Mapping the guilt of fruits and vegetables out of state

From DOE/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, probably the biggest load of crap I’ve seen in quite some time. I realize that’s harsh,  and I don’t think I’ve ever used that sentence to describe a scientific study, but there’s really no other way to say it when we have massive imports of fruits and vegetables from other countries, and they are worried about carbon in crops crossing state lines and regions in the USA. But the sad part is, this sort of “science” is so bloody obvious a fifth grader could tell you that “Their calculations showed that the most agriculturally active regions, shown in blue, are carbon sinks while the regions with larger populations, shown in red, are carbon sources.”

Carbon hitches a ride from field to market

Agriculture’s mobile nature makes predicting regional greenhouse gas impacts more complex

Based on US crop production, scientists determined which American regions are carbon sinks, or those that take in more carbon than release it, and carbon sources, or those that release more carbon than they take in. Their calculations showed that the most agriculturally active regions, shown in blue, are carbon sinks while the regions with larger populations, shown in red, are carbon sources. Credit: PNNL

 

RICHLAND, Wash. – Today, farming often involves transporting crops long distances so consumers from Maine to California can enjoy Midwest corn, Northwest cherries and other produce when they are out of season locally. But it isn’t just the fossil fuel needed to move food that contributes to agriculture’s carbon footprint.

New research published in the journal Biogeosciences provides a detailed account of how carbon naturally flows into and out of crops themselves as they grow, are harvested and are then eaten far from where they’re grown. The paper shows how regions that depend on others to grow their food end up releasing the carbon that comes with those crops into the atmosphere.

“Until recently, climate models have assumed that the carbon taken up by crops is put back into nature at the same place crops are grown,” said the paper’s lead author, environmental scientist Tristram West of the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. “Our research provides a more accurate account of carbon in crops by considering the mobile nature of today’s agriculture.”

West works out of the Joint Global Change Research Institute, a partnership between PNNL and the University of Maryland. His co-authors are researchers at PNNL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Colorado State University.

Carbon, carbon everywhere

Carbon is the basis of life on Earth, including plants. During photosynthesis, plants take in carbon dioxide and convert it into carbon-based sugars needed to grow and live. When a plant dies, it decomposes and releases carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. After eating plants, animals and humans release the plants’ carbon as either carbon dioxide while breathing or as methane during digestion.

But the geography of this natural carbon cycle has shifted with the rise of commercial agriculture. Crops are harvested and shipped far away from where they’re grown, instead of being consumed nearby. As a result, agriculturally active regions take in large amounts of carbon as crops grow. And regions with larger populations that consume those crops release the carbon.

The result is nearly net zero for carbon, with about the same amount of carbon being taken in as is released at the end. But the difference is where the carbon ends up. That geography matters for those who track every bit of carbon on Earth in an effort to estimate the potential impacts of greenhouse gases.

Digging into data

Agricultural carbon is currently tracked through two means: Towers placed in farm fields that are equipped with carbon dioxide sensors, and computer models that crunch data to generate estimates of carbon movement between land and the atmosphere. But neither method accounts for crops releasing carbon in areas other than where they were grown.

To more accurately reflect the carbon reality of today’s agricultural crops, West and his co-authors combed through extensive data collected by various government agencies such as the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Census Bureau and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Looking at 17 crops – including corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton – that make up 99 percent of total U.S. crop production, the researchers calculated the carbon content of harvested crops by county for each year from 2000 to 2008.

Next they used population numbers and data on human food intake to estimate, by age and gender, how much carbon from crops humans consume. On the flip side, the co-authors also calculated how much carbon humans release when they exhale, excrete and release flatulence. They did the same analysis on livestock and pets.

But not all food makes it to the dinner table. The researchers accounted for the crops that are lost due to spoilage or during processing, which ranges from 29 percent of collected dairy to as much as 57 percent of harvested vegetables. Beyond food, they determined the amount of carbon that goes into plant-based products such as fabric, cigarettes and biofuels. And they noted how much grain is stored for future use and the crops that are exported overseas.

National crop carbon budget

Combining all these calculations, the researchers developed a national crop carbon budget. Theoretically, all the carbon inputs should equal the carbon outputs from year to year. The researchers came very close, with no more than 6.1 percent of the initial carbon missing from their end calculations. This indicated that the team had accounted for the vast majority of the carbon from America’s harvested crops.

The team found overall that the crops take in – and later return – about 37 percent of the U.S.’s total annual carbon dioxide emissions, but that amount varies by region. Carbon sinks, or areas that take in more carbon than release it, were found in the agriculturally active regions of the Midwest, Great Plains and lands along the southern half of the Mississippi River. Regions with larger populations and less agriculture were found to be carbon sources, or areas that release more carbon than they take in. The calculations indicated the Northeast, Southeast and much of the Western U.S. and Gulf Coast were carbon sources. The remaining regions – the western interior and south-central U.S. – flip-flopped between being minor carbon sinks or sources, depending on the year.

Informing policy decisions

Next, West would like his team’s methods applied to forestry, which also involves the movement of carbon-containing products from one locale to another. Comprehensive carbon calculations for agriculture and forestry could be used in connection with previous carbon estimates that were based on carbon dioxide sensor towers or carbon computer models.

“These calculations substantially improve what we know about the movement of carbon in agriculture,” West said. “Reliable, comprehensive data like this can better inform policies aimed at managing carbon dioxide emissions.” This research was funded by NASA through the North American Carbon Program.

###

REFERENCE: West, T. O., Bandaru, V., Brandt, C. C., Schuh, A. E., and Ogle, S. M.: Regional uptake and release of crop carbon in the United States, Biogeosciences, 8, 2037-2046, doi: 10.5194/bg-8-2037-2011, 2011. Published online Aug. 3, 2011. http://www.biogeosciences.net/8/2037/2011/

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is a Department of Energy Office of Science national laboratory where interdisciplinary teams advance science and technology and deliver solutions to America’s most intractable problems in energy, the environment and national security. PNNL employs 4,900 staff, has an annual budget of nearly $1.1 billion, and has been managed by Ohio-based Battelle since the lab’s inception in 1965. Follow PNNL on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

The Joint Global Change Research Institute is a unique partnership formed in 2001 between the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the University of Maryland. The PNNL staff associated with the center are world renowned for expertise in energy conservation and understanding of the interactions between climate, energy production and use, economic activity and the environment.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
94 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave Springer
August 4, 2011 9:43 am

The blue and red coloration on the map doesn’t correlate well either agricultural use or population density. The first turd in this pile of crap is in the caption on the map which says agricultural regions are CO2 sinks.
I mean c’mon. Those areas with the shortest growing seasons (northern continental interior) are largely blue (carbon sinks) while longer growing season areas to the south and along the coasts are mostly red. Population has nothing to do with it. The Sonoran and Mojave deserts in California are carbon sources while Miami is a carbon sink? Really?

Mike M
August 4, 2011 9:47 am

Jeff Alberts says: For me it’s onion rings, beer batter for optimum results.

Let’s not get carried away here or Michelle might show up and spoil the party.

dp
August 4, 2011 9:50 am

If you think the fruits and nuts (not to mention our climate hostages wheat, barley, and hops) in Washington are bad, you should see what those sneaky Canadians are pumping into the lower 48 in those big pipes – yes! Natural Gas! And based on the yellow mess on my cook stove, they’re dumping their excess sulfur, too. Instant carbon credit on one side, carbon debt on the other.
/sarc

Mike M
August 4, 2011 9:56 am

Chris Riley says:… We simply can no longer afford this nonsense.

Though I don’t believe there was ever a time when we could truly afford such nonsense, the days of easily hiding it from public view appear to waning.

August 4, 2011 10:57 am

I hope the study was not found with public money! Also how much CO2 did they have to release in the environment in order to compress and transport the CO2 in the tank? Bottom line is let Mother Nature do its job. It has worked wonderfully for millions of years so chances are that is still able to do a better job than we do.

SionedL
August 4, 2011 12:09 pm

How about a requirement that every publicly funded project/study/report includes the amount of funding that was received.

Doug Jones
August 4, 2011 12:20 pm

I find it amusing that the carbon map is almost an inverse of the red state/blue state political map.
…which is, of course, an inversion given to us by the major media that *really* didn’t want to associate the leftists with their true political color, red. Ah, the tangled webs [they] weave, when [they] practice to deceive…

Dave Wendt
August 4, 2011 12:34 pm

On an OT, but thematically related point, Lisa Jackson and her industriously anti-industry green trolls at the EPA, continue with their headlong effort to turn the American economy into a suicide pact.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=580419&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+EditorialRss+%28Editorial+RSS%29
Rogue EPA Targets Ozone — And Jobs
Posted 08/03/2011 06:37 PM ET
Regulation: Unsupported by science, a beleaguered American economy may soon be subject to ozone standards so stringent that Yellowstone National Park could not meet them. Look forward to double-digit unemployment.
Read it all and be afraid, be very afraid.

August 4, 2011 1:13 pm

Food mile myths: Buy global
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/11/06/food-mile-myths-buy-global.aspx
Yes We Have No Bananas: A Critique of the ‘Food Miles’ Perspective (Links to the PDF article.)
http://www.mercatus.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?id=24612

Gary Hladik
August 4, 2011 1:20 pm

OK, OK, enough with the guilt already! I give up. From now on, whenever I get hungry, I’ll hop in my private jet, fly from California to Iowa, and eat the local food there. And yes, I’ll also do as much of my “sanitary business” there as I can, to export as little carbon as possible back to California.
HAPPY????

August 4, 2011 1:50 pm

AND – O/T and from Texas have:
Aug 04 2011 15:43:32 CST
At 15:42, ERCOT AT EEA 2B – HIGH PROBABILITY OF ROTATING OUTAGES AT THIS TIME. ERCOT IS ASKING CONSUMERS AND BUSINESSES TO REDUCE ELECTRICITY USAGE. Emergency Notice Active
.

tty
August 4, 2011 2:38 pm

There is some fairly weird results here. Does Tulare County really have the biggest concentration of population in the US? If so it must have grown quite a bit since the last time I was there.
And while I would tend to agree that Inyo county (largely Death Valley) isn’t much of an agricultural area, I would have expected Clark County (=Las Vegas) to emit rather more carbon dioxide, but apparently not.

August 4, 2011 4:07 pm

And, just to close the loop on this, an update:
Aug 04 2011 17:51:26 CST ERCOT has cancelled the following notice: At 15:42, ERCOT AT EEA 2B – HIGH PROBABILITY OF ROTATING OUTAGES AT THIS TIME. ERCOT IS ASKING CONSUMERS AND BUSINESSES TO REDUCE ELECTRICITY USAGE.
Emergency Notice -Cancelled
Aug 04 2011 17:35:52 CST At 17:30, ERCOT MOVING FROM EEA 2B TO EEA 2A. SYSTEM RECOVERING.
Emergency Notice – Active
.

August 4, 2011 10:52 pm

Blue – carbon sinks, Democrats, good
Red – carbon sources, Republicans, bad
C’mon everyone, you’ve got to maintain the PC of color coding.

tango
August 5, 2011 1:20 am

in australia it is worse if we sell apples over seas the farmers will have to pay a carbon tax and when the importers import apples no carbon tax so thay are sold cheaper work that out

August 5, 2011 2:42 am

? If the atmospheric carbon level net gains and losses are virtually zero, when it comes to plant and animal activity on the land… and the oceans are huge, dynamic carbon sinks… and volcanic activity releases huge, uncontrollable volumes of carbon… and the carbon content of all petroleum/coal we consume, is known… Why is DOE spending time studying land-based carbon flow, instead of presenting viable energy generation (conversion) systems. They’ve had since 1965 and we still convert coal into about half of our electrical energy and run most of our vehicles on petroleum… when Obama promises he will pull all the “clean energy” we need, right out of his back pocket?
Just seems like there is no solution to their imagined/fabricated problems, except to spend $bazillions spinning their wheels, because there is no solution and no problem, only a need to show us how impossible it would be for we peons to step in and solve the faux-problems. Or is it just the late hour that is making go in circles?

August 5, 2011 2:59 am

Dave Wendt, Maybe we should prepare for triple-digit unemployment.

August 5, 2011 9:41 am

This is an example of what the warmists refuse to admit: once you start down the CO2-as-villain path, there is little to no place you don’t end up regulating and, finally, outlawing. Social restructuring would come down to the 100-mile diet: no inter-state transport of food allowed due to carbon emissions.
Warmists say that global governance and personal freedoms are not where they are going. They don’t think things through. A crisis of war causes us to curb our freedoms and allow the government to dictate what we shall do, but we understand that this is all temporary. The CAGW is not temporary. It is permanent, a forever-crisis that demands we stop doing what it is we do to enrich our lives and those of others. The energy it takes is too much for “renewables” to supply now and in the forseeable future.
Regulate and tax, regulate a bit more and tax: we’ll be like the frog in the pot of water that is slowly heating. We wouldn’t even know when we were cooked.

August 5, 2011 2:18 pm

tallbloke says on August 4, 2011 at 1:45 am
Sorry it’s O/T, but more relevant right now:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/incoming-three-cme-coronal-mass-ejections-on-their-way-solar-magnetic-storm-imminent/

Just over the transom from ERCOT (Texas Power Grid Operator/coordinator):
Aug 05 2011 15:58:07 CST There has been a Geomagnetic Disturbance of K-7 magnitude alert issued until 08:30 on 8-6-11
Operational Information/Active
.