Past Featured Articles

Featured Past Articles

Over 95% of the exported cut flowers are transported by air which makes securing air cargo space a priority. To cushion this, large exporters have been able to exercise some control over space through joint ventures with freight forwarders.

The freight forwarders inspect and document flower and temperature conditions, palletize packed flowers, store them in cold storage facilities at the airport, clear them through export customs, obtain phytosanitary certification, and load the cargo onto commercial or charter flights. Some forwarders also offer cooled transport for growers.

The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment, but has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don’t know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.

The crucial scientific question for policy isn’t whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth’s global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Neither is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate.

There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.

But rather the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, “How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?” Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.

But—here’s the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

A second challenge to “knowing” future climate is today’s poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate’s heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.

A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate’s response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.

But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.

Beyond these observational challenges are those posed by the complex computer models used to project future climate. These massive programmes attempt to describe the dynamics and interactions of the various components of the Earth system—the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, the ice and the biosphere of living things. While some parts of the models rely on well-tested physical laws, other parts involve technically informed estimation. Computer modeling of complex systems is as much an art as a science.

For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box’s average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted (“tuned,” in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.

We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue.

For the latest IPCC report (September 2013), its Working Group I, which focuses on physical science, uses an ensemble of some 55 different models. Although most of these models are tuned to reproduce the gross features of the Earth’s climate, the marked differences in their details and projections reflect all of the limitations that I have described.

For example:
• The models differ in their descriptions of the past century’s global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere’s energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate’s inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right.
• Although the Earth’s average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.

Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.
• The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.
• The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that “hot spot” has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.
• Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.
• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today’s best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite a heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.

These and many other open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not “minor” issues to be “cleaned up” by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research.

Yet a public official reading only the IPCC’s “Summary for Policy Makers” would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies. These are fundamental challenges to our understanding of human impacts on the climate, and they should not be dismissed with the mantra that “climate science is settled.”

While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem.

We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. An international commitment to a sustained global climate observation system would generate an ever-lengthening record of more precise observations. And increasingly powerful computers can allow a better understanding of the uncertainties in our models, finer model grids and more sophisticated descriptions of the processes that occur within them. The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes.

A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, “red team” reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.

Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is “settled” (or is a “hoax”) demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.

Society’s choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.

But climate strategies beyond such “no regrets” efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.

Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about “believing” or “denying” the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity’s deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort.

Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.

Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, BP.LN -0.82% where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.

About two million Kenyans are food insecure. In Nairobi, up to 20 per cent of the population is ultra hungry, researchers tell us. Farmers responsible for feeding the country are still struggling with access to seeds, government subsidized agro inputs, diseases and pests and emerging threats like climate change.

Ironically Kenya is endowed with large swathes of green fertile land, favourable climate and a highly entrepreneurial population with institutions like the Food and Agricultural Organisation classifying the country’s land as so verdant, so lush and so capable of generating food that it could, alone, be the agricultural supply station for most of Africa. The World Bank on the other hand through numerous studies shows Kenyan farmers among the most important in developing countries capable of creating a trillion-dollar food market by 2030 if they expanded their access to more capital, better technology, irrigated land and grow high-value nutritious foods.

SoliQ Air, a specialist high performance flower packaging product has established its global roots into the Kenya Flower sector in just a little under two years. Today, unlike at the time of introduction when Silpack’s Director Parit Shah, had a challenging time convincing flower farms to try the SoliQ Air cartons, they are marketing themselves, thanks to their delivery of savings.

Mr. Shah says investment in the SoliQ Air cartons, whose core values are quality, innovation, savings and consistency is paying dividends for the sector.

This, he notes, is attested by its ever increasing orders as well as growing client base.“When we introduced this product I had a challenge marketing it. The concept would be dismissed as creative marketing. This perception has fundamentally changed. More and more farms are making enquiries and subsequently place orders with us,” points out Mr. Shah.

Silpack Industries Limited today supplies the high quality cartons to 15 of the top flower farms in the country. An impressive growth in a marketplace spoilt for choice of carton suppliers. The key to the rapid success is underpinned by the commitment Silpack has given to the core values of the.

The Director believes for the most part, the growth in the client base has resulted from the end customers of the flower farms’, especially in Russia, Far East and Europe being particular that they wanted their flowers packaged in SoliQ Air branded cartons.

Mr. Shah notes that in the flower business where the end-buyer is keen on getting flowers efficiently and without waste, SoliQ Air cartons are being preferred in like for like comparisons. The key lies in the high performance fibre that goes into the paper, making them stronger and more durable when compared to their peers.

“Globally, SoliQ has been synonymous with reducing wastage, which has always been the underlying factor. It is a brand that has come of age after primarily starting in the fresh produce industry. SoliQ Air, created for the flowers going to auction, where it impressively delivered on its core values, is now increasingly being used by players in direct sales,” Mr. Shah observes.

But perhaps the biggest benefit that clients have realised from using the SoliQ Air boxes is savings in terms of money. According to Mr. Shah, exporters have confirmed a saving in freight costs. Additionally, he says that feedback also indicated that their clients have noted significant reductions in wastage claims.

Strategic partnerships
Over the years the Silpack has cultivated partnerships with organisations which are foremost authorities in the field of cold chain. Globally one key partnership is with Paccess Packaging, a US-based subsidiary of Billerud Korsnas, providing global brand owners with world-class knowledge and experience within packaging design, development, and sourcing. The results of these partnerships have allowed growers and to reduce supply chain waste and time-to-market costs.

Moving forward, Silpack intends to make SoliQ Air boxes even better by focusing on innovative ways of dealing with other challenges of ethylene and moisture control in the cold chain. In this, they are working with a number of growers to ensure the final product will be delivering on the core values of quality, innovation, savings and consistency. Mr. Shah also says that a new box design, that he terms as revolutionary, is also in the pipeline.

“Flower and fresh produce packaging has changed more in the last two years than it did in the prior fifteen years. Silpack is currently investing in innovation to ensure that we do not have to wait another fifteen years to introduce further savings and benefits for our growers to make them more competitive in the global marketplace. We eagerly wait to introduce at least three new products in the near future!” Parit says with a smile.

After the success in the flower industry, Silpack is eager to replicate the same in other horticultural subsectors.

“We are confident that the vegetable and fruit exporters will benefit from the same winning qualities from SoliQ boxes,” Mr. Shah points out.

Thrips, order Thysanoptera, are tiny, slender insects with fringed wings. They feed by puncturing the epidermal (outer) layer of host tissue and sucking out the cell contents, which results in stippling, discolored flecking, or silvering of the leaf surface. Thrips feeding is usually accompanied by black varnishlike flecks of frass (excrement).

Pest species are plant feeders that discolor and scar leaf, flower, and fruit surfaces, and distort plant parts or vector plant pathogens. Many species of thrips feed on fungal spores and pollen and are often innocuous. However, pollen feeding on plants such as orchids and African violets can leave unsightly pollen deposits and may reduce flower longevity. Certain thrips are beneficial predators that feed on other insects and mites.