Climate Talks in Lima, Peru: Closing Results

Source: http://blogs.dickinson.edu/cop20/

From 1 to 12 December, 195 countries met to discuss and negotiate the aims of an agreement by climate change... In the wee hours of the night, agreements were made but many of the major decisions were left to be decided until next year. However, this could impact the ability to meet the currently agreed-upon decrease of emissions. But many countries are concerned about the financial aspects of this agreement. While this is perhaps more understandable for the less wealthy countries, the fact that China has declined a drafted decision made by the United States and European Union is astounding. In fact, it's down right flabbergasting.

"Around lunchtime on Saturday, a draft of a decision that the U.S., the European Union and other wealthy states wanted adopted was rejected by representatives of China, African nations, and other poor and developing nations, angry that issues important to them had been omitted." Source: Discovery News

However, some progress was made:

"The Lima Accord, a four-page document, was adopted by climate negotiators a little after 1 a.m. ET Sunday. It was unanimously agreed upon following talks that were at times acrimonious and concluded more than 30 hours behind schedule.
While member countries tacitly agreed to curb their rates of greenhouse gas emissions, a raft of things weren’t decided, adding hurdles to securing a truly global climate agreement in Paris next December.
A large schism separated wealthy states and developing nations before negotiations ever began in Lima, and on many fronts, those divides remain. Rich and poor countries could not agree on language to resolve issues like financing for climate adaptation or compensation for damage inflicted by climate change. Nor could they agree on the groundrules to determine each country’s commitment to cut carbon pollution or whether to make those commitments legally binding under international law." Source: Environmental News Network

While it's great that these talks are happening, it's frustrating that what is holding countries back from cutting emissions is a fictitious creation made by man, called the economy... what will it take for humans to realize we need to change what we're doing - and not by a little bit - if we expect to see changes in our climate??



Other Related Articles:
Discovery News - Global Warming: Why only 95 Percent Certainty? 
NASA - A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2
NASA - A Closer Look at Carbon Dioxide 

Geometry in Nature

In nature, there are some of the most beautiful patters, designs, and structures from the most miniscule particles and organisms, such as phytoplankton, to large expressions of life in the greater cosmos. Many of these structures are geometrical - symmetrical by design - and were used by humans in the early Greek, Egyptian, Roman and ancient Indians for architecture construction. Most humans used the Pythagorean Theorem by measurements of the human body, but this is only one of nature's form of geometrical archetypes. There are many other forms of archetypal expressions in nature, including vibrational resonance. However, an underlying law of nature is the inseparable relationship of the part to the whole, and thus brings a sense of interconnectedness and inseparability for all things created. Some people call this the "Golden Ratio" that is related to "Sacred Geometry".

Source: http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/2b/54/dd/2b54ddc1258231e27a61414f2e5eb5ea.jpg

According to Wikipedia:

"Sacred geometry is used as a religious, philosophical, and spiritual term to explain the fundamental laws of the universe covering Pythagorean geometry and the perceived relationships between geometrical laws and quantum mechanical laws of the universe that create the geometrical patterns in nature. Many Gothic cathedrals were built using proportions derived from the geometry inherent in the cube and double-cube; this tradition continues in modern Christian churches to the present time.[4] churches, temples, mosques, religious monuments, altars, tabernacles; as well as for sacred spaces such as temenoi, sacred groves, village greens and holy wells, and the creation of religious art.

Source: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLcjVlOMpJdvS_nQQAPkfTJYMSUHk1cYtANIk4QjicLmvMKn6BllUXiLeQV0-aC-qqHM9hCxS2aIyD1A99LE-NoQM0BAh1CuGFUJaeGHYL12slE0uLau83unL4-aN6FYsxnxmLKXTJSLo/s640/parthenongoldenratio.png

Source: http://hoffnermath.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/pythagoreansnail2.jpg

According to Stephen Skinner, the study of sacred geometry has its roots in the study of nature, and the mathematical principles at work therein.^[3] Many forms observed in nature can be related to geometry, for example, the chambered nautilus grows at a constant rate and so its shell forms a logarithmic spiral to accommodate that growth without changing shape. Also, honeybees construct hexagonal cells to hold their honey. These and other correspondences are sometimes interpreted in terms of sacred geometry and considered to be further proof of the natural significance of geometric forms."

The image below is a diatom... a phytoplankton that displays it's natural geometric form in a delicate, yet robust structure.  How fascinating it is, that life is surrounded by geometry; nature is geometry!

Source: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/73-diatom-sem-steve-gschmeissner.html

Organic Farming Competes with Conventional

Source: http://images.sciencedaily.com/2013/03/130326121732-large.jpg

By in large, the public viewpoint is in agreement that organic food is safer, healthier, and tastier than the conventional food 1 2 3. However, depending on where you live, organic food may or may not be available or economically feasible. So, what's going on with organic farming - will more become available in greater areas? Here is a report from the Environmental News Network:

"A systematic overview of more than 100 studies comparing organic and conventional farming finds that the crop yields of organic agriculture are higher than previously thought. The study, conducted by UC Berkeley researchers, also found that certain practices could further shrink the productivity gap between organic crops and conventional farming.
The study, to be published online Wednesday, Dec. 10, in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, tackles the lingering perception that organic farming, while offering an environmentally sustainable alternative to chemically intensive agriculture, cannot produce enough food to satisfy the world’s appetite.
“In terms of comparing productivity among the two techniques, this paper sets the record straight on the comparison between organic and conventional agriculture,” said the study’s senior author, Claire Kremen, professor of environmental science, policy and management and co-director of the Berkeley Food Institute. “With global food needs predicted to greatly increase in the next 50 years, it’s critical to look more closely at organic farming, because aside from the environmental impacts of industrial agriculture, the ability of synthetic fertilizers to increase crop yields has been declining.”
The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 115 studies — a dataset three times greater than previously published work — comparing organic and conventional agriculture. They found that organic yields are about 19.2 percent lower than conventional ones, a smaller difference than in previous estimates.
The researchers pointed out that the available studies comparing farming methods were often biased in favor of conventional agriculture, so this estimate of the yield gap is likely overestimated. They also found that taking into account methods that optimize the productivity of organic agriculture could minimize the yield gap. They specifically highlighted two agricultural practices, multi-cropping (growing several crops together on the same field) and crop rotation, that would substantially reduce the organic-to-conventional yield gap to 9 percent and 8 percent, respectively.
The yields also depended upon the type of crop grown, the researchers found. There were no significant differences in organic and conventional yields for leguminous crops, such as beans, peas and lentils, for instance.
Continue reading at UC Berkeley."

REFERENCES
1 White, Kim Kennedy; Duram, Leslie A (2013). America Goes Green: An Encyclopedia of Eco-friendly Culture in the United States. California: ABC-CLIO. p. 180. ISBN 978-1-59884-657-7.
2 Dan Flynn for Food Safety News. April 22, 2014. Report: Organic Industry Achieved 25 Years of Fast Growth Through Fear and Deception
3 Joanna Schroeder for Academics Review. Organic Marketing Report 

Pharmaceuticals Affect Plants, Crops, & Our Oceans

Many of us take some form of pharmaceutical at some point in our lives - sometimes for acute pain such as a headache, and other times for chronic conditions or situations such as high blood pressure, or even for the intent of parent planning - but have you ever wondered what happens to the chemicals that your body doesn't metabolize?

Source: http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/drugs-water.jpg

The following article was released from  Drugs Released in Environment Affect Plants

"The drugs we release into the environment are likely to have a significant impact on plant growth, finds a new study led by the University of Exeter Medical School and Plymouth University.
By assessing the impacts of a range of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, the research has shown that the growth of edible crops can be affected by these chemicals – even at the very low concentrations found in the environment.
Published in the Journal of Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, the research focused its analysis on lettuce and radish plants and tested the effects of several commonly prescribed drugs, including diclofenac and ibuprofen. These drugs are among the most common and widely used group of pharmaceuticals, with more than 30 million prescribed across the world every day.
The potential for these chemicals to influence plants is becoming increasingly relevant, particularly as waste management systems are unable to remove many compounds from our sewage. Drugs for human use make their way into soil through a number of routes, including the use of sewage sludge as fertiliser and waste water for irrigation.
This study looked for a number of changes in edible plants, assessing factors such as water content, root and shoot length, overall size and how effectively the plants photosynthesised.
Each drug was shown to affect the plants in very specific ways, with marked differences between drugs that are closely related. For example, drugs from the fenamic acid class affected the growth of radish roots, whilst ibuprofen had a significant influence on the early root development of lettuce plants.
Dr Clare Redshaw, one of the scientists leading the project at the Medical School’s European Centre for Environment & Human Health, said: “The huge amounts of pharmaceuticals we use ultimately end up in the environment, yet we know very little about their effects on flora and fauna. As populations age and generic medicines become readily available, pharmaceutical use will rise dramatically and it’s essential we take steps towards limiting environmental contamination. We haven’t considered the impact on human health in this study, but we need to improve our understanding quickly so that appropriate testing and controls can be put in place.”
There have been growing concerns about the presence of pharmaceuticals in the environment, particularly as evidence emerges of the effects they can have on the development of animals and antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Yet their ability to affect plant growth is poorly understood.
Continue reading at the University of Exeter."

... A similar article can be found from ScienceDaily

Agricultural and Biofuel News: The critical role crops play in the Earth's CO2 cycle

Source: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg70aTBQaVhuE53Dfs0XXWmx6PSzA14-VRWt02JPoFi-zRhJRgTal0AOHdqqz7aOwLbHZNhRUbdhrSsZ9-IbOMWejkB0MpJyJm3ZtPmgUmBtZ3uJtRdwAkllqdaJFJvqA65ZD1XJagwq4JY/s1600/IMG_2339.JPG

Agricultural and Biofuel News: The critical role crops play in the Earth's CO2 cycle

"Each year, the planet balances its budget. The carbon dioxide
absorbed by plants in the spring and summer as they convert solar energy
into food is released back to the atmosphere in autumn and winter.
Levels of the greenhouse gas fall, only to rise again.

But the budget has gotten bigger. Over the last five decades, the magnitude of
this rise and fall has grown nearly 50 percent in the Northern
Hemisphere, as the amount of the greenhouse gas taken in and released
has increased. Now, new research shows that humans and their crops have a
lot to do with it, highlighting the profound impact people have on the
Earth’s atmosphere.

In a study published Wednesday, Nov. 19, in Nature, scientists at Boston University, the University of New Hampshire, the University of Michigan, the University of Minnesota, the
University of Wisconsin-Madison and McGill University show that a steep
rise in the productivity of crops grown for food accounts for as much as
25 percent of the increase in this carbon dioxide (CO2) seasonality.

It’s not that crops are adding more CO2 to the atmosphere; rather, if crops
are like a sponge for CO2, the sponge has simply gotten bigger and can
hold and release more of the gas.

With global food productivity expected to double over the next 50 years, the researchers say the findings should be used to improve climate models and better understand
the atmospheric CO2 buffering capacity of ecosystems, particularly as
climate change may continue to perturb the greenhouse gas budget."