Environment

FSI scholars approach their research on the environment from regulatory, economic and societal angles. The Center on Food Security and the Environment weighs the connection between climate change and agriculture; the impact of biofuel expansion on land and food supply; how to increase crop yields without expanding agricultural lands; and the trends in aquaculture. FSE’s research spans the globe – from the potential of smallholder irrigation to reduce hunger and improve development in sub-Saharan Africa to the devastation of drought on Iowa farms. David Lobell, a senior fellow at FSI and a recipient of a MacArthur “genius” grant, has looked at the impacts of increasing wheat and corn crops in Africa, South Asia, Mexico and the United States; and has studied the effects of extreme heat on the world’s staple crops.

News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs
During spring quarter Kieran Oberman, Post doctoral Fellow for the Program on Global Justice has been teaching "An Introduction to Global Justice". The course looks at controversial ethical questions regarding international affairs such as what should be done to alleviate global poverty, under what circumstances is war justified and who should pay the costs of averting climate change. The course has proved extremely popular, so much so we have had to move to a much larger lecture theater to accommodate everyone. In class students have participated enthusiastically in debate and developed their positions on some of the world's most pressing problems. The focus of his research this quarter closely pairs with that of his teaching. The paper he is currently working on is entitled "Justice and War: Is the War in Afghanistan an Injustice to Africa?" The paper holds that a strong argument against the resort to war is that war expends resources that could be used to address poverty. If a war is to be justified it must be justified to the victims of poverty as well as to the victims of the war. This point (he hopes) will seem intuitive to many, yet strangely it is almost entirely disregarded in modern just war theory. His paper asks why this is so.
All News button
1

SPEAKER CHECKLIST

 

for conference website and printed materials

 

Please email all information to yanmei@stanford.edu

 
 Item Required Date Due
Short biography in paragraph format with your name, organization/institution and area of work to be used for the conference pack, not longer than 200 words. June 6, 2011
Headshot suitably large for printing (at least 350 pixels in both dimensions) June 6, 2011
Draft Presentation June 21, 2011
Final Presentation 9am, June 27, 2011

KEY QUESTIONS to be addressed

  • What roles are public-private partnerships and other forms of collaboration playing to advance innovations in smart green industries, such as in the built environment or intelligent transportation?
  • What innovations - not only in technologies and products but also in processes, models and platforms - are leading the way?
  • What results are emerging from living labs, leading cities, or other outstanding examples of public-private partnerships around the world?
  • How do results stack up against economic, energy and social metrics, e.g. economic productivity, quality of life, energy impact, financial payback, user response, etc.?
  • What are implications for business strategies?
  • What government policies are effectively nurturing advancement in these areas?

important notes to speakers

  • Please take your tent card to the stage when your session starts.
  • Please sit on the stage when your session starts and stay throughout the session for all speakers, your session discussant and the discussion open to the floor.

Bechtel Conference Center

Workshops
-

On behalf of PESD, Stanford co-hosts PIE, TomKat, and SIEPR, and external sponsors Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and the Kauffman Foundation, convened an all-day conference on September 15 on “Transmission Policies to Unlock America’s Renewable Energy Resources”   
   
The traditional transmission paradigm was well-adapted to fossil fuel plants built near cities and operated by vertically-integrated utilities.  We need a whole new transmission paradigm to realize the potential of intermittent wind and solar generation in today’s wholesale markets.  
   
The conference sessions (see Agenda) focused on different aspects of what this new paradigm will have to look like, focusing on the Western region.  How can markets for renewable energy credits help drive transmission policy?  Who will pay for new transmission that straddles state lines and service areas?  How can environmental impacts be weighed without bogging down transmission planning?  
   
Our distinguished speakers and discussants have many years of experience working on precisely these issues from the academic, industry, nonprofit, and government perspectives.  This event brought new insights into how to move forward on transmission in the West, and we thank everyone who participated.

 

For conference photos, click here

Opening remarks by Frank Wolak, Director, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development

 

Session 1: The Paradigm Shift in the Role of the Transmission Network

Speaker—Lorenzo Kristov, Principle, Market and Infrastructure Policy, California Independent System Operator (ISO)

Discussants: James Bushnell, Associate Professor, UC Davis Department of Economics and Udi Helman, Director, Economic and Pricing Analysis, BrightSource Energy

 

Session 2: Policy Tools for Meeting Renewable Energy Goals

Speaker—Harry Singh, Vice President, Goldman Sachs

Discussants: Sydney Berwager, Director, Strategy Integration, Bonneville Power Administration and Julie Fitch, Director, Energy Division, California Public Utilities Commission

 

Session 3: Developing a Regional Transmission Planning Process

Speaker—Brad Nickell, Director of Transportation Expansion Planning Western Electricity Coordinating Council

Discussants: Scott Cauchois, Transmission Expansion Planning Policy committee Chair, Western Electricity Coordinating Counsil and Rebecca Wagner, Commissioner, Nevada Public Utilities Commission

 

Session 4: Paying for Transmission

Speaker—Douglas Kimmelman, Senior Partner, Energy Capital Partners and Perry Cole, Managing Director, Energy Captial Partners

Discussants: Michael Hindus, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP and Darrel Thorson, VP, Business Development North America, BP Wind Energy

 

Session 5: Environmental Impacts of Transmission Siting

Speaker—Sean Gallagher, Managing Director, Government and Regulatory Affairs, K Road Power

Discussants: Julia Souder, Project Development Manager, Clean Line Energy Partners and Carl Zichella, Director of Western Transmission, Natural Resources Defense Council

 

Session 6: Lessons for Transmission Planning and Pricing   
from Other Jurisdictions

Speaker—Benjamin Hobbs, Director, Environment, Energy, Sustainability,  
and Health Institute, Johns Hopkins University

Discussants: Cristian Munoz, Engineer, AES Gener, Santiago, Chile and  
Alex Papalexopoulos, President and CEO, ECCO International, Inc.

 

Koret-Taube Conference Center
366 Galvez Street
Stanford University

Conferences
Date Label
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

The Program on Energy and Sustainable Development in collaboration with Stanford co-hosts PIE, TomKat, and SIEPR, and external sponsors Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and the Kauffman Foundation hosted an all-day conference on "Transmission Policies to Unlock America's Renewable Energy Resources" on Thursday, September 15, 2011 at Stanford University.

Our distinguished speakers and discussants from the academic, industry, nonprofit, and government perspectives.  This event brought new insights into how to move forward on transmission in the West, and we thank everyone who participated.

 

For conference materials, click here

 

 

All News button
1
Authors
David Lobell
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Global warming is likely already taking a toll on world wheat and corn production, according to a new study led by Stanford University researchers. But the United States, Canada and northern Mexico have largely escaped the trend.

"It appears as if farmers in North America got a pass on the first round of global warming," said David Lobell, an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science and center fellow at the Program on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford University. "That was surprising, given how fast we see weather has been changing in agricultural areas around the world as a whole."

Lobell and his colleagues examined temperature and precipitation records since 1980 for major crop-growing countries in the places and times of year when crops are grown. They then used crop models to estimate what worldwide crop yields would have been had temperature and precipitation had typical fluctuations around 1980 levels.

The researchers found that global wheat production was 5.5 percent lower than it would have been had the climate remained stable, and global corn production was lower by almost 4 percent. Global rice and soybean production were not significantly affected.

The United States, which is the world's largest producer of soybeans and corn, accounting for roughly 40 percent of global production, experienced a very slight cooling trend and no significant production impacts.

Outside of North America, most major producing countries were found to have experienced some decline in wheat and corn (or maize) yields related to the rise in global temperature. "Yields in most countries are still going up, but not as fast as we estimate they would be without climate trends," Lobell said.

Lobell is the lead author of the paper, Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980, published May 5 online in Science Express.

Russia, India and France suffered the greatest drops in wheat production relative to what might have been with no global warming. The largest comparative losses in corn production were seen in China and Brazil.

Total worldwide relative losses of the two crops equal the annual production of corn in Mexico and wheat in France. Together, the four crops in the study constitute approximately 75 percent of the calories that humans worldwide consume, directly or indirectly through livestock, according to research cited in the study.

"Given the relatively small temperature trends in the U.S. Corn Belt, it shouldn't be surprising if complacency or even skepticism about global warming has set in, but this study suggests that would be misguided," Lobell said.

Since 1950, the average global temperature has increased at a rate of roughly 0.13 degrees Celsius per decade. But over the next two to three decades average global temperature is expected to rise approximately 50 percent faster than that, according to the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With that rate of temperature change, it is unlikely that the crop-growing regions of the United States will continue to escape the rising temperatures, Lobell said.

"The climate science is still unclear about why summers in the Corn Belt haven't been warming. But most explanations suggest that warming in the future is just as likely there as elsewhere in the world," Lobell said.

"In other words, farmers in the Corn Belt seem to have been lucky so far."

This is the first study to come up with a global estimate for the past 30 years of what has been happening, Lobell said.

To develop their estimates, the researchers used publicly available global data sets from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and from the University of Delaware, University of Wisconsin, and McGill University.

The researchers also estimated the economic effects of the changes in crop yield using models of commodity markets.

"We found that since 1980, the effects of climate change on crop yields have caused an increase of approximately 20 percent in global market prices," said Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University and a coauthor of the paper in Science.

He said if the beneficial effects of higher carbon dioxide levels on crop growth are factored into the calculation, the increase drops down to 5 percent.

"Five percent sounds small until you realize that at current prices world production of these four crops are together worth nearly $1 trillion per year," Schlenker said. "So a price increase of 5 percent implies roughly $50 billion per year more spent on food."

Rising commodity prices have so far benefited American farmers, Lobell and Schlenker said, because they haven't suffered the relative declines in crop yield that the rest of the world has been experiencing.

"It will be interesting to see what happens over the next decade in North America," Lobell said. "But to me the key message is not necessarily the specifics of each country. I think the real take-home message is that climate change is not just about the future, but that it is affecting agriculture now. Accordingly, efforts to adapt agriculture such as by developing more heat- and drought-tolerant crops will have big payoffs, even today. "

Justin Costa-Roberts, an undergraduate student at Stanford, is also a coauthor of the Science paper. David Lobell is a researcher in Stanford's Program on Food Security and the Environment, a joint program of Stanford's Woods Institute for the Environment and Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. Schlenker is an assistant professor at the School of International and Public Affairs and at the Department of Economics at Columbia.

The work was supported by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation.

 

All News button
1
-

Climate change policy is intended in part to prevent or reduce climate change-induced disasters, events that may occur far in the future. Evaluating the validity of climate change policy thus requires a process to discount the future benefits and costs into present value. Some argue that the capital rate of return observed in the market should be used, while others advocate the use of a much lower rate to maintain intergenerational neutrality. In his talk, Professor Seong Wook Heo will discuss this debate and several related issues.

Seong Wook Heo is an associate professor in the School of Law at Seoul National University (SNU), where he teaches administrative and environmental law, and courses on law and economics. He received a PhD in law from Seoul National University. Before joining the faculty of SNU, he served as a judge of the Seoul Central District Court.

Philippines Conference Room

Shorenstein APARC
Stanford University
Encina Hall, Room E335
Stanford, CA 94305-6055

(650) 725-0938
0
heo1.jpg PhD

Dr. Heo is a visiting scholar at the Korean Studies Program for 2010-2011. He is an associate professor at Seoul National University Law School in Korea. He holds a Ph. D. in law from Seoul National University. Before joining the faculty of SNU, he served as a judge of Seoul Central District Court in Korea.

2010-2011 Visiting Scholar
Seong Wook Heo 2010-2011 Visiting Scholar, Korean Studies Program Speaker APARC
Seminars
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

"Most of the people in the world are poor, so if we knew the economics of being poor, we would know much of the economics that really matters. Most of the world's poor people earn their living from agriculture, so if we knew the economics of agriculture, we would know much of the economics of being poor." - Theodore W. Schultz, accepting the Nobel Prize in Economics, December 8, 1979           

More than thirty years ago, Theodore W. Schultz won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on economic development and agriculture in developing countries. Last week, Cornell University Professor Christopher Barrett told Stanford students, faculty, and community members that Schultz's ideas suggest a powerful approach to breaking persistent cycles of poverty in modern rural Africa.

Barrett, a Professor of Applied Economics and Management and an expert in poverty and international development, visited the Stanford campus for a two-hour symposium entitled "Assisting the Escape from Persistent Ultra-Poverty in Rural Africa." He described the economics of poverty and agriculture in rural Africa as a series of downward spirals in environmental and human health.

The struggle to survive on insufficient resources, he explained, leads to disease and degradation that result in still deeper poverty. Escaping this cycle requires an influx of assets - a "lump of starting capital" in both private and public goods - that Barrett said the international community can provide.

"It takes money to make money," Barrett said. "Asset holdings, and their productivity through technology and markets, matter enormously."

When African farmers and pastoralists slip below a certain threshold of asset poverty, Barrett explained, they face negative feedbacks that set off a steep decline.

For example, a farmer who cultivates the same tiny plot of land year after year depletes soil nutrients to the point where even heavy fertilizer applications cannot revive the crop. Similarly, a pastoral family that begins with a small herd may become sedentary if they are unable to provide for the elderly and infirm while keeping their animals on the move. Stuck in one place, the herd exhausts local resources, and animals and humans alike suffer the health consequences of insufficient food and water.

A farmer who begins with plenty of land can sustain higher yields and invest surplus profits in education, health care, better equipment and still more land. But for the small farmer, incentives to invest in a better future are low, because the consequences of losing even a little income - an accelerated decline toward deeper poverty - are so severe.

Subsistence activity takes precedence, and when bad weather or disease strikes, the results are devastating. Limited access to credit, technology, and markets; weak government; and a harsh physical landscape make it still more difficult for rural Africans to invest in productive assets and recover from chance shocks.

These negative feedbacks and perverse incentives, Barrett said, make African poverty uniquely persistent.

While poor families in the developed world usually experience brief deprivation as a result of job loss or another isolated event, ultra-poor families in rural Africa have exhausted their land, livestock, and other productive assets. Without the means to restore natural and human capital, they may face a lifetime of poverty.

"In the US, poverty, while distressingly widespread, is a short-term phenomenon," Barrett noted. ""It is qualitatively and ethically different to talk about people who have very little hope of leaving poverty."

But Barrett said that the next generation of rural Africans has reason to be hopeful. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, targeted investment could improve the outlook for many poor African nations. Barrett cited a generation of successful poverty relief efforts in Asia, where ultra-poverty rates in some countries have fallen from the high teens to less than five percent.

"East and Southeast Asia were at least as grim a generation ago as Africa is today," Barrett emphasized. "We know from the historical record that the world can move a lot of people out of poverty very quickly."

Citing Schultz's Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Barrett suggested that the international community focus first on reversing the cycles of decline that have pushed so many African farmers into meager subsistence agriculture.

Farm output, he said, universally impacts the rural poor. When output increases, poor farmers gain directly by selling their surplus. The extra supply also keeps local food prices low, benefiting the vast majority of rural Africans who consume more food than they produce.

Barrett described several possible "entry points" to stimulate agricultural productivity, including direct land and livestock grants, organized provision of rural education and health care, and renewed commitment to African crop research.

Private entrepreneurs, he said, are particularly well situated to invest in the technology and infrastructure needed to open rural markets, support soil and water conservation, and improve communication between buyers and sellers.

Barrett said that relief efforts should ultimately turn their attention to moving rural Africans out of agriculture. High rural population densities have compressed average farm sizes to a fraction of a hectare, he explained, making farming an unsustainable enterprise. More and more rural Africans are suffering the consequences of trying to do too much with too little.

"They find farming hard work," Barrett said, "and they'd like their kids to be able to find something else to do."

Barrett already sees a brighter future for those farmers and their children. "With governments and private investors already increasing their commitments to agriculture and rural development in Africa," he said, "I firmly believe we are in the early stages of being on the way."

This talk was the third in FSE's Global Food Policy and Food Security Symposium Series.

 

Hero Image
Africa village1
All News button
1
Paragraphs

One way of understanding how climate change is likely to affect global food production and food security is to better understand the recent past. That is, how have changes al-ready influenced agricultural activities and production? For example, considerable debate has taken place on whether future impacts in agriculture will be driven mainly by rising temperatures, or if instead precipitation changes are the main concern. The answer to this would influence strategies to adapt, such as investing in heat tolerance versus waiting for better rainfall projections. To inform questions such as these, we analyzed historical weather and crop data throughout the world over the past 30 years. From this anal-ysis, we draw several conclusions that are relevant to policy makers.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date
Authors
David Lobell
Paragraphs

Efforts to anticipate how climate change will affect future food availability can benefit from understanding the impacts of changes to date. Here we show that in the cropping regions and growing seasons of most countries, with the important exception of the United States, temperature trends for 1980-2008 exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability. Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8% and 5.5%, respectively, compared to a counter-factual without climate trends. For soybeans and rice, winners and losers largely balanced out. Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields 16 that arose from technology, CO2 fertilization, and other factors.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Science
Authors
David Lobell
Wolfram Schlenker
Subscribe to Environment