It is the end of summer and time for another Iowa report. My wife and I own a medium-sized farm in East Central Iowa that produces corn and soybeans, and beef from a cow/calf herd. My day job is as Professor of International Agricultural Policy at Stanford University, typically working on hunger problems in Asia. The summer keeps me in direct contact with rural life in the Midwest. 

My previous Iowa postings have been dominated by weather—severe drought in 2012, massive flooding in 2013, and tornados in 2014. In a different way, weather features again this year. We had 10 inches of rain and a hailstorm during the first 10 days following my June return from California. But after that episode, the weather has been nearly perfect for our locale. Things could still go wrong—a typical farmer comment—but at the moment, we are looking at near-record yields on our farm. My guess is 210 bushels per acre for corn, and 65 bushels per acre for soybeans, both about 10% higher than for recent years. 

Crops throughout the region look generally good, and the following couplet is a standard feature of local conversations: 

“Don’t the crops look great?”  
“Yeah, but they aren’t worth nothing.”  

A sharp run-up in corn prices the last two weeks of June—from $3.50 to $4.40 per bushel—left farmers hopeful with what would turn out to be faulty expectations. As many waited for further price increases before selling, the good weather and the economic slow down in China caused corn prices to tumble. By Sept 1, prices were back at $3.50. These low prices left many farmers with dashed expectations, substantial amounts of 2014 corn in farm storage, and the prospects of a large upcoming October harvest. Nor will crop insurance help very much. The combination of yields and prices this year will leave most farmers just outside the range that would qualify them for 75%-revenue-protection payments. 

Few outside the farming community realize that marketing decisions are often more important than production in defining a successful farm year. Few also appreciate the differential impact on Iowa’s general prosperity from the $7 corn that prevailed in 2012-13, versus the current $3.50. 
 

Gloom is not the only thing that has been rolling across the landscape. Two parades really had to be seen to be appreciated. Each year since 1973, the state has hosted a bike ride across Iowa called Ragbrai. It is a weeklong activity that starts at the Missouri River to the west, and ends 500 miles to the east at the Mississippi River. It has grown into a massive affair that attracts some 15,000 riders.  

Image

Photo Credit: C. Benz 

This year’s ride was special, at least for us. This mass of rolling humanity came within two miles of our farm, and it included a sizeable number of Stanford faculty and students (including my boss, pictured below) who, among others, made mini-detours to visit us. What were most interesting to my wife and me were the impressions expressed both by the bikers and the local hosts. 

The riders marveled at the rolling topography of Iowa; the vast expanses of corn and soybeans; the welcoming hospitality of Iowans; the infinite ways pork could be served on a stick; and the best sweet corn in the world! The locals were bemused that so many sane people of all shapes and sizes would voluntarily ride 500 miles in the heat and rain; amazed by the short-term chaos that 15,000 cyclists could cause in small rural communities that were attempting to move machinery and feed cattle; and pleased by the magnitude of the expenditures. The latter was deftly described by a neighbor as “our own economic stimulus package,” and more pointedly summarized by a local headline, “Circus, Economic Windfall, or Occupying Army?” 
 

Image

 Photo Credit: R. Naylor

Politicians formed the second parade (charade?) that has been rolling across the state. Iowa—with the dubious honor of having the first primary/caucus—is a genuinely purple state. It voted for President Barack Obama in 2012 and for Senator Joni Ernst in 2014. Iowans pride themselves on being able to pick winners and on being stubbornly independent. The prevailing general mood at the moment, however, is some combination of confusion and disgust. Donald Trump draws the most comments. And while he leads the polls, I have yet to hear anyone (literally) this summer say that he or she favored him. Time will tell what Iowans really believe.

Nowhere was the comedy and chaos more vivid than at the recently completed Iowa State Fair. Some 15 presidential candidates showed up. Most of them spoke at the fair’s “Soapbox Corner” before conspicuously casting their kernel-of-corn vote at the straw (corn?) ballot table. They also had the obligatory pictures taken with the life-sized cow sculpted in butter, the fair’s largest bull (there must be some symbolism here), and the fair’s heaviest pig. The latter was a 500-pound specimen named Mac. (I was disappointed that an earlier winner, my namesake “Wally”, was not in the competition.) And to no one’s surprise, all candidates thought that corn-based ethanol was a really good idea. Most of them even expressed favor with the fair’s latest cuisine contribution—the Bomb—brisket, wrapped in bacon, served on a stick! 
 

Image

Photo Credit: R. Naylor 

Readers of previous reports will be pleased to know that the 1868 Waubeek general store and restaurant still serves as the morning gathering place. It has changed hands, but continues its long tradition of watery coffee and stale pastry. (By request, I have included pictures; I am California hatless, plus a shot of the outside.) Besides prices, bikers, and politicians, three new topics of conversation have cropped up: water, cover crops, and weeds. All three are environmental issues that are distinctly operational. They also remind me of just how much information is exchanged around tables such as this one, though on any given morning that conclusion is not always obvious!

Image

By far the most controversial topic of the summer has been water. (And to be clear, the issue is about water quality and the nutrients carried in the water, not about water supplies or allocations.) Many farmers realize that nutrient runoff from livestock operations and from fertilizer applied to fields is a very serious problem; most of them are also loathsome about EPA efforts to redefine and regulate what constitutes water flows in the U. S. 

During the last week in August, the EPA announced new clean-water rules that would give the agency new jurisdiction over bodies of water (and land), including many in agriculture, which were previously unregulated. But it remains to be seen which bodies of waters would be covered, and which specific agricultural situations that would be exempted from the rules. Six states have sued the EPA, and the question of when or if the rules will be implemented is now caught up in the courts. The Farm Bureau has declared an all-out offensive against the rules, and farm publications have added further fuel to the fire. To complicate matters even more, the Des Moines Water Works has brought suit against three counties upstream of its water plant that would require farmers to change practices and/or make investments to reduce nutrient flows (particularly nitrates) into the Raccoon River. 

Most scientists and many farmers believe that nutrient runoff constitutes the largest remaining environmental problem facing agriculture. Thus the fight, in many ways, is less about the problem, and more about philosophy. Most farmers prefer voluntary solutions arranged with the state or the USDA. They typically dislike mandatory rules of any sort, and they are particularly concerned that regulations might be of the one-size-fits-all character. The discourse is inflamed by uncertainty: the EPA has yet to write all of the regulations, and farmers simply do not know what to expect. In the absence of information, they fear the worst. Everyone I talked with had a relevant question. Will we need to get a permit to spread manure? How will drainage tiles that empty into or near creeks be handled? Will we need to file a nitrogen plan for every farm that specifies amounts and timing of fertilizer applications? On our farm, for example, we have a flowing creek that traverses a large permanent pasture. The creek provides water for the cowherd, which has direct access to it. What, if anything, will need to be changed in that arrangement? All of us wonder about the flexibility in timing and scope that will be accorded farmers who may be faced with large corrective investments. Many also fear that the regulators will know little about agricultural practices. In short, what waters are to be regulated, for what purposes, and with what instruments are issues still to be resolved? At the moment, there is considerable heat, but very little light about the answers. 

Virtually all Iowa farmers have transitioned to minimum tillage systems; plowing has become a field operation of the past. This change in tillage also creates new cropping opportunities. 
 

Image

Photo Credit: USDA

Five years ago, there was virtually no talk about or use of “cover crops.” These crops are sown in residues immediately after corn or soybean harvest. Certain of them survive the winter, but others do not. Radishes (shades of the English agricultural revolution, circa 1700!) produce long roots that punch holes in clay layers of the soil, thereby assisting drainage. They can also be grazed. Small grains are also being seeded, which add to add organic matter and can sometimes be chopped as forage for dairy or beef operations. 
 

Image

Photo Credit: Mühlhausen/landpixel

Cover crops are clearly still a work in progress, but they provide an interesting example of active on-farm experimentation. Best solutions seem to vary from farm to farm—from no cover, to radishes, to triticale—and seem importantly dependent on particular crop-livestock combinations. Discussions about the use of triticale—a cross between rye and either bread wheat or durum—were of particular interest to me. I worked with Norman Borlaug at the International Wheat and Maize Improvement Center in Mexico during the 1980s to develop modern varieties of this crop, but it has been slow to find appropriate niches in cropping systems around the world. In the 1980s, I never even contemplated that Iowa might be such a place. 

Several forces drive the new concern about weeds. Falling crop prices have squeezed profit margins severely, causing farmers to look seriously at each cost component. For the first time, I have heard farmers question new seed varieties (virtually all GMOs), both because of their cost and their effectiveness. They increasingly wonder if the $200 seed-cost-per-acre for corn is justified. The current year, with its excellent growing season, meant there was less need for certain stacked traits such as drought resistance. Moreover, the year was equally good for weeds, whose resistance to major herbicides like Roundup seemed to be spreading. 

Water hemp, in particular, gave soybean farmers grief, and is causing them to rethink seed-weed strategies. They worry about the consequences from applying new combination-herbicides (some still under various reviews) that attack both grasses and broad-leafed weeds. They are particularly concerned that spraying some of the new products will also destroy the grasses in waterways left specifically to prevent water erosion. 

My conjecture is that most farmers will still use the specialized seeds next year. I predict, however, that they will also be searching more carefully for lower-cost ways—both via seeds and herbicides—to manage weeds. The growing weed resistance problem has begun to scare them—a recent Greenwire Poll indicates that 90% are worried—and has belatedly driven home the difficulties that arise from overuse of only one or two herbicides. 
 

Image

No Iowa report is complete without some cattle commentary. 

My father was a cattle feeder, and some of those “cattle genes” carried forward a generation. I grew up knowing a lot about purebreds, about corn and soybean-meal feed rations, and about 2-pound-per-day rates of gain that produced 1100-pound animals for sale. Fast forward to 2015. When I look around, virtually all cattle have been crossbred for size and vigor (though in the market they may still be advertised as Angus!). Soybean meal has dropped completely out of the rations being fed in our county, having been replaced by the high-protein distillers grain, the by-product of making corn sweeteners and ethanol. Rates of gain are now 3.25 pounds per day, and finished animals are sold at 1500 pounds. What has not changed, however, is the riskiness of the enterprise. Even with cheap corn, buying 700 pound feeders for $2.25 per pound, and selling 1500 pound steers at $1.45 per pound has not been a great way to get rich in 2015! 

My final impression of the summer is a memorable one: rolling down the Mississippi River on a paddle boat, celebrating my wife’s and my birthdays with good friends, viewing a glorious sunset, and eating world-class prime rib. Now that’s the way to get ready for a new year of Stanford classes.

Image

Photo credit: flickr/Lance and Erin

Professor Frank Wolak was recently interviewed by Julian Spector of CityLab regarding the use of nuclear energy in a zero-carbon grid. According to Professor Wolak, "It makes very little economic sense to phase [nuclear energy] out, particularly given how successful the U.S. nuclear industry has been over the past 30 years". Professor Wolak also points out that American nuclear generators are safer than ever while still boasting an impressive capacity factor.

Governments must do more to diversify the types of crops grown throughout the world. If they don’t, climate change may jeopardize the global food supply, a leading agriculture researcher told a Stanford audience.

Cary Fowler, a senior advisor and former executive director of the Global Crop Diversity Trust, was a driving force behind the creation of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault in Norway. Commonly known as the “doomsday vault,” the repository of ancient and modern seeds from around the world ensures that future generations will have access to a wide enough range of crop traits to adapt global agriculture to a changing climate.

Dr. Cary Fowler in Svalbard, Norway, the home of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault.

During a May 6 talk sponsored by FSE as part of the center’s Food and Nutrition Policy Symposium, Fowler warned that increasingly high temperatures and water shortages interfere with the natural growing cycles of many crops and can even reduce the nutritional quality of some plants. Higher temperatures also give way to new pests, diseases, and soil microorganisms that threaten yields.

 “The biggest impacts from climate change will be in sub-Saharan Africa,” Fowler said, a region where many people already suffer serious poverty and hunger, and where crop yields lag behind the rest of the world. Fowler said that as climate pressure on agriculture intensifies, the world can expect to see an uptick in civil conflict, restrictive trade policies, and suffering among the world’s poorest people.

“Crops are going to be facing new combinations of conditions for which there is no historical experience,” said Fowler. “They will require new combinations of traits” that can only be developed by preserving genetic diversity and proactively breeding new varieties.

 “There are 1.3 billion people living on subsistence farms today,” said Dr. Cary Fowler to a Stanford audience on May 6. “How will they adapt to climate change without access to diversity?”

Fowler called for the U.S. and foreign governments to embrace their “inherited evolutionary responsibility” for preserving the huge diversity of crops grown by farmers throughout human history.

The United States is the ideal candidate to lead the world in using crop genetic diversity to adapt agriculture to climate challenges, he said. “The U.S. is well-positioned to research diversity, model future climate and assemble seed packages,” enlisting farmers in the U.S. and abroad in “another mass adaptation experiment” like the one American agriculture undertook in the 18^th and 19^th centuries.

 “I know that sounds like a wild and crazy idea,” Fowler said. “But I haven’t heard any alternatives to it. If we’re assuming we’re going to have development without diversity, that would really be a historically unprecedented experiment.”

 “If agriculture doesn’t adapt,” he added, “neither will we.”

A diverse history

In the late 1700s the United States food system lacked diversity and infrastructure. “Very few of the crops we grow now in the U.S. are native,” said Fowler. Early on, “it wasn’t always evident what crops from abroad would grow well in the U.S.”

The government soon set out to expand and diversify American agriculture. U.S. Navy ships collected seeds on overseas voyages, and U.S. diplomats brought back new crops from postings abroad. Government-sponsored expeditions sought out foreign plants with specific disease-resistant traits. The U.S. signed two dozen seed-exchange agreements with other countries, and lowered taxes on imported seeds to boost global crop exchange.

Image

“The United States amassed a much more diverse array of seeds and crops as a result,” said Fowler. One program introduced 600 new apple varieties, 700 new types of pears, and 353 new varieties of mangoes to American farmers.

But the United States did not simply collect new crops. It also invested in research to develop new varieties, including through plant breeding.

Genetic erosion

Research into plant breeding quickly yielded many of the modern varieties of crops we grow today in the United States.

“With plant breeding came the rise of modern varieties that had useful traits like disease resistance,” said Fowler. A small handful of new varieties quickly gained popularity with American farmers, who now had a choice about whether or not to save seeds and grow many varieties of a crop at once. Most farmers chose not to, instead relying on the same few mainstream varieties their neighbors were growing.

This shift has led to what Fowler described as the “genetic erosion” of agriculture, a trend that can only be reversed by reviving the tradition of seed saving and plant breeding on a global scale.

Seed banks

“I have probably been to more seed banks than any other person,” said Fowler. Seeds from most crops can survive hundreds or even thousands of years in storage, but most storage facilities lack the physical security to provide lasting safe haven. Many seed banks are poorly built, too warm or humid for long-term storage, and vulnerable to natural disasters. Other facilities suffer damaged during civil wars and uprisings.

Even if banks are physically secure, said Fowler, most simply do not operate on a large enough scale to protect global crop diversity. “Most crops in the world have between one and 10 total seed samples in storage, and most have no plant breeders working on them at all,” said Fowler.

The doomsday vault

In 2005 Fowler was chosen to lead an international coalition to build the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. The Norwegian government owns the facility, and it is also managed by the Global Crop Diversity Trust and the Nordic Genetic Resource Center. 

The vault is built into the side of a mountain in the far north of Norway, said Fowler, because the ideal temperature for storing seeds is minus 18 degrees Celsius.

Inside the frozen walls of the vault are shelves full of boxes holding duplicate seeds from smaller seed banks around the world. Foreign governments that contribute samples pay nothing for storage, and the seed packages are never opened by vault staff, said Fowler.

 “The vault now houses seeds from over 864,000 varieties of plants,” said Fowler, adding that not a single sample has ever been lost.

Seed storage boxes at the Svalbard Global Seed Vault.

The facility’s nickname, “the doomsday vault,” comes not only from its rugged physical location but from its capacity to withstand disasters – something its planners took great care to design. “We calculated how high the water would go if all ice in the world melted and we had the world’s largest ever tsunami,” said Fowler. “The vault is five stories above that.”

“Not a solution”

Fowler emphasized that no doomsday vault, no matter how secure its walls or how ample its seed collection, can solve the problem of crop genetic erosion. Building a vault “doesn’t mean that we as a society are getting serious about adapting agriculture to climate change,” Fowler said. Plant breeding and crop research programs focused on developing new climate-resilient varieties are just as crucial as saving seeds.

Although a few major staple crops like rice, wheat and corn are continually bred and improved in research labs around the world, most crops are largely ignored by researchers. For example, there are only six breeders of yams worldwide.

“Why conserve it if you’re not going to use it?” Fowler asked. “We are acting like crops are going to adapt by themselves, and we are assuming all but a handful of crops are unimportant.”

Quoting Charles Darwin, Fowler added that “it is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

Full video and audio recordings of Dr. Fowler's May 6 lecture, and his interview with FSE director Roz Naylor, are available here. 

FSE deputy director David Lobell has been named the William Wrigley Senior Fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI). Lobell is also an Associate Professor in Earth System Science. 

Lobell's research focuses on identifying opportunities to raise crop yields in major agricultural regions, with a particular emphasis on adaptation to climate change. His current projects span Africa, South Asia, Mexico, and the United States, and involve a range of tools including remote sensing, GIS, and crop and climate models.

"David Lobell's research on climate change and food security is truly global in scope, but his work also crosses academic borders," said FSI director Mike McFaul. "David's appointment as William Wrigley Senior Fellow recognizes his ability to connect the most pressing challenges in international  development with critical questions of environmental sustainability, in a way that generates real solutions on both fronts."

The William Wrigley Senior Fellowship is supported by Mrs. Julie Ann Wrigley, AB '71 (Anthropology) and Ms. Alison Wrigley Rusack, AB '80 (Communication).

"The Wrigley fellowship recognizes the important contributions of our faculty to ensuring a sustainable world and is one family’s remarkable legacy to reshape the future of the environment on which we all depend," said Perry L. McCarty Director Barton "Buzz" Thompson, who co-leads the Stanford Woods Institute with Perry L. McCarty Director Jeffrey Koseff.  "Both David and the first holder of the fellowship, Roz Naylor, are leaders in the effort to provide food security to the planet's growing population, perhaps the most critical challenge the world faces."

"David's work already transcends disciplines and departments through his work with the Center on Food Security and the Environment, a synergistic partnership between Woods and the Freeman Spogli Institute," Koseff added. "The Wrigley fellowship provides important support for this type of collaborative, cross-cutting research at Stanford."

Lobell was a Senior Research Scholar at the Center on Food Security and the Environment from 2008-2009 and a Lawrence Post-doctoral Fellow at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 2005-2007. He received a PhD in Geological and Environmental Sciences from Stanford University in 2005, and a Sc.B. in Applied Mathematics, Magna Cum Laude from Brown University in 2000.

FSE director Roz Naylor has been selected to deliver the 6th annual Ned Ames Honorary Lecture at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, NY on Friday, April 24. Her lecture on "Feeding the World in the 21st Century," is free and open to the public, and a video recording of the event will be available on the Cary Institute's website shortly after the talk.

A chance course at Stanford and a study-abroad trip to Nepal changed the trajectory of Marshall Burke's career, leading him to a human-focused approach studying climate change. His latest work deals with the link between rising temperatures and human violence. 

I pray thee, good Mercutio, let's retire:
The day is hot, the Capulets abroad,
And, if we meet, we shall not scape a brawl;
For now, these hot days, is the mad blood stirring.

That a connection exists between hot temperatures and flaring tempers is an old observation. In William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Benvolio begs his friend Mercutio to take shelter from the heat, lest it lead to a street fight with a member of the Capulet family.

“Even in Shakespeare’s time, it was recognized that people are more likely to lose their tempers when it’s hot outside,” said Marshall Burke, an assistant professor in the department of Environmental Earth System Science and a fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and its Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE).

The link between temperature and violence has come under increased scientific scrutiny in recent years because of climate change. In 2013, Burke made waves in scientific circles and in the popular press when he and Solomon Hsiang, now an assistant professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, performed a meta-analysis of over 50 scientific studies and found that climate change is increasing various kinds of human conflict–everything from individual-level violence, such as assault and robbery, all the way up to group-level conflicts such as civil wars and skirmishes between nations.

"What we see is that over and over, no matter where you look, you see more conflict and more violence when temperatures are hotter than average," Burke said.

Climate change and violence

Prior to Burke and Hsiang's study, several papers had suggested possible links between climate change and violence, but the research was scattered across disciplines and the results often conflicted with one another. The pair sought to cut through the morass by putting all of the papers on an equal empirical footing. "We got a hold of all of the datasets that we could and reanalyzed them in exactly the same way," Burke said. "When we did that, what came through was a very strong and consistent relationship between hotter-than-average temperatures and increases in all these types of conflicts."

We are learning about ourselves and we can shape our trajectories in ways that we wouldn't have been able to if we didn't have this information. To me, that's very hopeful.

Burke says he was surprised by the how strong and consistent the signal was. For example, of the 27 studies from the modern era that looked directly at the relationship between temperature and conflict, all 27 of them found a positive relationship. "The chance of that happening at random or by chance is less than 1 in 10 million,” Burke said.

Burke finds it fascinating that a relationship between temperature and violence should exist at all. Economists have speculated that temperature affects human conflict through changes in economic productivity. The idea is that by increasing the likelihood of droughts in certain parts of the world, climate change is reducing crop productivity and driving people already in dire straits to take desperate measures such as joining rebellions. "In places like Sub-Saharan Africa, you don't need that many people to start a civil war," Burke said.

Human physiology almost certainly plays a key role as well. Studies show that people just behave badly when it’s hot. "Experiments have shown that whether it’s a cooperation task, or one that requires concentration, people just do poorly if it's hotter in the room," Burke said. "We're just wired to do better at some temperatures than at others."

Because global warming is unlikely to abate anytime soon, even if mitigation policies are enacted, understanding why hotter temperatures brings out the worst in humans is crucial for determining solutions to curb violent tendencies as global temperatures rise, Burke said. "If the root cause is agricultural, we might want to invest in things that boost crop yields or that reduces crop sensitivity to really hot temperatures," he added. "If it’s something to do with human physiology, the problem becomes much more difficult. You might say, well we could just invest in air conditioning, but even in the U.S. where we have lots of air conditioning, you still see this strong relationship."

Burke's own background is in economics, but he plans to team up with medical scientists to explore just how temperature affects human physiology. "That's what's exciting about being at Stanford, and one of the main reasons I accepted a position here," Burke said. "It's really easy to cross disciplines here and make connections in other fields."

People-focused

Being interdisciplinary comes naturally to Burke. His undergraduate education at Stanford University straddled the social sciences and the natural sciences. Initially an Earth Systems major, Burke later switched to International Relations after taking a course called "The World Food Economy" that was co-taught by Roz Naylor, the William Wrigley Professor in Earth Science. "I took that class and it literally changed my trajectory. I knew that this kind of human-focused research was what I wanted to do," Burke said.

Burke was also deeply affected by time he spent living in Nepal with poor farming families during his junior year as part of a semester abroad program. "It was my first real confrontation with deep and grinding rural poverty," he said. "That experience made me want to understand what's going on and think about the kind of research I needed to do if I wanted to help."

After graduating, Burke worked as a research assistant for Naylor and Walter Falcon, now the deputy director of FSE, where he helped investigate the impacts of agricultural systems on the environment and ways to use agriculture to reduce poverty around the world.  "Since most of the poor people in the world continue to work in agriculture, our idea was that if we could improve how much was produced on small farms, it would have a big impact on global poverty," Burke said.

Burke also credits Naylor and Falcon with making him think more deeply about the connections between climate change and agriculture. Later, while earning his PhD in agricultural and resource economics at the University of California, Berkeley, Burke's research interests broadened further to look at how climate change effects on agriculture might in turn impact the economic health and social cohesion of a country. "For me, it was a natural to begin by thinking about climate change impacts on agriculture and then following that line of reasoning to investigate other knock-on effects," Burke said.

A silver lining

When Burke is not at Stanford, he can often be found taking photographs or hiking and rock climbing with his family. His office is decorated with photos he’s taken of Death Valley, Yosemite Valley, and Nepal, where he returned with his wife for their honeymoon.

Burke credits the time he spent outdoors as a child for his lifelong interest in environmental issues, and it's a tradition that he continues with his two young girls. "We have two-year-old twins, and my wife and I have little harnesses that we use to take them rock climbing. So far they're more interested in swinging around on the rope than in actually climbing, but it's fun," he said.

Burke says the time he spends in the mountains and deserts are not just for his own mental well being and happiness. “It’s a constant reminder about the things I work on and what’s at stake,” he said.

Marshall Burke and his wife rocking climbing with their two-year-old daughter at Joshua Tree.

He acknowledged that many of the predictions from climate change impact studies are frightening and depressing, but he thinks there is a silver lining that often gets overlooked. "We live in a unique moment in history when we have a wealth of tools and data that can help us understand how human societies and the environment are coupled," Burke said.

"We are learning about ourselves and we can shape our trajectories in ways that we wouldn't have been able to if we didn't have this information. To me, that's very hopeful."

Burke is also a fellow at the Center on Food Security and the Environment (FSE) and a fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

Ker Than is associate director of communications for the School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences. Contact: 650-723-9820, kerthan@stanford.edu