Innovation Toronto

It crept back

MULUALEM TEGEGN bought a donkey last year. As a hard-working Ethiopian farmer, aged 58, he saw the purchase of the beast as a return to better times after several seasons in which drought and high prices had forced him to sell his livestock and take his grandchildren out of school to work on the farm. This year, he will have enough grain left to buy a goat or two, and the donkey will help the children make the long trek again to school. This is how things are supposed to be.

World food prices soared in 2007-08, pushing hundreds of millions into poverty. But—said people at the time—there was a silver lining: high prices would be good for farmers, especially smallholders in poor countries such as Mr Tegegn. Higher returns would suck money into farming, leading to higher yields, bigger harvests and stable or falling food prices. Eventually, the argument ran, farmers and consumers would all be better off.

This happy state of affairs seemed to be coming to pass in the second half of 2008. Ethiopia reported a record cereals harvest this January, up 10% on the previous year. Across the world, the picture was similar. After the price spike in the first half of 2008, farmers harvested 2.3 billion tonnes of cereals in 2008/09, the biggest crop ever seen. Big exporters began lifting the trade bans they had imposed to keep local prices from rising, so more food became available to world markets. The sharp fall in the price of oil, which occurred at the same time, increased food supplies further because, by making oil cheaper than ethanol, it encouraged farmers to sell for feed the maize they would otherwise have turned into biofuels. As food supplies surged (and demand, hit by the global recession, stagnated), prices plummeted. Between its peak in July and a trough in December 2008, The Economist’s index of food prices fell by 40%.

All that seems fairly rational and hopeful. But this year’s changes have been more puzzling. Between December and mid-June, the food index rebounded by a third, even though this year’s total cereals crop is expected to be another bumper (2.2 billion tonnes, says the Food and Agriculture Organisation, second only to 2008/09, see chart left). Meanwhile, soyabean and sugar prices have risen by nearly half from trough to peak—see chart below—and the index of “non-food agriculturals” (plants such as cotton or rubber) also rose by a quarter between December and mid-June. Prices have been increasing at a time of plenty.

It’s not meant to go this way

If this was happening during a boom, it might be understandable. But recession would normally dampen down price rises. So what explains the return of food-price inflation? And does it mean that the so-called world food crisis is returning?

Read more . . .

Related articles by Zemanta

• Investment can help African farmers grow their way out of poverty (guardian.co.uk)
• India joins ‘neocolonial’ rush for Africa’s land and labour (telegraph.co.uk)
• Will the “Green Revolution” Ever Hit Africa? (freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com)
• World hunger ‘hits one billion’ (news.bbc.co.uk)

Steven Chu wants to save the world by transforming its largest industry: energy.

WHETHER Steven Chu, America’s energy secretary, would be flattered or horrified by the comparison is unclear, but he and Margaret Thatcher have something important in common. They are both scientists who have risen to political power. That Mr Chu has a Nobel prize for physics, whereas Lady Thatcher swiftly abandoned chemistry for the more lucrative pastures of the law, does not make the comparison unfair. What matters is that both of them understand something that some politicians from softer intellectual backgrounds often seem to forget: you cannot negotiate with nature. Nor can you ignore it, for it will not go away.

Lady Thatcher showed her mettle in this regard in 1989, when she became the first politician of stature to raise the alarm about global warming. When her adviser Crispin Tickell pointed out to her that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was rising and that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas, she got the point instantly and alerted the world in a speech to the United Nations. Mr Chu’s job is harder: he is charged with spotting, nurturing and promoting promising energy technologies, thereby helping America to create the tools that the world needs to wean itself off fossil fuels.

He certainly has the qualifications to do so. Barack Obama poached him from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which he had directed since 2004, and which he was busy shaping into a centre for the study of alternative energy. He had, for example, negotiated a $500m deal with BP, one of the world’s biggest oil companies, to base its Energy Biosciences Institute there.

He is also a man who thinks big. While Mr Chu was at Berkeley, he conceived the idea of a global “glucose economy”, to supplant mankind’s dependence on oil. Fast-growing crops would be planted in the tropics, where sunlight is abundant. They would be converted into glucose (of which cellulose, which makes up much of the dry weight of a plant, is a polymer) and the glucose would be shipped around much as oil is today, for eventual conversion into biofuels and bioplastics. That idea might not go down well with energy nationalists, who want America to declare independence from all hot and unreliable countries, whether oil producers or agricultural powers, but it shows vision on the scale needed to deal with global warming.

Another example of his unorthodox thinking is his observation that painting the roofs of buildings around the world white and using light-coloured road surfaces rather than blacktop would reflect a lot of sunlight back into space—possibly enough to have an effect on global warming as big as taking every car in the world off the road for a decade. There are plenty of scientists with such notions, but they are seldom in a position to convert their visions into reality.

Read more . . .

Related articles by Zemanta

• Act Now on Global Warming–Energy after the Kyoto Protocol Expires (scientificamerican.com)
• Climate change: the world looks to Washington (guardian.co.uk)
• Q & A: Steven Chu (technologyreview.com)
• Paint It White: Chu Calls For White Roofs, Roads To Fight Global Warming (huffingtonpost.com)
• Analysis: Climate Bill May Spur Energy Revolution (usnews.com)
• US Makes $2.4 Billion Bet On Clean Coal In Stimulus Package (huffingtonpost.com)

NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Our political system sometimes produces such skewed results that it’s difficult not to blame bloviating politicians. But maybe the deeper problem lies in our brains.

Evidence is accumulating that the human brain systematically misjudges certain kinds of risks. In effect, evolution has programmed us to be alert for snakes and enemies with clubs, but we aren’t well prepared to respond to dangers that require forethought.

If you come across a garter snake, nearly all of your brain will light up with activity as you process the “threat.” Yet if somebody tells you that carbon emissions will eventually destroy Earth as we know it, only the small part of the brain that focuses on the future — a portion of the prefrontal cortex — will glimmer.

“We humans do strange things, perhaps because vestiges of our ancient brain still guide us in the modern world,” notes Paul Slovic, a psychology professor at the University of Oregon and author of a book on how our minds assess risks.

Consider America’s political response to these two recent challenges:

1. President Obama proposes moving some inmates from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to supermax prisons from which no one has ever escaped. This is the “enemy with club” threat that we have evolved to be alert to, so Democrats and Republicans alike erupt in outrage and kill the plan.

2. The climate warms, ice sheets melt and seas rise. The House scrounges a narrow majority to pass a feeble cap-and-trade system, but Senate passage is uncertain. The issue is complex, full of trade-offs and more cerebral than visceral — and so it doesn’t activate our warning systems.

“What’s important is the threats that were dominant in our evolutionary history,” notes Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard University. In contrast, he says, the kinds of dangers that are most serious today — such as climate change — sneak in under the brain’s radar.

Read more . . .

Related articles by Zemanta

• China alone ‘could bring world to brink of climate calamity’ (guardian.co.uk)
• Todd Stern rejects calls for 40% cut in US emissions (guardian.co.uk)

Wind has the power to revolutionise the UK’s electricity industry, according to a study published on Wednesday.

Research from analysts Poyry says that the UK can massively expand wind power by 2030 without suffering power cuts or a melt-down of the National Grid.

The cost of electricity would then be determined not by consumer demand, but by how hard the wind is blowing.

When it is windy power will be so cheap that other forms of generation will be unable to compete, the report says.

If accepted by government, these key findings could strongly influence the UK’s future energy supplies.

The study was done for National Grid, Centrica and others. The researchers reviewed 2.5 million hourly weather reports on wind speeds all around the UK.

Idle time

If the wind were to drop everywhere round the UK (as happened during the January high pressure cold snap), other generators would make their money by switching on back-up fossil fuel power stations for a very short time, charging extremely high prices, it predicts.

Dr Phil Hare from Poyry said these back-up generators might stand idle for years without making a profit – so the government might need to find a new way of ensuring they were funded.

The study bases its assumptions on current levels of subsidy. It concludes that, thanks to the wind subsidy through the “Renewable Obligations Certificates” issued by regulator Ofgem, electricity prices would be negative if the wind were blowing hard.

Read more . . .

Related articles by Zemanta

• Offshore wind ‘could power 19m homes’ (guardian.co.uk)
• UK needs urgent ‘master plan’ on renewable energy, warns National Grid (guardian.co.uk)
• Can Wind Power Get Up to Speed? (time.com)
• Wind’s Power Potential Quantified (scientificamerican.com)

Techniques and instrumentation initially developed for ExoMars — Europe’s next robotic mission to Mars in 2016, but now due to fly on a NASA mission in 2018 — could also provide the answers to the globally pressing issue of energy supply.

A major study by the Imperial College London, funded by the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC), aims to use this new technology as an inexpensive and efficient way to help process unconventional energy resources, potentially having an enormous impact on the UK and global economy.

Professor Mark Sephton from Imperial’s Department of Earth Science and Engineering, said: “The research involves using extraction-helping materials, called surfactants, to liberate organic matter from rock in space to gain a deeper understanding into the biological environment on Mars. We aim to show that the same technique could also be used to recycle the prodigious amounts of water necessary to process tar sand deposits and turn them into conventional petroleum.”

Usable energy resources are essential to the global economy.  Conventional crude oil is a staple energy resource and accounts for over 35% of the world’s energy consumption.  As the demand for oil exceeds supply, focus has now turned to trying to tap unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands. However, these unconventional fossil fuels must be extracted and upgraded to match the characteristics of more conventional oil deposits and make them commercially viable. The extraction process requires substantial amounts of water which is then left contaminated for extended periods of time. In just hours, the new technology can strip this water of its oily contaminants, removing a bottleneck in the refining process.

Read more . . .