How Climate Change Will Affect What You Eat [A] Earlier this year, scientists warned that one in six animal species could go extinct (灭绝的) due to climate change. Could the same thing happen to our crops and other foodstuffs too? [B] It's clear that farmers in many parts of the world are going to find things harder in the coming decades. Last week, BBC Future explored one scientist's efforts to help crops cope with the increased probability of droughts. By using the genes from resurrection (复活) plants, Jill Farrant of the University of Cape Town is exploring whether she can design crops to survive for much longer periods without water. [C] But if we can't find ways to protect other foods, will they survive climate change? Fortunately, there is some good news on this front. Despite alarmist headlines about "foods that are going extinct," there is no evidence that major food types like beans, chocolate, wine, corn or wheat will cease to exist. [D] But that doesn't mean it's all good news for future food. We will probably have to change where we grow certain crops, as some regions get too hot. The disadvantage, obviously, is that local farmers will suffer under this situation. And some people may struggle to get the same access to certain foods. "Even if overall food production may be unaffected, food security can still be impacted," says Margaret Walsh, a scientist at the US Department of Agriculture's Climate Change Program Office. In other words, even if a certain food is still grown on some corner of the Earth, it doesn't mean that everyone will continue to have the same degree of access as today. [E] Overall, the yields of many foods, from staples to life-enhancing extras such as coffee and chocolate, will likely be impacted by climate change too. How those decreases will be felt will depend on the degree of warming and the crop in question, but in general, "anything over about 30℃ is very bad for crops," says Wolfram Schlenker, an associate professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University. For example, statistical studies that he and a colleague built of corn and soybean (大豆) production in the US show a steep decline after crossing the 30℃ temperature threshold (临界点). [F] In the US—the world's largest producer of corn and soybeans—farms can move north to some degree, Schlenker says. But eventually, yields will likely suffer because the soil north of Iowa declines in quality—a legacy of glacial (冰川的) expansion. Other studies, including studies of wheat in India and corn in Africa, also found that there is a threshold above which yields sharply decline: crops can adapt and move, but only to a point. "What's common to all studies is the finding that extreme heat is damaging to crop growth, although exact cutoffs vary by crop," Schlenker says. "If predictions for the end of the century are true, though, I think a lot of agricultural areas in the US will see significant hits." [G] Under current conditions, about 4% of the world's croplands experience drought in any given year, but by the end of the century those conditions are forecasted to jump to about 18% per year. Some studies indicate that horticulture crops—generally, everything besides staples—may be impacted most severely, largely because they tend to be confined to a smaller geographic area. Researcher Andrew Jarvis and his colleagues found that 80% of coffee-growing zones in Central America and Brazil could become unsuitable by 2050, for example, while climate change will likely have "great impacts" on cocoa (可可粉) production in West Africa. "High quality chocolate will be less available in the future, and if you want it, you'll have to pay a lot more for it," Jarvis says. [H] This means that, for those who can afford it, some foods will simply cost them more in the future. But for poorer people, those same price jumps will likely cause certain foods to go extinct from their diets. "The more you reduce, the shorter the supply, and the higher the price will jump," Schlenker says. [I] Another potential climate change-induced problem is our dependence on commodity crops—wheat, soybeans, corn and rice—which currently provide humanity with 75% of its calories, either directly or indirectly through the animals we raise on those crops. Jarvis and his colleagues also found that, over the past five decades, the world has seen an increasing standardisation of diets; the foods we eat globally today are 36% more similar than they were in 1961. While this can be good news for the world's poorest people who now consume more calories, protein and fat than in the past, homogeneity (同一性) and over-dependence on a handful of staples leaves us vulnerable to threats such as drought, disease and pests—all of which are predicted to worsen in many parts of the world as a result of climate change. [J] There are ways we could soften the coming blow to the global food supply, however. Like Farrant's work with resurrection crops, a number of companies, organisations and researchers are aiming to create drought- and temperature-resistant crops through genetic engineering and conventional breeding. For now, the jury is still out as to how successful those endeavours will be. "The people at Monsanto who I've talked to are much more optimistic that they'll be able to engineer heat-tolerant crops," Schlenker says. "On the other hand, scientists at the USD A who I've spoken with are much more cautious." [K] Until genetic engineering comes to fruition, other strategies might also help in some places, including applying more fertiliser, implementing better irrigation, using machinery that gets crops out of the field faster or installing storage facilities to delay spoilage. "Many places could benefit a great deal just by using technologies that already exist," Walsh says. "General farm management can go a long way toward easing changes." [L] Finally, diversifying our diet away from heat-sensitive wheat, corn, rice and other crops could also help. "We've seen profound changes in the last decades in what we eat largely as a result of international trade, and I think that trend toward more diversification will continue," Jarvis says. "Depending on a greater number of plant species creates a more vigorous and less risky food system—and one that provides a broader range of nutritional requirements."

One of my bad habits is saying "busy" when people ask me how I'm doing. Sometimes it's because I actually am busy, but other times it's because that's what I think I'm supposed to say. That's what important people say. That's what people who get promoted say. But working long hours doesn't drive better results. Never taking a vacation won't lead to a promotion. So why are we so proud to talk about how busy we are all the time? In 2016, researchers from Columbia, Harvard, and Georgetown conducted a study to figure it out. They found busy people are perceived to be of high status, and interestingly, these status attributions are heavily influenced by our own beliefs about social mobility. In other words, the more we believe that one has the opportunity for success based on hard work, the more we tend to think that people who skip leisure and work all the time are of higher standing. That's why we feel like we have to appear busy and there's a real perception that if someone is knee-deep in meetings, emails, and stress, then they're probably a big deal. This culture of busyness is making it hard for employees to find work-life balance. According to a recent study, one in five highly engaged employees is at risk of burnout (精疲力竭). Personally, I'm going to stop saying "busy" when people ask me how I am. It sounds self-righteous ( 自以为是的) and sets the wrong tone. Phrases like "I have limited access to email" and "I'll respond as soon as I get back" sound like you're being held against your will from working as opposed to making the most of your time off. That's why we recently launched the Out of Office Email Generator, a free tool you can use before your next long weekend or trip. You can share loud and proud that you won't be checking email until you're back. Managers need to think twice about emailing their teams on the weekend and talking about how busy they are. Leaders should take time off themselves and encourage employees to do the same.

Female employees consistently pay lower airfares than men do for the same flights because they tend to book earlier. We compared the airfare paid by employees in the same position within a company for the same class of travel and used a common statistical technique to account for other factors that might affect differences in airfares. We found that women paid on average $18 less per ticket than their male colleagues. Further investigation allowed us to conclude that this gap is largely explained by the fact that women tended to book earlier than men, 1.8 days on average. We wanted to determine what was causing these gender differences in booking business trips so we tested a variety of possible explanations, such as women choosing to plan ahead or male frequent travelers being inclined to book late. None of these explained away the gender gap, so we applied data collected from surveys that express consumer preferences that play a central role in economic decisions, such as patience and risk avoidance. We found that only the concept of "negative reciprocity"—in which an employee who feels unfairly treated engages in negative behaviors, such as spending their company's money less carefully—explains these differences. The surveys showed men tend to exhibit more of these negative behaviors than women. This isn't to say that all men engage in these behaviors—or that booking relatively late is a sign of abnormal behavior. It only means that the gender gap disappears when we plug in the negative reciprocity variable. Prior research on negative reciprocity among workers found that it can result in lower employee motivation, business performance and workplace morale (士气) and culture. Our results show another way these negative behaviors can manifest themselves, like in airline bookings, and add to evidence that women are less likely to engage in them. Companies spend significant sums of money on business travel. While that $18 difference per ticket may seem small, it adds up. Our analysis suggests early booking by women can translate into savings of $1 million a year for a large multinational company with 20,000 regular travelers.