jones Index of Industrial Stocks rise to over 18,500 was of limited joy, since farmers were invested in land, whose price was falling, not rising. The bullish stock prices, in a curious way, simply added to the malaise mentioned earlier.  
 
During the summer I was also involved in another bull market – a market for real bulls! This part of the story perhaps needs a bit of background. When growing up, both my wife and I had great fun exhibiting steers at various fairs and expositions. (She reminds me frequently that the last time our animals were in head-to-head competition, her ribbon count was more prestigious.)
 
We particularly enjoy young calves, and in a wild moment, we decided to develop a small cowherd of our own that would be separate from the large herd kept by the neighbor who rents our land.  By the time we reconfigured the fences, fixed the barn, installed a new water system, and invested in equipment, we have a small herd of what must surely be the most expensive cows this side of Switzerland. But we are enjoying them. This year’s steer calves have meaty names, e.g. Porter(house) and Sir Loin (spelling courtesy of a dinner menu in Chile) and the heifers have grape names, e.g. Cabernet and Zin.
 
In early July, timed for spring calves next year, we began searching for a bull. Size, breed, and age were all questions, as was an artificial insemination option. To our surprise, we found that there is a bull rental market. We ended up with a 1400-pound red Angus yearling bull, which we rented and which we hope is up to his appointed task. The cost was $600 for four months (purchase would have been $3,000), including delivery and pick up. And what delivery service! He rolled up, all by himself, in a semi trailer designed to haul 36 head. Now that is first class. Unfortunately, however, there may be a problem. He seems to have little interest in his new harem, at least during the daytime. So we watch and wait, and hope that he is working the night shift. Will we have spring calves or we will we have to hire in a substitute? It is not yet clear, so stay tuned, and I will report on the final outcome in next year’s Almanac.
 
In the meantime, I am off to Stanford for another milestone—my 45th year on the faculty. It will be a rather severe test of whether age, wisdom, and guile, can keep ahead of youth, brains and energy.
 
 

Image
bull

       

 

 

 

Hero Image
a86764
Yesterday's Tractors
All News button
1
-


Join us for a free screening of "Seeds of Time: One man's journey to save the future of our food"  from Academy Award nominated director Sandy McLeod.

Synposis:

A perfect storm is brewing as agriculture pioneer Cary Fowler races against time to protect the future of our food. Seed banks around the world are crumbling, crop failures are producing starvation and rioting, and the accelerating effects of climate change are affecting farmers globally. Communities of indigenous Peruvian farmers are already suffering those effects, as they try desperately to save over 1,500 varieties of native potato in their fields. But with little time to waste, both Fowler and the farmers embark on passionate and personal journeys that may save the one resource we cannot live without: our seeds.

Dr. Fowler is at Stanford as a visiting scholar with FSE and will introduce the film, then answer questions following the screening.

Read the New Yorker article about Dr. Fowler's work and learn more about the film.

Lunch will be served.

Free and open to the public. Please RSVP. 

Dr. Cary Fowler
Paragraphs

There have been dramatic advances in understanding the physical science of climate change, facilitated by substantial and reliable research support. The social value of these advances depends on understanding their implications for society, an arena where research support has been more modest and research progress slower. Some advances have been made in understanding and formalizing climate-economy linkages, but knowledge gaps remain [e.g., as discussed in (1, 2)]. We outline three areas where we believe research progress on climate economics is both sorely needed, in light of policy relevance, and possible within the next few years given appropriate funding: (i) refining the social cost of carbon (SCC), (ii) improving understanding of the consequences of particular policies, and (iii) better understanding of the economic impacts and policy choices in developing economies.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Science
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Gaps in social science knowledge of climate change constrain the policy impact of natural science research, a Stanford team argues.


Scientists have made huge strides in understanding the physical and biological dimensions of climate change, from deciphering why climate has changed in the past to predicting how it might change in the future.

As the body of knowledge on the physical science of climate grows, a missing link is emerging: What are the economic and social consequences of changes in the climate and efforts to control emissions of greenhouse gases?

In a new paper in the journal Science, a team led by Stanford professors Charles Kolstad and Marshall Burkeargues that relatively low funding for social science research has contributed to a knowledge gap about what climate change means for human society. This knowledge gap, they argue, renders the large advances in natural science less useful than they could be for policymakers.

The paper highlights three research questions with the greatest potential to close that gap:

 

What is the true cost of carbon emissions?

The social cost of carbon (SCC) is a dollar value estimate of future social and economic damages caused by each present-day metric ton of carbon emissions. It can also be thought of as the amount of money society saves, in terms of damage avoided, by not emitting an additional metric ton of carbon.

"The SCC is a key policy measurement that's already being used in U.S. government regulations. But existing estimates have shortcomings and these need fixing if we are going to make the correct policy decisions around climate change," said Burke, an assistant professor at Stanford School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences, a center fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a faculty fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

Current SCC calculations leave out several important factors. For example, what is the economic cost of extreme climate events such as floods and droughts? How should economists estimate "non-market" damages that are exacerbated by climate change, such as armed conflict, disease epidemics and deforestation? In what parts of the world does climate change slow or accelerate economic growth? Can farmers avoid lost income from climate change by adapting their crop choices and planting schedules?

"Getting the social cost of carbon right is most pressing, given its importance to policy," said Kolstad, a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and at the Precourt Institute for Energy. "It's also an area where rapid research progress should be possible."

 

What emissions mitigation policies are best?

Once researchers agree on the true cost of carbon, there are many policy options for reducing emissions. Industry regulations and subsidies for renewable energy are popular policy choices for governments all over the world, but they may be weaker at cutting emissions than less politically popular options like carbon pricing or tradeable carbon emission permits.

"Until we understand more about the benefits and tradeoffs of different carbon pricing options, governments are almost flying blind on climate mitigation policy," Kolstad said. "When we can make a clear economic case for one policy over the other, we can better align decisions about carbon pricing systems with their actual costs and benefits and, as a result, strengthen political support for action." 

 

What role do developing countries play?

Most of the existing research on climate economics tends to focus on wealthy countries, even though developing countries now contribute more total greenhouse gas emissions. Poorer countries also often face a different policy environment than richer countries and are potentially more economically vulnerable to changes in climate.

"We need better evidence on how impacts of climate change might differ in developing countries, as well as a deeper understanding of the climate policy choices faced by developing country governments," Burke said.


Twenty-eight leading economists contributed to the Science paper, a fact that Burke pointed to as evidence of broad consensus on the need for more economic research on climate change.

The biggest roadblock, the authors agree, is funding.

"The research problems are tough for both natural scientists and economists, but research support has been much more modest in economics, so far fewer people are working in the area and progress has been slower," Kolstad said.

"Dozens of teams of physical scientists around the world work with the exact same climate simulations and compare results to estimate future climate change," Burke said.  "Economists are just starting to do something similar, and as this collaboration develops I think it will be immensely valuable. There's a strong argument for spending research dollars on understanding the economic and social implications of that physical science. Social science is relatively cheap, so extra funding can go a long way."

Kolstad encourages young researchers to pursue the "many interesting, socially relevant questions in this field" and advises governments to work together to strengthen long-term research funding and support for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. "Otherwise," he said, "the large sums spent on natural science will be poorly targeted."


CONTACT:

Charles Kolstad, SIEPR: ckolstad@stanford.edu, (650) 721-1663

Marshall Burke, Earth System Science: mburke@stanford.edu, (650) 721-2203

Laura Seaman, Food Security and the Environment: lseaman@stanford.edu, (650) 723-4920

Hero Image
adobestock 36756868
Adobe Stock
All News button
1
Paragraphs

We're being warned of future grain failures—not by the dreams of a biblical Pharaoh, but by modern computer model predictions. Climate science forecasts rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns, and episodes of increasingly extreme weather, which will harm crop yields at a time when the world's growing population can ill afford declines, especially in its most productive areas, such as the US Midwest. In order to adequately prepare, we call for the establishment of a new field research network across the US Midwest to fully integrate all methods for improving cropping systems and leveraging big data (agronomic, economic, environmental, and genomic) to facilitate adaptation and mitigation. Such a network, placed in one of the most important grain-producing areas in the world, would provide the set of experimental facilities, linked to farm settings, needed to explore and test the adaptation and mitigation strategies that already are needed globally.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
BioScience
Authors
David Lobell
Paragraphs

This research brief is based on a paper from the journal Nature, published on-line on October 21, 2015, entitled “Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production.” The paper, led by Stanford University’s Marshall Burke, provides the first evidence that economic activity in all regions is coupled to the global climate and establishes a new empirical foundation for modelling economic loss in response to climate change.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date
Paragraphs

David Lobell’s recent research indicates that negative impacts to the global agriculture system are much more likely, more severe and wider-ranging in the face of human-caused climate change. Temperature increases are the main drier behind these far-reaching impacts.. There are several pathways toward adaptation, though none of them appears to completely offset the losses. Research highlighted in this brief offers insights for institutions and decisionmakers concerned with protecting food security and international stability throughout the coming decades.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date

Y2E2 room 369
Stanford, CA 94305

0
sam_heft-neal.jpg PhD

Sam Heft-Neal is a research fellow at the Center on Food Security and the Environment and in the Department of Earth System Science. Sam is working with Marshall Burke to identify the impacts of extreme climate events on food availability and childhood nutrition in Africa. Specifically, they are examining the impacts of climate induced food shocks on child health measures including child mortality rates. Sam’s previous work examined the non-linear relationship between agricultural productivity and the environment and its effects on human health and the economy. Sam holds a Ph.D. in Agricultural and Resource Economics from the University of California, Berkeley and a B.A. in Statistics and Economics from the same institution.

Research Scholar
Subscribe to Climate