In developing the new system, researchers at The Ohio State University also discovered that combining two bacterial species in the electro-fermentation mix not only helped accelerate the process, but allowed for more targeted chemical production. 

In this study, the food waste consisted of ice cream and sour cream – but the team has expanded the work with experiments using coffee grounds and lake algae. 

Eventual adoption of the technology could reap many benefits: efficient, sustainable and cost-effective production of multipurpose chemicals using source materials that would otherwise end up incinerated or in a landfill, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. 

“We are creating an industry from another industry’s waste,” said first author Beenish Saba, a research scientist in food, agricultural and biological engineering at Ohio State. 

“We’re making use of waste that a contractor charges businesses to take to a landfill, where it produces methane gas. We are suggesting that industries can put up a simple bioreactor in which they can produce other important byproducts.” 

The study was published recently in the Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. 

This work builds upon previous waste valorization research done by Saba and Katrina Cornish, professor emerita of horticulture and crop science and food, agricultural and biological engineering at Ohio State and a co-lead author of the current study.  

The valorization work involved analysis of physical and chemical properties of 46 food waste samples to identify good candidates for conversion to chemicals and biogases through a variety of processes – including fermentation. 

In the new study, Saba and colleagues compared the output and duration of conventional fermentation and electro-fermentation. Conventional practices consist of placing food waste and bacteria in a bottle, adjusting nutrient levels and incubating the materials at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Electro-fermentation is accomplished at room temperature inside a bioreactor outfitted with an electrode powered by minimal external voltage. 

“In conventional fermentation, the bacteria are happily growing and they will produce some solvents and gases,” Saba said. “In the second step, we gave them a little tingling electricity so the bacteria can feel a little irritation, and the metabolism was fast. They were growing and happily eating, and they produced more byproducts – meaning we can increase the yield.” 

There was another bonus to development of this new microbial electrochemical system: production of hydrogen gas. 

Experiments showed that combining two bacterial species from the Clostridium family contributed to hydrogen gas production while also reducing fermentation waste – it is known that the commonly used species C. bijerinckii generates carbon dioxide while converting food waste into alcohols, but it turns out another species, C. carboxidivorans, consumes that CO2. 

“It means the waste product of one bacteria is utilized by the other bacteria,” Saba said. “It was possible that there could have been an antagonistic relationship, but we tested growing them together and found there’s a synergistic relationship between these two bacteria that works well.” 

And in addition to consuming the CO2, C. carboxidivorans produces hydrogen gas and solvents. 

“Carbon dioxide is still there, but most of it is consumed, and it gives us hydrogen gas – an additional product. We now have two valuable products and one waste product,” she said. 

The work dovetails with an increased focus on using food waste and agricultural residue to create biobased products, Saba said. 

“We are working on improving the yield, cost efficiency and scalability,” she said. “The government is asking for work in this area and industry is interested in getting value from waste and not paying for its disposal. 

“So much material that is agricultural or biological in nature is just going to waste. It’s much better to utilize them and make valuable products.” 

This research was supported by the Ohio State President’s Research Excellence-Catalyst program funding and the Ohio Water Development Authority. 

Additional co-authors were Stephen Akinola, Ann Christy and Thaddeus Ezeji, all of Ohio State.

Researchers at The Ohio State University conducted a national survey to gauge consumer perceptions about adopting solar power. Though previous work has examined views about rooftop solar, this study is the first assessment of public opinion about accessing community solar energy for household use. 

The findings led researchers to recommend that policymakers and industry leaders increase marketing campaign references to the practical reasons for embracing solar power – including saving money and improving property values without taking big risks – to encourage broader residential use. 

“Emphasizing the practical benefits of adopting solar, whether it’s rooftop or community, might be the most effective avenue to achieve increased adoption in the real world,” said first author Naseem Dillman-Hasso, a doctoral candidate in the School of Environment and Natural Resources at Ohio State. 

The study also revealed that most participants didn’t understand what community solar is and few had looked into it, suggesting more public awareness is needed to expand consumer access to this more equitably distributed renewable energy source, said senior author Nicole Sintov, associate professor of behavior, decision making and sustainability at Ohio State. 

“Community solar is a great option for people who are unable to access rooftop solar,” she said. “We show that there are still some significant barriers to entry, and we’ve got to start with letting people know what it is.” 

The research was published recently in the journal Energy Research & Social Science. 

As of 2022, 8% of U.S homeowners had installed rooftop solar panels at an average cost of between $17,000 and $23,000 after applying a federal tax credit, according to the Pew Research Center. Under community solar programs, energy generated at an off-site solar array is supplied to multiple customers within a defined geographical area who receive credit on their electricity bills for energy produced by their share of the project.

With residential solar use still relatively low, Sintov and Dillman-Hasso sought to understand what could motivate households to consider solar as an energy option. 

They based the study on a consumer behavior theory suggesting that three common factors, or attributes, contribute to adoption of sustainable innovations – practical purposes (instrumental attributes), conveying one’s social consciousness to others (symbolic) and protecting the planet (environmental). 

A sample of 1,433 adults living in the United States was recruited for the online survey. Participants were asked about their willingness to adopt rooftop or community solar and whether they had taken action toward adoption, such as researching the options, talking with friends or family, or contacting an industry expert. 

They also were asked to agree or disagree with a series of statements representing the instrumental, symbolic and environmental attributes related to adopting solar. For example, the statements said purchasing or leasing solar “means that I’m a good community member,” “would save me money” and “would be a good way to reduce my environmental impact.” 

Statistical analysis showed that positive feelings about all three attributes increased the likelihood respondents would be willing to pursue rooftop or community solar as a household power source. But the factors linked to practical benefits (including finances) were “by far the strongest predictor above and beyond anything else,” Dillman-Hasso said. 

The magnitude of the effect of practical factors was a surprise, but it wasn’t the only surprising finding in the study. 

Participants were less willing to consider subscribing to community solar than to take on rooftop solar installation – even though rooftop solar generally isn’t available to people who don’t own their home or can’t afford the installation. 

“You don’t want to adopt something that you don’t know about,” Dillman-Hasso said. “Given the realities of community solar having much lower barriers to adoption – you don’t need financing and you don’t have to physically put panels on your roof – it was interesting to see that the willingness to adopt community solar was lower than rooftop. 

“That potentially points to a lack of knowledge or more apprehension around a newer distribution method of electricity.” 

As a behavioral scientist, Sintov said she doesn’t typically issue a generic call for “raising awareness,” given humans’ complexity – but in the context of community solar, the phrase applies.

“In this case, lack of awareness is a barrier, and I think both policymakers and entities that are trying to sell community solar plans could be working toward raising awareness,” she said. 

This study focused on willingness to adopt rather than actually installing panels or subscribing to community solar power. In separate projects, Sintov and Dillman-Hasso are studying different groups of solar power customers to look for factors that lead to signing up for and sticking with solar.

This work was supported by Interstate Gas Supply – Energy, an independent supplier of energy, including solar.

By Brent Sohngen 

Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, The Ohio State University

Forest plantations are dedicated to growing commercial timber. Soil Science/flickr, CC BY

Their findings revealed that due to frequent disturbances like wildfires that raze down vegetation and persistent drought and deforestation that starve both the land and wildlife, the resilience of many plant communities in southern boreal forests — or their ability to recover after these events — significantly decreased over time. This may affect the Arctic carbon budget, foreshadowing a future where the region is likely to become a carbon source instead of remaining a carbon sink due to its limited capacity to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide in the coming decades.  

This is because Arctic and boreal regions have warmed several times faster than other places around the globe and further warming is expected in the near future, said Yue Zhang, lead author of the study and a graduate student in earth sciences at The Ohio State University.

“When we talk about the response of forests to climate change, most of the time we’re thinking about the tropical rainforest,” said Zhang. “But remote boreal forests are really important in terms of their vast extent, large carbon storage and potential to mitigate climate change.”

The study was recently published in Nature Ecology & Evolution.

To better understand how the region’s ecosystem changed because of increased warming, researchers used historical data from NASA’s Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) program to remotely sense subtle changes in greenness in Alaska and western Canada between 2000 and 2019. They were able to estimate the time-varying speed of vegetation recovery from small fluctuations or large losses, even in areas where large losses have not happened yet. 

The study found that while plant resilience in the southern boreal forests notably decreased, even in regions with greening trends, resilience was thought to have increased in most of the Arctic tundra. Besides fires, other factors like heat and drought could have contributed to declines in plant resilience in the south, and changes in nutrient availability could have helped vegetation thrive in the rest of the Arctic.

While the release of food may benefit plant growth and resilience, the reality is that the rising temperatures that make this possible could also cause Arctic permafrost to melt more quickly than it already is, releasing from the ground as much carbon as 35 million cars emit in a year and hastening the arrival of climate tipping points.

It is uncertain now how much of the carbon will be absorbed by plants and how much will contribute to further warming, said Zhang. 

“That’s pretty concerning, because while greening may indicate that productivity and carbon uptake in these regions is increasing now, resilience decline indicates that it may not be sustainable in the longer term,” she said. 

According to the study, these shifts are indications that the entire ecosystem is in danger, as a large fraction of southern boreal forests is losing its stability, potentially leading to widespread forest loss and biome shifts.

Greening regions that experience resilience decline at the same time might also signal that the region is struggling to take a few last deep breaths before significant forest loss, said Yanlan Liu, senior author of the study and an assistant professor of earth sciences at Ohio State. This means that while the region could absorb significant amounts of carbon in the short term, scientists expect that if resilience continues to decline, the Arctic boreal ecosystem may not be as effective in mitigating climate in the long term as previously thought.

“Temperature records show this region is warming up to two to four times faster than the global average,” said Liu. “This is a hot spot of vegetation change where studying it can tell us about the ecosystem stability and what it’s capable of tolerating before it transitions into an alternative state through pervasive forest loss.”

The study further revealed that warm and dry areas with high elevation and dense vegetation cover were among the hotspots of resilience decline. Yet because many climate models currently lack consensus on how vegetation change and carbon dynamics contribute to the other, this team’s work will help enhance such models by informing scientists of where vegetation changes are likely to occur.

Ultimately, said Zhang, their method revealed more nuanced changes in the health of the region’s vegetation, beyond previously reported greening and browning trends. This method also provides researchers a tool to identify potential vegetation loss in other regions in the coming decades. 

With plans to continue trying to accurately predict ecosystem changes, researchers note their results warrant more field investigations aimed at better characterizing and understanding the resilience of the region. 

“Scientists need to learn to quantify climate-induced risks through diverse lenses,” said Liu. “On top of satellite remote sensing, we need more ground observations to help us identify ways to leverage these findings to inform future resources and risk management strategies.”

The study was supported by NASA and the Ohio Supercomputer Center. Co-authors include Kaiguang Zhao from Ohio State, Jonathan Wang from the University of Utah, and Logan T. Berner and Scott J. Goetz from Northern Arizona University. 

Despite feeling like a stationary mass, most solid ground is undergoing a process of deformation, sinking and rising in response to many environmental factors. In Antarctica, melting glacial ice means less weight on the bedrock below, allowing it to rise. How the rising earth interacts with the overlying ice sheet to affect sea level rise is not well-studied, said Terry Wilson, co-author of the study and a senior research scientist at the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center at The Ohio State University. 

In the new study, Wilson’s colleagues at McGill University developed a model to predict how these interactions could impact global sea level, finding that if humans can lower greenhouse gas emissions and global warming is slowed, upward shifts in the solid earth could reduce Antarctica’s contribution to sea level rise by about 40%, significantly bolstering the best case scenarios for global sea level rise. In this low-emissions scenario, land uplift slows the flow of ice from land to ocean, allowing for more of the ice sheet to be preserved. 

Conversely, if humans are unable to lower carbon emissions in time, ice retreat will outpace uplift, pushing ocean water away from Antarctica and amplifying sea level rise. These events could significantly worsen the most dire models of projected sea level rise along populated coastlines, said Wilson. 

“Our measurements show that the solid earth that forms the base of the Antarctic ice sheet is changing shape surprisingly quickly,“ said Wilson. “The land uplift from reduced ice on the surface is happening in decades, rather than over thousands of years.” 

The study was published today in Science Advances. 

To arrive at these conclusions, the team developed a 3D model of the Earth’s interior using geophysical field measurements from the Antarctic Network (ANET) of the Polar Earth Observing Network (POLENET) project. The mission is focused on studying the changing polar regions by collecting GPS and seismic data from an array of autonomous systems across Antarctica.

Researchers then performed a number of simulations to capture many possible evolutions of Antarctica’s ice sheet and the extent of global sea level rise Earth may experience until the year 2500, according to those parameters.  

 “We can project what difference it actually will make if we all contribute to a low-emission scenario now, versus what’s come to be called ‘business as usual’ emissions,” said Wilson, who is also the lead investigator of the ANET-POLENET project. 

She attributes the model’s unprecedented level of detail to how deftly it incorporates data from Antarctica. GPS stations monitor how the land is moving and seismometers measure how fast seismic waves from earthquakes travel through the earth, yielding important insight into where the land uplift will be fast or slow. 

Surprisingly, according to some of the team’s GPS observations processed by researchers at Ohio State, Wilson said, the Antarctic Ice Sheet is currently experiencing a solid earth uplift of about 5 centimeters per year, about 5 times the rate that North America experiences.  

Another significant aspect of the study is how the changes in Antarctica under different carbon emissions scenarios will impact coastlines around the world. Because sea level change will not be uniform, the study notes that nearly 700 million people around the world living in coastal regions will be most impacted by rising seas due to Antarctic ice loss.

Since some regions, such as small island nations, will be more vulnerable than others, mitigating environmental conditions like atmospheric and ocean warming is a vital issue for society, said Wilson. 

“Many people are now more aware they’re experiencing the effects of climate change,” she said. “This work reinforces that our actions as individuals, nations and globally can make a difference in what kind of Earth our offspring will experience in their lifetimes.”

The study results highlight how complex the relationship between the solid earth and the processes that happen atop it is, as well as the importance of continuing to gather enough data to make prompt and accurate predictions about what the next few centuries of our planet will look like. 

“There’s a lot of uncertainty in every model and every prediction that you make,” said Wilson. “But to document how fast our world is changing, it’s very important to continue advancing our ability to make predictions that are more certain, which is the only path that will allow us to tend to our future in a meaningful way.”

Wilson completed the study with colleagues from McGill University, Pennsylvania State University, the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Columbia University, Washington University, Colorado State University and the Union of Concerned Scientists. This study was supported by the U.S National Science Foundation and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. 

In their study, recently published in Nature Catalysis, researchers demonstrated that carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, can be converted into a type of liquid fuel called methanol in a highly efficient manner. 

This process happened by taking cobalt phthalocyanine (CoPc) molecules and spreading them evenly on carbon nanotubes, graphene-like tubes that have unique electrical properties. On their surface was an electrolyte solution, which, by running an electrical current through it, allowed CoPc molecules to take electrons and use them to turn carbon dioxide into methanol. 

Using a special method based on in-situ spectroscopy to visualize the chemical reaction, researchers for the first time saw those molecules convert themselves into either methanol or carbon monoxide, which is not the desired product. They found that which path the reaction takes is decided by the environment where the carbon dioxide molecule reacts.

Tuning this environment by controlling how the CoPc catalyst was distributed on the carbon nanotube surface allowed carbon dioxide to be as much as eight times more likely to produce methanol, a discovery that could increase the efficiency of other catalytic processes and have a widespread impact on other fields, said Robert Baker, co-author of the study and a professor in chemistry and biochemistry at The Ohio State University.  

“When you take carbon dioxide and convert it to another product, there are many different molecules you can make,” he said. “Methanol is definitely one of the most desirable because it has such a high energy density and can be used directly as an alternative fuel.” 

While transforming waste molecules into useful products isn’t a new phenomenon, until now, researchers have often been unable to watch how the reaction actually takes place, a crucial insight into being able to optimize and improve the process. 

“We might empirically optimize how something works, but we don’t really have an understanding of what makes it work, or what makes one catalyst work better than another catalyst,” said Baker, who specializes in surface chemistry, the study of how chemical reactions change when they occur on the face of different objects. “These are very difficult things to answer.”

But with the help of special techniques and computer modeling, the team has come significantly closer to grasping the complex process. In this study, researchers used a new type of vibrational spectroscopy, which allowed them to see how molecules behave on the surface, said Quansong Zhu, the lead author of the study and former Ohio State Presidential Scholar whose challenging measurements were vital to the discovery.

“We could tell by their vibrational signatures that it was the same molecule sitting in two different reaction environments,” said Zhu. “We were able to correlate that one of those reaction environments was responsible for producing methanol, which is valuable liquid fuel.” 

According to the study, deeper analysis also found these molecules were directly interacting with supercharged particles called cations that enhanced the process of methanol formation. 

More research is needed to learn more about what else these cations enable, but such a finding is key to achieving a more efficient way to create methanol, said Baker. 

“We’re seeing systems that are very important and learning things about them that have been wondered about for a long time,” said Baker. “Understanding the unique chemistry that happens at a molecular level is really important to enabling these applications.”

Besides being a low-cost fuel for vehicles like planes, cars and shipping boats, methanol produced from renewable electricity could also be utilized for heating and power generation, and to advance future chemical discoveries.

“There’s a lot of exciting things that can come next based on what we’ve learned here, and some of that we’re already starting to do together,” said Baker. “The work is ongoing.”

Co-authors include Conor L. Rooney and Hailiang Wang from Yale University, Hadar Shema and Elad Gross from Hebrew University, and Christina Zeng and Julien A. Panetier from Binghamton University. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation and the United States–Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) International Collaboration. 

Researchers reported their methods to improve efficiency and increase latex yield in two recent publications, building upon decades of research led by Katrina Cornish, professor of horticulture and crop science and food, agricultural and biological engineering at The Ohio State University.  

Cornish and colleagues have added specialized agents during processing of the Taraxacum kok-saghyz (TK) dandelion and the guayule shrub to coax a higher amount of latex from both plants. Neither source can simply be tapped – the method used on tropical trees that produce the only commercially available natural rubber in the world. 

“We need to have efficient extraction methods for any and all alternative natural rubber-producing species, especially at a large scale,” Cornish said. “And they have to be low-cost if you’re going to be able to compete in the tire market in the long term.” 

The TK dandelion work was published recently in Industrial Crops and Products, and the guayule research in Environmental Technology & Innovation. 

Beyond tires, rubber has applications in an estimated 50,000 products. The need is urgent for a domestic natural rubber industry: While the United States produces synthetic rubber, it is entirely dependent on imports for natural rubber. In 2019, 10% of the natural rubber supply was lost to disease – and the risk for transmission of South American leaf blight to Southeast Asia has increased with the expansion of direct airline travel between Brazil and China. 

It is not an overstatement, Cornish said, to suggest that if leaf blight were to make it from South America to Asia, the disease could wipe out most of the world’s natural rubber supply in short order. 

“And then we could see the collapse of the world’s supply chains and, subsequently, entire economies,” she said. “We’ve concentrated an entire global industry around a tropical plant. But TK dandelion and guayule are sustainable and can grow in temperate conditions.” 

Guayule latex comes from generalized cells in the shrub’s bark. Extracting the latex involves grinding up the bark to break open its cells and release latex particles into what Cornish calls a “milkshake.” A series of washing and spinning cycles follows to separate the latex from other solid material – and with each centrifugation step, some latex is lost. 

The research team found that adding chemical substances called flocculants to the milkshake helped bind other solid materials together and separate them from the latex, effectively cutting the washing cycles in half and improving the overall latex yield. The addition of one substance doubled the available latex and that yield was increased by 12-fold when a creaming agent was added for purification. 

“By adding flocculants, latex extraction is more efficient and clean,” said first study author Beenish Saba, a postdoctoral researcher in food, agricultural and biological engineering at Ohio State. “We found specific flocculants that work best at improving the quality of latex extraction and reducing the time it takes.” 

The study also showed that feeding the remaining solids back through the processing system enabled extraction of even more latex and also reduced the environmental footprint of the entire operation, Saba said. 

Guayule contains a particularly attractive high-performance latex that is stronger and softer than any other known polymer, Cornish said, meaning more filler can be added in production without any loss of its valuable properties. She used guayule latex to develop the first hypoallergenic medical glove to block both radiation and pathogens. 

Though TK dandelion latex is produced in the plant’s roots, the extraction process is similar – the roots are trimmed, blended into a slurry and filtered to remove solid chunks of plant material and dirt. Latex floating on the top of the remaining liquid is slurped up with a pipette and rinsed up to three times for purification, and then dried. 

A bit of serendipity led to the improvement to this extraction method. First author Nathaniel King-Smith, a graduate student in Cornish’s lab, found that processed samples sitting in the lab for three months had significantly more latex floating on their surfaces. An analysis showed that heavy divalent cations, like magnesium, bound to the latex particle membranes weighed down the particles – until the connection eventually collapsed. 

The team found that adding EDTA, a chelator that binds to divalent cations, to processing the dandelion roots allowed for extraction of more than twice as much latex than was extracted without the addition of EDTA. 

“Our question was, how can we free up the heavy fraction without waiting three months for rubber particles to suddenly become lighter and float?” King-Smith said. “We found that the extra latex yield after months of storage could be achieved immediately in a standard extraction just by adding EDTA before spinning.” 

The use of EDTA also increased the gel content of the extracted latex once it was dried – useful information for potential production by industries that are looking for higher-gel rubber, he said. 

EDTA may turn out to be applicable to latex extraction from guayule, though Cornish said her lab hopes to partner with flocculant chemists who could help further refine that process. She has been planting, harvesting and extracting latex from TK dandelion for over a decade in Ohio and has a greenhouse full of guayule on Ohio State’s Wooster campus, where she hopes to one day build a full-scale latex processing plant. 

“We are working on a small scale and focusing on premium latex markets where you can make something of great value with minimal materials so that we can fund expansion,” she said. “And in the meantime, we’re making extraction more efficient so we can make the material clean and pure.” 

This work was supported by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 

Co-authors of the guayule paper included Cindy Barrera and David Barker of Ohio State. Co-authors of the TK dandelion paper included Kristof Molnar, Joshua Blakeslee, Aswathy Pillai and Judit Puskas of Ohio State, Colleen McMahan of the USDA-Agricultural Research Service and Meirambek Mutalkhanov of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University.

Researchers used the algorithm to help narrow down the potential whereabouts of ovoids or semicircular depressions (SCDs) in the ground that form near areas associated with natural or “gold hydrogen” deposits. Though these circular patterns often appear in areas of low elevation, they can be hidden by agriculture or other vegetation. Recent discoveries of these circles in the U.S., Mali, Namibia, Brazil, France and Russia have unveiled that they exist in greater numbers than previously thought.  

To help uncover these nearly invisible semicircular depressions, two recent papers describe how lead authors Sam Herreid and Saurabh Kaushik, both postdoctoral scholars at the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center at The Ohio State University, combined their model with global satellite imagery data to identify SCDs.  

Their team compiled a list of known SCD locations to train their algorithm to search the globe. After using remote sensing data to analyze what these sites look like from above, they drew on geomorphic and spectral patterns to determine what sites around the world are most likely to be associated with SCDs related to geologic hydrogen.  

Through their observations, the project found that AI demonstrates a unique ability to map out surface expressions of potential subsurface hydrogen reservoirs around the world, as well as establish a baseline for further investigation of hydrogen-associated sites. Their work was presented this week at poster sessions at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.  

Scientists have long been aware of hydrogen’s potential as one of nature’s cleanest and most efficient energy sources. Now, as governments invest in cleaner alternatives, interest in natural hydrogen is rapidly surging, said Joachim Moortgat, the project’s principal investigator and an associate professor of earth sciences at Ohio State.

“Hydrogen in general is a very attractive energy source,” Moortgat said. “If you burn it, its only by-product is water, and unlike wind or solar energy, hydrogen can be stored and transported, so there are all kinds of industries trying hard to make the switch.” 

Since gold hydrogen is also produced continuously within Earth’s crust, some believe that access to a low-carbon energy resource that is nearly devoid of greenhouse gas emissions could reshape the global energy landscape. Yet researchers have found that locating hydrogen requires the development of new exploration tools, said Moortgat.  

“One reason they’re difficult to find is that they probably occur in different kinds of geologies and locations than where you would find oil or gas,” he said. “But with the AI tools we develop, we map everything that could potentially be an SCD.”

Unfortunately, while researchers can use satellite data to narrow down areas of interest, real hydrogen deposits can easily be confused for other circular-looking land features, such as lakes, golf courses or crop circles.  

And as countries scramble to expedite the search for hydrogen sources, many of them are already developing new ways to access this promising new energy, said Herreid.  

“This work feels like it’s contributing in a proactive sense to mitigating the climate crisis,” said Herreid, a glaciologist who previously used AI to assist with modeling the impact of climate change on glaciers. “It’s very exciting to be involved in a project that’s really rapidly evolving.”

Abroad, Europe is already working on ways to take advantage of their stores of gold hydrogen, and at home in the U.S., laws like the Inflation Reduction Act are including provisions to expand the clean energy production industry.  

Despite how fast-moving the field currently seems to be, it’ll take at least a few more years before natural hydrogen reservoirs are successfully integrated as a reliable source of clean energy. To that end, what researchers should focus on now is how they should go about deepening our understanding of these hydrogen systems, said Moortgat.  

“The biggest challenge is that we need to find more SCDs and then really investigate how these things form,” he said. “Once we discover a lot more, we will be in a better position to again use AI tools to find similar ones worldwide.” 

Ian M. Howat of Ohio State was also a co-author. 

“The Smith-Steeb program is really exciting,” said Lilly Des Rosiers, a fourth-year student and director of the Undergraduate Student Government’s (USG) sustainability committee. “It’s a huge building. When we found out that’s where the pilot was happening, all we could think was ‘that’s so many students!’”

While Des Rosiers has been involved in sustainability efforts since high school, many students come to Ohio State less familiar with things like composting.

“Having bins in a residence hall is a great opportunity for younger students to explore sustainability,” she said. “It’s great to see the initiative that Ohio State is taking to get students involved.”

When an opt-in composting program began in 2022, nearly 10% of students on the Columbus campus participated. This was encouraging to USG, the Office of Student Life and Facilities Operations and Development, the units that worked together on the effort. With a successful small sample, the next step was to scale up to something larger, like a residence hall, said Tom Reeves, Student Life’s director of sustainability.

“A building of that size gives us an opportunity to address concerns like smells, pests, spills,” he said. “We want to know if this is going to create more work for the custodial staff – things I didn’t have answers for at the end of the last school year.”

The first year will focus entirely on pressure-testing the program. Reeves wants to have hard data for things like trash diverted, bin contamination and service requests.

“One of the challenges we have with sustainability initiatives is money,” Reeves said. “I need to be able to address those fears with data. … We want more trash diversion, yes, but for me it’s also about things that may not be as obvious: What kind of training is needed for our staff and students? What worked well? How do we track issues?”

Reeves is particularly interested in how to best educate students about the pilot: QR codes, in-person trainings programs, signs and video modules will all be available. In addition, resident advisors (RAs) in Smith-Steeb will know how to use the bins. 

“When students have a question, the first person they go to are their roommates. But after that, they’re going to their RA to get more information,” he said. “I need to be able to tell them, ‘Here’s where the information is. Here’s where you can direct students.’”

While concerns about things like smells and pests are common, both Reeves and Des Rosiers say those aren’t issues if students keep their bins clean – the same is true for their trash cans. This is part of the college experience, Reeves said. Students are often living on their own for the first time and are learning new life skills together.

“You’re learning things. Part of our education program goes beyond composting and addresses things like how do you avoid bugs altogether?”

After all, Reeves said, the residence halls are generating the same amount of waste as they did before the program. The composting bins are just a new way to collect it.

Reeves knows that students will help one another once the pilot is underway. They are the core of the program, he said.

“This has been a student-driven thing,” he said. “Those of us in sustainability have wanted to do this for a while but the students are the ones who pushed it forward. It’s the power of their voice. I can’t give them enough credit.”

Made by pyrolysis, a process that involves heating organic material in a low-oxygen environment, biochar – a charcoal-like, porous substance – has long been utilized for crop production as a soil amendment or carbon sequestration agent. In recent years,  researchers have seen a resurgence of heightened interest in the technology due to its unique physical structure and its various agricultural and environmental benefits.

It’s for these reasons that biochar’s potential to remove large amounts of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere deserves to be re-evaluated, said Raj Shrestha, lead author of the study and a research associate in horticulture and crop science at The Ohio State University.  

“When farmers grow their crops, they apply fertilizer and/or manure and use different kinds of machinery to till the soil,” said Shrestha. “In the process, greenhouse gases are produced and released into the atmosphere.”

But farmers could lessen this impact by applying biochar to their fields, according to the paper, recently published in the Journal of Environmental Quality.

“If we can convince farmers that converting biomass to biochar is good for the long-term sustainability of soils, the economy, and good for the environment, then we’ll be able to see wide adoption of this technology,” said Shrestha.

The researchers reviewed more than 200 field studies conducted across the globe that examined the impact of biochar application in agriculture on emissions of nitrous oxide, methane and carbon dioxide – heat-trapping gases that cause Earth’s atmosphere to warm.

The team found that the amount of biochar in the soil does have variable effects on local greenhouse gas emissions, which range from a decrease to an increase, and, in some cases, no change. But in general, the team discovered that the use of biochar in field settings lowered the amount of nitrous oxide in the air by about 18% and methane by 3%.

Biochar alone was also not effective at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but did help when combined with commercial nitrogen fertilizer or other organic materials, like manure or compost. 

“We can achieve negative emission in our agroecosystems by reducing the carbon source and enhancing carbon sink,” said Shrestha. Reducing Earth’s carbon source can be achieved by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from our activities, and enhancing carbon sink – increasing the technology’s ability to absorb more carbon than it releases into the atmosphere – can be done by increasing the long-term soil carbon pool through conversion of organic waste into biochar, he said. 

“What’s good about biochar is that it contributes to both these aspects to create net negative agriculture,” said Shrestha.

Right now, when farmers leave crop residue on the field, only about 10% to 20% of the residue carbon is recycled into soil during the decomposition process, but by converting the same amount of residue to biochar and then applying it to the field, we can store about 50% of that carbon into stable carbon forms.”

As biochar-carbon placed in the soil can also last anywhere from a few hundred to thousands of years, it’s currently one of the proposed best management practices for achieving negative emissions and preventing Earth’s average temperature from increasing to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. 

According to the study, between 2011 and 2020, global greenhouse gas emissions rose: carbon dioxide by about 5.6%, methane by 4.2%, and nitrous oxide by 2.7% – and agriculture accounts for about 16% of these emissions. While such levels have already led to irreversible changes to the global climate system, Shrestha said that future damages could be slowed by helping to curb the extent of emissions from the farming and forestry sectors. 

Yet despite biochar’s potential as a negative emission technology and the recent increase in biochar-related research, it’s difficult to get farmers to apply it, partly because it hasn’t been commercialized for widespread use or promoted well, said Shrestha. 

To better deliver more science-based, practical information about the technology and its benefits to farmers and agriculture-related businesses, many lawmakers have enacted policies meant to investigate its effectiveness across many different soil types and environmental conditions. It’s an objective that Shrestha shares, as the main goal of his team’s review paper is to improve farmers’ confidence in biochar so that more of them choose to adopt it sooner. 

This study was supported by The Arthur P. Sloan Foundation. Other Ohio State co-authors were Laura E. Lindsey, Rattan Lal, Klaus Lorenz and Scott M. Demyan, as well as Pierre-Andre Jacinthe from Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, Maninder P. Singh from Michigan State University and Wei Ren from the University of Kentucky. 

They found that only 6% of 178 countries provide for all their citizens in an ecologically sustainable way in both carbon sequestration and water consumption.

The study found that while 67% of nations operate safely and sustainably in regard to water use, only 9% do in regard to carbon sequestration, or reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. 

The study showed the United States was among the majority of countries that was able to safely and justly provide water to its citizens. While it provides for its citizens in regard to carbon use, it is not doing so in an ecologically sustainable manner.

The study was published recently in the journal One Earth.

For a country to be self-sufficient, its population needs access to food, water and energy, resources that can often only be provided by the surrounding ecosystem. Yet because human activities tend to cause unintended side effects like global warming or ozone depletion, said Bhavik Bakshi, co-author of the study and a professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at Ohio State, it’s imperative that experts look for ways to develop society in an ecologically sustainable manner. At the same time, in order to be socially just, countries need to secure resources to meet the basic needs of all of its citizens. 

“Most engineering disciplines traditionally ignore the role that nature plays in supporting our activities and more broadly, our well-being,“ said Bakshi, who has been working to advance the concept of sustainable engineering – the practice of designing products or systems with nature-positive decisions in mind – for decades. “In this study, we sought to ensure we could quantify these challenges in a way engineers could use to make better decisions.” 

This study’s framework was created using a system called the framework of planetary boundaries and the concept of a “safe and just operating space,” which identifies a country’s ecological ceiling, or the scope human activities must work within to reduce the risk of causing irreparable damage to the Earth.

Ideally, human activities should exist between the limits of a society’s ecological ceiling and its social foundation, a boundary that describes the resources necessary to avoid critical human deprivation of food, water or energy, said Bakshi. 

“If you are exceeding the ecological ceiling, then you're not sustainable from an environmental perspective,” he said. “If you’re below the social foundation, then you’re not meeting basic human needs, and that can be frustrating from an equity point of view.”

Using recent water and carbon sequestration data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and other international agencies, Bakshi and his co-author and former PhD student Yazeed Aleissa analyzed how the needs of 178 nations around the world stacked up against their regions’ ecosystems. 

The team found that the majority of countries emit far more than their national ecosystem can handle in terms of carbon, but tend to operate close to their water supply limits.

Sometimes countries do not have much of a choice. Findings showed that 37% of countries do not have the ability to provide for their citizens in a safe and just way in terms of carbon sequestration, and 10% lack the ability to do that with regard to water.

While the socioeconomic status of countries is often related to how well they can provide for their citizens in a sustainable manner, it doesn’t always work that way, the researchers said. “There are rich countries that are doing well and there are also some poor countries that are doing well, but the reasons for their successes are very different,” Bakshi said. 

These differences often come down to how a nation deals with supply and demand.

Take Canada, a large, rich country with a relatively low population that has a large supply of natural capital like forests and lakes that can capture carbon. Because it has more than enough resources for its population, consumption levels would meet the safe and just limits of the framework.

On the other hand, poor countries such as Gabon have adequate natural capital to support more activities that improve human well-being, Bakshi said.

Other countries, such as those in the Middle East, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa, cannot meet safe and just requirements for carbon because they lack vegetation to help carbon sequestration – capturing the carbon the country emits. Essentially, they need to rely more on carbon capture technologies and global trade.

Despite the study’s potentially bleak outlook, the researchers believe their work offers a glimmer of hope in combating the environmental risks of human development. The team’s results imply that many nations could secure the necessary resources they need to thrive at a much lower demand than current levels suggest.

One way to do this would be to adopt more renewable energy resources, introduce more plant-based diets into our food cycles, and change the way we produce certain goods and services to develop a sustainable circular economy instead of a linear one, said Bakshi. 

Furthermore, if implemented when considering future engineering projects, the study suggests the framework could be used to guide technology, policy and trade decisions to better assist nations to meet their needs in a more safe and just fashion.

“From a positive perspective, our work provides opportunities for engineers and other professions to innovate and come up with new ways of doing things right,” said Bakshi. “Whoever is going to figure that out is going to be the future of a more sustainable and just world.”

Led by researchers at The Ohio State University, a team found that between 2018 and 2021, Steenstrup Glacier in Greenland has retreated about 5 miles, thinned about 20%, doubled in the amount of ice it discharges into the ocean, and quadrupled in velocity. According to the study, such a rapid change is so extraordinary among Greenland ice formations that it now places Steenstrup in the top 10% of glaciers that contribute to the entire region’s total ice discharge.

The study was published today in Nature Communications.

The Steenstrup Glacier is part of The Greenland Ice Sheet, a body of ice that covers nearly 80% of the world’s largest island, which is also the single largest contributor to global sea rise from the cryosphere, the portion of Earth’s ecosystem that includes all of its frozen water. While the region plays a crucial part in balancing the global climate system, the area is steadily shrinking as it sheds hundreds of billions of tons of ice each year because of global warming.  

Over the past few decades, much of this loss has been attributed to accelerated ice discharge from tidewater glaciers, glaciers that make contact with the ocean. Many glaciologists believe that this recent uptick in ice discharge can be explained by the intrusion of warming waters that are being swept from the Atlantic into Greenlandic fjords – critical oceanic gateways that can impact the stability of local glaciers and the health of polar ecosystems. 

The research team aimed to test that theory by examining a glacier in the southeastern region of Greenland called K.I.V Steenstrups Nordre Bræ, an entity more colloquially known as the Steenstrup Glacier.

“Up until 2016, there was nothing to suggest Steenstrup was in any way interesting,” said Thomas Chudley, lead author of the study, who completed this work as a research associate at the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center. Chudley is now a Leverhulme research fellow at Durham University in the UK.

“There were plenty of other glaciers in Greenland that had retreated dramatically since the 1990s and increased their contribution to sea level rise, but this really wasn’t one of them.”

As far as scientists knew, Steenstrup had not only been stable for decades but was generally insensitive to the rising temperatures that had destabilized so many other regional glaciers, likely because of its isolated position in shallow waters. 

It wasn’t until Chudley and his colleagues compiled observational and modeling data from previous remote sensing analyses on the glacier that the team realized Steenstrup was likely experiencing melt due to anomalies in deeper Atlantic water. 

“Our current working hypothesis is that ocean temperatures have forced this retreat,” Chudley said. “The fact that the glacier’s velocity has quadrupled in just a few years opens up new questions about how fast large ice masses can really respond to climate change.”

In recent years, glaciologists have been able to use satellite data to estimate the potential volume of glacial ice stored at the poles and how it might affect current sea levels. For instance, if the Greenland Ice Sheet were to melt, Earth’s sea levels could rise by nearly 25 feet. In contrast, if the ice sheet in Antarctica were to fall apart, it’s possible that oceans would rise by nearly 200 feet, Chudley said. 

While Greenland and Antarctica would take centuries to collapse completely, the global cryosphere has the potential to cause sea levels to rise about six feet this century if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet undergoes collapse.

As around 10% of the planet’s population lives in low-lying coastal zones, Chudley said that any significant rise in sea level can cause increased risk to low-lying islands and coastal communities from storm surges and tropical cyclones.   

In the United States, sea level rise poses a particular risk to coastal cities in places like Florida or Louisiana, Chudley said. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s too late to stop such a future from happening. If climate policies evolve rapidly, humans might have a chance at halting the worst of sea level rise, Chudley said.

Overall, Steenstrup’s unique behavior reveals that even long-term stable glaciers are susceptible to sudden and rapid retreat as warmer waters begin to intrude and influence new environments.

While the research says continued scientific observation of the Steenstrup Glacier should be a priority, it concludes other similar glaciers also deserve attention because of their potential to retreat due to warming waters.

Understanding more about these interactions could provide key insight into how glaciers thrive in other locations around the world and even become an indicator of how these environments might change in the future.

“What’s happening in Greenland right now is kind of the canary in the coal mine of what might happen in West Antarctica over the next few centuries,” Chudley said. “So it would be great to be able to get into the fjord with real on-the-ground observations and see how and why Steenstrup has changed.”

This work was supported by NASA. Other Ohio State co-authors were Ian M. Howat and Adelaide Negrete of the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center. Michalea D. King of the University of Washington was also a co-author.

In three experiments, researchers found that exposure to a pro-sustainability opinion in a conversation or written exchange helped coax people who held anti-sustainability views toward support for an environmentally friendly initiative. 

Results also showed that people with a pro-sustainability viewpoint were not persuaded to change their commitment by talking to someone with an opposing point of view. 

The researchers noted that many sustainable behaviors – lowering the thermostat, recycling or buying fewer disposable products – are household or community endeavors that follow discussion and consideration. And so it follows, they say, that persuading others to adopt sustainable practices could be achieved through a common social activity: talking about it. 

“There has been research showing that when it comes to divisive issues, people can get entrenched in their views, but we find that this is not always the case, at least in the context of sustainability,” said senior author Nicole Sintov, associate professor of behavior, decision making and sustainability at The Ohio State University. “If I am anti-sustainability and I’m talking to another anti-sustainability person, then I’m not going to take more action to protect the environment. But if I talk to somebody who is pro-sustainability, I’m going to move to match what their values are, essentially. 

“I think that is a particularly juicy finding, especially in today’s political climate.” 

Sintov completed the study with first author Kristin Hurst, a former Ohio State postdoctoral researcher now at Southern Illinois University, and Grant Donnelly, assistant professor of marketing at Ohio State. The research was published online recently in the Journal of Environmental Psychology.

In the first study, the team set out to determine whether having a conversation about a sustainability topic could influence actual sustainability behavior – on top of making a commitment to engage in the behavior.

A total of 568 college student participants read a statement about a university policy to expand plant-based food options in campus dining halls. Pairs of participants were randomized to either share their stances, thoughts and feelings about the plant-based foods policy or, as a control, to try to guess the name of a famous person described in a biography they were given to read. 

For the last 30 seconds of the interaction, researchers gauging participants’ commitment to the planet-friendly cause told students in two of three groups – one discussing the policy and one the famous person – to decide how much effort they would put into performing a task that would generate financial support for the plant-based foods policy. The task involved clicking a computer mouse; reaching a specific number of clicks in a set amount of time would trigger a donation toward the university’s investment in the plant-based food policy. 

Results showed that having a sustainability conversation before committing to take action in support of the issue increased sustainable behavior – the clicking – above and beyond the conversation or commitment alone. The conversation’s effect on behavior could be traced in part to inducing a sense of psychological safety by having the students show vulnerability when disclosing how they felt about the plant-based foods policy. 

“Having this conversation where you self-disclose and take more interpersonal risks elevates your sense of psychological safety, which increases the strength of your commitment to click with your partner,” said Sintov, a faculty member in Ohio State’s School of Environment and Natural Resources. “Among the people who had the sustainability policy conversation versus the actor conversation, the commitment was stronger – the students were more engaged and came up with more ideas about how to maximize the clicks.” 

In the second study, 302 students were told about the policy and rated on a 7-part scale how supportive they were of providing more plant-based foods in campus dining halls. They were then paired with trained research assistants – acting as student participants – who verbally expressed a scripted opinion either in support of or opposing the policy. A third study involving 545 students had an identical structure, except that the interactions were in writing. 

In both studies, individuals initially unsupportive of the policy who interacted with someone supportive of the initiative were more likely to engage in behavior supporting the policy – again, by clicking a mouse to generate a financial donation.

“If you were paired with a pro-sustainability person, you’re going to click no matter what, compared to if you were paired with a con person. What is most interesting, I think, is that this held for people who were initially unsupportive,” Sintov said. 

Pro-sustainability participants, on the other hand, could not be swayed to lower their commitment by a conversation or written exchange with someone expressing the counterpoint. 

Organized efforts to talk about behaving sustainably could have real-world applications in college roommate selections, the workplace and other sectors, Sintov said, and ideally would spark stronger commitments than those that people tend to make to ambitions set by a third party – think taking 10,000 steps a day or saving 5% on an energy bill. 

“Some goals come out of the ether and we’ll say, yeah, OK, I guess I’ll do that,” she said. “Rarely do we think to ourselves or, even rarer, start a conversation by asking: ‘What are our energy goals?’ Just by having a few prompts, we might see some movement.”

This is our sixth annual contest, and the winner receives a very cool trophy from Ohio State News and a $500 award from Ohio State’s Enterprise for Research, Innovation and Knowledge. 

We’ve done the hard part, selecting three finalists for consideration from the over 160 stories we’ve written so far this year about cool research – and let’s just be honest, all Ohio State science is inherently cool. From here, we are asking readers to vote early and often – really! – to pick the winner.

Be sure to watch the videos above of our finalist faculty talking about their work and the excitement of being a scientist. And scroll down to VOTE!

Here are the finalists:

Climate change is turning the trees into gluttons: Forests appear to be bulking up on the excess carbon they pull from the atmosphere. This study showed that elevated carbon levels consistently led to an increase of wood volume in 10 different temperate forest groups across the country, suggesting that trees are helping to shield Earth’s ecosystem from the impacts of global warming through their rapid growth.

Future wearable health tech could measure gases released from skin: Scientists have taken the first step to creating the next generation of wearable health monitors. New research suggests that a wearable sensor may be able to monitor the body’s health by detecting the gases released from a person’s skin. The method would allow the technology to sense biomarkers related to metabolic disorders, like heart disease or diabetes. 

Blocking enzyme could hold the key to preventing, treating severe COVID-19: Blocking a single immune response-related molecule holds promise in preventing or treating severe COVID-19 symptoms by reducing inflammation, tissue injury and blood clots in the lungs, research in mice suggests. Versions of this enzyme exist and have similar functions in both mice and humans, making it an attractive therapeutic target.

Voting starts today – see the poll below – and is open until 5 p.m. Friday, Jan. 13, 2023. The process is decidedly unscientific: Participants may cast one vote per day until the poll closes.

Thank you in advance for helping us name the Coolest Ohio State Science Story of 2022!

Editor's note: Voting has closed. Stay tuned for news about the winner!

Grace Wang, executive vice president of research, innovation and knowledge, highlighted a successful year in research on Thursday during a Board of Trustees committee meeting. Highlights include:

Establishing Carmenton: Carmenton is the newly named innovation district on west campus, which will bring private, public and academic sectors together to help develop new technologies and bring solutions to market.

Supporting faculty: The 43 projects awarded President’s Research Excellence seed funding support Ohio State’s goals to attract more externally sponsored research funding and address complex societal challenges.

Creating milestones in technology commercialization: University researchers filed 331 U.S. patents and filed 363 invention disclosures in fiscal year 2022.

Building new businesses: Eleven new startups were launched in the fiscal year, contributing to a total of 95 operational Ohio State startups.

Scoring big interdisciplinary wins in strategic areas: Researchers are involved in impactful spaces, from several multimillion dollar National Science Foundation grants in advanced computing and communication to $26.5 million to test new bus technologies and $17 million from the National Institutes of Health to establish the Center for Maternal and Pediatric Drug Research.

“We have built tremendous momentum in the strategic areas that I just revealed,” Wang, who has been named president of Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, told board members. “We want to continue to nurture a campus-wide culture of innovation and entrepreneurship so that we can play a very significant role in Columbus, in central Ohio and in the state of Ohio and across the nation.”

At another committee meeting, board members heard about Ohio State’s successes in making progress toward sustainability goals. The university’s carbon emissions have fallen 30% since it adopted a plan to cut carbon emissions to zero by 2050, and Ohio State has taken other major steps to address other sustainability goals.

Trustees also approved pricing for next season’s football games, with some individual ticket prices for non-conference games as low as $39. Student tickets will remain at $34 per game, which is unchanged since the 2013 season. Trustees also approved an 8% increase of membership dues for the Ohio State University Golf Club.

The board also heard from three individuals who are survivors of sexual misconduct committed by former Ohio State physician Dr. Richard Strauss, who worked at the university from 1978-1998 and died in 2005.

The following actions were taken during the full board meeting:

Professional services and construction contracts approved
The board authorized the university to enter into or increase professional service and construction contracts for the following projects:

• 19^th Avenue and Cockins vault tunnel repairs
  The project will maintain critical university infrastructure by designing and completing corrective action on the Cockins vault and the 19^th Avenue tunnel section near McPherson Chemical Laboratory. Trustees approved professional services and construction with contingency totaling $4.4 million, to be paid for with university funds.
• Blackwell Pavilion
  The project will construct an all-season, enclosed pavilion on the existing plaza at the Blackwell Inn. Trustees approved an increase of $3 million in professional services and construction with contingency, to be paid for with fundraising and university funds.
• Campbell Hall renovation
  The project will renovate 115,000 square feet in Campbell Hall and replace existing building systems, the roof and windows. This specific request will go toward renovating 9,000 square feet of office and lab space in Evans Hall for Campbell Hall faculty to use during the renovation. Trustees approved an increase of $8.2 million in professional services and construction with contingency, to be paid for with fundraising, university funds and state funds.
• East Hospital dock expansion
  The project will add 6,000 square feet to the existing loading dock. Trustees approved an increase of $2.6 million in professional services and construction with contingency, to be paid for with auxiliary funds.
• Equine Performance Evaluation Arena
  The project will construct a 12,000-square-foot arena for equine performance, connected to the Galbreath Equine Hospital. Trustees approved an increase of $1.8 million in professional services and construction with contingency, to be paid for with fundraising and university funds.
• Founders Hall enhancements at the Newark campus
  The project will upgrade the building mechanical systems and renovate classrooms and lab spaces. Trustees approved professional services and construction with contingency totaling $23.6 million, to be paid for with fundraising, university funds, state funds and partner funds.
• Wexner Medical Center Inpatient Hospital
  The project will design and construct the new hospital. Trustees approved an increase totaling $85 million for professional services and construction with contingency, to be paid for with university debt, fundraising, auxiliary funds and partner funds.
• Cannon Drive relocation – phase 2
  The project will rebuild Cannon Drive between John Herrick Drive and Woody Hayes Drive. Trustees approved an increase of $11.3 million for construction with contingency, to be paid for with university debt, partner funds and auxiliary funds.
• Doan Hall roof replacement
  The project will replace the roof as a three-year, three-phase project. Trustees approved $3.3 million for construction with contingency for pre-purchase of roofing materials, to be paid for with auxiliary funds.

Faculty personnel actions approved
The board approved the following appointments:

• Daniel Addison has been appointed associate professor (James Hay and Ruth Jansson Wilson Professorship in Cardiology Fund) in the College of Medicine from Nov. 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026.
• Craig Bryan has been appointed professor (Trott Gebhardt Philips Endowed Professorship) in the College of Medicine from Dec. 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026.
• Lisa Burris has been appointed assistant professor (Distinguished Assistant Professor of Engineering Inclusive Excellence) in the College of Engineering from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2027.
• Terri Ennis has been appointed professor-clinical (James W. Shocknessy Professorship of Law) in the Moritz College of Law from Nov. 18, 2022, through Nov. 18, 2027.
• Lisa Florman has been appointed professor (Vice Provost for the Arts) in the Office of Academic Affairs from Sept. 15, 2022, through June 30, 2027.
• Richard Gumina has been appointed associate professor (James W. Overstreet Chair in Cardiology) in the College of Medicine from Nov. 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026.
• Ian Howat has been appointed professor (ENGIE-Axium Endowed Professorship) in the Office of Academic Affairs from Sept. 1, 2022, while serving as director of the Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center.
• Hasan Kwame Jeffries has been appointed associate professor (College of Arts and Sciences Alumni Professorship 3) in the College of Arts and Sciences from Aug. 15, 2022, through Aug. 14, 2027.
• Zhiqiang Lin has been appointed professor (Distinguished Professor of Engineering) in the College of Engineering from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2027.
• Brian Mittendorf has been appointed professor (H.P. Wolfe Chair in Accounting) in the Fisher College of Business from Aug. 15, 2023, through Aug. 14, 2028.
• Eduardo Reategui Pizarro has been appointed assistant professor (Distinguished Assistant Professor of Engineering Inclusive Excellence) in the College of Engineering from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2027.
• Jason Reece has been appointed associate professor (Vice Provost for Urban Research and Community Engagement) in the Office of Academic Affairs from Jan. 1, 2023, through Dec. 30, 2027.
• Paul Rose has been appointed professor (J. Gilbert Reese Chair in Contract Law) in the Moritz College of Law from Nov. 18, 2022, through Nov. 18, 2027.
• Abhay Satoskar has been appointed professor (Research Endowed Chair in Pathology) in the College of Medicine from Oct. 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026.
• Ryan Schmiesing has been appointed associate professor (Senior Vice Provost for External Engagement) in the Office of Academic Affairs from Aug. 15, 2022, through June 30, 2027.
• Arwa Shana’ah has been appointed associate professor-clinical (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Professorship in the College of Medicine) in the College of Medicine from Dec. 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026.
• Natasha Slesnick has been appointed professor (EHE Distinguished Professor) in the College of Education and Human Ecology from Aug. 15, 2022, through Aug. 14, 2027
• Mary Stromberger has been appointed professor, vice provost and dean for graduate education (ENGIE-Axium Endowed Dean’s Chair) in the Office of Academic Affairs from Aug. 1, 2022, through June 30, 2027.
• Yu Su has been appointed assistant professor (Distinguished Assistant Professor of Engineering Inclusive Excellence) in the College of Engineering from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2027.
• Matthew Sullivan has been appointed professor (College of Arts and Sciences Alumni Professorship 2) in the College of Arts and Sciences from Aug.15, 2022, through Aug. 14, 2027.
• Todd Thompson has been appointed professor (Allan H. Markowitz Endowed Chair in Astronomy) in the College of Arts and Sciences from Sept. 1, 2022, through Aug. 31, 2027.
• Richard Urman has been appointed professor and chair (Jay J. Jacoby M.D., Ph.D., Chair in Anesthesiology) in the College of Medicine from Oct. 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026.
• Henry Wang has been appointed professor (The Ohio State University Emergency Medicine Endowed Research Chair) in the College of Medicine from Nov. 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026.
• Jessica Winter has been appointed professor (Distinguished Professor of Engineering) in the College of Engineering from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2027.
• Shang-Tian (S.T.) Yang has been appointed professor (David H. George Endowed Chair in Chemical Engineering) in the College of Engineering from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2027.
• Yolanda Zepeda has been appointed interim vice provost for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion in the Office of Academic Affairs from Aug. 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, or until a new vice provost is named.
• Hua Zhu has been appointed professor (Karl P. Klassen Chair of Thoracic Surgery) in the College of Medicine from Aug. 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026.

Reappointments

• David Brakke has been reappointed professor (Joe R. Engle Chair in the History of Christianity) in the College of Arts and Sciences from Aug. 15, 2022, through Aug. 14, 2027.
• Brad Bushman has been reappointed professor (Margaret Hall and Robert Randall Rinehart Chair) in the College of Arts and Sciences from Sept. 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023.
• Sara Butler has been reappointed professor (King George III Professorship in British History) in the College of Arts and Sciences from Aug. 15, 2021, through Aug. 14, 2026.
• Bruno Cabanes has been reappointed professor (Donald G. and Mary A. Dunn Chair in Modern Miliary History) in the College of Arts and Sciences from Aug.15, 2022, through Aug. 14, 2027.
• Matthew Goldish has been reappointed professor (Samuel and Esther Melton Chair of Jewish History and Studies) in the College of Arts and Sciences from Aug. 15, 2022, through Aug. 14, 2027.
• Pelagia-Irene Gouma has been reappointed professor (Edward Orton, Jr., Chair in Ceramic Engineering) in the College of Engineering from June 1, 2022, through June 30, 2027.
• Robert Holub has been reappointed professor and chair (Ohio Eminent Scholar in German) in the College of Arts and Sciences from Aug. 15, 2022, through Aug. 14, 2027.
• Brian Joseph has been reappointed professor (Kenneth E. Naylor Professorship) in the College of Arts and Sciences from Oct. 1, 2022, through Sept. 20, 2027.
• Christopher Kochanek has been appointed professor (Ohio Eminent Scholar in Cosmology) in the College of Arts and Sciences from Aug. 15, 2022, through Aug.14, 2027.
• Phillip Popovich has been reappointed professor and chair (Ray W. Poppleton Research Designated Chair) in the College of Medicine from June 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026.
• Abdollah Shafieezadeh has been reappointed associate professor (Abba G. Lichtenstein Professorship in Civil Engineering) in the College of Engineering from June 1, 2022, through June 30, 2027.
• Jami Shah has been reappointed professor (Honda Designated Professor in Engineering) in the College of Engineering from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2025.
• Alexander Sparreboom has been reappointed professor (The Lucius A. Wing Chair of Cancer Research and Therapy) in the College of Medicine from Dec. 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026.

The board also approved appointments and reappointments of department chairs, faculty professional leave arrangements and emeritus titles.

Resolutions in Memoriam announced

• Phyllis J. Bailey, associate professor emeritus in the College of Education and Human Ecology’s former School of Physical Activity and Educational Services, who died on Oct. 1, 2022, at age 96.
• Gary Walter Bauer, associate professor emeritus in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, who died on Jan. 10, 2022, at age 78.
• Jean Grover Bauman, instructor emeritus in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, who died on Sept. 29, 2021, at age 84.
• Ella G. Copeland, associate professor emeritus, former director of the Library Learning Resource Center and head librarian at Ohio State Agricultural Technical Institute, who died on Aug. 12, 2022, at age 84.
• Robert E. Cox, assistant professor emeritus in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, who died on Jan. 4, 2022, at age 81.
• Richard F. Hamilton, professor emeritus in the Department of Sociology in the College of Arts and Sciences, who died on June 15, 2022, at age 92.
• Patricia J. Long, assistant professor emeritus in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, who died on Nov. 20, 2021, at age 90.
• Naurine R. McCormick, professor emeritus in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, who died on Oct. 18, 2021, at age 96.
• Gail McCutcheon, associate professor emeritus in the College of Education and Human Ecology, who died on May 8, 2022, at age 80.
• Edna M. Menke, associate professor emeritus in the College of Nursing, who died on July 30, 2022, at age 81.
• Ruskin Donald Moore, associate professor emeritus in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, who died on Nov. 17, 2021, at age 96.
• Robert F. “Bob” Rodgers, associate professor emeritus in the Higher Education and Student Affairs program in the College of Education and Human Ecology, who died on Aug. 12, 2022, at age 84.
• Elizabeth “Betty” Sawyers, associate professor emeritus in University Libraries, who died on July 23, 2022, at age 85.
• Juan Fernandez Sotos, professor emeritus in the Department of Pediatrics in the College of Medicine, who died on May 8, 2022, at age 94.
• William J. “Bill” Sullivan, associate professor emeritus in the Department of English on the Lima campus, who died on Oct. 9, 2022, at age 84.
• Charles A. “Chuck” Triplehorn, professor emeritus of entomology in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, who died on Aug. 25, 2022, at age 94.
• Chester Winter, professor emeritus in the Department of Surgery and former Division Director of Urology in the College of Medicine, who died on May 3, 2022, at age 99.

Reports on low enrollment and duplicate programs approved
Trustees approved the reports that are required by state law for state institutions of higher education to evaluate courses and programs based on enrollments and duplication with other schools.

Revisions to the rules of the university faculty approved
The board approved amendments to the rules as approved by the University Senate. The amendment is for a rule that provides students, faculty and staff the opportunity to hold personal financial interests in University Technology Commercialization Companies while protecting the integrity of the university’s teaching, research and creative expression.

Amendment to Ohio State Energy Partners utility system capital improvements plan for fiscal year 2023 approved
Trustees approved an amendment to the Ohio State Energy Partners’ fiscal year 2023 plan to make capital improvements. The $4.63 million project is for West Stream Line and Condensate System Infrastructure.

Joint use agreement approved
The board authorized a joint use agreement between the university and Ronald McDonald House Charities of Central Ohio. The university was previously allocated $2.25 million in the state capital bill for use by the charity to partially fund design and construction of improvements and expansion.  

Personnel actions approved
The board approved the following appointments and contract amendments:

• Eric Anderman, appointment extension, interim dean and director of Ohio State at Mansfield, from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2024, or until a new dean is appointed

Compensation adjustments as of Dec. 1, 2022, for the following:

• Jessica Eveland, secretary, Board of Trustees
• Anne Garcia, senior vice president and general counsel, Office of Legal Affairs
• Elizabeth Parkinson, senior vice president, communications and marketing  
• Jeffrey Risinger, senior vice president for talent, culture and human resources

University Foundation report approved
The board approved the report as of Oct. 31, 2022, which includes the establishment of five endowed professorships: the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Professorship in the College of Medicine, the Endowed Professorship in Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Research, the Endowed Professorship in Gastroenterology Research, the Excellence in Research and Education Leadership Professorship in the College of Medicine, and the Trott Gebhardt Philips Endowed Professorship; 12 scholarships as part of the Scarlet and Gray Advantage Endowed Matching Gift Program; two scholarships as part of the Joseph A. Alutto Global Leadership Initiative; and 12 additional named endowed funds; the revision of 10 named endowed funds; and the closure of two named endowed funds.

Board committee appointments ratified
The board approved the ratification of committee appointments for fiscal year 2023-24 as follows:

Academic Affairs & Student Life
Jeff M.S. Kaplan, chair
Elizabeth A. Harsh, vice chair
Abigail S. Wexner
Elizabeth P. Kessler
Reginald A. Wilkinson
Michael Kiggin
Taylor Schwein
Susan E. Cole (faculty member)
Hiroyuki Fujita (ex officio)

Finance & Investment
Tom B. Mitevski, chair
James D. Klingbeil, vice chair
John W. Zeiger
Gary R. Heminger
Lewis Von Thaer
Michael Kiggin
Tanner R. Hunt
Amy Chronis
Kent M. Stahl
Hiroyuki Fujita (ex officio)

Legal, Audit, Risk & Compliance
Elizabeth P. Kessler, chair
Michael Kiggin, vice chair
Alan A. Stockmeister
Jeff M.S. Kaplan
Elizabeth A. Harsh
Taylor Schwein
Amy Chronis
Hiroyuki Fujita (ex officio)

Master Planning & Facilities
Alexander R. Fischer, chair
Alan A. Stockmeister, vice chair
Elizabeth A. Harsh
Reginald A. Wilkinson
Taylor Schwein
James D. Klingbeil
Robert H. Schottenstein
Hiroyuki Fujita (ex officio)

Research, Innovation & Strategic Partnerships
Lewis Von Thaer, chair
Reginald A. Wilkinson, vice chair
Alexander R. Fischer
Tanner R. Hunt
Phillip Popovich (faculty member)
Hiroyuki Fujita (ex officio)

Talent, Compensation & Governance
John W. Zeiger, chair
Elizabeth P. Kessler, vice chair
Abigail S. Wexner
Alexander R. Fischer
Gary R. Heminger
Lewis Von Thaer
Jeff M.S. Kaplan
Tom B. Mitevski
Hiroyuki Fujita (ex officio)

Wexner Medical Center:
Leslie H. Wexner, chair
Abigail S. Wexner
Alan A. Stockmeister
John W. Zeiger
Gary R. Heminger
Tom B. Mitevski
Tanner R. Hunt
Stephen D. Steinour
Robert H. Schottenstein
W.G. Jurgensen
Cindy Hilsheimer
Amy Chronis
Hiroyuki Fujita (ex officio, voting)
Kristina M. Johnson (ex officio, voting)
Melissa L. Gilliam (ex officio, voting)
Michael Papadakis (ex officio, voting)
Jay Anderson/Andrew Thomas (ex officio, voting)

Submission of audited consolidated financial statements (draft) to state auditor approved
The board authorized the draft audited consolidated financial statements to the Auditor of State. The university engages an outside auditing firm, currently KPMG, to audit its consolidated financial statements.

Bylaw amendments approved
The board approved revisions to the bylaws of the Ohio State board of trustees and the Wexner Medical Center’s board.

Creation of a master of geographic information science and technology degree program approved
Trustees approved the new program in the College of Arts and Sciences. The primary audiences for the program are current students wanting to pursue this field, current professionals who want to advance their career and military personnel.

Creation of the Department of Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics approved
Trustees approved the establishment of the Department of Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics in the College of Medicine.

Increase on the cap of clinical faculty in the College of Optometry approved
Trustees approved the College of Optometry’s request to adjust its cap on clinical faculty appointment types to 48% instead of no more than 40%. This enables the college to carry out its educational and clinical missions more effectively without relying excessively on associated faculty appointments.

Progress report on state affordability and efficiency task force approved
Trustees approved Ohio State’s fiscal year 2022 progress report on the Ohio Task Force on Affordability and Efficiency recommendations, which will be submitted to the Chancellor of Higher Education.

Revisions to the policy on purchasing and competitive bidding approved
The board approved updates to the university’s policy on purchasing and competitive bidding.

Naming of university spaces
The board approved the naming of the following university spaces in acknowledgment of donors:

• Classroom W2210 in the Schumaker Complex at 615 Irving Schottenstein Drive as the Susan and Rob Savage Leadership Development Room
• Multipurpose room 140B in the Kunz-Brundige Franklin County Extension Building at 2548 Carmack Road as the Wampler Family Conference Room
• Group study space room 345 in Celeste Laboratory at 120 W. 18^th Ave. as the Professor Andrew Wojcicki (OSU 1966-2001) Group Study Space
• Dental suite room 125 in the Frank Stanton Veterinary Spectrum of Care Clinic at 655 Vernon L. Tharp St. in honor of Alexis Jacobs
• The James Outpatient Care building at 2121 Kenny Road
• The James Outpatient Care garage at 2061 Kenny Road

Appointment to the Self-Insurance Board authorized
The board approved the appointment of Vincent Tammaro to the board with a term ending June 30, 2024.

Ohio State’s carbon footprint has declined from 615,051 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in fiscal year 2015 to 428,392 metric tons last year, according to the university’s latest resource stewardship scorecard.

The university’s current goal is to cut carbon emissions to zero by 2050, and President Kristina M. Johnson has directed leaders to develop an acceleration plan that would achieve net zero emissions 10 years earlier, in 2040. The acceleration plan will be based on operational, financial and environmental considerations.

The university’s carbon footprint is part of a broad set of sustainability goals that are designed to enhance Ohio State’s positive, lasting impact on global challenges including energy efficiency, reducing waste and addressing the consequences of climate change.

Jay Kasey, senior vice president of the Office of Administration and Planning, will review the university’s progress on resource stewardship this week with Ohio State’s Board of Trustees. In addition to the 30% carbon reduction, Ohio State has taken substantial steps to address other sustainability goals:

• Energy efficiency: Ohio State has improved the energy efficiency of Columbus campus buildings by nearly 12% since fiscal year 2015 through energy conservation measures and other upgrades. So far, the university has approved improvement projects in more than 80 buildings through its relationship with Ohio State Energy Partners. In addition, it has converted approximately 123,000 light fixtures to LED technology and installed approximately 900 smart meters in nearly 300 buildings. The university’s goal is to improve building energy efficiency by 25% from the start of the program.
• Zero waste: Ohio State is now diverting 40% of waste from landfills through recycling, composting and other measures. In 2022, the university expanded its composting program beyond Ohio Stadium and dining halls to include residence halls, labs and drop-off locations for Buckeyes who live off-campus.  Already, the university has diverted more than 114 tons of food waste from landfills since July.
• Alternative fuels: The university has more than 150 electric, hybrid or compressed natural gas vehicles, which is nearly a fifth of the entire fleet. Ohio State plans to convert its entire fleet of CABS buses to compressed natural gas by 2026.
• Improving the ecosystem: In 2021, the university planted 1,000 trees – the largest single planting in five years.
• Decreasing water usage. The university used 390 million fewer gallons of potable water last year than in fiscal 2015.

“Ohio State is dedicated to sustainability,” Kasey said. ”Our carbon footprint reductions show that we are taking action to produce tangible results.”

The university first established a long-term carbon neutrality goal in 2008. It was incorporated into the sustainability goals that the university set in 2015. Since then, the university has invested in hundreds of projects from smaller-but-impactful initiatives ­– such as converting light fixtures to LED technology and upgrading heating and cooling systems – to larger, multi-year building projects.

For example, the university is building a Combined Heat and Power Plant (CHP) that will help serve the Columbus campus and support expansion such as a new inpatient hospital and the Carmenton innovation district. The CHP requires less carbon-intensive fuel use than the traditional approach of having separate systems for power and heat. 

Also under construction is the Energy Advancement and Innovation Center, which will be powered by rooftop solar energy. There, university and private sector researchers will work on the next generation of smart energy systems, renewable energy and green mobility solutions.

As Ohio State expands, it is taking steps to do so responsibly. Last year, the university implemented a new Sustainable Design and Construction Policy. The set of sustainability standards steers the university toward building and operating better performing facilities and a more sustainable physical environment while driving advancement toward sustainability goals.

Alongside Ohio State’s focus on operational improvements, students, faculty and staff are identifying solutions to address climate change and other challenges. Sustainability is addressed in more than 700 undergraduate courses on topics ranging from agriculture to engineering. For example, in Spring 2022, President Johnson and Kasey co-taught “Pathways to Net Zero Carbon Emissions” — a class in which students devised ways to reduce carbon emissions on campus.

For more information about the university’s sustainability goals, see Facilities Operations and Development and the Sustainability Institute at Ohio State.

Beginning this year, composting is available in common areas of residence halls. Interested students are even able to compost in their own rooms.

In residence halls, Ohio State has distributed more than 100 composting bins to be placed in common areas and nearly 90 students have requested bins for their rooms. The goal is to have bins in 1,000 rooms this year.

Additionally, a campus drop-off program allows students, faculty and staff who live off campus to bring compost to the university. More than a thousand Buckeyes have signed up to participate, joining a composting program that has already diverted more than 114 tons of food waste from landfills since July, supporting Ohio State’s zero waste sustainability goal and reducing methane emissions.  

“Ohio State is leading the region on this,” said Mary Leciejewski, Ohio State’s zero waste manager working within Facilities Operations and Development. “We’re one of the largest waste generators within Franklin County, so if we’re able to test different options and pilot different programs on campus, they can then be replicated across the region and other universities.”

About one-third of the waste generated at Ohio State is organic matter like food scraps and animal bedding from research labs. Organic matter in landfills is the third-leading human-related cause of methane emissions in the United States, Leciejewski adds. Methane contributes more to climate change than carbon dioxide, but composting breaks down organic matter, turning it into soil fertilizer.

The university has been composting since 2011 and included zero waste among Ohio State’s sustainability goals in 2015.

“The goal is to divert 90% of waste away from landfills through recycling, composting, reuse and waste prevention,” said Leciejewski.

“Right now, in Franklin County, we don’t have a large-scale food waste composting facility, but residents of the county have expressed a high interest,” said Molly Kathleen, zero waste coordinator. “[The compost drop-off program] provides that outlet. In addition to diverting the waste and helping more people learn about waste diversion, it demonstrates to regional leaders a growing demand from residents for more food waste solutions.”

More than 90 students have already volunteered to be peer-to-peer ambassadors for the composting program. They will answer questions about composting, help classmates utilize their bins and encourage others to participate. The volunteer efforts are supported by Green Scope Consulting, a sustainability startup launched by a recent Ohio State President’s Prize winner.

“I’ve been so impressed with the students’ enthusiasm and their strategic thinking,” Leciejewski said. “It really is a student-driven initiative.”

Students have worked on composting program ideas in the classroom as well.

Last spring, 18 students had the chance to take a class taught by President Kristina M. Johnson and Jay Kasey, senior vice president of the Office of Administration and Planning. The class was called “Pathways to Net Zero Carbon Emissions.”

Students were tasked with devising a way to reduce carbon emissions on campus by 500 tons. Olivia Reed, Sonam Rustagi and Max Sanchez focused on eliminating food waste through processes like composting for their project. Composting can reduce methane emissions, which are converted into carbon equivalents to measure greenhouse gas emissions.

Discussing their research with President Johnson was a unique experience, the students agreed.

“It was really cool to see [President Johnson’s] engineering mind at work,” Rustagi said.

“I realized how passionate she was about the things we’re passionate about,” Sanchez said. “It was neat, seeing that shared interest. With her drive, she pushed us to work a little bit harder.”

Leciejewski and her team spoke to the students throughout the semester. Given Ohio State’s prominence in the region, she wanted them to understand the importance of solutions for the larger community.

Sanchez said he was excited to research solutions that could be used on a larger scale.

“The impact that we could have on other universities and other institutions in general could be great,” he said. “I want to set the precedent for other universities to work on their sustainability practices.”

To learn more about composting and zero waste efforts at Ohio State, listen to Episode 4 of the City of Ohio State podcast featuring a sit-down interview with Leciejewski.

The AgTech Innovation Hub will be facilitated by the offices of innovation for both organizations as well as the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES). Nationwide and Ohio State will work together to encourage the development of new solutions that will help the agricultural ecosystem while better understanding, managing and mitigating climate risk.

“Ohio farmers need new science, new strategies, new skills, new tools, new funding and new collaborations. I’m so happy today to have the honor to announce a new partnership between [CFAES] and Nationwide,” said Ohio State President Kristina M. Johnson. “[The Innovation Hub] will offer fertile ground for programs and ideas that contribute to agricultural resiliency, food security and the economic security of farmers and food producers.”

Nationwide is pledging up to $2 million in initial funding to identify and execute initiatives for the Innovation Hub and plans to provide additional funding and resources in the future. The partnership was announced at the 2022 Farm Science Review.

“The partnership also creates opportunities for collaborations across institutions and industries, developing new solutions to help the supply chain for other challenges,” said Mark Bervin, president and chief operating officer of Nationwide Property and Casualty. “We are so excited to partner with The Ohio State University and we are excited to see the impact that we will make on the agricultural community, not just here in Ohio, but everywhere.”

The AgTech Innovation Hub will provide a variety of tools, resources, skillsets and funding platforms to address the dynamic and changing needs of agriculture innovation to minimize climate risk and accurately insure those risks.

“This partnership will build on the collaborative that Nationwide and the Nationwide Foundation already have with the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences and The Ohio State University,” said Cathann A. Kress, Ohio State’s vice president for agricultural administration and dean of CFAES. “It will challenge our students and faculty to bring innovative solutions to the table to tackle the grand challenges we face regarding the nexus of ecosystem sustainability, food security, and viable production agriculture.”

The Innovation Hub will promote applied research, technology transfer, the exchange of knowledge and experience, and transdisciplinary innovation in support of agricultural technology. Programs may include early-stage entrepreneurs, mature companies or producers developing new or value-added products or manufacturing processes.

Funding for the project comes from a $5 million grant from the Washington, D.C.-based Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research and about $10 million in matching contributions from Ohio State, commodity groups, industry and other donors. The project will measure how much organic and inorganic carbon gets sequestered in the soil under different farming practices in key regions across the western hempishere.

What science knows about carbon sequestration, says Rattan Lal, Ohio State Distinguished University Professor of Soil Science, has mostly come from simulation modeling carried out on computers, along with a limited number of experiments in the field. 

Lal, who is a faculty member in Ohio State’s College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences (CFAES), will help to change that.

As principal investigator of the project titled “Enhanced Soil Carbon Farming as a Climate Solution,” he and other researchers will take measurements directly on hundreds of farms in Ohio, other states and even other countries under real-world farming practices and conditions.

“Biologic carbon sequestration through farming is a potent tool in the battle against climate change, and this generous grant from the Foundation for Food & Agriculture Research and matching donors will fund critical work to demonstrate how to deploy this practice to its full effect,” said Ohio State President Kristina M. Johnson. “The Ohio State University greatly appreciates this significant show of commitment to our land-grant tradition of service to our state and nation by identifying solutions to some of the world’s most pressing problems – including preserving the food supply.” 

The project will generate valuable information on how carbon farming can mitigate climate change, improve soil health and make crops more productive, said Cathann A. Kress, Ohio State vice president for agricultural administration and CFAES dean. In turn, she said, it will provide that information to farmers, land managers, OSU Extension personnel, policymakers, stakeholders, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations and the public. 

“Through this work, we will impact policy and agricultural practices on a national and worldwide level,” Kress said. “Under the guidance of Dr. Lal, working with other highly regarded faculty members and researchers, we’re proud to lead this vitally important initiative.” 

Lal and his team will measure carbon sequestration on croplands, rangelands and grasslands, including soils used to produce a wide and representative range of crops and animals, and soils being managed through both traditional and enhanced carbon-farming methods.

“We want to generate actual primary data on productivity, on the efficiency of inputs, on the benefits of conservation agriculture and sequestering carbon, and on savings of nitrogen, water, pesticides and energy,” Lal said. He founded and directs the CFAES Rattan Lal Center for Carbon Management and Sequestration. 

“We’re also going to focus on evaluating and developing technology for farming carbon, where carbon stock can be used as a farm commodity that will enable farmers to be rewarded for strengthening critical ecosystem services,” he said. 

Lal said the project, among other things, will find out how much carbon dioxide produced by farming can be offset by sequestering carbon in the soil. It will determine which practices and technologies do that best for farmers. And it will provide science-based input to policymakers on matters such as standardizing carbon-credit pricing. 

“The goal is to make agriculture a solution” in fighting climate change and other environment crises, Lal said. 

The project will also make agriculture more resilient in the face of these crises, he noted. Soil contains more carbon than plants and the atmosphere combined. And more carbon in the soil means stronger crops and a healthier environment.

“The idea is that even as the climate is changing, agriculture will have a buffer – better soil health,” said Lal, who has received the World Food Prize, World Agriculture Prize, Glinka World Soil Prize and Japan Prize for his decades of research on how soil health impacts crop productivity.

Research for the project will take place on farms in Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, Kansas, Utah, Arizona and South America. Study sites will be chosen to represent a range of crops, climates, soil types, input levels of water and fertilizer, farming systems and ecological regions.

In addition to Ohio State, three other universities, three federal agencies and international collaborators are involved in the project. Within Ohio State, collaborators include Cinnamon Piñon Carlarne, associate dean of the Moritz College of Law; Marilia Chiavegato, assistant professor of agroecosystems management; M. Scott Demyan, assistant professor of soil and environmental mineralogy; Klaus Lorenz, assistant director of the Center for Carbon Management and Sequestration; Virginia Rich, associate professor of microbial ecology; Jackie Kirby Wilkins, director of OSU Extension; and Roger Williams, associate professor of forest management.

Additional project co-sponsors and collaborators include the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, FONTAGRO, Bayer U.S. – Crop Science, Microsoft, Cotton Incorporated, Corteva, Ohio Corn and Wheat Growers Association, Ohio Soybean Association, Kansas Corn, United Sorghum Checkoff Program, National Sorghum Producers, Utah Department of Agriculture & Food, Kansas State University, Michigan State University and Utah State University. The project will also be supported through scientific collaborations with the USDA Agricultural Research Service, Sandia National Laboratories, the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Agricultural Research Institute of Uruguay. Further project support is provided by Ohio State’s Office of Research, Graduate School, and the CFAES Office for Research and Graduate Education.

The study is the first to simultaneously examine metabolic gene expression in both host trees and the pathogens attacking them under normal and climate-change conditions. The findings help explain the mechanisms behind what has become a well-known fact: The warming world makes trees more susceptible to disease.

The study was conducted on Austrian pines, which are native to southern Europe and used ornamentally in the United States. Researchers tested climate change conditions’ effects on the trees after infection by two related fungi that have killed large swaths of these pines over time.

“We decided to study the effects of the combined stresses of higher temperatures and lower water availability because that’s what trees will experience in the future,” said senior author Enrico Bonello, professor of molecular and chemical ecology of trees in The Ohio State University Department of Plant Pathology.

“Within three days of infection under climate-change conditions, the tree was pulled in two different directions: It was deprived of carbon by both reduced photosynthesis and enhanced acquisition of the carbon by the fungi. When we’re talking about carbon, we’re talking about sugars, food and reserves for all other metabolic processes in the trees, including growth and defense.”

The research was published recently in the journal Frontiers in Forests and Global Change.

Carbon sequestration by the world’s forests is a major mitigator of climate change’s effects, and could be accelerated if improvements are made to their protection, management and restoration, experts say. In a 2021 study of U.S. forest plots, scientists estimated recent disease and insect disturbances had lowered carbon sequestration rates by 28% and 69%, respectively, from 2001-2019 compared to undisturbed forests.

“This is another reason to combat global warming induced by human activities – another piece of evidence that what we are doing to the planet has so many implications,” Bonello said.

He and colleagues exposed 3-year-old Austrian pines to two sets of conditions: daily temperatures ranging from 59 to 82.4 degrees Fahrenheit for the control or, to mimic climate change conditions, daily temperatures of 68 to 91.4 degrees Fahrenheit, which reduced the amount of water in the atmosphere compared to available water in the cooler temperatures. After trees got accustomed to their conditions, they were inoculated with one of two strains of the pathogenic fungus. 

Diplodia sapinea, an aggressive fungus, and its less-aggressive relative Diplodia scrobiculata are found in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. They remain dormant much of the time, waiting for the best opportunity to kill host cells and feed on the dead plant material – usually when their host is weakened. In addition to killing Austrian pines, the fungi have also begun damaging Scots pines in Scandinavia.

“The hypothesis is that the warming and lower water availability in those areas is making trees more susceptible to a pathogen that would normally sit in the background,” Bonello said. 

Three days after infection, the team collected plant and pathogen tissue that was used for an RNA sequencing analysis to identify gene activation, or expression, pattern changes in the trees and both strains of the fungi. 

The analysis showed a fundamental change in the trees exposed to the climate-change conditions: Their capacity to carry out photosynthesis decreased, meaning they had fewer resources to invest in their own food supply, growth and defense against disease. At the same time, both strains of the fungus ramped up their carbon utilization machinery, and the usual difference between their aggressiveness disappeared – they became significantly more pathogenic, and to the same extent, than under normal conditions.

“Essentially, climate change conditions led the host to starvation, which is compounded by the fact that the fungi became more aggressive, grew faster and killed more host tissue faster,” Bonello said. “These were early responses, but it gives us an idea of what’s happening in the system.”

While these results are one example of one tree species and one type of pathogen, the research offers insights into how much damage global warming may do to one of the planet’s main carbon sinks. 

“Pathogen and pest invasions are already having an effect on carbon sequestration,” Bonello said. “If you make it even worse with climate change, carbon sequestration will be affected negatively because trees will die in ever larger numbers. Trees that might otherwise survive adverse environmental conditions for a while, and recover if conditions become better or intermittent, may be killed by pathogens in the meantime.”

This work was supported by the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Ohio State’s College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the National Science Foundation.

Bonello and Ohio State co-authors Soumya Ghosh, Jason Slot, Michael Sovic, Anna Conrad, Bethany Kyre and Vinod Vijayakumar collaborated on the study with Erik Visser and Sanushka Naidoo of the University of Pretoria in South Africa.

The students are developing projects known as “design challenges,” which focus on infrastructure improvement, and a class field trip provided inspiration. Through a collaboration with Engie, Ohio State’s energy partner, engineers were on-site and able to answer questions about the university’s energy framework.

“Our students identified a problem related to trash, water or electricity. We are here to see what Ohio State is doing with these same infrastructure issues,” said Kevin Freeman, an eighth-grade math teacher at Metro.

Seventh-grade students spent the morning of Feb. 14 at Ohio Stadium, where they were taken on a tour that included the recruit room and the press box. The day’s highlight, however, was a trip down to the football field.

“I’ve been to Ohio State before, but I’ve never had a full tour,” said seventh-grader Jiselle Jenkins. In addition to the tour, students engaged in discussions about sustainability with interns from the university’s Zero Waste project.

“We need sustainability to do the things we want to do in the future,” Jenkins added.

Eighth-graders had their turn the next day when Engie team members guided them through a walking tour of geothermal and water systems at the university.

“We want to give students a real-world tour of actual infrastructure design and how we’ve implemented it on campus,” said Ryan Wester, a program manager with Engie.

Students began the day on the South Oval, where they learned about the geothermal wells that feed the area. The South High Rise Geothermal Plant, as it’s known, serves 10 buildings with heating and six with cooling, all in the South Residential District.

The next stop was Mirror Lake, an iconic Ohio State location. Here students asked questions about water usage on campus. Metro eighth-grader Yaha Abdi said this was his favorite part of the tour.

“My design challenge is about water, so I liked the water system – how they use cool water and hot water,” he said.

The tour ended at the South Campus Chilled Water Plant, where students learned how the facility provides chilled water for the Wexner Medical Center and other nearby buildings. They also examined maps showing chilled water facilities on campus.

“I liked looking at the chiller. It was a cool building and I liked learning about that,” said Noor Ouhammou, another eighth-grader. “We can take the information that we’re learning today and apply it to the some of the problems that we’re working on at Metro.”

Beyond the tour itself, the campus visits served another important purpose for the Metro students and staff: a change of pace after two field-trip-free years.

“Because of COVID, we were virtual all last year […] and these eighth-graders, their sixth-grade year was cut in half, so this is their first field trip since they’ve been in middle school,” Freeman said. “I think they had a blast. A lot of questions were being asked, a lot of kids were taking videos and photos. For a lot of them, it was their first time on campus, so they were experiencing that. I think they had a great time.”

The company will invest in the university’s zero-waste goal by funding expanded efforts to improve recycling and waste elimination on campus. Additional funds will support engineering research and teaching to unlock ways that artificial intelligence and new automation can improve the effectiveness of recovering recycled material from the waste stream. The collaboration is supported by a new gift of $1 million from the company. 

Rumpke is also endowing an undergraduate scholarship to support Ohio State’s Scarlet & Gray Advantage program, which will empower students to earn their bachelor’s degree debt-free.

“The collaboration with Rumpke highlights the importance of circular economy as a pillar of a more sustainable and just society,” said Kate Bartter, executive director of the Sustainability Institute. 

Worldwide, 3.5 million tons of solid waste are generated daily, according to the World Bank. In a circular economy, waste is converted to valuable resources through a shift toward a closed-loop system that recovers these materials and puts them back into the production cycle. 

A 2021 study conducted by Ohio State’s Facilities Operations and Development found that up to 68% of the materials thrown away at the university could be recycled, composted or eliminated from the waste stream. A circular economy can also create new jobs in design, materials engineering, automation, behavioral sciences and other fields. 

Rumpke is helping Ohio State do its part by supporting zero-waste strategies implemented on campus by facilities and operations staff. The collaboration will fund recycling initiatives such as waste characterization studies, waste infrastructure assessments and education campaigns; expansion of systems to maximize the usefulness of organic materials; and strategies to prevent waste generation, especially bulk materials, at the source. 

Building a more circular economy also has positive implications for climate change. Using recycled material conserves raw materials and energy. 

“Recycled aluminum has an energy savings of more than 90% compared to using virgin feedstock, contributing to a smaller carbon footprint for the manufacturer,” explains Alan Luo, a professor in the departments of Integrated Systems Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering. Luo, who researches lightweight materials and advanced manufacturing, is the recipient of multiple grants from the REMADE Institute, a national manufacturing institute that seeks to improve U.S. manufacturing through circular economy innovations.

“Columbus will set a new standard for recycling,” said Andrew Rumpke, East Area president for the company.

Recently, he announced the construction of a new recycling center, known as a “materials recovery facility,” in Columbus to replace the one the company currently operates. The new facility will be sized to accommodate population growth projections in central Ohio and could become the fifth largest in the country, according to Rumpke.

Bartter notes that improvements in the region’s recycling infrastructure will help Ohio State move closer to its zero-waste goal of diverting 90% of its waste from landfills. Some loads of recycled materials generated by the university must be rejected and sent to the landfill because they are contaminated by the presence of non-recyclable items. A new facility with advanced sorting technologies means that a higher percentage of recycled materials can be recovered from current waste streams. 

Translating new technologies into new products and processes is part of the mission of the College of Engineering’s Center for Design and Manufacturing Excellence (CDME), one of the programs supported by Rumpke’s gift. CDME Director Nate Ames explained that “we use industry-funded projects to provide undergraduate students with hands-on experiences to get them ready to enter the workforce.” 

Rumpke’s funds will support the center’s Artificially Intelligent Manufacturing Systems lab, building on component picking, logistics stacking, automated path planning and other current projects.

The company will also provide Ohio State with access to its new materials recovery facility, including a planned research and development center that will test recycling and environmental solutions, as well as procure data that could be used for faculty research and student projects.

This collaboration will help shape the experience of many students who will eventually contribute to the next generation of advanced manufacturing,” Ames added.

Although most of Rumpke’s gift will be used over the next five years, the scholarship endowment to support the Scarlet & Gray Advantage program will remain permanent. As part of the initial launch of fundraising for the program, the university is matching scholarship gifts of $100,000 or more dollar for dollar.

“Our family has had a long-standing commitment to support education,” Rumpke said. “We are proud to pay it forward to the communities near our facility with this new scholarship.”

“Building a regional circular economy is an ambitious challenge that requires numerous collaborators,” Bartter said. “The investments by Rumpke, both in the region’s infrastructure and at the university, have the potential to be transformative.”

The company, a supplier of drainage products for residential, commercial, agriculture and infrastructure markets, is donating two state-of-the-art stormwater management systems for the Innovation District on West Campus along with a cash gift to install them, as well as funds to support research and teaching opportunities. Additional parts of the gift will promote diversity and inclusion by supporting the Engineering House Learning Community and will help the university improve recycling on campus. The combined value of the product donation and cash gift exceeds $1 million.

“The new collaboration with ADS will greatly improve the way Ohio State manages stormwater runoff from new development in the Innovation District,” said Kate Bartter, executive director of the Sustainability Institute.

Stormwater management is a significant economic and environmental issue for new construction and redevelopment. Stormwater runoff from developed areas carries numerous pollutants to lakes, rivers and oceans; often raises the temperature of the receiving surface water body, negatively affecting aquatic life; and deprives groundwater recharge through absorption of stormwater into the soil.

The management system holds rainwater runoff from buildings, pavement and other surfaces in a series of underground chambers that trap contaminants and then slowly releases the water into the city’s stormwater pipes. 

“The ADS systems will strengthen ecosystem services on campus, which is one of Ohio State’s sustainability goals,” Bartter said. 

The collaboration draws attention to stormwater management at a time when climate change is exacerbating the issue by greatly increasing the number and intensity of storm events. City and state regulations require new development to manage stormwater from heavy rainfall to avoid overflows in combined sewer and other stormwater systems that can spread bacteria and degrade streams. Proper stormwater management can also improve water quality, especially by trapping sediment.

The challenges posed by stormwater management are a powerful motivation for ADS, said Scott Barbour, ADS President and CEO.

“Our reason is water, whether in an urban or rural setting,” he said. “We are pleased to be able to help Ohio State manage stormwater runoff at its new Innovation District with this donation.”

The company also plans to support research and teaching opportunities that will use the larger of the two stormwater systems as a living laboratory for urban water management. This will benefit Ohio State faculty like Ryan Winston, assistant professor in the departments of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering (FABE) and Civil, Environmental and Geodetic Engineering and a core faculty member of the Sustainability Institute.

“Most people in urban areas don’t think about where their water comes from or where it goes because so much of the infrastructure is hidden underground,” Winston said. “The installation of the ADS system means that we can create hands-on opportunities for students to learn about sustainable water management outside the classroom.”

Winston is faculty adviser to a capstone team of FABE students who will design a rainwater harvesting system that would pump water stored in the ADS system and use it for landscape irrigation. The final report by the students will help inform opportunities for the university to recycle rainwater and reduce the amount of potable water it consumes. Not only is ADS sponsoring the team, but its executive vice president for product development will also serve as a team adviser.

“Ohio State using our product on campus for research and teaching purposes is one of the most exciting parts of the collaboration,” said Brian King, ADS executive vice president, marketing, product management and sustainability. “We are especially pleased to be able to support engineering students from underrepresented populations through our gift to the Engineering House Learning Community.”

Water is not the only “stream” covered by the new gift.

“Roughly two-thirds of the material used in ADS products is recycled content,” King adds. Ohio State provides single-stream recycling across campus and has recently expanded what it accepts to type 5 plastic (polypropylene) used in yogurt containers and other packaging. As part of its gift, ADS will be the largest sponsor of the university’s “Recycle Right” campaign.

“The better recycling is across campus, the more material will be available for ADS products,” King said.

The collaboration was made possible in part by the Ohio State Administration and Planning team’s strong commitment to making campus more sustainable. Water and waste experts in the Department of Facilities Operations and Development, with technical support from its design and construction team and the university landscape architect, guided the opportunity.

For Bartter, the new relationship with ADS underscores the vast potential of combining research, student learning and campus operations.

“Bringing together Ohio State’s core assets like this is the equivalent of an academic trifecta,” she says. “It really demonstrates what the university can contribute to our knowledge and application of sustainability solutions. This collaboration will not only make our campus more sustainable, but it also will generate research and teaching benefits for years to come.”

Vilsack and Brown toured Waterman and participated in a discussion with university faculty and staff and industry stakeholders that was moderated by Vice President for Agricultural Administration and Dean of the College of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Sciences Cathann A. Kress.

“Agriculture is our state’s No. 1 industry,” said Ohio State President Kristina M. Johnson, describing how agricultural and environmental research drives innovation during the discussion. “To borrow a phrase from Dean Kress, it’s a ‘cornerstone’ of our economy. It’s also a cornerstone of our university.”

Johnson highlighted the work of Distinguished University Professor Rattan Lal, a soil scientist who is an expert in carbon management and sequestration. Johnson and Lal will co-teach a course in spring semester focusing on pathways to reduce carbon emissions.

Ohio State is also the lead university partner for research on low-Earth orbit satellites, Johnson said. CFAES will host and operate a ground-based “control lab” for agricultural research aboard a space-based science lab and assist in advancing in-space and terrestrial agriculture.

Kress pointed to the current construction of the Controlled Environment Agriculture Research Complex and the plans for a new multispecies animal learning center as part of the continuing innovation at Waterman. Robotic-enhanced farming and artificial intelligence research were also highlighted.

“[Robotics are] another important addition to what we can do here at the Ohio State University to provide a world-class education for our students and a world-class research environment for our faculty,” Kress said.

As part of his visit, Vilsack announced a $1.2 million investment by the USDA to support a robotic irrigation system that aligns nutrient application timing to a crop’s nutrient needs and improves irrigation efficiency. The project will be implemented in Ohio and Iowa.

Vilsack said the research and education at Waterman and Ohio State is critical to the nation’s agricultural and environmental future, noting the importance of young people’s engagement in supporting local and regional food systems and commodity-scale agriculture with an eye toward reducing the carbon footprint of American agriculture.

“And to be able to do it in a way that increases the bottom line for our farmers, ranchers and producers, and increases their ability to keep the farm and transfer it to the next generation, is just an exciting opportunity,” Vilsack said.

Ohio State Energy Partners (OSEP) was presented as a case study last week at a virtual conference promoting the newest initiative of the Global Infrastructure Hub (GI Hub), Improving Delivery Models. GI Hub is a nonprofit organization helping advance the G20’s efforts to support sustainable, resilient and inclusive infrastructure projects.

The conference examined improvements to the infrastructure management process made by G20 governments and industry to address some of the common challenges in the sector.

In 2017, the university and OSEP entered into a comprehensive energy management partnership, which launched an unprecedented energy efficiency program and established Ohio State as an international leader in sustainability. OSEP is a joint venture between ENGIE North America and Axium Infrastructure.

“Two important goals of this partnership are environmental and economic sustainability. The partnership continues to be an excellent example of resource stewardship that is helping the university to cost effectively reduce our carbon emissions,” said Scott Potter, senior director of comprehensive energy management in the Office of Business and Finance.

The partnership was identified by GI Hub as an innovative approach to meeting climate change objectives without burdening public budgets with energy-efficiency upgrades to existing buildings.

Some of the lessons GI Hub shared from the case study included:

• Private-sector innovation can be achieved through having the right commercial mechanism and alignment on the output required. In this case the energy-saving initiatives proposed are incentivized by the agreement and approved on the basis of monetary value.
• The capital structuring also allows capital investments to be made without having to obtain further approvals through a revolving capital loan.
• OSEP has acted as an enabler for Ohio State to improve energy efficiency and achieve its zero carbon targets, unlocking funds required by the university for academic programs and research centers, and allowing Ohio State to focus on education.

Ohio State and OSEP sustainability goals include improving energy efficiency by at least 25% within 10 years and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.

“The public-private partnership model is one that brings immense opportunity for universities to reach their zero carbon commitments, while providing a clear path forward to address critical infrastructure and investment needs of a campus,” said Serdar Tufekci, vice president, Head of Major Partnerships, ENGIE North America. “Through our partnership, Ohio State continues to set a new standard of campus energy, efficiency and sustainability and we are proud to be their partner.”

OSEP contributes $810,000 each year to the university or affiliated philanthropic causes as part of its commitment to academic engagement.

Grants include $44,000 to Michael Groeber, associate professor of additive manufacturing, for the Workforce Development for a Digital World program, which is based at the College of Engineering’s Center for Design and Manufacturing Excellence (CDME).

The grant will fund the work of undergraduate interns who are studying digital manufacturing processes at CDME’s additive manufacturing and artificially intelligent manufacturing systems laboratories. The interns are majoring in areas such as computer science, electrical engineering and systems engineering.

“What we’re trying to do is just wet the feet of these students and see how we can push this forward and hopefully build a base for Ohio State in the future as a leader of digital manufacturing,” Groeber said.

Groeber said he and Jacob Rindler, a welding engineering doctoral candidate and CDME staff scientist, drafted the OSEP grant proposal to assist CDME’s undergraduate interns in analyzing data that cameras, sensors and other devices record during the digital manufacturing process.

The research examines how manufacturers can create unique items in small quantities, tailored to meet consumer demand, Groeber said.

“The more agile we can be in our manufacturing, the more agile we can be in everything else,” he said.

Another $35,000 OSEP grant has been awarded to Ramteen Sioshansi, professor of integrated systems engineering, for the Convergent Graduate Training and EmPOWERment for a Sustainable Energy Future program.

The program brings together Ohio State researchers with expertise in sustainable energy to teach students about innovations in the field and assist them in training for careers in the industry, Sioshansi said.

“The idea is to develop a program that’s going to provide the students with a more holistic exposure to issues that have to do with sustainable energy and sustainable energy systems than they would get typically just in doing a siloed PhD,” he said.

Students in the program are studying a variety of subject areas, from emerging technologies to behavioral sciences that evaluate how and why people adopt sustainable energy practices, said program director Diane Boghrat.

“We have a mix of students. Some students are interested in going the professorate route, and some are generally interested in the educational space. So maybe that would be K through 12, or maybe that would be in higher education,” she said.

“And then we have other students that are interested in working at national labs or in policy or technology spaces. We have students with a lot of varying interests, and that’s mainly because we have students in so many broad disciplines.”

Other OSEP grant award winners include:

• $50,000 to Dawn Kitchen, associate dean of the Mansfield campus and professor of anthropology, to develop STEM leadership in traditionally underrepresented groups through near-peer mentoring, role modeling and experiential learning.
• $50,000 to Lauren Koch, sustainability consultant, Health System – Shared Services, for zero waste initiatives at Wexner Medical Center locations.
• $50,000 to Jacob Boswell, associate professor of landscape architecture, for the Sustainable Ohio Urban Landscape Lab.
• $49,959 to Amy Youngs, associate professor, art and technology, for Emerge: The Network for Prototyping the Future.
• $46,241 to G. Matt Davies, associate professor, soil and plant community restoration, for creating an ecosystem carbon account for Ohio State’s forest properties.
• $42,976 to Ed McGowan, groundskeeper, Facilities Operations and Development, for creating a greener campus through zero emission landscape equipment.
• $13,075 to Courtney Price, education and outreach specialist, Center for Applied Plant Sciences & Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center, for WestFest 2021: The West Campus Science & Sustainability Festival.
• $12,698 to Brian S. Gaydos, mechanical engineering student and student assistant, Student Life – Recreational Sports Administration, to create a semester-long bike rental pilot program. 
• $10,000 to Barbara Harvey, career counselor, Arts and Sciences – Center for Career and Professional Success, supporting the Career Accelerator Fund for Visual and Performing Arts.
• $10,000 to Sathya Gopalakrishnan, associate professor, environmental economics, for the Professional Development for Sustainability Leadership program.

OSEP also dedicated $250,000 of its philanthropic contributions this year to College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences for the Ross Heart Garden Project; $50,000 to Deliver Black Dreams in partnership with the Greater Columbus Arts Council; $50,000 to the College of Engineering for the project: “Holistic Building Data Gathering for Optimized Energy Usage”; $31,151 to the Wexner Center for the Arts; $10,000 to Student Life to support their Residence Hall Energy Competition; and $5,000 to HACK OH/IO, a 24-hour hack-a-thon that attracts more than 800 participants annually for a full weekend of coding, building, learning, networking and innovation.

In 2017, the university and OSEP entered into the comprehensive energy management partnership, which launched an unprecedented energy efficiency program and established Ohio State as an international leader in sustainability. OSEP is a joint venture between ENGIE North America and Axium Infrastructure. The university’s Energy Academic Collaboration Council provides support for the grant program.

Full list of OSEP 2021 philanthropic contributions

The projects will conceive, optimize, build and refine “Connected Communities,” in which buildings and distributed energy resources – such as photovoltaic solar panels, electric vehicle charging stations and storage – are controlled in coordination with the electrical grid. This leads to optimized energy consumption within the community, providing a model for reducing the building sector’s contribution to the climate crisis.

Led by College of Engineering Associate Dean of Facilities Michael Hagenberger, Engineering Assistant Professor Jordan Clark and ENGIE Technology Architect Mark Brown, Ohio State’s project leverages the university’s public-private partnership with Ohio State Energy Partners established in 2017 by ENGIE North America and Axium Infrastructure. Since then, the partners have embarked on a transformation of the 485-building Columbus campus with the installation of nearly 1,000 smart meters, approval of more than $190 million in energy efficiency measures and implementation of a central analytics and control platform. These infrastructure upgrades have resulted in Ohio State’s Columbus campus becoming the country’s largest microgrid and a replicable pilot for other communities.

“This interdisciplinary project will give Ohio State and Ohio State Energy Partners an opportunity to pursue boundary-pushing energy and sustainability research and innovations and pave the way for the integration of renewable energy sources into our portfolio, a key part of Ohio State’s 2050 carbon neutrality goal,” said Ohio State President Kristina M. Johnson.

America’s 125 million homes and commercial buildings currently use almost 40% of U.S. energy and 74% of its electricity, and account for the great majority of peak electricity demand. With technology like state-of-the-art sensors, controls and analytics, there is potential to significantly improve efficiency and reduce carbon emissions of our nation’s energy resources. A recent DOE study estimated that by 2030, grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEBs) could save up to $18 billion per year in power system costs and cut 80 million tons of carbon emissions each year.

The Ohio State project team will develop and manage its “Connected Community” as a pilot cluster of campus buildings, of diverse vintage and use type, and energy assets as a microgrid controlled by artificial intelligence (AI) tools. The energy assets include: a 105-megawatt combined heat and power plant; multiple central chiller plants; a steam plant; 65,000 square feet of solar power photovoltaics; 29 electric vehicle charging stations; and 50 megawatts of wind energy through a power purchase agreement.

ENGIE’s novel Smart Institutions platform will integrate data from these assets – streams of real-time utility data such as electricity and chilled water from campus buildings, hyperlocal weather data and occupancy data via wireless access points – to facilitate resource utilization decisions and control campus buildings in coordination, following extensive modeling in the project’s first few years.

“This is a unique opportunity to not only think about, but to actually use the campus to demonstrate the ability of a Connected Community approach to deliver added value to asset owners, community operators and grid operators while maintaining or improving occupant experience and facilitating deep penetration of renewables,” said Clark. “We have an amazing team comprising researchers and private-sector partners who will collaborate to provide this example in a region of the country that can be quite a challenging place to integrate renewables.”

The project team includes Ohio State faculty and staff working with experts from ENGIE, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the University of California, Berkeley, American Electric Power and PJM. In addition to the College of Engineering, staff and faculty from Ohio State’s Facilities Operations and Development, Office of Business and Finance, Center for Automotive Research, Sustainability Institute, John Glenn College of Public Affairs and Institute for Materials Research will contribute to project tasks and goals.

“We are very excited to see that our partnership with The Ohio State University and Axium Infrastructure continues to deliver value well beyond the contractual expectations,” said Serdar Tufekci, Head of Major Partnerships Energy Solutions Americas at ENGIE. “We look forward to expanding our collaboration with the Department of Energy to discover a new standard of innovation and technology which will help in our joint ambition to achieve campus carbon neutrality in a financially feasible way.”

Ohio State’s project will demonstrate cybersecure control of buildings and distributed energy resources for efficiency, demand management and provision of grid services. As a result, the “Connected Community” will be better equipped to respond to peak demand times and reduce energy consumption by 35% — an additional 10% beyond the 25% reduction goal in the Ohio State Energy Partners agreement. In addition, a major outcome of the project will be the demonstration of a 20% increase in net present value of existing renewable generation assets in an Ohio climate.

The 10 projects announced today by DOE will further demonstrate the capabilities of GEBs across a wider range of technologies, locations and building types. Ohio State’s project is the only one to occur on a university campus setting.

The project, which will upgrade 40 academic, administration, medical, athletic and student residence buildings, is pending approval by the Board of Trustees this week. This will be the fourth of five phases of energy efficiency measures that are part of the Ohio State Energy Partners (OSEP) program.

“The framework of these optimization projects looks at each building as part of the whole energy system,” said Scott Potter, senior director of comprehensive energy management in the Office of Business and Finance. “We analyze the heating and cooling systems, the motors that might be running in the building, the ducts that are in the building, pumps – anything that has an electrical or heat load – and through that comprehensive lens ask, ‘What’s the list of everything that can be done more efficiently in this building?’”

The projects are guided by building-specific energy audits performed in 2020. Some of the construction includes: changing heating and cooling elements in campus buildings; optimizing air-handling and airflow; and upgrading fans and pumps for optimally efficient circulation.

Phase IV will also install a heat recovery chiller in the East Regional Chilled Water Plant, extend the heating hot water network in the surrounding area, and optimize the chilled water network controls.

Potter said the goal is sustainability, both environmental and economic. The projects will reduce annual energy consumption for the optimized buildings by an average of more than 25% when completed.

“I equate this to how everybody changes the light bulbs in their home, but less often do they get the caulk gun and caulk all of the holes; and the caulking is likely to save far more than the light bulbs,” he said.

Potter said Phase IV is another milestone in the progress made by OSEP. More than 100 buildings on campus have undergone some level of energy conservation measures, 40 more will undergo a similar transformation if the proposed plan is approved, and about 50 to 60 buildings would finish optimization in Phase V. In 2017, Ohio State transferred management of the systems that heat, cool and power the Columbus campus to ENGIE to operate these systems on behalf of OSEP. 

All of these projects help advance Ohio State and OSEP sustainability goals, which include improving energy efficiency by at least 25% within 10 years and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.

To date, Ohio State Energy Partners has made tangible progress, including:

• Converting a total of 107,000 indoor light fixtures and 1,700 outdoor light fixtures to energy-efficient LED technology over the past two years.
• Completing the deployment of smart energy meters on campus – now totaling more than 750 electricty, natural gas, steam and chilled water meters – which are linked to a custom-built Digital Platform. This system will allow ENGIE and Ohio State to monitor the utility system infrastructure and energy consumption throughout campus.
• Making infrastructure improvements to support utility systems for facilities around the Oval, within the Arts District and for health sciences facilities. 

“From the larger perspective, this is the economical thing to do, but it’s also the right thing to do,” Potter said.

As part of the forum, President Kristina M. Johnson emphasized the importance of collective action among local, state, national and global partners – and said addressing climate change aligns with Ohio State’s land-grant mission to uplift communities.

“We’re here unified toward one goal: Some people say to save the planet; I actually say to save civilization,” Johnson said. She pointed out the Earth existed for 4 billion years and would likely last billions more but acting now would prevent more ecological harm to the planet’s population.

Johnson highlighted Ohio State climate research including the work of Rattan Lal, Distinguished University Professor of Soil Science, to develop the best methods for carbon management and sequestration in soil, and studies by Christina Gore, a doctoral student in agricultural, environmental and development economics, who examines what environmental factors influence people’s adoption of electric vehicles. Both shared details of their work during the meeting.

The United Kingdom has made mitigating and adapting to climate change its top national priority, noted Sustainability Institute Executive Director Kate Bartter.

“We were honored that the U.K. ambassador’s team chose Ohio State as a destination to learn how local leaders in the Midwest are working together to address this urgent sustainability issue,” Bartter said. “While Ohio State has committed to being a carbon-neutral institution, our unique role is fulfilling our education and research mission to cultivate the next generation of climate leaders and bring more innovation to the local and global stage.”

The U.K. has significant political and economic partnerships with Ohio, said Alan Gogbashian, Her Majesty’s Consul General for Chicago, who facilitated the discussion. He leads the U.K.’s engagement across 14 Midwestern states, including Ohio.

“Columbus is a progressive city when it comes to climate,” he said.

Some successes shared with the U.K. contingent:

• The City of Columbus’ new renewable energy aggregation program
• The importance of the availability of renewable energy in the attraction of new business investment efforts led by One Columbus and other economic development professionals
• Sustainability initiatives in public transportation highlighted by COTA’s investment in electric charging stations and new buses
• Impact Community Action’s assistance and advocate programs to bring energy equity to neighborhoods in Columbus and Franklin County
• Power A Clean Future Ohio, which partners with local leaders across the state to create carbon reduction plans
• Huntington National Bank’s approach to managing climate-related risks and opportunities

“These are exactly the regional themes we need to give a voice at COP26,” Gogbashian said, adding that he will share central Ohio’s successes with his colleagues in the U.K. who are leading the climate summit.

Sandra Morgan, the U.K. Honorary Consul to Ohio, initiated the visit to Ohio State through the John Glenn College of Public Affairs. Karen Pierce, U.K. ambassador to the U.S., had been scheduled to lead the event but was called away on an emergency.

“Ohio State is the pre-eminent research university in the state of Ohio, and there is a significant amount of expertise here and a lot of experience,” she said. “Dr. Johnson brings a scope of knowledge to the table that is unmatched.”

“Climate change is a complex, global, interconnected problem,” said Glenn College Dean Trevor Brown. “The conversation between U.K. embassy staff and business, government, nonprofit and university leaders from central Ohio showcased the array of steps and actions that state and local actors can take to contribute to reaching carbon neutrality. The event also highlighted the importance of coordinating and aligning these efforts to exponentially increase their impact.”

Gogbashian praised the diversity of voices in Columbus and central Ohio that are working toward a common agenda on climate action.

“Business is at the table, alongside local government, alongside academics,” he said, adding that finance and community representatives join the efforts in central Ohio. “It’s that 360-degree engagement by the stakeholders that impressed me, and it’s the only way to get it done.”

The initiative reflects the urgency of transitioning to low-carbon options for energy to reduce climate change, a priority for both Ohio State and IGS Energy. The company will invest $1 million over five years in sustainable energy research and student learning through the university’s Sustainability Institute with an aim of developing new innovations and emerging leaders to facilitate the transition.

“This new initiative with IGS Energy aligns with Ohio State’s commitment to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and to help others reach the same important goal,” said Executive Director of the Sustainability Institute Kate Bartter.

In 2020, the university detailed its climate action plan, including steps to improve building energy efficiency, diversify sources of energy and address transportation-related emissions.

“We see a great opportunity to transfer the knowledge our researchers have to offer to the wider community through collaborations with the private sector,” Bartter said.

IGS Energy, which has made its own commitment to become carbon neutral by 2040, emphasizes the practical applications of the new relationship.

“By partnering with the Sustainability Institute at Ohio State, we can help apply the sustainability knowledge generated by university researchers to the energy needs of the real world,” said Scott White, IGS Energy president and CEO. “What we learn from this collaboration will ultimately end up in the hands of our employees, customers and the communities we serve.”

The new initiative calls for IGS to invest $750,000 in sustainability research, student programs and other projects based on an annual assessment process between the company and the university. Consumer awareness and behavior related to sustainable energy, demand response programs, and energy policy and regulatory systems are high on the list of areas to investigate. The Sustainability Institute will receive the remaining $250,000 to support its continued engagement of the business community.

“As a land-grant university, providing for the common good is always a priority,” Bartter said. “Working toward carbon neutrality through external collaborations like this initiative with IGS Energy is sure to enhance the common good.”

“Ohio State is uniquely positioned to bring together researchers from a variety of backgrounds who are committed to a more sustainable future,” said Ohio State President Kristina M. Johnson. “This facility will advance the great work already happening at the university by fostering the type of collaborative, convergent research that is required when facing a complex problem like climate change.”

The Energy Advancement and Innovation Center is a cornerstone of the Innovation District and will be a hub for Ohio State faculty members, students, alumni, ENGIE Buckeye Operations researchers, local entrepreneurs and industry experts to work together on the next generation of smart energy systems, renewable energy and green mobility solutions.

The $36.7 million project is fully funded by Ohio State Energy Partners, which is contributing a total of $50 million. Of the additional funds, $7.5 million will be used as initial seed money for Ohio State ENGIE Labs projects, $4 million in building operating funds and $1.8 million for west campus infrastructure.

“The West Campus Innovation District continues to expand our research capabilities and will attract both world-class researchers and leading-edge companies to work in close proximity,” said Morley O. Stone, Ohio State’s senior vice president for research. “The Energy Advancement and Innovation Center will encourage new diverse collaborations to propel the next generation of convergent energy research and technology incubation.”

In 2017, Ohio State transferred management of the systems that heat, cool and power the Columbus campus to ENGIE to operate these systems on behalf of Ohio State Energy Partners. The Energy Advancement and Innovation Center is a centerpiece of the partnership, which also included a $1.015 billion upfront payment to the university and a $150 million commitment to support academic priorities.

“This project represents the kind of innovation that will fully leverage Ohio State’s academic strengths with ENGIE’s industry expertise,” said Serdar Tufekci, head of major campuses, ENGIE North America. “We are eager to connect the innovation center to the global energy market and bring together technology, services, data and people to tackle some of the world’s toughest energy and sustainability challenges.”

The center’s focus will be developed by an advisory committee chaired by the university and consisting of members from Ohio State faculty and staff, OSEP and the Columbus community.

The 52,600-square-foot Energy Advancement and Innovation Center will be co-located with the Interdisciplinary Research Facility and delivered in conjunction to ensure consistent design and site construction. The project will include the installation of a direct current (DC) microgrid with future plans to install photovoltaics/solar panels on the roof.

“This center will be a marquee place for faculty, staff and students to work side-by-side-side with a global business leader to bring energy innovation to life and help fulfill Ohio State’s ambition to be a leader in developing durable solutions to the pressing challenges of sustainability,” said Kate Bartter, executive director of Ohio State’s Sustainability Institute.

The facility will include a 210-seat seminar room and a 96-seat cafe to serve the Innovation Center and nearby Interdisciplinary Research Facility. Additional building features include:

• Approximately 14,000 square feet of dedicated lab space
• 14,000 square feet for collaborative learning and gathering space
• 1,000 square feet reserved for be smaller focused workspace
• 3,000 square feet shelled for program expansion

Building design began in September 2019 and will continue through March 2021. Pending Board of Trustees approval, the construction would begin in June 2021 with a facility open date of May 2023.

The Engaged Scholar Grant incentivizes graduate students to collaborate with a community partner on research or projects that address a specific need or problem within the community. Graduate students may apply for grants ranging from $500 to $1,500.

“The idea really came out of looking at how we can intentionally get graduate students, specifically, more engaged in community development and community outreach,” said DaVonti' Haynes, Council of Graduate Students vice president. “We can not only encourage them to do it, but also try to put some type of financial support behind them to help them undertake some of the research projects that we know they’re doing [without] a lot of direct support.”

The grant program is a partnership with the Council of Graduate Students, the Office of Outreach and Engagement, Office of Student Life, Office of Research and OSU Extension.

“I think it’s really important because we need to make sure that the research we’re doing at Ohio State is applicable at the end. One of the things that we say in the College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences is that research isn’t done until it’s communicated and applied,” said Jacqueline Wilkins, interim director of OSU Extension. “We need to make sure that what we think might matter in the labs and in our research really resonates with the communities where we’re hoping that they’ll use it and make sense of it.”

The grants may be used to support new projects or expand on existing research tied to community engagement. Grant awardees are required to collaborate with a community partner for their project. Students conducting research or projects in Ohio will be connected to the Extension office in the county where their project is based to collaborate if resources allow.

“We know great research has real-world impact,” said Ryan Schmiesing, vice provost for the Office of Outreach and Engagement. “Our graduate students want to engage with the community and this is one more way that this university can support their learning.”

There are several broad focus areas for the funded projects to explore:

• Access, Equity and Justice
• Arts, Communication and Multimedia
• Children and Families
• Economic and Community Development
• Education
• Food and Agriculture
• Health, Nutrition and Wellness
• Sustainability and Environmental Responsibility

“Personally, I’m hoping to see a lot of community development initiatives for our students,” Haynes said. “My hope is they are not just going into the communities doing research, but they’re able to go into those communities and actually interact with and work hands-on with the community and really learn more about the community.”

Wilkins said the grants fit a primary goal for OSU Extension.

“We have been working toward a much more intentional student engagement effort within OSU Extension that will provide opportunities for students of all ages to participate in community-engaged scholarship, service-learning and internships,” she said. “We believe these opportunities can contribute to a reciprocal benefit to the students and to the community.

“An additional bonus for OSU Extension is that these students can grow in their understanding of Extension and translational research and often become lifelong advocates of the land-grant mission in action and often seek employment in Extension or these communities as a result.”

To learn more about the grant program or to apply, go to the Engaged Scholar Grant website.

In a Policy Forum article published in the Aug. 14 issue of Science, the researchers assert that the Navigable Waters Protection Rule undermines the spirit – if not the letter – of the Clean Water Act by protecting only waters that have a permanent hydrologic surface connection to rivers, lakes and other large “navigable” bodies of water. Also omitted from consideration is maintaining the integrity of the biological and chemical quality of the nation’s waters, protections that are explicitly called for in the Clean Water Act.

“It’s so important to say, right out of the gates, that the new rule does not protect water in the way that the Clean Water Act was intended to protect water,” said lead author Mažeika Sullivan, director of the Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research Park at The Ohio State University.

The rule went into effect on June 22.

Left unprotected under the new rule are stand-alone wetlands across the country whose collective area is approximately the size of the state of West Virginia. Among the millions of miles of ephemeral streams – those that flow after precipitation events – losing federal protection are, for example, more than 95 percent of Arizona’s streams, including many tributaries that flow into the Grand Canyon.

The change means that now-unprotected waters may be subjected to a variety of harmful human activities such as dredging or filling in waters for development, or even unpermitted dumping of industrial waste into streams or wetlands. Some potential results: higher risk for floods, loss of biodiversity, and threats to drinking water and recreational fishing.

“We’re talking about major roll-backs in protections that limit activities that impair, pollute and destroy these systems,” said Sullivan, also associate professor in Ohio State’s School of Environment and Natural Resources, who co-authored the article with colleagues specializing in aquatic science, conservation science and environmental law.

“And it comes at a time when we’re really starting to understand multiple stressors on water – not just urbanization or climate change or pollution, but how all these factors interact. And now we’re removing protections and potentially undermining decades of taxpayer investment in improving water quality.

“It’s a travesty, not just for us now, but for future generations. It could really be a watershed moment in that sense.”

Legal battles have been waged for years over which non-navigable U.S. waters should be protected under the Clean Water Act, and the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in with opinions in a 2006 case. Justice Antonin Scalia argued that non-navigable waters should be covered by federal law only if they have a “relatively permanent” flow and a continuous surface connection to traditionally protected waters. Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested a non-navigable water body should be protected if it has a “significant nexus” to a traditional navigable waterway – meaning it can affect the physical, biological and chemical integrity of downstream waters.

In 2015, the Obama administration implemented the Clean Water Rule, which classified all tributaries and most wetlands as “waters of the United States” that fall under federal jurisdiction. At the heart of that rule was a Connectivity Report produced by the Environmental Protection Agency, backed by a review of more than 1,200 scientific publications and input from 49 technical experts. The science supported protection for isolated or intermittent systems that, if polluted or destroyed, would decrease water quality downstream. Sullivan was a member of the EPA Scientific Advisory Board that confirmed the scientific underpinnings of the report and the rule.

The language of the new Navigable Waters Protection Rule instead harkens back to Scalia’s 2006 opinion, protecting waters with “relatively permanent” surface flows and excluding from federal jurisdiction all groundwater and all ephemeral bodies of water, as well as others.

“So what’s extremely concerning from a policy standpoint is that the federal government is, at least in part, leaving science aside,” Sullivan said. “This idea of connectivity is one of the most crucial components of the science that has largely been ignored in this rule. There are magnitudes of connectivity – it could be frequency or how long it lasts. There are also different types of connectivity: biological, chemical and hydrologic.

“Further, just because a waterbody may be less connected to another doesn’t necessarily mean it’s less important for water quality.”

For human recreation and well-being, Sullivan said, small streams and wetlands are critical, both in their own right, as well as because they support larger, downstream ecosystems such as rivers, lakes and reservoirs.

“There are tendrils that extend into every aspect of our lives, from how we recreate and how we live, to our economy, with cultural implications for a lot of folks in the U.S. Water is fundamental to people’s sense of place and where they belong,” he said.

Sullivan and colleagues cited an April 2020 Supreme Court decision that may influence outcomes of the more than 100 pending lawsuits filed in opposition to the new rule. In County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, the court affirmed for the first time that pollutants that travel through groundwater and then emerge into surface waters are covered by the Clean Water Act.

Until the litigation is sorted out, the authors urged mobilization of grassroots efforts among watershed councils, other agencies and academics to conserve and protect water – a tall order, Sullivan acknowledged, when it comes to staying coordinated and coming up with resources.

“We’re going to have to start thinking about this in a very different way,” he said. “Everybody needs clean water, right? This isn’t a political issue.”

Co-authors of the article include Mark Rains of the University of South Florida, Amanda Rodewald of Cornell University, William Buzbee of Georgetown University and Amy Rosemond of the University of Georgia.

“Climate change presents a clear threat to communities across the globe,” said President Michael V. Drake. “Ohio State is committed to take actions that advance scientific knowledge and social understanding, and model operational techniques that will propel new solutions to climate change.”

In 2008, Ohio State established the goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 through the Presidents’ Climate Leadership Commitment. The university released its first Climate Action Plan in 2011.

The 2011 plan outlined actions the university could take to advance the carbon neutrality goal. As a result of those and other actions, through the 2019 fiscal year, the university decreased its carbon emissions by over 15% while still increasing the amount of built space by nearly 11%.

Advancing upon that success, the new Climate Action Plan released today outlines how the university could achieve full carbon neutrality by 2050. In particular, the new plan details how the university could reduce 55% of its current carbon emissions by 2030, including improving building energy efficiency, diversifying sources of energy and addressing transportation-related emissions.

Some of the suggestions include:

• Revising the university’s Green Build and Energy Policy to more effectively control energy use as the university continues to grow and update its building spaces.
• Extend on-campus solar photovoltaics, and any future feasible technology, for increased renewable power generation capacity.
• Complete the existing university Green Fleet Action Plan and consider a future fuel switch from compressed natural gas to green hydrogen or renewable natural gas.
• Create new incentives to reduce the impact of driving to and from campus, including expanding campus user access to electric vehicle fueling stations.

This pace of activity is more aggressive than the International Panel on Climate Change’s recommended carbon emission reductions necessary to avoid the most acute human impacts of climate change.

As Ohio State’s Byrd Polar and Climate Research Center faculty and researchers have shown, climate change is already impacting Ohio lives. This includes heavier rainstorm events causing more flooding and decreased agricultural opportunities, and increased frequency and intensity of hot days causing stress and health impacts to those without access to cooling.

“As embodied in our land-grant mission, Ohio State takes an active role in addressing society’s challenges through our teaching, research and outreach,” said Executive Vice President and Provost Bruce A. McPheron. “By reducing our carbon emissions, the university is doing its part to minimize the negative impacts that climate change will present over time.”

The university’s mission also involves providing students of all ages and backgrounds with a breadth of awareness, knowledge and skills across disciplinary boundaries to prepare them to be global citizens.

“The students at Ohio State give me hope on so many levels. As future leaders, they want to be actively engaged in the large, challenging issues of our time, including climate change. It is important for the university to demonstrate actions like those discussed within the new Climate Action Plan to help ensure a bright future for generations of students to come,” Drake said.

The authors argue that society should focus less on how individuals respond to such climate issues as flooding and wildfires and instead figure out what it takes to inspire collective action that will protect humans from climate catastrophes on a much grander scale.

Ohio State University researchers analyzed studies that have been published to date on behavioral adaptation to climate change. They found that most studies have emphasized the psychology behind individual coping strategies in the face of isolated hazards, and came from the point of view of a single household managing their own risk.

What is needed, they propose, is systems-level thinking about what is truly adaptive for society, and research on the dynamics that lead people to change entire systems through transformational actions and on barriers that keep people from embracing transformative efforts.

“What we know about adaptation has come from a longer history of studying the sorts of things that are getting worse because of climate change,” said Robyn Wilson, lead author of the paper and a professor of risk analysis and decision science in Ohio State’s School of Environment and Natural Resources.

“If we want to really adapt to climate change, we’re talking about transformational change that will truly allow society to be resilient in the face of these increasing hazards. We’re focused on the wrong things and solving the wrong problems.”

The research review is published today (Feb. 10, 2020) in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Wilson and colleagues are not being critical of their peer scientists – or of themselves. When the incremental nature of adaptation research became evident, the review became a platform to sound an alarm: We can’t take baby steps anymore when it comes to being ready for all that climate change will bring.

“Thinking holistically is part of what transformation research is all about – saying we have to work together to really think differently,” Wilson said. “We can’t all be individually running around doing our own thing. We need to think beyond the selfish individual who says, ‘What do I need to do to be better off?’”

Take, for example, preservation of a seaside community. Current activities may include building municipal floodwalls and, as individuals, moving valuables to higher ground and letting insurance resolve problems as they arise. Instead, the authors suggest, a look at a much bigger picture could clarify whether the coastal community should exist at all.

Wilson said there was a time when researchers avoided studying adaptation for fear it would redirect attention and efforts away from mitigation – addressing the causes of climate change rather than its effects.

“Eventually, there was a recognition that we have to do both. We don’t really have a choice,” she said. “We have to adapt while also mitigating so we can try to avoid the really catastrophic outcomes that will come down the road for children today. The worst-case things aren’t happening tomorrow, but they’re happening on a time frame that will impact people we care about.”

In biological terms, survival requires adaptation. Is there a chance those impacts could threaten the human species?

Though plenty of civilizations have failed, Wilson doesn’t expect humans to go extinct as a result of even the worst-case climate scenario: global warming of 8 or 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the 21st century.

“Somebody’s going to survive,” she said. “It’s more a question of social equity and social justice.

“Fast-forward a couple hundred years and someone will be here. But if we don’t think from a more transformative standpoint of how society should be structured and where we should live and how we should live, there will be a lot of losers – those with the least resources and low socioeconomic status and people in developing countries. … We’re living in a different world and we need to think differently about how we do things so we’re all equally able to survive.”

Wilson’s colleagues Atar Herziger, Matt Hamilton and Jeremy Brooks of Ohio State’s School of Environment and Natural Resources co-authored the review.

Under a time-of-use system, energy prices are higher during high-demand “on-peak” times, a practice intended in part to create incentive for people to reduce their electricity use when it’s more expensive.

The study showed that two vulnerable populations, people with disabilities who may be using life-saving equipment and elderly people more sensitive to temperature changes, saw the largest increases in their bills on the time-of-use rates.

Time-of-use rates also were linked to worse health outcomes in households occupied by ethnic minorities and people with disabilities compared to their non-vulnerable counterparts.

“For people with disabilities in particular, there may be a forced choice. Either you’re using your medically necessary equipment, which can obviously be critical for maintaining health, or you’re saving money. You don’t get to do both,” said Nicole Sintov, senior author of the study and an assistant professor of behavior, decision making and sustainability at The Ohio State University. “It’s a bad choice for people to have to make.”

The findings suggest that time-of-use electricity rates should be adopted on a large scale only after they’re tested and designed to ensure they don’t increase hardship for the most vulnerable energy users, Sintov said.

The study is published today (Dec. 16) in the journal Nature Energy.

Time-of-use billing rates are becoming more and more common as utilities try to shift residential energy use to times of day when demand on the power grid is lower or when the utilities can incorporate renewable sources, such as solar or wind, into the power supply – or both.

The policies themselves, as potential mitigators of climate change, have merit, said Sintov, a faculty member in Ohio State’s School of Environment and Natural Resources. But she said this research suggests time-of-use rates come with consequences for people already more likely to experience injustices identified in previous research: people with disabilities and the elderly, who tend to be disregarded by decision-makers, and residents in low-income households who may experience energy poverty.

“Households suffering from energy poverty are forced to make trade-offs between paying for electricity bills versus other necessities, such as food and medicine,” Sintov and first author Lee White, a former postdoctoral researcher at Ohio State now with Australian National University, wrote in the paper. “Time-of-use and other forms of demand-side response measures may worsen this trade-off pressure, often termed ‘the heat or eat dilemma.’”

Sintov and White obtained data from a utility that was surveying participants in a time-of-use rate pilot program implemented during the summer in a hot climate in the southwestern United States. Participants were randomly assigned to either one of two time-of-use rate plans with different peak times and varying on-peak rates or to remain on the existing flat rate.

Based on demographic data the utility collected, the Ohio State researchers created six vulnerability indicators to which participants were assigned as appropriate: low-income, elderly, young children, people with disabilities, and residents identifying as Hispanic or African American. The final sample for the analysis comprised 7,487 respondents.

Sintov and White then applied statistical and mathematical modeling to the data to determine whether and how the time-of-use rates affected costs and health outcomes for residents from vulnerable and non-vulnerable populations.

Both time-of-use rates resulted in bill increases for all participants. But the bill increases from baseline to pilot year were higher for people with disabilities and the elderly than for their non-vulnerable counterparts.

In effect, these groups were penalized for a lack of flexibility in electricity use that is beyond their control, Sintov said, noting the affected households were less likely than others to reduce on-peak energy use and curtail use of air conditioning.

The analysis also showed that Hispanic households and people with disabilities experienced worse health outcomes on time-of-use rates, a finding based on these groups’ more frequent reports that they sought medical attention for heat-related conditions.

In some cases, specific vulnerable populations on the time-of-use rates fared better than non-vulnerable participants: Low-income and Hispanic households had lower bill increases compared to non-vulnerable counterparts, and households with young children experienced better health outcomes.

These effects on vulnerable populations aren’t just theoretical. A 2015 California Public Utilities Commission ruling ordered the state’s investor-owned utilities to establish default time-of-use rates for residential customers beginning earlier this year. All affected residential customers are expected to default to time-of-use rates by October 2020.

“There are also utilities that already have time-of-use rates as a default. It’s possible to opt out, but people tend to stick with the default,” Sintov said. “If you do an overall evaluation of the effects of these changes, which many utilities are doing, you will get a general answer. But when you start slicing it up and looking at subpopulations, and particularly populations that are vulnerable to energy injustices and already experiencing them, we see very different results.

“One-size-fits-all is not going to work.”

The study has taken an initial glimpse at these skirmishes in a sample of Ohio homes, offering the first known data on joint consumer decision-making around household temperature settings and potential effects of those actions on energy use.

The study identified three types of interactions around thermostat settings: agreement, compromise and conflict.

The research also found that men were more likely to report their interactions with other household members around the thermostat as compromises or agreements, and women were a bit more likely to describe their interactions as conflicts. These differences could relate to individuals’ perceptions of the nature of the interactions or imply that in this war story, women don’t typically prevail.

“It’s possible that women are losing the thermostat battle,” said Nicole Sintov, lead author of the study and assistant professor of behavior, decision making and sustainability at The Ohio State University. “The data hint toward that being what’s possibly going on here.

“A woman might construe as a conflict what a man might construe as a compromise. That could be an alternate explanation and it’s something we want to explore in future work,” she said. “The fact that we also found that women in our study were uncomfortable more often suggests that the thermal environment was not catering to their needs.”

The study is published today (Nov. 13) in the journal PLOS ONE.

Sintov’s work focuses on understanding consumer behavior around energy use – say, installing solar panels on a house or buying a hybrid car – by accounting for the fact that in many cases, these decisions follow discussions among two or more adults. And after those discussions, do resulting decisions trend toward energy consumption or conservation? And what role, if any, does gender play in all of this?

“Here, we’re using the thermostat as an example. This is an everyday behavior. Most households have one thermostat and multiple occupants, and through some process of negotiation – because we all have differing thermal comfort preferences – a thermostat setting gets chosen,” she said.

“That has not been examined before: how people interact around an energy decision in a household. This is a starting point.”

Individuals from 112 households in central Ohio completed a survey and provided daily diary entries for at least one week, and ideally two weeks, about thermostat-related decisions and behaviors. One person was selected to represent all occupants in the home, and at least two people lived in each household – which had to have an adjustable thermostat.

The survey measured individuals’ preferences for warm or cool environments, attention to monthly energy bills and whether the home had a programmable thermostat – and if so, whether it was programmed.

(In related news, the results revealed that having the thermostat programmed had no bearing on whether a household was making adjustments to the thermostat. “It’s counterintuitive,” Sintov said. “You’d assume they’d stick to the program and make fewer adjustments.”)

Each night, participants were reminded to complete their diaries, answering two questions: “Did you or anyone else in your household adjust the thermostat in your home today? What adjustments were made and by whom?” and “Others in your home may have different thoughts about how warm or cool it is in the house. Tell us about any related discussions you had.”

Three interaction types surfaced in the analysis: agreement, when two or more occupants agreed on their comfort level and any related decision regarding the thermostat; compromise, when the interaction began with disagreement but resulted in agreement; and conflict, when occupants disagreed at the beginning and end of the discussion.

In addition to finding that men tended to report more agreements and compromises while women reported marginally more conflicts, the study revealed that thermostat adjustments tended to be more likely to occur after agreements and compromises, but conflicts were associated with fewer temperature changes.

“It seems like if you disagree with someone on thermal comfort and what you want to do to moderate that, the thermostat is less likely to get changed,” Sintov said. “I’m not here to say that’s a good or bad thing. It suggests there’s a stalemate for some reason that we don’t know. It could be that one person puts on a sweater to warm up while another opens a window to cool down.

“Alternatively, one person might exert authority over the thermostat to cater to their needs while other household members’ needs are sidelined. There are some negatives for those involved in conflicts – because you have two or more people who are already uncomfortable, and you also now have interpersonal conflict, which is not pleasant.”

Sintov noted that in this work, and in most of the limited literature on this topic, only households occupied by men and women are represented. Hence, she said, it is unclear how results may translate to other gender identities, and this is an area future research should examine.

What was not resolved in this study is whether the adjustments made to thermostats were energy consuming or energy saving – the responses were not specific enough to gauge those effects, Sintov said.

The research was supported by the National Science Foundation.

Additional Ohio State co-authors were Lee White and Hugh Walpole of the School of Environment and Natural Resources.

The models show that adding lithium-ion batteries to a regional airplane could reduce that airplane’s fuel needs by up to 20 percent, the researchers said.

The team presented the findings last week at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Electric Aircraft Technologies Symposium in Indianapolis.

“We are working on ways to make air travel less carbon-intensive,” said Marcello Canova, a co-presenter and associate professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Ohio State. “Lithium-ion batteries, including the technology that is commercially available today, appear to be a promising option.”

The research is conducted under NASA’s University Leadership Initiative program, and focuses on evaluating the trade-offs between fuel savings and a battery pack’s size, weight and costs, while also including the carbon impact of the electricity necessary to recharge the battery pack. The models and tools developed were a joint effort between researchers at Ohio State and Georgia Institute of Technology, and could help airplane and airplane battery designers better understand how an aircraft’s design affects its ability to be powered by a battery.

In preliminary designs, the researchers focused on lithium-ion battery packs that could supplement the power produced by the engines of a regional jet – one traveling 600 or fewer miles, carrying 50 to 100 passengers.

Their model showed in tests that a battery has the ability to power about 30 percent of the total power required for an airplane to climb to cruising altitude, and about 20 percent of the power required to cruise.

That could reduce levels of carbon dioxide – a primary driver of climate change – that airplanes contribute to the atmosphere. Air travel contributes about 2 percent of the carbon dioxide humans put into Earth’s atmosphere, according to the Air Transit Action Group. This research team, led by Ohio State and four other universities, has been funded by NASA to find new, less carbon-intensive ways to power air travel.

“Our team is focusing on evaluating the feasibility and economics of introducing lithium-ion batteries to air travel,” Canova said. “And we’re working on the ways to make that safe and reliable.”

Their work also considers how to make batteries for air travel more efficient. Batteries that power automobiles differ from those that help power airplanes, Canova said: Airplane batteries must abide by more-strict weight, safety, durability and reliability standards.

But batteries deteriorate with use, offering less power over time and decreasing the range an airplane can travel. That deterioration also means less power is available to help an airplane accelerate and reach its maximum speed. Temperature affects batteries, as well.

To lay the groundwork for a better battery, Canova said, the team built a computer model of an electro-thermal battery pack and added an algorithm that simulated the effects of time and use on batteries. Then they tested to see how that model performed after repeated use and under various temperatures.

The team planned for the battery to be used for six flights per day, and calculated the power necessary for takeoff, climbing, cruising, landing and taxiing to the runway. They allotted one hour between flights to charge the battery pack, and assumed that the pack could be used for two years, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

They found that a battery pack’s performance is limited by capacity fade, a term used to describe energy loss in a battery over time. And they found that time, not use, is the main driver of battery deterioration.

What they developed, Canova said, is essentially a tool that can be used to predict the effect stressors such as aging and use might have on a lithium-ion battery powering a regional aircraft, which is a very important factor when evaluating costs and benefits of introducing this technology in air travel.

“People eat a lot less of their refrigerated food than they expect to, and they’re likely throwing out perfectly good food because they misunderstand labels,” said Brian Roe, the study’s senior author and a professor of agricultural, environmental and development economics at The Ohio State University.

This is the first study to offer a data-driven glimpse into the refrigerators of American homes, and provides an important framework for efforts to decrease food waste, Roe said. It was published online this month and will appear in the November print issue of the journal Resources, Conservation & Recycling.

Survey participants expected to eat 97 percent of the meat in their refrigerators but really finished only about half. They thought they’d eat 94 percent of their vegetables, but consumed just 44 percent. They projected they’d eat about 71 percent of the fruit and 84 percent of the dairy, but finished off just 40 percent and 42 percent, respectively.

Top drivers of discarding food included concerns about food safety – odor, appearance and dates on the labels.

“No one knows what ‘use by’ and ‘best by’ labels mean and people think they are a safety indicator when they are generally a quality indicator,” Roe said, adding that there’s a proposal currently before Congress to prescribe date labeling rules in an effort to provide some clarity.

Under the proposal, “Best if used by” would, as Roe puts it, translate to “Follow your nose,” and “Use by” would translate to “Toss it.”

Other findings from the new study:

• People who cleaned out their refrigerators more often wasted more food.
• Those who check nutrition labels frequently waste less food. Roe speculated that those consumers may be more engaged in food and therefore less likely to waste what they buy.
• Younger households were less likely to use up the items in their refrigerators while homes to those 65 and older were most likely to avoid waste.

Household food waste happens at the end of the line of a series of behaviors, said Megan Davenport, who led the study as a graduate student in Ohio State’s Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics.

“There’s the purchasing of food, the management of food within the home and the disposal, and these household routines ultimately increase or decrease waste. We wanted to better understand those relationships, and how individual products – including their labels – affect the amount of food waste in a home,” Davenport said.

The web-based pilot study used data from the State of the American Refrigerator survey and included information about refrigerator contents and practices from 307 initial survey participants and 169 follow-up surveys.

The researchers asked about fruits, vegetables, meats and dairy – in particular how much was there and how much people expected to eat. Then they followed up about a week later to find out what really happened. The surveys also asked about a variety of factors that may have influenced decisions to toss food, including date labels, odor, appearance and cost.

An estimated 43 percent of food waste is due to in-home practices – as opposed to waste that happens in restaurants, grocery stores and on the farm – making individuals the biggest contributors. They’re also the most complicated group in which to drive change, given that practices vary significantly from home to home, Roe said.

“We wanted to understand how people are using the refrigerator and if it is a destination where half-eaten food goes to die,” he said.

“That’s especially important because much of the advice that consumers hear regarding food waste is to refrigerate (and eat) leftovers, and to ‘shop’ the refrigerator first before ordering out or heading to the store.”

Roughly one-third of the food produced worldwide for human consumption — approximately 1.3 billion tons annually — is lost or wasted, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The organization estimates the annual dollar value of that waste at $680 billion in industrialized countries and $310 billion in developing countries.

This study looked at refrigerated food because that’s where most perishable foods are found in a household and where the bulk of efforts to encourage people to waste less food have been focused. In addition to better understanding food waste patterns, the researchers wanted to help identify opportunities to design policy or public messaging that will work in driving down waste.

“Our results suggest that strategies to reduce food waste in the U.S. should include limiting and standardizing the number of phrases used on date labels, and education campaigns to help consumers better understand the physical signs of food safety and quality,” Davenport said.

Danyi Qi of Louisiana State University also worked on the study.

On July 6, 2017, Ohio State transferred operation of utility systems that deliver heating, cooling and electricity to the Columbus campus to ENGIE Buckeye Operations on behalf of Ohio State Energy Partners.

The partnership included a $1.015 billion upfront payment to the university and a $150 million commitment to support academic priorities.

To date, Ohio State Energy Partners has made tangible progress, including:

• Converting a total of 107,000 indoor light fixtures and 1,700 outdoor light fixtures to energy-efficient LED technology over the past two years.
• Installing more than 375 smart meters to link to an ENGIE Digital Platform. This system will allow ENGIE to monitor the utility system infrastructure throughout campus.
• Making infrastructure improvements to support utility systems for facilities around the Oval, within the Arts District and for health sciences facilities. 
• Beginning to upgrade the energy systems in 14 buildings with a goal to improve their energy efficiency by more than 26% on average.

Heading into year three of the groundbreaking agreement, Ohio State Energy Partners is seeking Board of Trustees approval on a $393 million capital plan for the 2020 fiscal year.

The plan will help advance Ohio State and OSEP sustainability goals, which include improving energy efficiency by at least 25% within 10 years and achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.

In a major next step, the university is planning for a Combined Heat and Power plant, which would provide heating and cooling to parts of the campus core and to the proposed West Campus innovation district. The CHP plant is expected to:

• Cut the university’s Columbus campus carbon emissions by up to 35% in the first full year of plant operation. 
• Create efficiencies to support hot water and chilled water systems.
• Add to the university’s overall resiliency by generating electricity.
• Reduce energy costs.

“The CHP facility generates electricity with combustion turbines and then utilizes the exhaust heat to make steam and heat water, which Ohio State uses to heat campus buildings,” said Serdar Tufekci, OSEP CEO. “The CHP facility will also include a central chiller plant, which will be the first one west of the Olentangy River to provide cooling in midwest campus and West Campus buildings. This combined capacity is both financially and environmentally responsible.”

The proposed CHP plant will reduce the amount of electric power the university must purchase from the electricity markets. Additionally, producing electricity on campus using highly efficient natural-gas fired generators will reduce the total carbon dioxide emissions associated with the campus.

Ohio State’s Board of Trustees approved $10 million for professional services in May and will now consider construction approval. The total project cost, which includes the district heating and cooling loop infrastructure and a new pedestrian bridge across the Olentangy River, is expected to be $278 million with upfront capital costs provided by OSEP. The project has a target completion date of fall 2021.

Additional approval from the Ohio Power and Siting Board is required.

Beyond the sustainability benefits of the comprehensive energy management partnership, Ohio State has invested more than $800 million of the proceeds in endowments that provide ongoing support for student scholarships, faculty excellence and other priorities.

These endowments provide funding for the Buckeye Opportunity Program, which ensures that financial aid covers the cost of tuition and mandatory fees for all Ohio students who receive Pell grants. They also provide funding for the Teaching Support Program, offered through the University Institute for Teaching and Learning, for faculty members.

In addition, academic collaboration between Ohio State and OSEP supports endowed faculty positions, internships, other student scholarships and the energy advancement and innovation center, a hub for technology commercialization that will be developed as part of the West Campus innovation district.

The guidelines, authored by the restorations genetics working group of the Coral Restoration Consortium, were published online this week in the journal Ecological Applications. The consortium is a group of scientists, restoration practitioners, educators and concerned members of the public.

“What we’re proposing in this paper are short-term solutions to try and fill the gap between now and when we start mitigating climate change, so that we can maintain ecosystem function over the next few decades,” said Andréa Grottoli, professor of Earth Sciences at The Ohio State University and a co-author of the study.

“Coral restoration involves a lot of time, so the extent to which we can restore reefs is limited by time, effort, money, people and hours. What we are proposing are guidelines to think about which species we focus on preserving and growing, to give the reefs the best chance at long-term survival.”

Coral populations grow in a variety of environments, covering a range of temperatures, depths and light conditions, and tend to adapt to local conditions. That means that coral species in different environments should have genetic differences that allow them to thrive. The consortium recommended collecting corals from these different environments to capture as much genetic diversity as possible, then to raise corals in a nursery, where they can grow more quickly before being replanted on reefs in locations similar to their original environment — or in locations that may soon become similar to their original environment.

Corals are the foundation for reefs, which provide ecosystems for a variety of species and which can help protect coastal communities from shoreline erosion. Reefs also provide food and medicinal compounds. One study found they create $9.9 trillion per year in goods and services around the globe. But reefs worldwide face a variety of threats — foremost among them rising ocean temperatures and increased acidification because of climate change — and are declining, particularly in the Caribbean.

Grottoli, who is director of the Coral Bleaching Research Coordination Network, said the guidelines are meant to give conservationists, governments and non-governmental organizations practical, science-based plans for protecting and preserving coral in the Caribbean.

The guidelines prioritize coral species that can sustain a Caribbean reef’s foundation and that can help that reef rebuild itself long term. That means investing in corals that are resilient -- that have proven successful in warming ocean waters, and that can reproduce in both nurseries and in the wild.

“The possibility of restoring all reefs globally is not realistic, and our capacity to restore reefs is going to be limited to some percentage of reefs,” Grottoli said. “Strategically, if we do that well enough, we can maintain enough species, enough genetic diversity, enough ecosystem function, for these reefs to survive so that there’s something to build from once we start mitigating climate change.”

Iliana Baums, lead author of the study, a professor of biology at Penn State University and chair of the Coral Restoration Consortium restoration genetics working group, called coral reef decline in the Caribbean “an urgent issue.”

“The Caribbean has experienced tremendous coral loss over the last few decades,” Baums said. “But few of the traditional guidelines for conservation, which tend to focus on vertebrates or plants, apply to corals. In this paper, we provide concrete guidelines for restoring coral populations, using the best available data.”

Grottoli said saving coral reefs — thereby saving the people, plants and animals that depend on them — will mean addressing climate change “at the tailpipe.”

“The coral are the building blocks for the reefs,” she said. “So if we maintain enough of them, the hope is that there’s something to build from once we start mitigating climate change. If we don’t, then it increases the probability that so little coral survive it becomes increasingly difficult to maintain coral populations and ecosystem function.”

The Coral Restoration Consortium was formed in 2016 and established five initial working groups to provide best management practices for coral restoration. In addition to Baums and Grottoli, members of the Coral Restoration Consortium restoration genetics working group include Sheila Kitchen, Todd LaJeunesse and Andrew Shantz at Penn State, Andrew Baker at the University of Miami, Sarah Davies at Boston University, Carly Kenkel at the University of Southern California, Ilsa Kuffner at the U.S. Geological Survey, Mikhail Matz at the University of Texas at Austin, Margaret Miller at SECORE International, and John Parkinson at SECORE International and the University of South Florida.

This work was funded by the Coral Restoration Consortium, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Penn State Institute for Sustainability, the Penn State Institute for Energy and the Environment, the Penn State Center for Marine Science and Technology and the National Science Foundation.

The crop is growing in soil amended with Com-Til, a compost product made with residual biosolids from the City of Columbus’ wastewater treatment plants.

The corn patch is the public installment of a research collaboration led by Nick Kawa, assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology, and Forbes Lipschitz, assistant professor of landscape architecture at the Knowlton School, to look at the human waste stream. Kawa and Lipschitz are faculty hires in the Initiative for Food and AgriCultural Transformation (InFACT).

Funded by a 2018 InFACT Linkage and Leverage grant, the project considers the long history of using human waste as an agricultural resource – and what that looks like today in central Ohio.

Com-Til is used in landscaping and gardens around the city to grow plants. But it’s just one example of how processed waste from domestic sewage plants – termed biosolids – can be used as a resource for crop production.

“The overarching goals of this research are to understand the processes by which human waste is transformed into an agricultural resource, and in a related manner, we aim to understand problems and possibilities this resource represents to the future of urban sustainability,” Kawa said.

To do that, the research team interviewed wastewater treatment professionals and farmers who are using biosolids in Ohio to understand both the process and perceptions of their use. The information collected is also being compiled visually, using geographic information system mapping and visualization methods.

Finally, and crucially, the researchers are sharing this information with the public, to encourage and challenge public perceptions of waste. The team is in the process of publishing a zine that features essays by researchers and students on the history of sanitation, the use of human waste as fertilizer and why it’s not currently used in U.S. Department of Agriculture-certified organic agricultural production.

Then there is the corn growing in neat rows on that plot in the middle of campus, located southwest of the 18^th Avenue Library. Coming later this summer, the space will also include a large snake-like architectural installation made out of recycled plastics – a gesture to the immense plumbing infrastructure that carries our waste – as well as an area to sit and reflect on this system. Conceived in collaboration with Associate Professor of Architecture Justin Diles, the installment is titled “Privy 2: Biosolids and You.”

“I'm really interested as an anthropologist in how culture shapes our ability to perceive something as waste, when not all societies may share that perception or stigma,” Kawa said. “So this isn’t about promoting biosolids, per se, but it’s about making people rethink their waste and how that has much broader consequences for agricultural production and the management of our soils.”

The project team includes faculty across multiple colleges, including School of Environment and Natural Resources Professor of Soil and Environmental Chemistry Nick Basta and Assistant Professor Shoshanah Inwood, Glenn College Associate Professor Jill Clark, Knowlton School Assistant Professor Halina Steiner, as well as City of Columbus Biosolids Application Coordinator Heather Curtis and Fairfield County Soil and Water Conservation District Resource Specialist Jonathan Ferbrache. Multiple undergraduate anthropology and landscape architecture students and an Environmental Science Graduate Program master’s student were also involved in the work, looking at students’ perceptions of biosolids and the change in people’s impressions over time.