Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Inside a new experiment to find the climate-proof coffee of the future

News Feed
Wednesday, July 24, 2024

David Ngibuini is a second-generation coffee farmer in Kenya's central highlands, an area of cool temperatures and rich volcanic soil that's long been one of the best places to grow coffee on Earth. On an afternoon in May, after a couple of months of rain, his 11-acre plot is lush. Six thousand trees — nearly all of them varieties of Coffea arabica, the most widely consumed and best-tasting coffee species — sit in neatly planted rows, their waxy, deep green leaves shimmering in the sun. Workers sort a pile of freshly-picked cherries — the red fruit that contains the beans that will be fermented, dried, and shipped to roasters around the world. The vigor of this year's harvest masks a deeper, existential struggle. Arabica coffee, which has been farmed in Kenya since the 19th century, is especially vulnerable to climate change. One 2022 study, from the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, projects the amount of land most suitable to growing it will fall more than 50 percent by 2050.  Ngibuini's farm, Maguta Estate, is already feeling the impact. Rising temperatures have inhibited the growth of cherries and made trees more vulnerable to diseases and pests. Rains, which used to come reliably twice a year, are increasingly erratic, which leads to wide swings in volume and quality. In his best year, spanning 2020 and 2021, Ngibuini processed nearly 50,000 pounds of beans, sourced from his farm as well as others in the area. The next year, following a prolonged drought, output was down almost 80 percent.  "We didn't even have a major pest attack," he said. "The drop was just because of the climate." As coffee's precarity is rising, so is demand: According to some estimates, global consumption, currently 2.3 billion cups per day, could double by mid-century. The projected supply gap has left the industry scrambling for possible fixes, including non-arabica coffee species and caffeine-infused alternatives made from substances like chickpeas and date seeds. For coffee purists, though, and millions of farming families like Ngibuini's, the most promising solution might be a newfound push to improve adaptability, and yields, of arabica itself. That's the idea behind Innovea, a new project led by the nonprofit World Coffee Research, that seeks to supercharge the breeding of improved arabica varieties — unique variations of a given species that have been selected for certain characteristics. In an industry that has long neglected to fund research and development, Innovea, a collaboration with government-affiliated research institutions in nine partner countries, including Kenya, is widely considered to be the most sweeping coffee breeding initiative in decades. According to Vern Long, CEO of World Coffee Research, or WCR, which is based in the United States and funded by the coffee industry, new varieties are one of the best ways to "improve a crop's productivity and reduce risk." Innovea's goal, she said, is to develop trees that are optimized for a range of production environments — and ultimately give farmers more climate-resilient options. Although nearly every commodity faces threats from a warming climate, arabica is especially picky. Its trees perform best in areas with moderate rainfall and temperatures that stay between 59 and 82 degrees Fahrenheit. This typically means regions of the tropics at least 3,000 feet above sea level; Ngibuini's farm near Mount Kenya, Africa's second-highest peak, sits at a cool 5,700. As temperatures warm, many expect cultivation to shift to even higher altitudes. This, however, has its limits. "The higher up you go, the less land there is available," said Roman Grüter, an environmental scientist who led the Zurich University of Applied Sciences study. Farmers shifting upwards, he added, are more likely to encounter slopes that are too steep, or protected conservation areas. Arabica is so fragile in part because its gene pool is surprisingly narrow. The 58 varieties that are widely grown today are all derived from a subset of wild forest coffee native to Ethiopia, which was brought by Arab traders to Yemen in the 15th century and later spread by European colonizers across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Because it is a slow-maturing tree crop, new variety development, which involves breeding over several generations, can take decades. Coffee R&D, like much crop innovation, is largely state financed — and in the low- and middle-income countries where arabica is grown, governments are often strapped for cash. While Brazil and Colombia, the two largest arabica producers, have a history of strong government support for coffee research, many of their counterparts have long lacked sufficient resources for variety development. A study commissioned by WCR in 2023 estimates that just $115 million is invested in coffee R&D each year, less than one-tenth of one percent of coffee's $200 billion retail value. "If you're a low-income country, and you need to pay for roads and clinics and teacher's salaries, there's a strong pull to put revenue from coffee into those things instead of research," Long said.  For much of coffee's history, the importers, roasters, and retailers of the rich world haven't put much money into crop improvement either: As long as they had a reliable supply of beans, they didn't have to. A wakeup call came in 2012, when shifts in temperature and rainfall linked to climate change triggered an outbreak of coffee leaf rust, a debilitating fungus, that would affect Latin America for years. A group of coffee businesses established WCR that year as a way to facilitate collaborative R&D; the organization today is funded by 177 member companies.  WCR began by conducting a trial of existing varieties, planting 31 of them from around the world in a range of climate zones in 15 countries. It also established a project to develop and trial new "F1 hybrids," varieties created from genetically distant parents that tend to be higher yielding but are also more expensive to cultivate. Innovea, which launched in 2022, builds upon both efforts. To start, WCR breeders created 30 novel crosses from 16 parent varieties chosen based on their performance in prior trials. WCR then shipped 5,000 resulting seeds — each of them genetically distinct — to government researchers in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, India, Indonesia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, and Hawai'i. Planting on experimental sites began this year and will continue into 2025. After six years, when the new trees have matured and produced several harvests of their own, many will have traits that are undesirable, Long said. Some, though, will be "high yielding, disease resistant, and taste good," and will be moved to further trials or used to make new crosses that could result in even better trait combinations. While the breeding is done using traditional methods, it's being aided by low-cost genetic sequencing technology, which allows WCR and partner breeders to correlate observed traits with plant DNA and make new crosses faster. "The idea is to identify the genes we're looking for and move on with those plants instead of others," said Jane Cheserek, lead breeder at Kenya's government-run Coffee Research Institute, WCR's Kenyan partner.  Innovea is not the only private sector-funded coffee breeding effort: At least two big industry players, Nestlé and Starbucks, have variety-development programs in-house.  What makes Innovea stand out is its scale and its collaborative approach. Although coffee-exporting countries are natural competitors, Long said, partner governments have accepted that it's in their best interest to cooperate on R&D and allow their genetic material to move across borders. WCR expects to make 100 new pre-commercial varieties available for trials by 2030 and will then work with partner governments to release a subset of those to farmers as soon as 2036. Ultimately, these "finished varieties" will be owned by governments, rather than by WCR or its financial backers.  The effort "amps collaboration up to a new level," said Stuart McCook, a historian at the University of Guelph in Ontario who studies coffee and other tropical commodities and who is not involved in Innovea. The program, he added, represents the first coffee breeding project of such a global scope since a Portugal-led effort to develop and circulate leaf rust-resistant coffees in the 1960s.  While McCook believes that new variety development is vital to the quest to make coffee more resilient, he and many other experts argue it's not a panacea. As coffee growing regions warm, he said, innovations in breeding will need to be combined with adaptations in farming practices, like the introduction of "shade trees" — other types of trees to block the sun — and efforts to regenerate depleted soils. Coffee growers around the world, especially at the 12.5 million smallholder farms that produce 60 percent of the world's supply, will continue to face a global market defined by wild swings in price that at times mean selling harvests for below the cost of production — which in turn makes investing in these adaptations even harder. One 2018 study by the Kenya Coffee Platform, an industry association, estimated that only 49 percent of Kenya's coffee smallholders earned a "living wage" from the crop. Kenya's coffee output today is less than half that of its peak in the 1980s, in part because younger generations are turning to more profitable crops, like macadamia nuts or avocados, or selling land to developers. On the outskirts of Nairobi, Kenya's capital, many areas that once brimmed with arabica have been paved over for housing estates or shopping malls.   Ngibuini, 32, is somewhat insulated from the market's excesses: he sells most of his beans, which have won awards for quality, to a specialty buyer at a premium. In recent years he's planted shade trees, which have also boosted soil nutrients and led to improved cherry quality.  What he cannot do, at least for now, is plant the perfect variety of coffee. While he has several on his farm, all of them come with tradeoffs: One Kenya-developed F1 hybrid, for example, which he chose for its disease resistance, struggled more than other varieties in the recent drought. Ideally, he'd plant a variety that could resist the coffee berry borer, a beetle that feasts on coffee cherries, and that would ripen with greater uniformity. The erratic rains, he said, mean cherries are ripening less consistently than ever, which makes harvesting and processing less efficient.     This variety, today, remains hypothetical. Yet in the years ahead, if Innovea lives up to its promise, Ngibuini will have more control over the types of coffee trees he cultivates — so he can better play his part in saving the morning brew for all of us.                   This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/food-and-agriculture/inside-a-new-experiment-to-find-the-climate-proof-coffee-of-the-future/.                                     Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org                                    "This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here."

"An international public-private partnership is supercharging coffee breeding to save your morning brew"

David Ngibuini is a second-generation coffee farmer in Kenya's central highlands, an area of cool temperatures and rich volcanic soil that's long been one of the best places to grow coffee on Earth. On an afternoon in May, after a couple of months of rain, his 11-acre plot is lush. Six thousand trees — nearly all of them varieties of Coffea arabica, the most widely consumed and best-tasting coffee species — sit in neatly planted rows, their waxy, deep green leaves shimmering in the sun. Workers sort a pile of freshly-picked cherries — the red fruit that contains the beans that will be fermented, dried, and shipped to roasters around the world.

The vigor of this year's harvest masks a deeper, existential struggle. Arabica coffee, which has been farmed in Kenya since the 19th century, is especially vulnerable to climate change. One 2022 study, from the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, projects the amount of land most suitable to growing it will fall more than 50 percent by 2050. 

Ngibuini's farm, Maguta Estate, is already feeling the impact. Rising temperatures have inhibited the growth of cherries and made trees more vulnerable to diseases and pests. Rains, which used to come reliably twice a year, are increasingly erratic, which leads to wide swings in volume and quality. In his best year, spanning 2020 and 2021, Ngibuini processed nearly 50,000 pounds of beans, sourced from his farm as well as others in the area. The next year, following a prolonged drought, output was down almost 80 percent. 

"We didn't even have a major pest attack," he said. "The drop was just because of the climate."

As coffee's precarity is rising, so is demand: According to some estimates, global consumption, currently 2.3 billion cups per day, could double by mid-century. The projected supply gap has left the industry scrambling for possible fixes, including non-arabica coffee species and caffeine-infused alternatives made from substances like chickpeas and date seeds.

For coffee purists, though, and millions of farming families like Ngibuini's, the most promising solution might be a newfound push to improve adaptability, and yields, of arabica itself. That's the idea behind Innovea, a new project led by the nonprofit World Coffee Research, that seeks to supercharge the breeding of improved arabica varieties unique variations of a given species that have been selected for certain characteristics. In an industry that has long neglected to fund research and development, Innovea, a collaboration with government-affiliated research institutions in nine partner countries, including Kenya, is widely considered to be the most sweeping coffee breeding initiative in decades.

According to Vern Long, CEO of World Coffee Research, or WCR, which is based in the United States and funded by the coffee industry, new varieties are one of the best ways to "improve a crop's productivity and reduce risk." Innovea's goal, she said, is to develop trees that are optimized for a range of production environments — and ultimately give farmers more climate-resilient options.


Although nearly every commodity faces threats from a warming climate, arabica is especially picky. Its trees perform best in areas with moderate rainfall and temperatures that stay between 59 and 82 degrees Fahrenheit. This typically means regions of the tropics at least 3,000 feet above sea level; Ngibuini's farm near Mount Kenya, Africa's second-highest peak, sits at a cool 5,700. As temperatures warm, many expect cultivation to shift to even higher altitudes. This, however, has its limits. "The higher up you go, the less land there is available," said Roman Grüter, an environmental scientist who led the Zurich University of Applied Sciences study. Farmers shifting upwards, he added, are more likely to encounter slopes that are too steep, or protected conservation areas.

Arabica is so fragile in part because its gene pool is surprisingly narrow. The 58 varieties that are widely grown today are all derived from a subset of wild forest coffee native to Ethiopia, which was brought by Arab traders to Yemen in the 15th century and later spread by European colonizers across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Because it is a slow-maturing tree crop, new variety development, which involves breeding over several generations, can take decades. Coffee R&D, like much crop innovation, is largely state financed — and in the low- and middle-income countries where arabica is grown, governments are often strapped for cash. While Brazil and Colombia, the two largest arabica producers, have a history of strong government support for coffee research, many of their counterparts have long lacked sufficient resources for variety development. A study commissioned by WCR in 2023 estimates that just $115 million is invested in coffee R&D each year, less than one-tenth of one percent of coffee's $200 billion retail value.

"If you're a low-income country, and you need to pay for roads and clinics and teacher's salaries, there's a strong pull to put revenue from coffee into those things instead of research," Long said. 

For much of coffee's history, the importers, roasters, and retailers of the rich world haven't put much money into crop improvement either: As long as they had a reliable supply of beans, they didn't have to. A wakeup call came in 2012, when shifts in temperature and rainfall linked to climate change triggered an outbreak of coffee leaf rust, a debilitating fungus, that would affect Latin America for years. A group of coffee businesses established WCR that year as a way to facilitate collaborative R&D; the organization today is funded by 177 member companies. 

WCR began by conducting a trial of existing varieties, planting 31 of them from around the world in a range of climate zones in 15 countries. It also established a project to develop and trial new "F1 hybrids," varieties created from genetically distant parents that tend to be higher yielding but are also more expensive to cultivate.

Innovea, which launched in 2022, builds upon both efforts. To start, WCR breeders created 30 novel crosses from 16 parent varieties chosen based on their performance in prior trials. WCR then shipped 5,000 resulting seeds — each of them genetically distinct — to government researchers in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, India, Indonesia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, and Hawai'i. Planting on experimental sites began this year and will continue into 2025.

After six years, when the new trees have matured and produced several harvests of their own, many will have traits that are undesirable, Long said. Some, though, will be "high yielding, disease resistant, and taste good," and will be moved to further trials or used to make new crosses that could result in even better trait combinations. While the breeding is done using traditional methods, it's being aided by low-cost genetic sequencing technology, which allows WCR and partner breeders to correlate observed traits with plant DNA and make new crosses faster.

"The idea is to identify the genes we're looking for and move on with those plants instead of others," said Jane Cheserek, lead breeder at Kenya's government-run Coffee Research Institute, WCR's Kenyan partner. 


Innovea is not the only private sector-funded coffee breeding effort: At least two big industry players, Nestlé and Starbucks, have variety-development programs in-house. 

What makes Innovea stand out is its scale and its collaborative approach. Although coffee-exporting countries are natural competitors, Long said, partner governments have accepted that it's in their best interest to cooperate on R&D and allow their genetic material to move across borders. WCR expects to make 100 new pre-commercial varieties available for trials by 2030 and will then work with partner governments to release a subset of those to farmers as soon as 2036. Ultimately, these "finished varieties" will be owned by governments, rather than by WCR or its financial backers. 

The effort "amps collaboration up to a new level," said Stuart McCook, a historian at the University of Guelph in Ontario who studies coffee and other tropical commodities and who is not involved in Innovea. The program, he added, represents the first coffee breeding project of such a global scope since a Portugal-led effort to develop and circulate leaf rust-resistant coffees in the 1960s. 

While McCook believes that new variety development is vital to the quest to make coffee more resilient, he and many other experts argue it's not a panacea. As coffee growing regions warm, he said, innovations in breeding will need to be combined with adaptations in farming practices, like the introduction of "shade trees" — other types of trees to block the sun — and efforts to regenerate depleted soils. Coffee growers around the world, especially at the 12.5 million smallholder farms that produce 60 percent of the world's supply, will continue to face a global market defined by wild swings in price that at times mean selling harvests for below the cost of production — which in turn makes investing in these adaptations even harder. One 2018 study by the Kenya Coffee Platform, an industry association, estimated that only 49 percent of Kenya's coffee smallholders earned a "living wage" from the crop. Kenya's coffee output today is less than half that of its peak in the 1980s, in part because younger generations are turning to more profitable crops, like macadamia nuts or avocados, or selling land to developers. On the outskirts of Nairobi, Kenya's capital, many areas that once brimmed with arabica have been paved over for housing estates or shopping malls.  

Ngibuini, 32, is somewhat insulated from the market's excesses: he sells most of his beans, which have won awards for quality, to a specialty buyer at a premium. In recent years he's planted shade trees, which have also boosted soil nutrients and led to improved cherry quality. 

What he cannot do, at least for now, is plant the perfect variety of coffee. While he has several on his farm, all of them come with tradeoffs: One Kenya-developed F1 hybrid, for example, which he chose for its disease resistance, struggled more than other varieties in the recent drought. Ideally, he'd plant a variety that could resist the coffee berry borer, a beetle that feasts on coffee cherries, and that would ripen with greater uniformity. The erratic rains, he said, mean cherries are ripening less consistently than ever, which makes harvesting and processing less efficient.    

This variety, today, remains hypothetical. Yet in the years ahead, if Innovea lives up to its promise, Ngibuini will have more control over the types of coffee trees he cultivates — so he can better play his part in saving the morning brew for all of us.

                 

This article originally appeared in Grist at https://grist.org/food-and-agriculture/inside-a-new-experiment-to-find-the-climate-proof-coffee-of-the-future/.

                 

                 

Grist is a nonprofit, independent media organization dedicated to telling stories of climate solutions and a just future. Learn more at Grist.org

                 
                

"This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here."

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Scientists Shielding Farming From Climate Change Need More Public Funding. but They're Getting Less

Public funding for agricultural research in the U.S. has been declining for the last two decades, a process Trump has rapidly accelerated by freezing or pausing support for a variety of research programs financed by the USDA, EPA and other organizations

Erin McGuire spent years cultivating fruits and vegetables like onions, peppers and tomatoes as a scientist and later director of a lab at the University of California-Davis. She collaborated with hundreds of people to breed drought-resistant varieties, develop new ways to cool fresh produce and find ways to make more money for small farmers at home and overseas.Then the funding stopped. Her lab, and by extension many of its overseas partners, were backed financially by the United States Agency for International Development, which Trump's administration has been dismantling for the past several weeks. Just before it was time to collect data that had been two years in the making, her team received a stop work order. She had to lay off her whole team. Soon she was laid off, too.“It’s really just been devastating,” she said. “I don’t know how you come back from this.”The U.S. needs more publicly funded research and development on agriculture to offset the effects of climate change, according to a paper out in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this month. But instead the U.S. has been investing less. United States Department of Agriculture data shows that as of 2019, the U.S. spent about a third less on agricultural research than its peak in 2002, a difference of about $2 billion. The recent pauses and freezes to funding for research on climate change and international development are only adding to the drop. It’s a serious issue for farmers who depend on new innovations to keep their businesses afloat, the next generation of scientists and eventually for consumers who buy food.“This is terrible news for the U.S. agricultural sector,” said Cornell associate professor Ariel Ortiz-Bobea, the lead author of the paper. Trump administration hastens funding cuts As the Trump administration pauses and shutters research programs funded by the Environmental Protection Agency, USDA and other agencies, Ortiz-Bobea and other experts have seen field trials stopped, postdoctoral positions eliminated and a looming gap forming between the reality of climate change and the tools farmers have to deal with it.The EPA declined to comment, and the USDA and USAID did not respond to Associated Press queries.Ortiz-Bobea and his team quantified overall U.S. agricultural productivity, estimated how much it would be slowed by climate change in coming years and calculated how much money would need to be invested in research and development to counteract that slowdown.Think of it like riding a bike into a headwind, Ortiz-Bobea said. To maintain the same speed, you have to pedal harder; in this case, R&D can be that extra push.Some countries are heading that direction. China spends almost twice as much as the U.S. on agricultural research, and has increased its research investments by five times since 2000, wrote Omanjana Goswami, a scientist with the Food and Environment team at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in an email.Spending cutbacks have also shuttered agricultural research across almost all of the Feed the Future Innovation Labs, of which McGuire's was one. Those 17 labs across 13 universities focused on food security, technical agriculture research, policy and various aspects of climate change. The stop-work orders at those labs not only disappointed researchers, but made useless much of their work.“There are many, many millions of dollars of expenditure that will generate nothing now because the work couldn’t be finished,” said David Tschirley, a professor who had been directing another one of those programs, the Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research, Capacity and Influence at Michigan State University, since 2019. Finding new funding for agricultural research Some researchers hope that other sources of funding can fill the gaps: “That’s where private sector could really step up,” said Swati Hegde, a scientist in the Food, Land, and Water Program at the World Resources Institute.From an agricultural point of view, climate change is “really scary,” with larger and larger regions exposed to temperatures above healthy growing conditions for many crops, said Bill Anderson, CEO of Bayer, a multinational biotechnology and pharmaceutical company that invested nearly $3 billion in agricultural research and development last year. But private companies have their own constraints on R&D investment, and he said Bayer can't invest as much as it would like in that area. “I don’t think that private industry can replicate" how federal funding typically supports early stage, speculative science, he said, “because the economics don't really work.” He added that industry tends to be better suited to back ideas that have already been validated. Goswami, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, also expressed concerns that private research funding isn't as trackable and transparent as public funding. And others said even sizeable investments from companies don't give anywhere near enough money to match government funding. Researchers, farmers and consumers feel the fallout The full impact may not be apparent for many years, and the damage won't easily be repaired. Experts think it will be a blow in other countries where climate change is already decimating yields, driving hunger and conflict. “I really worry that if we don’t really look at the global food situation, we will have a disaster,” said David Zilberman, a professor at UC Berkeley who won a Wolf Prize in 2019 for his work on agriculture.But even domestically, experts say one thing is almost certain: this will mean even higher prices at the grocery store now and in the future.“More people on the Earth, you need more productivity to prevent food prices going crazy,” said Tom Hertel, a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University. Even if nothing changes right away, he thinks “10 years from now, 20 years from now, our yield growth will surely be stunted” by cuts to research on agricultural productivity.Many scientists said the wound isn’t just professional but personal. “People are very demoralized,” especially younger researchers who don’t have tenure and want to work on international food research, said Zilberman.Now those dreams are on hold for many. In carefully tended research plots, weeds begin to grow.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

For plants, urban heat islands don’t mimic global warming

Scientists have found that trees in cities respond to higher temperatures differently than those in forests, potentially masking climate impacts.

It’s tricky to predict precisely what the impacts of climate change will be, given the many variables involved. To predict the impacts of a warmer world on plant life, some researchers look at urban “heat islands,” where, because of the effects of urban structures, temperatures consistently run a few degrees higher than those of the surrounding rural areas. This enables side-by-side comparisons of plant responses.But a new study by researchers at MIT and Harvard University has found that, at least for forests, urban heat islands are a poor proxy for global warming, and this may have led researchers to underestimate the impacts of warming in some cases. The discrepancy, they found, has a lot to do with the limited genetic diversity of urban tree species.The findings appear in the journal PNAS, in a paper by MIT postdoc Meghan Blumstein, professor of civil and environmental engineering David Des Marais, and four others.“The appeal of these urban temperature gradients is, well, it’s already there,” says Des Marais. “We can’t look into the future, so why don’t we look across space, comparing rural and urban areas?” Because such data is easily obtainable, methods comparing the growth of plants in cities with similar plants outside them have been widely used, he says, and have been quite useful. Researchers did recognize some shortcomings to this approach, including significant differences in availability of some nutrients such as nitrogen. Still, “a lot of ecologists recognized that they weren’t perfect, but it was what we had,” he says.Most of the research by Des Marais’ group is lab-based, under conditions tightly controlled for temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide concentration. While there are a handful of experimental sites where conditions are modified out in the field, for example using heaters around one or a few trees, “those are super small-scale,” he says. “When you’re looking at these longer-term trends that are occurring over space that’s quite a bit larger than you could reasonably manipulate, an important question is, how do you control the variables?”Temperature gradients have offered one approach to this problem, but Des Marais and his students have also been focusing on the genetics of the tree species involved, comparing those sampled in cities to the same species sampled in a natural forest nearby. And it turned out there were differences, even between trees that appeared similar.“So, lo and behold, you think you’re only letting one variable change in your model, which is the temperature difference from an urban to a rural setting,” he says, “but in fact, it looks like there was also a genotypic diversity that was not being accounted for.”The genetic differences meant that the plants being studied were not representative of those in the natural environment, and the researchers found that the difference was actually masking the impact of warming. The urban trees, they found, were less affected than their natural counterparts in terms of when the plants’ leaves grew and unfurled, or “leafed out,” in the spring.The project began during the pandemic lockdown, when Blumstein was a graduate student. She had a grant to study red oak genotypes across New England, but was unable to travel because of lockdowns. So, she concentrated on trees that were within reach in Cambridge, Massachusetts. She then collaborated with people doing research at the Harvard Forest, a research forest in rural central Massachusetts. They collected three years of data from both locations, including the temperature profiles, the leafing-out timing, and the genetic profiles of the trees. Though the study was looking at red oaks specifically, the researchers say the findings are likely to apply to trees broadly.At the time, researchers had just sequenced the oak tree genome, and that allowed Blumstein and her colleagues to look for subtle differences among the red oaks in the two locations. The differences they found showed that the urban trees were more resistant to the effects of warmer temperatures than were those in the natural environment.“Initially, we saw these results and we were sort of like, oh, this is a bad thing,” Des Marais says. “Ecologists are getting this heat island effect wrong, which is true.” Fortunately, this can be easily corrected by factoring in genomic data. “It’s not that much more work, because sequencing genomes is so cheap and so straightforward. Now, if someone wants to look at an urban-rural gradient and make these kinds of predictions, well, that’s fine. You just have to add some information about the genomes.”It's not surprising that this genetic variation exists, he says, since growers have learned by trial and error over the decades which varieties of trees tend to thrive in the difficult urban environment, with typically poor soil, poor drainage, and pollution. “As a result, there’s just not much genetic diversity in our trees within cities.”The implications could be significant, Des Marais says. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releases its regular reports on the status of the climate, “one of the tools the IPCC has to predict future responses to climate change with respect to temperature are these urban-to-rural gradients.” He hopes that these new findings will be incorporated into their next report, which is just being drafted. “If these results are generally true beyond red oaks, this suggests that the urban heat island approach to studying plant response to temperature is underpredicting how strong that response is.”The research team included Sophie Webster, Robin Hopkins, and David Basler from Harvard University and Jie Yun from MIT. The work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the Bullard Fellowship at the Harvard Forest, and MIT.

Brisbane 2032 is no longer legally bound to be ‘climate positive’. Will it still leave a green legacy?

Brisbane 2032 was supposed to be the first ‘climate-positive’ Olympic Games. But a quiet change to the host contract puts the commitment in doubt.

When Brisbane was awarded the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, it came with a widely publicised landmark promise: the world’s first “climate-positive” games. The International Olympic Committee had already announced all games would be climate-positive from 2030. It said this meant the games would be required to “go beyond” the previous obligation of reducing carbon emissions directly related to their operations and offsetting or otherwise “compensating” for the rest. In other words, achieving net-zero was no longer sufficient. Now each organising committee would be legally required to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than the games emit. This is in keeping with the most widely cited definition of climate-positive. Both Paris 2024 and Los Angeles 2028 made voluntary pledges. But Brisbane 2032 was the first contractually required to be climate-positive. This was enshrined in the original 2021 Olympic Host Contract, an agreement between the IOC, the State of Queensland, Brisbane City Council and the Australian Olympic Committee. But the host contract has quietly changed since. All references to “climate-positive” have been replaced with weaker terminology. The move was not publicly announced. This fits a broader pattern of Olympic Games promising big on sustainability before weakening or abandoning commitments over time. A quiet retreat from climate positive Research by my team has shown the climate-positive announcement sparked great hope for the future of Brisbane as a regenerative city. We saw Brisbane 2032 as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to radically shift away from the ongoing systemic issues underlying urban development. This vision to embrace genuinely sustainable city design centred on fostering circular economies and net positive development. It would have aligned urban development with ecological stewardship. Beyond just mitigating environmental harm, the games could have set a new standard for sustainability by becoming a catalyst to actively regenerate the natural environment. Yet, on December 7 2023, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) initiated an addendum to the host contract. It effectively downgraded the games’ sustainability obligations. It was signed by Brisbane City Council, the State of Queensland, the Australian Olympic Committee and the IOC between April and May 2024. The commitment for the 2032 Brisbane Games to be climate positive has been removed from the Olympic Host Contract. International Olympic Committee Asked about these amendments, the IOC replied it “took the decision to no longer use the term ‘climate-positive’ when referring to its climate commitments”. But the IOC maintains that: “The requirements underpinning this term, however, and our ambition to address the climate crisis, have not changed”. It said the terminology was changed to ensure that communications “are transparent and easily understood; that they focus on the actions implemented to reduce carbon emissions; and that they are aligned with best practice and current regulations, as well as the principle of continual improvement”. Similarly, a Brisbane 2032 spokesperson told The Conversation the language was changed: to ensure we are communicating in a transparent and easily understood manner, following advice from the International Olympic Committee and recommendations of the United Nations and European Union Green Claims Directive, made in 2023. Brisbane 2032 will continue to plan, as we always have, to deliver a Games that focus on specific measures to deliver a more sustainable Games. But the new wording commits Brisbane 2032 to merely “aiming at removing more carbon from the atmosphere than what the Games project emits”. Crucially, this is no longer binding. The new language makes carbon removal an optional goal rather than a contractual requirement. A stadium in Victoria Park violates the 2032 Olympic Host Contract location requirements. Save Victoria Park, CC BY Aiming high, yet falling short Olympic Games have adopted increasingly ambitious sustainability rhetoric. Yet, action in the real world typically falls short. In our ongoing research with the Politecnico di Torino, Italy, we analysed sustainability commitments since the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. We found they often change over time. Initial promises are either watered down or abandoned altogether due to political, financial, and logistical pressures. Construction activities for the Winter Olympic Games 2014 in Sochi, Russia, irreversibly damaged the Western Caucasus – a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Rio 2016 failed to clean up Guanabara Bay, despite its original pledge to reduce pollutants by 80%. Rio also caused large-scale deforestation and wetland destruction. Ancient forests were cleared for PyeongChang 2018 ski slopes. Our research found a persistent gap between sustainability rhetoric and reality. Brisbane 2032 fits this pattern as the original promise of hosting climate-positive games is at risk of reverting to business as usual. Victoria Park controversy In 2021, a KPMG report for the Queensland government analysed the potential economic, social and environmental benefits of the Brisbane 2032 games. It said the government was proposing to deliver the climate-positive commitment required to host the 2032 games through a range of initiatives. This included “repurposing and upgrading existing infrastructure with enhanced green star credentials”. But plans for the Olympic stadium have changed a great deal since then. Plans to upgrade the Brisbane Cricket Ground, commonly known as the Gabba, have been replaced by a new stadium to be built in Victoria Park. Victoria Park is Brisbane’s largest remaining inner-city green space. It is known to Indigenous peoples as Barrambin (the windy place). It is listed on the Queensland Heritage Register due to its great cultural significance. Page 90 of the Olympic Host Contract prohibits permanent construction “in statutory nature areas, cultural protected areas and World Heritage sites”. Local community groups and environmental advocates have vowed to fight plans for a Victoria Park stadium. This may include a legal challenge. The area of Victoria Park (64 hectares) compared with Central Park (341h), Regent’s Park (160h), Bois de Vicennes (995h). Save Victoria Park What next? The climate-positive commitment has been downgraded to an unenforceable aspiration. A new Olympic stadium has been announced in direct violation of the host contract. Will Brisbane 2032 still leave a green legacy? Greater transparency and public accountability are needed. Otherwise, the original plan may fall short of the positive legacy it aspired to, before the Olympics even begin. Marcus Foth receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a Senior Associate with Outside Opinion, a team of experienced academic and research consultants. He is chair of the Principal Body Corporate for the Kelvin Grove Urban Village, chair of Brisbane Flight Path Community Alliance, and a member of the Queensland Greens.

Has the UK's most loathed protest group really stopped throwing soup?

Just Stop Oil says it will disband but does this mark an end to the chaos caused by its climate protests?

Has the UK's most loathed protest group really stopped throwing soup?Justin RowlattBBC News Climate EditorJSO HandoutThe climate action group Just Stop Oil has announced it is to disband at the end of April. Its activists have been derided as attention-seeking zealots and vandals and it is loathed by many for its disruptive direct action tactics. It says it has won because its demand that there should be no new oil and gas licences is now government policy. So, did they really win and does this mark an end to the chaos caused by its climate protests?Hayley Walsh's heart was racing as she sat in the audience at the Theatre Royal Drury Lane on 27 January this year. The 42 year-old lecturer and mother of three tried to calm her breathing. Hollywood star Sigourney Weaver was onstage in her West End debut production of Shakespeare's The Tempest. But Hayley, a Just Stop Oil activist, had her own drama planned.As Weaver's Prospero declaimed "Come forth, I say," Hayley sprang from her seat and rushed the stage with Richard Weir, a 60-year-old mechanical engineer from Tyneside. They launched a confetti cannon and unfurled a banner that read "Over 1.5 Degrees is a Global Shipwreck" - a reference to the news that 2024 was the first year to pass the symbolic 1.5C threshold in global average temperature rise, and a nod to the shipwreck theme in the play. It was a classic Just Stop Oil (JSO) action. The target was high profile and would guarantee publicity. The message was simple and presented in the group's signature fluorescent orange.The reaction of those affected was also a classic response to JSO. Amid the boos and whistles you can hear a shout of "idiots". "Drag them off the stage", one audience member can be heard shouting, "I hope you [expletive] get arrested," another says.JSO is a UK-based environmental activist group that aims to end fossil fuel extraction and uses direct action to draw attention to its cause. It has been called a "criminal cult" and its activists branded "eco-loons" by the Sun. The Daily Mail has described it as "deranged" and says its members have "unleashed misery on thousands of ordinary people though their selfish antics".JSO HandoutIt is the group's road protests that have probably caused the most disruption – and public anger.The group has thrown soup at a Van Gogh in the National Gallery, exploded a chalk dust bomb during the World Snooker Championship in Sheffield, smashed a cabinet containing a copy of the Magna Carta at the British Library, sprayed temporary paint on the stones of Stonehenge and even defaced Charles Darwin's grave.But it is the group's road protests that have probably caused the most disruption – and public anger. In November 2022, 45 JSO members climbed gantries around the M25 severely disrupting traffic for over four days. People missed flights, medical appointments and exams as thousands of drivers were delayed for hours. The cost to the Metropolitan Police was put at £1.1 million.Just Stop Oil was born out of Extinction Rebellion (XR). XR – founded in 2018 - brought thousands of people onto the streets in what were dubbed "festivals of resistance". They came to a peak in April 2019, when protestors brought parts of the capital to a halt for more than a week and plonked a large pink boat in the middle of Oxford Circus.The spectacle and disruption XR caused generated massive media attention, but the police were furious. Hundreds of officers were diverted from frontline duties and by the end of 2019 the bill for policing the protests had reached £37m.And behind the scenes XR was riven by furious debates about tactics. Many inside the movement said it should be less confrontational and disruptive but a hard core of activists argued it would be more effective to double down on direct action.It became clear that there was room for what Sarah Lunnon, one of the co-founders of Just Stop Oil, calls "a more radical flank". They decided a new, more focused operation was needed, modelled on earlier civil disobedience movements like the Suffragettes, Gandhi's civil disobedience campaigns and the civil rights movement in the US.The group was formally launched on Valentine's Day, 2022. It was a very different animal to XR. Instead of thousands of people taking part in street carnivals, JSO's actions involved a few committed activists. A small strategy group oversaw the campaign and meticulously planned its activities. A mobilisation team worked to recruit new members, and another team focused on supporting activists after they were arrested.Getty ImagesJust Stop Oil protesters invading a Rugby matchThe dozens of actions the group has carried out generated lots of publicity, but also massive public opposition. There were confrontations between members of the public and protestors and an outcry from politicians across all the main political parties.The police said they needed more powers to deal with this new form of protest and they got them. New offences were created including interfering with national infrastructure, "locking on" – chaining or gluing yourself to something – and tunnelling underground. Causing a public nuisance also became a potential crime – providing the police with a powerful new tool to use against protestors who block roads.In the four years since it was formed dozens of the group's supporters have been jailed. Five activists were handed multi-year sentences for their role in the M25 actions in 2022. Those were reduced on appeal earlier this month but are still the longest jail terms for non-violent civil disobedience ever issued.Senior JSO members deny the crackdown had anything to do with the group's decision to "hang up the hi-vis" – as its statement this week announcing the end of campaign put it.JSO's public position is that it has won its battle. "Just Stop Oil's initial demand to end new oil and gas is now government policy, making us one of the most successful civil resistance campaigns in recent history," the group claimed.The government has said it does not plan to issue any new licences for oil and gas production but strongly denies its policies have a link to JSO. Furthermore, the Prime Minister's official spokesperson told journalists: "We have been very clear when it comes to oil and gas that it has a future for decades to come in our energy mix."And the group's wider goal – to end the production of oil and gas – has manifestly not been achieved. The members of the group I spoke to for this article all agree the climate crisis has deepened.AFPA protest at the Aston Martin showroom in central LondonIn the face of stiffer sentences, some climate campaigners have said they will turn to more clandestine activities. One new group says it plans a campaign of sabotage against key infrastructure. In a manifesto published online it says it plans to "kickstart a new phase of the climate activist movement, aiming to shut down key actors of the fossil fuel economy."That's not a direction the JSO members I spoke to said they wanted to go. Sarah Lunnon said a key principle of JSO and the civil disobedience movement generally was that activists would take responsibility for their actions. One of the first questions new joiners were asked is whether they would be willing to be locked up."As corporations and billionaires corrupt political systems across the world, we need a different approach. "We are creating a new strategy, to face this reality and to carry our responsibilities at this time," the group says, suggesting they may be planning to form a new movement.JSO's most high-profile figure, Roger Hallam, is one of the five activists convicted for their role in the M25 protests. In a message from his prison cell he acknowledged that JSO has only had a "marginal impact". That is "not due to lack of trying," he said. The failure lay with the UK's "elites and our leaders" who had walked away from their responsibility to tackle the climate crisis, Hallam claimed. A hint perhaps that the group's new focus might be on the political system itself.JSO has said its last protest – to be held at the end of April – will mark "the end of soup on Van Goghs, cornstarch on Stonehenge and slow marching in the streets". But don't believe it. When pressed, the JSO members I spoke to said they may well turn back to disruptive tactics but under a new name and with a new and as yet unspecified objective.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.