|
|
Coles, G. D., Wratten, S. D., & Porter, J. R. (2016). Food and nutritional security requires adequate protein as well as energy, delivered from whole-year crop production. PeerJ, 4, 17.
Abstract: Human food security requires the production of sufficient quantities of both high-quality protein and dietary energy. In a series of case-studies from New Zealand, we show that while production of food ingredients from crops on arable land can meet human dietary energy requirements effectively, requirements for high-quality protein are met more efficiently by animal production from such land. We present a model that can be used to assess dietary energy and quality-corrected protein production from various crop and crop/animal production systems, and demonstrate its utility. We extend our analysis with an accompanying economic analysis of commercially available pre-prepared or simply-cooked foods that can be produced from our case-study crop and animal products. We calculate the per-person, per-day cost of both quality-corrected protein and dietary energy as provided in the processed foods. We conclude that mixed dairy/cropping systems provide the greatest quantity of high quality protein per unit price to the consumer, have the highest food energy production and can support the dietary requirements of the highest number of people, when assessed as all-year-round production systems. Global food and nutritional security will largely be an outcome of national or regional agroeconomies addressing their town food needs. We hope that lour model will be used for similar analyses of food production systems in other countries, agroecological zones and economies.
|
|
|
|
Ingram, J. S. I., & Porter, J. R. (2015). Plant science and the food security agenda. Nature Plants, 1(11), 15173.
|
|
|
|
Porter, J. R., Durand, J. L., & Elmayan, T. (2016). Edited plants should not be patented. Nature, 530, 33.
|
|
|
|
Porter, J. R., & Wratten, S. (2014). National carbon stocks: Move on to a carbon currency standard. Nature, 506, 295.
Abstract: Alongside Robert Costanza and colleagues’ plea to abandon gross domestic product as a measure of national success (see Nature 505, 283–285; 2014), we believe that there is an urgent need to change the way currencies are valued — by using a new ‘carbon standard’ that links economy to ecology. This would work in a similar way to the old gold-exchange standard, except that a country’s currency value would instead be determined by its saved and standing stocks of fossil and non-fossil carbon. Governments would need to decide whether to risk devaluing their currency by depleting carbon stocks — while still honouring a commitment to keep fossil-carbon stocks at 80% as a safeguard against extreme climate change. After the Second World War, huge investments radically altered the economies of the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom. In the face of climate change, it is now the global energy system that needs reinvention.
|
|
|
|
Refsgaard, J. C., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Drews, M., Halsnaes, K., Jeppesen, E., Madsen, H., et al. (2013). The role of uncertainty in climate change adaptation strategies – a Danish water management example. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change, 18(3), 337–359.
Abstract: We propose a generic framework to characterize climate change adaptation uncertainty according to three dimensions: level, source and nature. Our framework is different, and in this respect more comprehensive, than the present UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) approach and could be used to address concerns that the IPCC approach is oversimplified. We have studied the role of uncertainty in climate change adaptation planning using examples from four Danish water related sectors. The dominating sources of uncertainty differ greatly among issues; most uncertainties on impacts are epistemic (reducible) by nature but uncertainties on adaptation measures are complex, with ambiguity often being added to impact uncertainties. Strategies to deal with uncertainty in climate change adaptation should reflect the nature of the uncertainty sources and how they interact with risk level and decision making: (i) epistemic uncertainties can be reduced by gaining more knowledge; (ii) uncertainties related to ambiguity can be reduced by dialogue and knowledge sharing between the different stakeholders; and (iii) aleatory uncertainty is, by its nature, non-reducible. The uncertainty cascade includes many sources and their propagation through technical and socio-economic models may add substantially to prediction uncertainties, but they may also cancel each other. Thus, even large uncertainties may have small consequences for decision making, because multiple sources of information provide sufficient knowledge to justify action in climate change adaptation.
|
|
