California Loses Up To $1 Billion In Crops Each Year Because of Air Pollution, Study Finds (theverge.com) 50
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Table grapes -- the kind for snacking -- were the most vulnerable among seven crops badly affected by smog, including: wine grapes, strawberries, walnuts, peaches, nectarines, and hay. The crops lost between 2 to 22 percent of their yields as a result of smog. The results show that dirty air comes at a significant economic cost to California, which raked in $50 billion for its agriculture in 2018. Grapes, the hardest hit by pollution, bring in the most money for the state after dairy. Every American's diet could be affected since California produces the most agriculture in the U.S. and supplies two-thirds of the country's fruit and nuts. Some are still losing up to 15 percent of their yields today, the researchers from the University of California at Irvine found in their paper published today in Nature Food.
There is some good news -- the state's efforts to limit pollution over the years did seem to boost the perennial crops -- indicating that future efforts to limit pollution can make a difference. Smog, or ground-level ozone pollution, creeps into the pores of the plants and essentially burns the cells that are trying to photosynthesize, Davis explained to The Verge. This type of pollution wreaks more havoc on plants than all other types of air pollutants combined, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It's created when emissions from tailpipes and factories go through a chemical reaction under sunlight. California has some of the worst smog in the nation and is home to 10 of the 25 most polluted cities in the U.S., according to the American Lung Association's annual report. The scientists predict, however, that taking action on climate change will benefit crops -- since curbing pollution from tailpipes cuts down both greenhouse gases and air pollution. Plus, higher temperatures speed up the chemical reactions that create smog.
There is some good news -- the state's efforts to limit pollution over the years did seem to boost the perennial crops -- indicating that future efforts to limit pollution can make a difference. Smog, or ground-level ozone pollution, creeps into the pores of the plants and essentially burns the cells that are trying to photosynthesize, Davis explained to The Verge. This type of pollution wreaks more havoc on plants than all other types of air pollutants combined, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It's created when emissions from tailpipes and factories go through a chemical reaction under sunlight. California has some of the worst smog in the nation and is home to 10 of the 25 most polluted cities in the U.S., according to the American Lung Association's annual report. The scientists predict, however, that taking action on climate change will benefit crops -- since curbing pollution from tailpipes cuts down both greenhouse gases and air pollution. Plus, higher temperatures speed up the chemical reactions that create smog.
Stick head in the sand time! (Score:1)
I don't want to hear anything that would potentially cause me to change my behavior, so FAKE NEWS!!!!!!!!eleventy
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't listen to scientists, then you can't complain about being schooled by children.
Smog + Coronavirus = DEATH (Score:1)
Economic shutdown offers data on intervention (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully we will be over the worst of it before it can affect the climate much. We will likely see a temporary drop like we did with the 2009 financial crisis and then a slow recovery on the otherwise downward trending emissions curve.
If it does go on long enough to affect the climate positively it will likely have some pretty serious economic consequences. Of course the big environmental groups like Greenpeace put forward plans that manage the transition over a number of years and which involve things lik
Re: (Score:1)
greenpeace is a hippy activist org
who the hell in their right mind would listen to anything they say?
Good advice, anonymous coward! You've persuaded me (Score:2)
who the hell in their right mind would listen to anything they say?
You've persuaded me. Global warming is a sham. Your advice is so genius you can't even bother to attribute it to a username.
Thanks to your brilliant and well-crafted statement, I am going to give up all of my views on controlling emissions. In fact, I am going to buy the biggest truck they sell, drive on suburban roads only, and when I get home, I am going to fellate the running tailpipe.
Also, I am giving up my previous voting habits and going to donate anything that is left from my life savings to
Re: (Score:2)
There will be no change in smog. As we read in the gospel of St. Reagan, trees create smog. Tree-huggers think they're saving us, when in reality they are poisoning our food supply.
Re: (Score:1)
Green New Deal that more than make up for the lost economic activity in other areas. Since those are not being enacted it will be pretty bad for us.
I am unfamiliar with any "make up" plans. My understanding that impact of Green New Deal on the economy is comparable to what is going on right now. I have not seen any credible plans to mitigate this.
To summarize, Green New Deal can be understand as a) "shut everything down" (currently complete) b) print money (work in progress) c) distribute printed money (pending) d) ??? e) Profit!.
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't read any of the Green New Deal plans, have you?
The idea is to do a massive investment in infrastructure and public projects, creating jobs and economic activity. A stimulus package, in other words. Taking advantage of the opportunity presented by climate change and the new technologies needed to fight it.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is to do a massive investment in infrastructure and public projects, creating jobs and economic activity. A stimulus package, in other words.
I covered this in "b) print money" point. Stimulus does not explain how loss of economical activity will be mitigated. You can't offset permanent economic losses by deficit spending.
A simple example - factory shuts down, government no longer collects taxes from it, people no longer collect salaries. Government no longer has money to spend on infrastructure projects - any stimulus money have to come from elsewhere. If factories shutting down everywhere, there is no elsewhere to get money from.
Re: (Score:2)
Most businesses borrow money to invest in expanding and creating new business. The government can do the same, except that the government gets an even lower interest rate.
For some reason people seem to be under the mistaken belief that the government borrowing money means printing more of it, but that's not how it works.
Re: (Score:1)
Most businesses borrow money to invest in expanding and creating new business. The government can do the same.
No, government cannot do the same, unless you are talking about Government-owned enterprises or nationalization. The key difference is that government does not generate revenue. So government "investment" is taking our tax money and giving it to someone.
For some reason people seem to be under the mistaken belief that the government borrowing money means printing more of it, but that's not how it works.
It is exactly how it works. However, do tell us how you think government borrows money.
Re: (Score:3)
Try this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's neither printing money nor nationalization nor anything like household debt. Government debt is a different thing altogether.
Re: (Score:1)
To borrow money government issues bonds. Federal reserve or Social Security Trust Fund buys them. Neither of these actually have the money, so this means currency is created out of thin air (i.e. printed) to "sell" these bonds.
Re: (Score:2)
In the same way that interest is created out of thin air perhaps. But it's not printing money, that's something quite different. Quantitative easing would be an example of that.
Anyway, in either case it's fine because the government and the economy in general get a lot more back than is put in. Also the planet doesn't get screwed up.
Re: (Score:2)
What will they say if the higher temps really do kill the virus and it saves the world?
Re: (Score:1)
Didn't I just read that Amazon was on a massive recruitment drive, increasing inefficient and polluting home deliveries due to the virus?
Re: (Score:3)
Didn't I just read that Amazon was on a massive recruitment drive, increasing inefficient and polluting home deliveries due to the virus?
I don't know about where you live but a single Amazon delivery van could deliver enough supplies to supply dozens of families (even perhaps a hundred) with essential supplies. And sine there is almost no one on the road the traffic / pollution impact would be a lot less than all of those people jumping into their cars to hit the store. That's quite literally with one stop.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as climate change is concerned, we won't see any change whatsoever from a reduction in emissions for a few months.
The current mean concentration of CO2 is 414 ppm and has been going up at a rate of 2.5 ppm/year. Even if we eliminated CO2 emissions entirely we'd see the figure drop maybe 2 ppm/year -- reflecting the approximate rate at which CO2 goes into the oceans. We wouldn't see observable *reversal* of atmospheric climate change for a decade or more. Returning to the level of atmospheric CO2 w
Good news! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
COVID-19 will help California to reduce air pollution, people finds!
Guess that depends on what you define as "air pollution", since the ripe smell of human shit is still wafting from California streets.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
San Francisco was a secret government program to boost people's immune system in anticipation of the Wu Flu.
Given the smell, I'd say that's the worst kept government secret in the history of government secrets.
Doesn't matter (Score:2)
There won't be any illegals doing the harvesting this year so everything that needs picking will rot on the fields and in the trees.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of people in California will need a job.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but the Californian producers have to compete with produce imported from places with lower quality of life, and lower wages. If a Californian tomato costs four times as much as a Mexican tomato, it's not going to sell. So they can't afford to pay fair wages and also stay in business.
Re: (Score:2)
So they go out of business. And we stop undercutting and destroying the agricultural economy of other countries. And then they don't have to go to US to pick tomatoes, they just grow them where they live.
Re: (Score:2)
So your solution is that we get inferior produce and sacrifice our ability to feed ourselves? That's no solution.
Re: (Score:1)
Is this effectively an argument for slavery?
It's the cheapest labor costs and anyone paying their workers can't compete.
Re: (Score:2)
Why on earth would illegal immigration just stop? Virus or no virus, poor people still gotta earn a paycheck.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they still come here when the jobs just stopped for the forseeable future? Right, free shit.
When our social services are strained past the breaking point there is no benefit for them to illegally come here.
Re: (Score:2)
from the parent
There won't be any illegals doing the harvesting this year so everything that needs picking will rot on the fields and in the trees.
If there's produce to pick then there's jobs.
Isn't it better now? (Score:2)
I grew up in Sunnyvale in the 80's and there was a constant brown haze across the valley. My only visit to southern California was on a layover and it looked like Beijing on a bad day.
When I visit now the air is so clear you can see right through it. So aren't things improving?
Re: (Score:2)
But it's still getting better, even in the last 15 years, air quality has improved all over California.
NOT CO_2 (Score:1)
Huh? (Score:1)
"California produces the most agriculture in the U.S."???
Huh? Table-ready foods perhaps, but most agriculture? No fucking way. Has anyone ever been to Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, etc? Except for a couple crappy cities, agriculture is about all there is for as far as the eye can see.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope. You're probably overlooking some key points, one being that California is very large, another being that the land in California is far more rich than the midwest. Having a lot of cultivated land doesn't mean much if that land is very marginal, producing low yields.
Re: (Score:2)
"California produces the most agriculture in the U.S."???
Huh? Table-ready foods perhaps, but most agriculture? No fucking way. Has anyone ever been to Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, etc? Except for a couple crappy cities, agriculture is about all there is for as far as the eye can see.
Nope. You're probably overlooking some key points, one being that California is very large, another being that the land in California is far more rich than the midwest. Having a lot of cultivated land doesn't mean much if that land is very marginal, producing low yields.
By dollar value, the Midwest's dollar production of agricultural products exceed's California. For example, decade-old numbers [usda.gov] show the Midwest producing $76 billion compared to California's $50 billion today. This isn't surprising as the amount of agricultural land in the Midwest and California are 127 and 28 million acres, respectively. California is big, but the Midwest if much bigger, both in total land and arable land.
Much of California's position as the primary producer of fruits, vegetables, and n
Re: (Score:2)
Much of California's position as the primary producer of fruits, vegetables, and nuts comes from not only its land but its willingness to use and access to cheap labor. The Midwest's agriculture is largely mechanized, but California's is largely dependent on migrant farm workers.
And the rest of it comes from the climate of southern California, which allows a drastically longer growing season for annuals than Iowa does and allows perennials to survive that get killed by Iowa winters.
Food - China, Polliting Crap - California (Score:2)
sound like a lot (Score:1)
$25 per Californian is really very little (Score:2)
$1 billion for all of California comes out to $25 per person in California. That's an absolutely trivial amount. The cost of, say, switching to electric vehicles to eliminate the pollution would be much higher.
Air pollution is a global problem. (Score:1)