Tag Archives: years

No-dig farming to sustain nutrition in soils, crops, and us Updated for 2026





Ever heard of the Good Gardeners’ Association? It’s a small charity formed in 1966 to promote no-dig, plenty of compost method of growing food – and for over 10 years (2000 – 2011) I used to run it.

Instead of practising conventional ploughing or digging, turning soil upside down on its head each year, it’s all about leaving the soil well alone.

Yes – it’s possible to grow the same things you already do, by leaving the soil undisturbed. Amazing!

One of the perceived benefits of growing food using the no-dig method is that it will be more nutritious. In 2003 I began to investigate how different methods of soil cultivation affect the transfer of essential nutrients, known to effect human health, from soil to crop.

I found partners who shared a similar interest to help. Together we set up GREEN (Gardens for Research Education and Nutrition) as a collaboration between three national charities based in Stroud, Gloucestershire.

Eight years of soil and nutrition data on 23 nutrients

At the heart of this project is a theory that we should respect the integrity of the soil and the complex microbial communities they embody: soil is ‘alive’ and has evolved over billions of years of our planet’s existence to maintain and enrich the nutrient cycles of the ecosystems it supports.

As such, the theory goes, minimal soil disturbance is key to the increase and balance of essential nutrients from soil to crop. To investigate this idea we grew the same food in an organically certified garden, but under three different methods of cultivation.

Each method represents different levels of soil disturbance: no-dig, single-dig and the most extreme ‘double-dig’. To understand the effect of soil disturbance we measured the microbial life in the soil each year and tracked 23 naturally occurring minerals known to effect health, in the soil and in the crop. Samples were sent to professional laboratories and Universities for testing.

We went on to gather eight years of soil and crop data. And the tragedy is, that data is about all that’s left. I no longer work for the charity; the garden project came to an end in 2014; and the charity itself is in the process of closing itself down due to a lack of resources to pursue its work.

But that data – which I still have today – could just be incredibly valuable at this time when the food we eat is increasingly sparse in mineral and other nutrients essential for our health.

So I decided that instead of letting this work die in a filing cabinet I will use crowdfunding to raise money. I can then afford to pay myself to: analyse and write up what was found; get it out into the public domain for feedback comments; talk about the wider context of what this work could mean; and – depending on the findings – go on to promote the nutritional benefits of ‘no dig’ cultivation!

Soil – a rich and complex symbiosis that nourishes us

Life in the soil is a story of symbiosis – a brilliant example of cooperation in nature. Microbes such as bacteria and fungi are the experts at sourcing nutrients from the soil, rocks air and water – for example, nitrogen, copper, zinc, magnesium, calcium and selenium – and passing these on to plants in a form they can use. In return plants produce and supply food for the microbes (carbohydrate). Everything involved benefits.

“A loss of trace elements have been linked to obesity, insulin resistance, heart disease and mental illness” according to nutritionist David Thomas. In 2003 he wrote a report, using government data from 1940 to 1991, which suggests we have lost over 40% of key minerals from the food we eat.

More reports along this line are beginning to gather. Dr Julia Wright recently wrote an article for The Ecologist suggesting it could be as much as an 80% loss of vitamin and mineral content.

Ironically, she goes on to say, we can now produce enough protein and carbohydrate to feed 14 billion people but despite this global malnutrition continues to increase. In other words the foods we eat are no longer providing proper nourishment.

I am delighted that this year 2015 has been designated by the UN as the International Year of Soils. Twelve years ago, when I started the project, I had no idea this would happen. It seems an opportunity to good to miss that I am now at a point where I could contribute with this work.

How I got here

I came to run the Good Gardeners’ Association after completing a degree in ‘Environmental Quality and Resource Management’ at the University of the West of England. I was asked to take on this charity and decided to accept as my way of engaging with the world as an Environmental Manager. Parts of my degree included a module on ecology and another on environmental politics and philosophy – both of which I loved.

I’m intrigued by a fundamental question that environmental philosophers talk about. The way we think / understand how the world works, which deeply influences what we do and how we live, can be classed in two ways: either we believe we are a part of nature; or we believe we stand outside of nature.

The practical outcome of these two philosophies is as follows. If we believe we are a part of nature, then we must logically believe that to harm nature is to harm ourselves. On the other hand if we stand outside of nature, then it’s okay to control it, dominate it, destroy it, and subdue it to our will.

In the short term controlling nature has given us the ‘green revolution’, increased security by having more food, extended life and a whole host of other great things that are frankly pretty damn good. But we are beginning to pay dearly.

Climate change, degradation of soils, pollution of rivers and sea, the loss of wildlife habitats can be seen as the consequence of our collective actions. Related to this there appears to be a rise in chronic degenerative disease. Physical and mental health is deteriorating which is reducing the quality of our newly extended life span.

The majority view at present – at least in the powerful industrialised countries – is that we stand outside of nature. But my belief is that we need radically shift our consciousness and  recognise our own symbiosis with the wider natural world. As the leading organic farmer John Seymour once said:

“For all our technology, we humans are as much creatures of the soil as earthworms – and we can no more live without it than they can. Our survival depends entirely on the top few inches of the earth we walk on – and we forget that at the peril of our own extinction!”

My hope is that by pursuing my analysis into the eight years of data from the GREEN experiment, I may be able to bring that understanding to more people, and show how we can build a richer and healthier relationship with the earth that feeds and sustains us all.

 


 

Support: If you would like to support and learn with me please visit my crowdfunding page where you can make a donation! Thank you.

Closing date: tomorrow Wednesday 4th March, 11.00am.

Matt Adams is developing a small craft cider making business. A former Chief Executive of the Good Gardeners’ Association, he has a B.Sc. in Environmental Quality and Resource Management as well as practical skills and a background in mechanical engineering, and a long held interest in Deep Ecology.

Editor’s note: The trustees of the GGA, in support of Matt’s efforts, have voted to grant him any residual sum that remains in the charity’s account following the charity’s winding up.

 

 




390875

Join Global Divestment Day and make fossil fuels history! Updated for 2026





Today marks the beginning of Global Divestment Day – a worldwide event marking the growing demands for individuals and institutions – churches, foundations, pension funds and others – to take their investments out of dirty energy.

The campaign has gained astonishing momentum and is seriously rattling the fossil fuel industry, and those invested in it. How do I know that? Because the industry is fighting back – however ineptly.

This week the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) published a new report in which they claimed that over the past 50 years, portfolios that included fossil fuels investments would have yielded more than those which would have removed fossil fuels from their investments.

After seeing fossil fuel share prices battered by the combination of low oil and gas prices, and the increasingly successful divestment campaign, it’s a desperate attempt to restore investor confidence – and one that’s doomed to failure.

Authored by Daniel R Fischel, a retired Chicago Law School professor, the report compares the 50-year performance of investment portfolios with and without fossil energy stocks. He concludes that the costs of divestment are “clearly substantial” and threaten to have “real financial impacts on the returns generated by endowment funds.” In the case of US universities alone, he writes, it could cost them $3.2 billion a year.

In fact, Professor Fischel was clearly cherry-picking information to reach a predetermined conclusion – as dictated by his fossil fuel industry funders.

As history tells us, the future is unlike the past

Moreover smart investors are not basing their investment decisions on performance over the last half century – any more than 1950s investors in railway locomotion were betting on the steam engine, just because it had made handsome profits for the last 200 years.

They are interested in what will happen in the future, because that’s what will determine their gains or losses. And right now they are taking increasing note, and acting upon, the innumerable indications that we are approaching the end of the fossil fuel era.

I must also emphasize our main message since the very start of the divestment campaign (it looks like the fossil fuel industry missed it): it’s not just about profits! It’s about climate change and making investment choices that will not destroy our planet for generations present and future.

Regardless of the so-called ‘facts’, this report exposes the fossil fuel industry’s colors. Its underlying message is that the industry does not want to change, despite the ever increasing weight of solid scientific evidence telling us that we must change. For them it’s about continuing with business as usual.

They want to continue to extract ever increasing volumes of fossil fuels, as they have over the last 50 years, no matter how it is going to affect humanity. And so they continue to block every attempt to introduce policies and regulations that will force them to alter the course of the next 50 years.

Their desire is simple: to continue amass profits and wealth, even as the fundamental processes that run our planet are disrupted by rising temperatures, and the poorest and most vulnerable people are hit by climate chaos.

So the IPAA report – and the recently released fossil fuel promo below – are a wake-up call for those who choose engagement with the fossil fuel industry. It is fighting change as hard as it can, making divestment the only viable option to bring about the urgent changes we need to avert climate chaos.

Divestment is ‘in’

Over the last few months, hardly a week could go by without new announcements of divestment commitments. Most recently, the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth, the largest single fund in the world, announced it was divesting from a total of 22 companies, potentially totaling billions of dollars in assets.

Similar announcements came from Bristol council in the United Kingdom and the city of Christchurch in New Zealand. All these announcements came in less than two weeks, testimony to the exponential growth of the divestment movement, and another blow to the reputation of the fossil fuel industry.

This is why communities across the globe are coming together this weekend for Global Divestment Day – a global party with 380 events taking place in 58 countries across 6 continents. From South Africa to USA, Bangladesh to Berlin, people are showing their commitment to taking on the fossil fuel industry.

This day marks an escalation and an expansion for the divestment movement, thousands of people from all over the world joining a growing movement.

The notion that we are approaching the end of the fossil fuel era is becoming more and more mainstream. Even banks are acknowledging the fact that if the world takes its climate change commitments seriously, then the dynamics of oil will be altered beyond recognition.

Coal, oil and gas will become constrained by the level of demand allowed under CO2 emission limits and this will have implications for the behavior of countries, companies and consumers alike. Perhaps last year’s falling prices were the first rumblings of this profound change.

Meanwhile renewable energy sources, solar in particular, are becoming ever cheaper, and have even reached the long sought-after ‘grid parity’ in sunny parts of the world. Even The Economist, which no one suspects of being left leaning, is telling us that the “fall in oil prices provides a once in a generation opportunity to fix bad energy policies.”

But the fossil fuel industry isn’t giving up. This very morning the World Coal Association has chosen to launch its call for more investment in so-called ‘clean coal’, insisting: “Greater investment is needed in cleaner coal technologies to meet global energy demand, alleviate energy poverty and minimise CO2 emissions.” Which sounds like putting a fire out by adding more fuel.

A call to action!

In the Pope’s recent visit to the Philippines, local Catholic institutions provided His Holiness with a letter that said:

“Investing in fossil fuel companies and in eco-destructive projects is synonymous in supporting the destruction of our future. Divestment provides the means to change this status quo – to shift towards a system that will prioritize the welfare of the people and of nature over the relentless pursuit of profit.”

For those who live in the Philippines and feel the horrendous impact of climate change, divestment is not about profits and losses from investments – its about their ability to survive.

Divestment and action on climate change is our era’s moral call. It’s about our existence on the face of this planet and therefore we invite everyone to join this growing movement during Global Divestment Day to defend our future.

Join thousands of people across the planet for Global Divestment Day. Together, lets tell our institutions to dump their investments in dirty energies!

 


 

More information on Global Divertment Day and events near you.

Yossi Cadan is Global Divestment Senior Campaigner with 350.org in Toronto, Canada.

 

 




390241

US-China climate deal: at last the big players are talking the right language Updated for 2026





Some great news at last, as China and the US announce a secretly negotiated deal to reduce their carbon emissions.

After years of seeming to get nowhere at all it looks like we have the beginnings of meaningful commitments.

If the rest of the world can fall in line with the combined targets of China, the US and EU, and if between us all we can enforce them, we would actually have progress. Not success, but for the first time we would have better-than-nothing global progress on climate change.

But just before we all relax, lets get things into perspective. Global emissions have been on a mathematically predictable exponential trajectory for at least 160 years.

The CO2 power law – doubling time 39 years

Cumulative CO2 emissions (broadly speaking that’s what determines the temperature change) continue to double every 39 years (see graph, right). Nothing that anyone has done to date has succeeded in making even the faintest detectable change in that.

To be blunt, our species has so far not demonstrated any ability whatsoever to influence global emissions growth through deliberate action on climate change. Savings in one place have simply popped up elsewhere.

And if we stay on our age-old trajectory we will shoot through the likely threshold of two degrees in the mid-2040s.

By that I mean that by about 2045 we will pass the point at which we will probably experience more than a 2°C rise even if no-one anywhere in the world ever again set fire to any coal, oil or gas.

And, roughly speaking, 39 years after that we will crash through the 4°C threshold which humans would be very likely to find extremely unpleasant.

Of course we don’t really know all that much about what level of temperature change will cause us what level of suffering and death. We don’t understand the climate discontinuities that we might trigger, and we don’t know how good we will be at adapting to change and we don’t know how good we will be at preserving world order if things get tough.

The mainstream consensus is that 2°C entails significant risk of something nasty happening while 4°C is probably very nasty indeed. No one knows for sure.

Coming off the curve

What we need is a global constraint on greenhouse gases. And it needs to be rapid enough to keep temperatures as close to 2°C rise as possible. This much, thankfully, seems to be uncontested these days among people who talk any sense on climate change.

So how far do the latest US and China pledges take us? If (and it’s still a big ‘if’) the world falls quickly in line with the US (27% cuts by 2025), China (peak by 2030 – by which time their emissions could be enormous) and EU (40% cut by 2030) announcements we will come off the exponential curve but still fly through the 2℃ threshold and well beyond.

Coming off the curve would be a huge achievement but not nearly enough.

So when I say we might actually stand a chance of getting somewhere, I don’t mean that things are looking rosy. But I do mean this gives me real hope, as big players are talking the right language at last.

All we need now is more of the same – and to make sure the words turn into enforced action. That will be enormously challenging but it is radically more hopeful position than the situation we have been in in which sticky plasters have been proposed, no amount of which could help.

What we need from here

  1. We need the rest of the world to come into the fold with similar commitments, so we get a leak-proof deal on leaving fuel in the ground. Any countries that don’t participate will probably end up growing their emissions to undo efforts made elsewhere, because that is how the system dynamics work to negate piecemeal actions.
  2. Binding targets need tightening up for everyone, beyond what is currently on the table, to take us a lot closer to topping out at 2°C.
  3. The deal needs enforcing. This is going to be tough, remember that the exponential global emissions curve has proved incredibly resilient to date.
  4. All the greenhouse gases need to be properly included in the plan.
  5. We need to head off a global dash for biofuels which will undoubtedly be at the expense of feeding the world’s poorest if left to market forces. Some smart and robust agreements are going to be needed on land use for biofuels.

While all this is being put in place we can start investing in the technologies we will urgently need – redirecting the money we have been channelling into fossil fuel research and development.

To sum up, the announcement is very encouraging. There may still be a long way to go yet and we all need to push hard for next year’s Paris talks to put it all in place – but it is starting to look as if it might actually be worth the effort.

 


 

Mike Berners-Lee is a Visiting Researcher at Lancaster University, and the founding director of Small World Consulting which helps organisations understand and respond to the climate change agenda.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




386811

The nuclear industry today: declining, but not (yet) dying Updated for 2026





Every year, the World Nuclear Industry Status Report reminds me why those in the Green movement who think nuclear has a major role to play in securing a low-carbon world are completely, dangerously off their collective trollies.

The Status Report is not an anti-nuclear polemic. Over the years, its authors (Mycle Schneider and Antony Froggatt) have assiduously built its reputation for dispassionate reporting on the state of the industry, presented as objectively and non-judgmentally as possible.

It uses a wide range of sources (academic, industry, avowedly pro-nuclear and avowedly anti-nuclear) to maintain longitudinal datasets going back over decades to tell it as it is – in contrast to all the froth of partisan propaganda. On both sides.

Let me just give you a taste from the newly-published 2014 Report:

Overview

“The nuclear share of the world’s power generation declined steadily from an historic peak of 17.6% in 1996 to 10.8% in 2013. Nuclear power’s share of global commercial primary energy production declined from the 2012 low of 4.5%, a level last seen in 1984, to a new low of 4.4%.”

“Twenty-eight years after the Chernobyl disaster, none of the next generation reactors (or so-called Generation III or III+) has entered service, with construction projects in Finland and France many years behind schedule.”

Construction

“As of July 2014, 67 reactors were under construction (one more than in July 2013), with a total capacity of 64GW. The average building time of the units under construction stands at seven years. However:

  • At least 49 of the 67 reactors have encountered construction delays, most of them significant (several months to several years). For the first time, major delays – several months to over two years – have been admitted on three-quarters (21 out of 28) of the projects in China.
  • Eight reactors have been listed as ‘under construction’ for more than 20 years, another for 12 years.
  • Two-thirds (43) of the units under construction are located in three countries: China, India and Russia.”


Certification delays

“The certification of new reactor designs encounters continuous obstacles. In the US, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) first delayed to 2015 the certification of the Franco-German-designed EP, and no longer projects any completion date for the review.

“The NRC rejected the licence application for the South Korean APR 1400 due to lack of information in key areas. Only the Westinghouse AP 1000 has received full generic design approval in the US.

“There is no projected completion date for the renewal of certification for the two versions of the ABWR (GE-Hitachi and Toshiba).”

Operating cost increases

“In some countries (including France, Germany, the US and Sweden), historically low inflation-adjusted operating costs – especially for major repairs – have escalated so rapidly that the average reactor’s operating cost is barely below, or even exceeds, the normal band of wholesale power prices.”

The Report is particularly strong on comparing the differences between nuclear power and renewable energy deployment.

“Compared to 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change was signed, there has been an additional 616 TWh per year of windpower produced, and 124 TWh of solar photovoltaics, outpacing nuclear with just 114 TWh.

In 2013, growth rates for generation from wind power above 20% were seen in North America, Europe and Eurasia, and Asia Pacific, with the two largest markets in the US (19%) and China (38%).

In the world of photovoltaics, North America saw a more than doubling of power generation, Asia Pacific a 75% increase.”

Installed capacity

“Globally, since 2000, the annual growth rates for wind power have averaged 25%, and for solar voltaics 43%. This has resulted, in 2013 alone, in 32 GW of wind and 37 GW of solar being added. Nuclear generating capacity declined by 19 GW compared to the 2000 level.”

China

“By the end of 2013, China had a total of 91 GW of operating windpower capacity. China’s 18 GW of installed solar capacity for the first time exceeded operating nuclear capacity.

China added a new world record of at least 12 GW of solar in just one year (versus 3 GW of nuclear), overtaking Germany’s previous 7.6 GW record and exceeding cumulative US additions since it invented photovoltaics in the 1950s.

“China now aims at 40 GW of solar, and will probably exceed the 100 GW wind power target for 2015.”

Nuclear’s installed capacity at the level of decades ago

Not surprisingly, this is the Report’s principal conclusion:

“The nuclear industry is in decline: the 388 operating reactors are 50 fewer than the peak in 2002, while the total installed capacity peaked in 2010 at 367 GW before declining to the current level, which is comparable to levels last seen two decades ago. Annual nuclear electricity generation reached a maximum of 2,660 TW hours in 2006, and dropped to 2,359 TW hours in 2013.”

This is all just the top line. The Report digs down deep into the situation in Japan (as troubling as ever, whatever the self-justifying protestations of George Monbiot – the man who, mystifyingly, ‘fell in love’ with nuclear power because of Fukushima – and others), in China, at Hinkley Point, and in the context of a whole range of “potential newcomer countries”.

As I worked my way through all this, page by page, it’s all but impossible for me to understand how any thoughtful, intelligent environmentalist could possibly suppose either that

  • a so-called nuclear renaissance is ever going to happen; or
  • even in the improbable circumstances that it did, how it could possibly deliver the kind of safe, secure, low-carbon energy the world needs so desperately.

And the longer they hang on to these fantasies, the more damage they do, sowing confusion and doubt, distracting attention from the business of driving forward with the renewables-efficiency-storage alternative.

All I can think is that these people never actually read up on the state of play in the nuclear industry. They should try it: it’s illuminating.

 


 

Jonathon Porritt has been an environmental campaigner since 1974, and is still hard at it nearly 40 years on. His latest book is The World we Made. He blogs at jonathonporritt.com/blog

Read the World Nuclear Report.

 

 




383087