Five financial incentives to revive the Gulf of Mexico dead zone and Mississippi basin soils.

A central challenge in the Mississippi River Basin is how to continue to support profitable agricultural production, provide water supply, flood control, transportation, and other benefits, while reducing the current burden of environmental degradation. Several practices have been shown to reduce nutrient runoff and water pollution, and improve soil fertility, while often yielding profits for farmers. Yet many of these beneficial practices remain underutilized. Participants at an expert workshop identified five candidate financial mechanisms that could increase adoption of these beneficial farming practices in four focal Midwest states in the next five years: crop insurance premium subsidies, transformation of the private service provider business model, expansion and targeting of 2019 U.S. Farm Bill funding, development of new state funds, and direction of post-disaster federal funds towards habitat restoration, particularly in floodplains. This study provides rough approximations of the change in nutrient runoff and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the annualized costs, and the nutrient and GHG reductions per dollar likely to result from deployment of each financial mechanism. Based upon these approximations, the adoption of these programs could reduce annual nitrate flows at the outlet of the Ohio and Upper Mississippi River Basins by 25%, surpassing the intermediate 2025 target (20% reduction) and achieving more than half of the long-term target (45% reduction) set by the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force. These approximations also illustrate that these five mechanisms could provide the same GHG reductions (∼43 Tg CO2e yr-1) as taking 12 coal-fired energy plants offline. The total cost of these five financial mechanisms is estimated at ∼$2.6 billion, or 64 g of nitrates and ∼17 kg of CO2e per dollar spent. These proposed solutions all face political, financial, cultural or institutional challenges, but with industry support, creative political action, and continued communication of both private and public benefits, they can create meaningful nutrient reductions and rebuild soils by 2022.

Long-term effects of forearm support: computer users working at conventional desks.

UNLABELLED: Recent research has demonstrated that forearm support might be preferable to working in the traditional "floating" posture for computer users. A previous field study in a call centre reported a significant decrease in discomfort following 12 weeks of using a conventional desk for forearm support. The aim of this follow up study was to determine the long-term effect (21 months post intervention) of forearm support on reported musculoskeletal discomfort in the previous sample of intensive computer users. METHODS: The follow-up sample consisted of 33 females and 2 males (59% of original group). Data were collected via self-report questionnaires and workstation assessments. RESULTS: Despite a significant reduction in discomfort for most body regions following the initial intervention, the only significant decrease in discomfort over 21 months was for the neck. Reported discomfort for all other body regions had decreased, apart from the shoulder in which there was a reported increase in discomfort. The results of this follow up study indicate that forearm support has a positive effect on the reduction of neck discomfort. The increase in shoulder discomfort indicates that a concave desk may be preferable to the conventional desk if the forearm support posture is to be adopted.