BTW the main wheat paper has so many authors that it would take an actual effort to count them. This puzzle-solving exercise involved many hands.
This introduction to gene editing with CRISPR CAS9 is not short but it mostly avoids deep technical terms: How Crispr Could Transform Our Food Supply Transparently sponsored by a dairy-products company. I have no trouble with that. With other sponsorship it might put more emphasis on perceived risks. Substantially lacking here is description of potential for small groups to craft new diseases, or to make existing diseases worse. Also that CRISPR can make errors. Such discussions can be found elsewhere.
How to achieve prosperity, sustainability, inclusivity, and good things like that. There may be ways, and some of them may be described in this report: NCE 2018 About 200 pages and about 1200 references to material from peer-reviewed journals and gray matter. Whether or not it catalyzes large changes, one ought to be aware that it exists
I wonder if any of you home-scale solar panel people (I know you're out there) could make use of this: Physics model acts as an 'EKG' for solar panel health -- ScienceDaily To see how systems are 'aging'.
^ Unaware, but I'll try to follow it. My Enphase online monitor is not showing any problems enough to notice after more 3-5 years (multiple sections installed at different times). The one module that was initially producing lower than the rest, doesn't look any worse for age. The single solar panel (of a different brand, no longer available) I put up for 12V charging in 1994 was still producing very well when taken down in 2013. A quick uncalibrated check of its Voc and Isc found both to be very good, though I didn't have a good way to check Pmpp. Being incompatible with the new grid-tie system, it should be repurposed elsewhere but is currently in storage.
Marine aquaculture and the need to protect global food security: Marine aquaculture and the need to protect global food security -- ScienceDaily Probably some truth to this even though it is based on "Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5". Humans are way too smart to poke at climate dragon that hard.
Some google-map cars now measure air quality: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b00891 Makes sense in every way except getting too local in time and space. In unlikely event that those folks asked me what to do, I'd suggest drones flying with sniffers. Cars are at risk of following a pre-emission-control antique.
It's not clear to me that CO2 and methane data from orbital platforms is at risk of being crimped. There are now such platforms not under US flag. But if California decides to launch its own: California Gov. Jerry Brown to launch satellite to track greenhouse gas emissions Well, why not? Half a billion might cover it.
There are lots of ways to think about how well humans (growing in number and wealth) handle environmental issues. One is UN' Millennium Development Goals. Which might be viewed as our best overall effort, or tongue-wagging, or a vast globalist conspiracy. Your choice there. Related, Bill Gates who made off with so much of your (our) money had pangs of conscience and sent lot$ of that back into Gates Foundation. They really do things. There is a website of course, and pages within that for those in need of occasional uplift. For example: https://www.gatesfoundation.org.cn/goalkeepers Actually I doubt you'd be sent directly to the .cn page. They know my URL though, and offer what I am expected to want.
Based on climate model projections, country-level harms have been calculated: Research forecasts US among top nations to suffer economic damage from climate change: Novel UC San Diego study indicates global warming is costing US economy about $250 billion per year -- ScienceDaily
I think that damage is expressed in $dollars, not human displacement or disruption. Low GDP-total or -per-capita countries just don't have as many dollars to lose, not matter how much human impact they suffer.
Perhaps a good time to review dealing with science deniers: How to Talk to a Science Denier without Arguing - Scientific American Blog Network The thinking error at the root of science denial Believe it or not, science deniers aren't stupid Bob Wilson
If pushing that rock up that hill ever seems tiring, consider a retreat into fiction. No, I mean real fiction, speculative ecology, such as that reviewed here: Wild Speculation: Evolution After Humans | by Lucy Jakub | NYR Daily | The New York Review of Books Reviewing a book published 36 years ago. I've not read it but this review was enjoyable.
Hard to get fired up about one near-extinct species, unless one is into such things. But this story reveals some ecological themes worthy of attention. Rare Tree Kangaroo Reappears After Vanishing for 90 Years 1. Legendary evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr saw an animal unknown to him. At that time it was normal procedure to shoot the novelty and send its pelt to museum. This he did. 2. Lack of subsequent sightings suggested that he had 'collected' the last living example. Oops. 3. Now it has been observed again (same area) and 'shot' only photographically. DNA (from poop) will be compared to Mayr's. This is normal procedure now. 4. That DNA should also reveal details of diet and seed dispersal, yielding more information than previous procedure. 5. Critter apparently persists in a remote location where (meat) hunters don't go because bamboo is absurdly impenetrable. == Marsupials are mammals but unusual in several ways. Without the unique (long) history of this region, we'd not see any of them. Except from fossils, maybe, which would be humorously difficult to interpret. Persistence of rare species can involve rare confluences of geography, botany, and sometimes even diseases* that keep human populations (and meat demands) low. Last two not numbered as they are but my humble spin on such stories. *If one were trying for a malaria infection this would be a good place to go.
There are a few marsupials outside of Australia. We caught our dog grooming a young one last year. The egg laying mammals aren't found elsewhere though.
Two recent paper on the potential impacts of hypothetically switching to all wind- or solar-generated electricity: Observation-based solar and wind power capacity factors and power densities - IOPscience (open access) https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30446-X
An interesting paper and well worth the time to read. Just one omission from the paper. They don't observe that a wind farm is dual use. Hay for critters, food crops, and other multi-use of the wind farms was not discussed. In fact the 'elephant in the room' is absence that a solar cell and wind-farm combined power source makes sense. Convert the wind W/sq m. to include the parallel use and then the wind farm becomes similar to raising fish in a rice paddy. The fish eat water insects and at harvest time become a second crop, Bob Wilson