Collaborative information seeking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_information_seeking

Collaborative information seeking (CIS) is a field of research that involves studying situations, motivations, and methods for people working in collaborative groups for information seeking projects, as well as building systems for supporting such activities. Such projects often involve information searching or information retrieval (IR), information gathering, and information sharing. Beyond that, CIS can extend to collaborative information synthesis and collaborative sense-making.

Background

Seeking for information is often considered a solo activity, but there are many situations that call for people working together for information seeking. Such situations are typically complex in nature, and involve working through several sessions exploring, evaluating, and gathering relevant information. Take for example, a couple going on a trip. They have the same goal, and in order to accomplish their goal, they need to seek out several kinds of information, including flights, hotels, and sightseeing. This may involve them working together over multiple sessions, exploring and collecting useful information, and collectively making decisions that help them move toward their common goal.

It is a common knowledge that collaboration is either necessary or highly desired in many activities that are complex or difficult to deal with for an individual. Despite its natural appeal and situational necessity, collaboration in information seeking is an understudied domain. The nature of the available information and its role in our lives have changed significantly, but the methods and tools that are used to access and share that information in collaboration have remained largely unaltered. People still use general-purpose systems such as email and IM for doing CIS projects, and there is a lack of specialized tools and techniques to support CIS explicitly.

There are also several models to explain information seeking and information behavior, but the areas of collaborative information seeking and collaborative information behavior remain understudied. On the theory side, Shah has presented C5 Model for studying collaborative situations, including information seeking. On the practical side, a few specialized systems for supporting CIS have emerged in the recent past, but their usage and evaluations have underwhelmed. Despite such limitations, the field of CIS has been getting a lot of attention lately, and several promising theories and tools have come forth. Multiple reviews of CIS related literature are written by Shah. Shah's book provides a comprehensive review of this field, including theories, models, systems, evaluation, and future research directions. Other books in this area include one by Morris and Teevan, as well as Foster's book on collaborative information behavior. and Hansen, Shah, and Klas's edited book on CIS.

Theories

Depending upon what one includes or excludes while talking about CIS, we have many or hardly any theories. If we consider the past work on the groupware systems, many interesting insights can be obtained about people working on collaborative projects, the issues they face, and the guidelines for system designers. One of the notable works is by Grudin, who laid out eight design principles for developers of groupware systems.

The discussion below is primarily based on some of the recent works in the field of computer supported cooperative work CSCW, collaborative IR, and CIS.

Definitions and terminology

The literature is filled with works that use terms such as collaborative information retrieval, social searching, concurrent search, collaborative exploratory search, co-browsing, collaborative information behavior, collaborative information synthesis, and collaborative information seeking, which are often used interchangeably.

There are several definitions of such related or similar terms in the literature. For instance, Foster defined collaborative IR as "the study of the systems and practices that enable individuals to collaborate during the seeking, searching, and retrieval of information." Shah defined CIS as a process of collaboratively seeking information that is "defined explicitly among the participants, interactive, and mutually beneficial." While there is still a lack of a definition or a terminology that is universally accepted, but most agree that CIS is an active process, as opposed to collaborative filtering, where a system connects the users based on their passive involvement (e.g., buying similar products on Amazon).

Models of collaboration

Foley and Smeaton defined two key aspects of collaborative information seeking as division of labor and the sharing of knowledge. Division of labor allows collaborating searchers to tackle larger problems by reducing the duplication of effort (e.g., finding documents that one's collaborator has already discovered). The sharing of knowledge allows searchers to influence each other's activities as they interact with the retrieval system in pursuit of their (often evolving) information need. This influence can occur in real time if the collaborative search system supports it, or it can occur in a turn-taking, asynchronous manner if that is how interaction is structured.

Teevan et al. characterized two classes of collaboration, task-based vs. trait-based. Task-based collaboration corresponds to intentional collaboration; trait-based collaboration facilitates the sharing of knowledge through inferred similarity of information need.

Situations, motivations, and methods

One of the important issues to study in CIS is the instance, reason, and the methods behind a collaboration. For instance, Morris, using a survey with 204 knowledge workers at a large technology company found that people often like and want to collaborate, but they do not find specialized tools to help them in such endeavors. Some of the situations for doing collaborative information seeking in this survey were travel planning, shopping, and literature search. Shah, similarly, using personal interviews, identified three main reasons why people collaborate.

1. Requirement/setup. Sometimes a group of people are "forced" to collaborate. Example includes a merger between two companies.
2. Division of labor. Working together may help the participants to distribute the workload. Example includes a group of students working on a class project.
3. Diversity of skills. Often people get together because they could not individually possess the required set of skills. Example includes co-authorship, where different authors bring different set of skills to the table.

As far as the tools and/or methods for CIS are concerned, both Morris and Shah found that email is still the most used tool. Other popular methods are face-to-face meetings, IM, and phone or conference calls. In general, the choice of the method or tool for our respondents depended on their situation (co-located or remote), and objective (brainstorming or working on independent parts).

Space-time organization of CIS systems and methods

The classical way of organizing collaborative activities is based on two factors: location and time. Recently Hansen & Jarvelin and Golovchinsky, Pickens, & Back also classified approaches to collaborative IR using these two dimensions of space and time. See "Browsing is a Collaborative Process", where the authors depict various library activities on these two dimensions. As we can see from this figure, the majority of collaborative activities in conventional libraries are co-located and synchronous, whereas collaborative activities relating to digital libraries are more remote and synchronous. Social information filtering, or collaborative filtering, as we saw earlier, is a process benefitting from other users' actions in the past; thus, it falls under asynchronous and mostly remote domain. These days email also serves as a tool for doing asynchronous collaboration among users who are not co-located. Chat or IM (represented as 'internet' in the figure) helps to carry out synchronous and remote collaboration.

Rodden, similarly, presented a classification of CSCW systems using the form of interaction and the geographical nature of cooperative systems. Further, Rodden & Blair presented an important characteristic to all CSCW systems – control. According to the authors, two predominant control mechanisms have emerged within CSCW systems: speech act theory systems, and procedure based systems. These mechanisms are tightly coupled with the kind of control the system can support in a collaborative environment (discussed later).

Often researchers also talk about other dimensions, such as intentionality and depth of mediation (system mediated or user mediated), while classifying various CIS systems.

Control, communication, and awareness

Three components specific to group-work or collaboration that are highly predominant in the CIS or CSCW literature are control, communication, and awareness. In this section key definitions and related works for these components will be highlighted. Understanding their roles can also help us address various design issues with CIS systems.

Control

Rodden identified the value of control in CSCW systems and listed a number of projects with their corresponding schemes for implementing for control. For instance, the COSMOS project had a formal structure to represent control in the system. They used roles to represent people or automatons, and rules to represent the flow and processes. The roles of the people could be a supervisor, processor, or analyst. Rules could be a condition that a process needs to satisfy in order to start or finish. Due to such a structure seen in projects like COSMOS, Rodden classified these control systems as procedural based systems. The control penal was every effort to seeking people and control others in this method used for highly responsible people take control of another network system was supply chine managements or transformation into out connection processor information

Communication

This is one of the most critical components of any collaboration. In fact, Rodden (1991) identified message or communication systems as the class of systems in CSCW that is most mature and most widely used.

Since the focus here is on CIS systems that allow its participants to engage in an intentional and interactive collaboration, there must be a way for the participants to communicate with each other. What is interesting to note is that often, collaboration could begin by letting a group of users communicate with each other. For instance, Donath & Robertson presented a system that allows a user to know that others were currently viewing the same webpage and communicate with those people to initiate a possible collaboration or at least a co-browsing experience. Providing communication capabilities even in an environment that was not originally designed for carrying out collaboration is an interesting way of encouraging collaboration.

Awareness

Awareness, in the context of CSCW, has been defined as "an understanding of the activities of others, which provides a context for your own activity". The following four kinds of awareness are often discussed and addressed in the CSCW literature:

1. Group awareness. This kind of awareness includes providing information to each group member about the status and activities of the other collaborators at a given time.
2. Workspace awareness. This refers to a common workspace that the group has where they can bring and discuss their findings, and create a common product.
3. Contextual awareness. This type of awareness relates to the application domain, rather than the users. Here, we want to identify what content is useful for the group, and what the goals are for the current project.
4. Peripheral awareness. This relates to the kind of information that has resulted from personal and the group's collective history, and should be kept separate from what a participant is currently viewing or doing.

Shah and Marchionini studied awareness as provided by interface in collaborative information seeking. They found that one needs to provide "right" (not too little, not too much, and appropriate for the task at hand) kind of awareness to reduce the cost of coordination and maximize the benefits of collaboration.

Systems

A number of specialized systems have been developed back from the days of the groupware systems to today's Web 2.0 interfaces. A few such examples, in chronological order, are given below.

Ariadne

Twidale et al. developed Ariadne to support the collaborative learning of database browsing skills. In addition to enhancing the opportunities and effectiveness of the collaborative learning that already occurred, Ariadne was designed to provide the facilities that would allow collaborations to persist as people increasingly searched information remotely and had less opportunity for spontaneous face-to-face collaboration.

Ariadne was developed in the days when Telnet-based access to library catalogs was a common practice. Building on top of this command-line interface, Ariadne could capture the users’ input and the database’s output, and form them into a search history that consisted of a series of command-output pairs. Such a separation of capture and display allowed Ariadne to work with various forms of data capture methods.

To support complex browsing processes in collaboration, Ariadne presented a visualization of the search process. This visualization consisted of thumbnails of screens, looking like playing cards, which represented command-output pairs. Any such card can be expanded to reveal its details. The horizontal axis on Ariadne’s display represented time, and the vertical axis showed information on the semantics of the action it represented: the top row for the top level menus, the middle row for specifying a search, and the bottom row for looking at particular book details.

This visualization of the search process in Ariadne makes it possible to annotate, discuss with colleagues around the screen, and distribute to remote collaborators for asynchronous commenting easily and effectively. As we saw in the previous section, having access to one’s history as well as the history of one’s collaborators are very crucial to effective collaboration. Ariadne implements these requirements with the features that let one visualize, save, and share a search process. In fact, the authors found one of the advantages of search visualization was the ability to recap previous searching sessions easily in a multi-session exploratory searching.

SearchTogether

More recently, one of the collaborative information seeking tools that have caught a lot of attention is SearchTogether, developed by Morris and Horvitz. The design of this tool was motivated by a survey that the researchers did with 204 knowledge workers, in which they discovered the following.

• A majority of respondents wanted to collaborate while searching on the Web.
• The most common ways of collaborating in information seeking tasks are sending emails back and forth, using IM to exchange links and query terms, and using phone calls while looking at a Web browser.
• Some of the most popular Web searching tasks on which people like to collaborate are planning travels or social events, making expensive purchases, researching medical conditions, and looking for information related to a common project.

Based on the survey responses, and the current and desired practices for collaborative search, the authors of SearchTogether identified three key features for supporting people’s collaborative information behavior while searching on the Web: awareness, division of labor, and persistence. Let us look at how these three features are implemented.

SearchTogether instantiates awareness in several ways, one of which is per-user query histories. This is done by showing each group member’s screen name, his/her photo and queries in the “Query Awareness” region. The access to the query histories is immediate and interactive, as clicking on a query brings back the results of that query from when it was executed. The authors identified query awareness as a very important feature in collaborative searching, which allows group members to not only share their query terms, but also learn better query formulation techniques from one another.

Another component of SearchTogether that facilitates awareness is the display of page-specific metadata. This region includes several pieces of information about the displayed page, including group members who viewed the given page, and their comments and ratings. The authors claim that such visitation information can help one either choose to avoid a page already visited by someone in the group to reduce the duplication of efforts, or perhaps choose to visit such pages, as they provide a sign of promising leads as indicated by the presence of comments and/or ratings.

Division of labor in SearchTogether is implemented in three ways: (1) “Split Search” allows one to split the search results among all online group members in a round-robin fashion, (2) “Multi-Engine Search” takes a query and runs it on n different search engines, where n is the number of online group members, (3) manual division of labor can be facilitated using integrated IM.

Finally, the persistence feature in SearchTogether is instantiated by storing all the objects and actions, including IM conversations, query histories, recommendation queues, and page-specific metadata. Such data about all the group members are available to each member when he/she logs in. This allows one to easily carry a multi-session collaborative project.

Cerchiamo

Cerchiamo is a collaborative information seeking tool that explores issues related to algorithmic mediation of information seeking activities and how collaborators' roles can be used to structure the user interface. Cerchiamo introduced the notion of algorithmic mediation, that is, the ability of the system to collect input asynchronously from multiple collaborating searchers, and to use these multiple streams of input to affect the information that is being retrieved and displayed to the searchers.

Cerchiamo collected judgments of relevance from multiple collaborating searchers and used those judgments to create a ranked list of items that were potentially relevant to the information need. This algorithm prioritized items that were retrieved by multiple queries and that were retrieved by queries that also retrieved many other relevant documents. This rank fusion is just one way in which a search system that manages activities of multiple collaborating searchers can combine their inputs to generate results that are better than those produced by individuals working independently.

Cerchiamo implemented two roles—Prospector and Miner—that searchers could assume. Each role had an associated interface. The Prospector role/interface focused on running many queries and making a few judgments of relevance for each query to explore the information space. The Miner role/interface focused on making relevance judgments on a ranked list of items selected from items retrieved by all queries in the current session. This combination of roles allowed searchers to explore and exploit the information space, and led teams to discover more unique relevant documents than pairs of individuals working separately.

Coagmento

Coagmento (Latin for "working together") is a new and unique system that allows a group of people work together for their information seeking tasks without leaving their browsers. Coagmento has been developed with a client-server architecture, where the client is implemented as a Firefox plug-in that helps multiple people working in collaboration to communicate, and search, share and organize information. The server component stores and provides all the objects and actions collected from the client. Due to this decoupling, Coagmento provides a flexible architecture that allows its users to be co-located or remote, working synchronously or asynchronously, and use different platforms.

Coagmento includes a toolbar and a sidebar. The toolbar has several buttons that helps one collect information and be aware of the progress in a given collaboration. The toolbar has three major parts:

• Buttons for collecting information and making annotations. These buttons help one save or remove a webpage, make annotations on a webpage, and highlight and collect text snippets.
• Page-specific statistics. The middle portion of the toolbar shows various statistics, such as the number of views, annotations, and snippets, for the displayed page. A user can click on a given statistic and obtain more information. For instance, clicking on the number of snippets will bring up a window that shows all the snippets collected by the collaborators from the displayed page.
• Project-specific statistics. The last portion of the toolbar displays task/project name and various statistics, including number of pages visited and saved, about the current project. Clicking on that portion brings up the workspace where one can view all the collected objects (pages and snippets) brought in by the collaborators for that project.

The sidebar features a chat window, under which there are three tabs with the history of search engine queries, saved pages and snippets. With each of these objects, the user who created or collected that object is shown. Anyone in the group can access an object by clicking on it. For instance, one can click on a query issued by anyone in the group to re-run that query and bring up the results in the main browser window.

An Android (operating system) app for Coagmento can be found in the Android Market.

Cosme

Fernandez-Luna et al. introduce Cosme (COde Search MEeting) as a NetBeans IDE plug-in that enables remote team of software developers to collaborate in real time during source-code search sessions. The COSME design was motivated by early studies of C. Foley, M. R. Morris, C. Shah, among others researchers, and by habits of software developers identified in a survey of 117 universities students and professors related with projects of software development, as well as to computer programmers of some companies. The five more commons collaborative search habits (or related to it) of the interviewees was:

• Revision of problems by the team in the workstation of one of them.
• Suggest addresses of Web pages that they have already visited previously, digital books stored in some FTP, or source files of a version control system.
• Send emails with algorithms or explanatory text.
• Division of search tasks among each member of the team for sharing the final result.
• Store relevant information in individual workstation.

COSME is designed to enable either synchronous or asynchronous, but explicit remote collaboration among team developers with shared technical information needs. Its client user interface include a search panel that lets developers to specify queries, division of labor principle (possible combination include the use of different search engines, ranking fusion, and split algorithms), searching field (comments, source-code, class or methods declaration), and the collection type (source-code files or digital documentation). The sessions panel wraps the principal options to management the collaborative search sessions, which consists in a team of developers working together to satisfy their shared technical information needs. For example, a developer can use the embedded chat room to negotiate the creation of a collaborative search session, and show comments of the current and historical search results. The implementation of Cosme was based on CIRLab (Collaborative Information Retrieval Laboratory) instantiation, a groupware framework for CIS research and experimentation, Java as programming language, NetBeans IDE Platform as plug-in base, and Amenities (A MEthodology for aNalysis and desIgn of cooperaTIve systEmS) as software engineering methodology.

Open-source application frameworks and toolkits

CIS systems development is a complex task, which involves software technologies and Know-how in different areas such as distributed programming, information search and retrieval, collaboration among people, task coordination and many others according to the context. This situation is not ideal because it requires great programming efforts. Fortunately, some CIS application frameworks and toolkits are increasing their popularity since they have a high reusability impact for both developers and researchers, like Coagmento Collaboratory and DrakkarKeel.

Future research directions

Many interesting and important questions remain to be addressed in the field of CIS, including

1. Why do people collaborate? Identifying their motivations can help us design better support for their specific needs.
2. What additional tools are required to enhance existing methods of collaboration, given a specific domain?
3. How to evaluate various aspects of collaborative information seeking, including system and user performance?
4. How to measure the costs and benefits of collaboration?
5. What are the information seeking situations in which collaboration is beneficial? When does it not pay off?
6. How can we measure the performance of a collaborative group?
7. How can we measure the contribution of an individual in a collaborative group?
8. What sorts of retrieval algorithms can be used to combine input from multiple searchers?
9. What kinds of algorithmic mediation can improve team performance?

Agrivoltaic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrivoltaic 

Agrivoltaics or agrophotovoltaics is the simultaneous use of areas of land for both solar photovoltaic power generation and agriculture. The coexistence of solar panels and crops implies a sharing of light between these two types of production, so the design of agrivoltaic facilities requires trading off such objectives as optimizing crop yield, crop quality, and energy production. The technique was originally conceived by Adolf Goetzberger and Armin Zastrow in 1981, and the word agrivoltaic was coined in 2011.

Today, agrivoltaic practices and the relevant law vary from one country to another. In Europe and Asia, where the concept was first pioneered, the term agrivoltaics is applied to dedicated dual-use technology, generally a system of mounts or cables to raise the solar array some five metres above the ground in order to allow the land to be accessed by farm machinery, or a system where solar paneling is installed on the roofs of greenhouses. The shade produced by such a system can reduce production of some crops, but such losses may be offset by the energy produced. Many experimental plots have been installed by various organisations around the world, but no such systems are known to be commercially viable outside China and Japan. The most important factor in the economic viability of agrivoltaics is the cost of installing the photovoltaic panels. It is calculated that in Germany, the subsidising of such projects' electricity generation by a bit more than 300% (feed-in tariffs (FITs)) can make agrivoltaic systems cost-effective for investors and thus may be part of the future mix of electricity generation.

Using Japan as an example, all of its energy needs could be met by conventional photovoltaic systems if 2.5 million acres were covered in conventional solar panels, whereas agrivoltaic systems would require 7 million of the country's 11.3 million acres of farmland. On the other hand, the Fraunhofer Institute, an organisation promoting the use of solar power, claimed in 2021 that all of Germany's energy needs (ca. 500 GWp installed capacity) could be met by covering 4% of the country's arable land with solar panels. Fraunhofer also estimates Germany's total national capacity for agrivoltaic systems over shade-tolerant crops such as berries to be 1,700 GWp, or some 14% of the arable land.

Sheep under solar panels in Lanai, Hawaii

By 2019, some authors had begun using the term agrivoltaics more broadly, so as to include any agricultural activity among existing conventional solar arrays. As an example, sheep can be grazed among conventional solar panels without any modification. And some small projects in the US where beehives are installed at the edge of an existing conventional solar array have been called agrivoltaic systems. Likewise, some conceive agrivoltaics so broadly as to include the mere installation of solar panels on the roofs of barns or livestock sheds.

Agricultural land is the most suitable for solar farms in terms of efficiency: the most profit/power can be generated by the solar industry by replacing farming land with fields of solar panels, as opposed to using barren land. This is primarily because photovoltaic systems in general decrease in efficiency at higher temperatures, and farmland has generally been created in areas with moisture -the cooling effects of vapour pressure is an important factor in increasing panel efficiency. It is thus expected that the future grown of solar power generation will increase competition for farmland in the near future. Assuming a median power potential of 28 W/m² as claimed by the Californian SolarCity power company, one report roughly estimates that covering less than 1% of the world's cropland with conventional solar arrays could generate all the world's present electricity demands (assuming the sun stops moving and we no longer have clouds, and assuming no access is needed and the entirety of that area was covered in panels).

Agriculture

History

On land

Hydroculture

Tomatoes under solar panels in Dornbirn, Austria

History

Adolf Goetzberger, founder of the Fraunhofer Institute in 1981, together with Armin Zastrow, theorised about dual usage of arable land for solar energy production and plant cultivation in 1982, which would address the problem of competition for the use of arable land between solar energy production and crops. The light saturation point is the maximum amount of photons absorbable by a plant species: more photons won't increase the rate of photosynthesis. Recognising this, Akira Nagashima also suggested combining photovoltaic (PV) systems and farming to use the excess light, and developed the first prototypes in Japan in 2004.

The term "agrivoltaic" may have been used for the first time in a 2011 publication. The concept has been called "agrophotovoltaics" in a German report, and a term translating as "solar sharing" has been used in Japanese. Facilities such as photovoltaic greenhouses can be considered agrivoltaic systems.

Methods

There are three basic types of agrivoltaics that are being actively researched: solar arrays with space between for crops, stilted solar arrays above crops, and greenhouse solar arrays. All three systems have several variables used to maximize solar energy absorbed in both the panels and the crops. The main variable taken into account for agrivoltaic systems is the tilt angle of the solar panels. Other variables taken into account for choosing the location of the agrivoltaic system are the crops chosen, panel heights, solar irradiance and climate of the area.

System designs

In their initial 1982 paper, Goetzberger and Zastrow published a number of ideas on how to optimise future agrivoltaic installations.

• orientation of solar panels in the south for fixed or east–west panels for panels rotating on an axis,
• spacing between solar panels for sufficient light transmission to ground crops,
• elevation of the supporting structure of the solar panels to homogenize the amounts of radiation on the ground.

Experimental facilities often have a control agricultural area. The control zone is exploited under the same conditions as the agrivoltaic device in order to study the effects of the device on the development of crops.

Fixed solar panels over crops

The most conventional systems install fixed solar panels on agricultural greenhouses, above open fields crops or between open fields crops. It is possible to optimize the installation by modifying the density of solar panels or the inclination of the panels.

Dynamic Agrivoltaic

The simplest and earliest system was built in Japan using a rather flimsy set of panels mounted on thin pipes on stands without concrete footings. This system is dismountable and lightweight, and the panels can be moved around or adjusted manually during the seasons as the farmer cultivates the land. The spacing between the solar panels is wide in order to reduce wind resistance.

Some newer agrivoltaic system designs use a tracking system to automatically optimize the position of the panels to improve agricultural production or electricity production.

In 2004 Günter Czaloun proposed a photovoltaic tracking system with a rope rack system. Panels can be oriented to improve power generation or shade crops as needed. The first prototype was built in 2007 in Austria. The company REM TEC deployed several plants equipped with dual-axis tracking systems in Italy and China. They have also developed an equivalent system used for agricultural greenhouses.

In France, Sun'R and Agrivolta companies are developing single-axis tracking systems. According to them, their systems can be adapted to the plant needs. The Sun'R system is east–west axis tracking system. According to the company, complex plant growth models, weather forecasts, calculation and optimization software are used. The device from Agrivolta is equipped with south-facing solar panels that can be removed by a sliding system. A Japanese company has also developed a tracking system to follow the sun.

In Switzerland, the company Insolight is developing translucent solar modules with an integrated tracking system that allows the modules to remain static. The module uses lenses to concentrate light onto solar cells and a dynamic light transmission system to adjust the amount of transmitted light and adapt to agricultural needs.

The Artigianfer company developed a photovoltaic greenhouse whose solar panels are installed on movable shutters. The panels can follow the course of the sun along an east–west axis.

In 2015 Wen Liu from the University of Science and Technology in Hefei, China, proposed a new agrivoltaic concept: curved glass panels covered with a dichroitic polymer film that selectively transmits blue and red wavelengths which are necessary for photosynthesis. All other wavelengths are reflected and concentrated on solar cells for power generation using a dual tracking system. Shadow effects arising from regular solar panels above the crop field are eliminated since the crops continue to receive the blue and red wavelength necessary for photosynthesis. Several awards have been granted for this new type of agrivoltaic, among others the R&D100 prize in 2017.

The difficulty of such systems is to find the mode of operation to maintain the good balance between the two types of production according to the goals of the system. Fine control of the panels to adapt shading to the need of plants requires advanced agronomic skills to understand the development of plants. Experimental devices are usually developed in collaboration with research centers.

Other

Potential new photovoltaic technologies which let through the colors of light needed by the plants, but use the other wavelengths to generate electricity, might one day have some future use in building greenhouses in hot and tropical regions.

Sheep can be allowed to graze around solar panels, and may sometimes be cheaper than mowing. "Semi-Transparent" PV Panels used in AgriVoltaics,increase the spacing between Solar Cells and use clear backsheets enhance food production below. In this option, the fixed PV Panels enable the east–west movement of the sun to "spray sunlight" over the plants below.. thereby reducing "over-exposure" due to the day long sun.. as in transparent greenhouses... as they generate electricity above.

Effects

The solar panels of agrivoltaics remove light and space from the crops, but they also affect crops and land they cover in more ways. Two possible effects are water and heat.

In northern latitude climates, agrivoltaics are expected to change the microclimate for crops in both positive and negative manners with no net benefit, reducing quality by increasing humidity and disease, and requiring a higher expenditure on pesticides, but mitigating temperature fluctuations and thus increasing yields. In countries with low or unsteady precipitation, high temperature fluctuation and fewer opportunities for artificial irrigation, such systems are expected to beneficially affect the quality of the microclimate.

Water

In experiments testing evaporation levels under solar panels for shade resistant crops cucumbers and lettuce watered by irrigation in a California desert, a 14-29% savings in evaporation was found, and similar research in the Arizona desert demonstrated water savings of 50% for certain crops.

Heat

A study was done on the heat of the land, air and crops under solar panels for a growing season. It was found that while the air beneath the panels stayed consistent, the land and plants had lower temperatures recorded.

Advantages

Photovoltaic arrays in general produce much less carbon dioxide and pollutant emissions than traditional forms of power generation.

Dual use in land for agriculture and energy production could alleviate competition for land resources and allow for less pressure to convert natural areas into more farmland or to develop farmland or natural areas into solar farms.

Initial simulations performed in a paper by Dupraz et al. in 2011, where the word 'agrivoltaics' was first coined, calculated that the land use efficiency may increase by 60-70% (mostly in terms of usage of solar irradiance).

Dinesh et al.'s model claims that the value of solar generated electricity coupled to shade-tolerant crop production created an over 30% increase in economic value from farms deploying agrivoltaic systems instead of conventional agriculture. It has been postulated that agrivoltaics would be beneficial for summer crops due to the microclimate they create and the side effect of heat and water flow control.

Disadvantages

A disadvantage often cited as an important factor in photovoltaics in general is the substitution of food-producing farmland with solar panels. Cropland is the type of land on which solar panels are the most efficient. Despite allowing for some agriculture to occur on the solar power plant, agrivoltaics will be accompanied by in drop in production. Although some crops in some situations, such as lettuce in California, do not appear to be affected by shading in terms of yield, some land will be sacrificed for mounting structures and systems equipment.

Agrivoltaics will only work well for plants that require shade and where sunlight is not a limiting factor. Shade crops represent only a tiny percentage of agricultural productivity. For instance, wheat crops do not fare well in a low light environment and are not compatible with agrivoltaics. A simulation by Dinesh et al. on agrivoltaics indicates electricity and shade-resistant crop production do not decrease significantly in productivity, allowing both to be simultaneously produced. They estimated lettuce output in agrivoltaics should be comparable to conventional farming.

Agrivoltaic greenhouses are inefficient; in one study, greenhouses with half of the roof covered in panels were simulated, and the resulting crop output reduced by 64% and panel productivity reduced by 84%.

A 2016 thesis calculated that investment in agrivoltaic systems cannot be profitable in Germany, with such systems losing some 80,000 euro per hectare per year. The losses are caused by the photovoltaics, with the costs primarily related to the high elevation of PV panels (mounting costs). The thesis calculated governmental subsidies in the form of feed-in tariffs could allow agrivoltaic plants to be economically viable and were the best method to entice investors to fund such projects, where if the taxpayer paid producers a minimum additional €0.115 euro per kWh above market price (€0.05 in Germany) it would allow for the existence of future agrivoltaic systems.

It requires a massive investment, not only in the solar arrays, but in different farming machinery and electrical infrastructure. The potential for farm machinery to damage the infrastructure also drives up insurance premiums as opposed to conventional solar arrays. In Germany, the high installation costs could make such systems difficult to finance for farmers based on convention farming loans, but it is possible that in the future governmental regulations, market changes and subsidies may create a new market for investors in such schemes, potentially giving future farmers completely different financing opportunities.

Photovoltaic systems are technologically complex, meaning farmers will be unable to fix some things that may break down or be damaged, and requiring a sufficient pool of professionals. In the case of Germany the average increase in labour costs due to agrivoltaic systems are expected to be around 3%. Allowing sheep to graze among the solar panels may be an attractive option to extract extra agriculture usage from conventional solar arrays, but there may not be enough shepherds available, minimum wages are too high to make this idea commercially viable, or profit generated from such a system is too low to compete with conventional sheep farmers in a free market.

Agrivoltaics in the world

Asia

Japan

Japan was the first country to develop of open field agrivoltaics when in 2004 Akira Nagashima developed a demountable structure that he tested on several crops. Removable structures allow farmers to remove or move facilities based on crop rotations and their needs. A number of larger facilities with permanent structures and dynamic systems, and with capacities of several MW, have since been developed. A 35 MW power plant, installed on 54 ha, started operation in 2018. It consists of panels two metres above the ground at their lowest point, mounted on steel piles in a concrete foundation. The shading rate of this plant is over 50%, a value higher than the 30% shading usually found in the Nagashima systems. Under the panels farmers will cultivate ginseng, ashitaba and coriander in plastic tunnels -especially ginseng was selected because it requires deep shape. The area was previously used to grow lawn grass for golf courses, but due to golf becoming less popular in Japan, the farming land had begun to be abandoned. A proposal for a solar power plant of 480 MW to be built on the island of Ukujima, part of which would be agrivoltaics, was tendered in 2013. The construction was supposed to begin in 2019.

To obtain permission to exploit solar panels over crops, Japanese law requires farmers to maintain at least 80% of agricultural production. Farmers must remove panels if the municipality finds that they are shading out too much cropland. At the same time, the Japanese government gives out high subsidies, known as FITs, for local energy production, which allows landowners, using the rather flimsy and light-weight systems, to generate much more revenue from energy production than farming.

China

In 2016, the Italian company REM TEC built a 0.5 MWp agrivoltaic power plant in Jinzhai County, Anhui Province. Chinese companies have developed several GWs of solar power plants combining agriculture and solar energy production, either photovoltaic greenhouses or open-field installations. For example, Panda Green Energy installed solar panels over vineyards in Turpan, Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, in 2016. The 0.2 MW plant was connected to the grid. The project was audited in October 2017 and the company has received approval to roll out its system across the country. Projects of several tens of MW have been deployed. A 70 MW agrivoltaic plant was installed on agricultural and forestry crops in Jiangxi Province in 2016. In 2017 the Chinese company Fuyang Angkefeng Optoelectronic Technology established a 50 KWp agrivoltaic power plant test site in Fuyang city, Anhui Province. The system uses a new technology for agrivoltaic (see below). It was invented by Wen Liu at the Institute of Advanced technology of the university of Science and Technology of China in Hefei.

For 30 years, the Elion Group has been trying to combat desertification in the Kubuqi region. Among the techniques used, agrivoltaic systems were installed to protect crops and produce electricity. Wan You-Bao received a patent in 2007 for shade system equipment to protect crops in the desert. The shades are equipped with solar panels.

South Korea

Agrivoltaic is one of the solutions studied to increase the share of renewable energies in Korea's energy mix. The South Korean government has adopted the Plan 3020 for energy policy, with the goal to have 20% of the energy supply based on renewable resources by 2030, against 5% in 2017. In 2019 Korea Agrivoltaic Association was established to promote and develop South Korea's agrivoltaic industry. SolarFarm.Ltd built the first agrivoltaic power plant in South Korea in 2016 and has produced rice.

South Korea has very little agricultural land compared to most nations. National zoning laws, called separation regulations, made it illegal to build solar farms near roads or residential areas, but meant that solar farms must be installed on otherwise unproductive mountain slopes, where they were hard to access and have been destroyed during storms. In 2017 the separation rules were revised, allowing counties to formulate their own regulations. A number of agrivoltaic plants have been installed since then. The expansion of photovoltaic plants throughout the countryside has enraged local residents and inspired a number of protests, as the panels are considered an eyesore, and people fear pollution by toxic materials used in the panels, or danger from "electromagnetic waves". Resistance by disgruntled locals to the industry has led to countless legal battles throughout the country. Kim Chang-han, executive secretariat of the Korea Agrivoltaic Association, claims that the problems in the industry are caused by "Fake News".

The German Fraunhofer Institute claimed in 2021 that the South Korean government is planning to build 100,000 agrivoltaic systems on farms as a retirement provision for farmers.

India

Projects for isolated sites are being studied by Amity University in Noida, northern India. A study published in 2017 looked at the potential of agrivoltaics for vineyards in India. The agrivoltaic system studied in this article consist of solar panels intercalated between crops to limit shading on plants. This study claimed that the system could increase the revenue (not profit) of Indian farmers in one specific area by 1500% (ignoring investment costs).

In December 2021 Cochin International Airport Limited with the airport’s agri-voltaic farming scaled up to 20 acres became the largest of its kind in the country

Malaysia

In Malaysia, Cypark Resources Berhad (Cypark), Malaysia's largest developer of renewable energy projects had in 2014 commissioned Malaysia's first Agriculture Integrated Photo Voltaic (AIPV) Solar Farm in Kuala Perlis. The AIPV combines a 1MW solar installation with agriculture activities on 5 acres of land. The AIPV produces, among other things, melons, chillies, cucumbers which are sold at the local market.

Cypark later developed other four other solar farms integrated with agriculture activities: 6MW in Kuala Perlis with sheep and goat rearing, 425KW in Pengkalan Hulu with local vegetables, and 4MW in Jelebu and 11MW in Tanah Merah with sheep and goats.

The Universiti Putra Malaysia, which specializes in agronomy, launched experiments in 2015 on plantations of Orthosiphon stamineus, a medicinal herb often called Java tea in English. It is a fixed structure installed on an experimental surface of about 0.4 ha.

Vietnam

Fraunhofer ISE has deployed their agrivoltaic system on a shrimp farm located in Bac Liêu in the Mekong Delta. According to this institute, the results of their pilot project indicate that water consumption has been reduced by 75%. Their system might offer other benefits such as shading for workers as well as a lower and stable water temperature for better shrimp growth.

Europe

In Europe in the early 2000s, experimental photovoltaic greenhouses have been built, with part of the greenhouse roof replaced by solar panels. In Austria, a small experimental open field agrivoltaic system was built in 2007, followed by two experiments in Italy. Experiments in France and Germany then followed. A pilot project was initiated in Belgium in 2020, which will test if it is viable to cultivate pear trees among solar panels.

The photovoltaic industry cannot make use of European CAP subsidies when building on agricultural land.

Austria

In 2004 Günter Czaloun proposed a photovoltaic tracking system with a rope rack system. The first prototype was built in South Tyrol in 2007 on a 0.1 ha area. The cable structure is more than five meters above the surface. A new system was presented at the Intersolar 2017 conference in Munich. This technology may potentially be less expensive than other open field systems because it requires less steel.

Italy

In 2009 and 2011, agrivoltaic systems with fixed panels were installed above vineyards. Experiments showed a slight decrease of the yield and late harvests.

In 2009 the Italian company REM TEC developed a dual-axis solar tracking system. In 2011 and 2012, REM TEC built several MW of open field agrivoltaic power plants. The solar panels are installed 5 m above the ground to operate agricultural machinery. The shadow due to the cover of photovoltaic panels claimed to be less than 15%, so as to minimize its effect on the crops. The company advertises as being the first to offer "automated integrated shading net systems into the supporting structure". REM TEC has also designed a dual-axis solar tracking systems integrated into the greenhouse structure. According to the company website, control of the position of the solar panels would optimize the greenhouse microclimate.

More recently, the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Developmenent (ENEA) launched the national network for sustainable agrivoltaic systems as part of the "Green revolution and ecological transition" mission of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan. According to a study conducted by ENEA and Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, the economic and environmental performances of agrivoltaic systems are similar to those of ground photovoltaic plants. ENEA's objective is to increase installed power by 30GW. For ENEA, just the 0,32% of Italian agricultural fields are to be covered by photovoltaic systems in order to reach 50% of the objectives of the national energy plan.

France

Since the beginning of the 2000s, photovoltaic greenhouses have been experimentally built in France. The company Akuo Energy has been developing their concept of agrinergie since 2007. Their first power plants consisted of alternation of crops and solar panels. The new power plants are greenhouses. In 2017 the Tenergie company began the deployment of photovoltaic greenhouses with an architecture that diffuses light in order to reduce the contrasts between light bands and shade bands created by solar panels.

Since 2009, INRA, IRSTEA and Sun'R have been working on the Sun'Agri program. A first prototype installed in the field with fixed panels is built in 2009 on a surface of 0.1 ha in Montpellier. Other prototypes with 1-axis mobile panels were built in 2014 and 2017. The aim of these studies is to manage the microclimate received by plants and to produce electricity, by optimizing the position of the panels. and to study how radiation is distributed between crops and solar panels. The first agrivoltaic plant in the open field of Sun'R is built in the spring of 2018 in Tresserre in the Pyrénées-Orientales. This plant has a capacity of 2.2 MWp installed on 4.5 ha of vineyards. It will evaluate, on a large scale and in real conditions, the performance of the Sun'Agri system on vineyards.

In 2016, the Agrivolta company specialized on the agrivoltaïcs. After a first prototype built in 2017 in Aix-en-Provence, Agrivolta deployed its system on a plot of the National Research Institute of Horticulture (Astredhor) in Hyères. Agrivolta won several innovation prizes Agrivolta presented its technology at the CES in Las Vegas in 2018.

Germany

In 2011 the Fraunhofer Institute ISE started to research agrivoltaics. Research continues with the APV-Resola project, which began in 2015 and was scheduled to end in 2020. A first prototype of 194.4 kWp was to be built in 2016 on a 0.5 ha site belonging to the Hofgemeinschaft Heggelbach cooperative farm in Herdwangen. As of 2015, photovoltaic power generation is still not economically viable in Germany without governmental FIT subsidies. As of 2021, FITs are not available in Germany for agrovoltaic systems.

Denmark

The Agronomy Department of the Aarhus University has launched a study project of agrivoltaic system on orchards in 2014.

Croatia

In 2017 a structure was installed with a 500 kWp open field power plant near Virovitica-Podravina. The agronomic studies are supported by the University of Osijek and the agricultural engineering school of Slatina. The electricity production is used for the irrigation system and agricultural machinery. At first crops requiring shade will be tested under the device.

Americas

United States

In the United States, SolAgra is interested in the concept in collaboration with the Department of Agronomy at the University of California at Davis. A first power plant on 0.4 ha is under development. An area of 2.8 ha is used as a control. Several types of crops are studied: alfalfa, sorghum, lettuce, spinach, beets, carrots, chard, radishes, potatoes, arugula, mint, turnips, kale, parsley, coriander, beans, peas, shallots and mustard. Projects for isolated sites are also studied. Experimental systems are being studied by several universities: the Biosphere 2 project at the University of Arizona, the Stockbridge School of Agriculture project (University of Massachusetts at Amherst). Jack's Solar Garden in Colorado grows vegetables under an array of 3,200 solar panels. One US energy company is installing beehives near its existing solar array.

Chile

Three 13 kWp agro-photovoltaic systems were built in Chile in 2017. The goal of this project, supported by the Metropolitan Region of Santiago, was to study the plants that can benefit from the shading of the agrivoltaic system. The electricity produced was used to power agricultural facilities: cleaning, packaging and cold storage of agricultural production, incubator for eggs ... One of the systems was installed in a region with a lot of power outages.

Micro-sustainability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-sustainability 

Micro-sustainability is the portion of sustainability centered around small scale environmental measures that ultimately affect the environment through a larger cumulative impact. Micro-sustainability centers on individual efforts, behavior modification, education and creating attitudinal changes, which result in an environmentally conscious individual. Micro-sustainability encourages sustainable changes through "change agents"—individuals who foster positive environmental action locally and inside their sphere of influence. Examples of micro-sustainability include recycling, power saving by turning off unused lights, programming thermostats for efficient use of energy, reducing water usage, changing commuting habits to use less fossil fuels or modifying buying habits to reduce consumption and waste. The emphasis of micro-sustainability is on an individual's actions, rather than organizational or institutional practices at the systemic level.^[2] These small local level actions have immediate community benefits if undertaken on a widespread scale and if imitated, they can have a cumulative broad impact.

History

• 1960's - The "back-to-the-land movement" promoted self-sufficiency and local community growth.
• 2007 - The transition town network was formed to reduce dependency on oil in the United Kingdom.
• 2007 - The United Nations published Sustainable Consumption Patterns, which outlined small scale sustainability actions.
• 2009 - Jesse Stallone coined the term micro and macro sustainability based on the ideas of microeconomics and macroeconomics.

Individual actions

Micro-sustainability is the result of individuals and communities practicing sustainable living. Sustainable living is a lifestyle that attempts to conserve natural resources. Within an individual household, this can include reducing the water footprint and domestic energy consumption of the building.

Water footprint

With a typical American single-family home using 70 US gallons (260 L) per person per day indoors, household appliances such as toilets, showers, dishwashers, and washing machines can be upgraded to reduce water usage.

Energy consumption

The Energy Star logo can be found on certified energy-efficient appliances

The residential sector accounts of 21% of total U.S. energy usage, with approximately 40% of the energy used in homes being used for heating. Individuals can reduce their heating loads by improving their building insulation, improving building airtightness and installing smart thermostat. Other measures outside of reducing the heating load include purchasing energy-efficient appliances and recycling energy intensive materials.

Consumer preferences

As individuals become more aware of environmental problems that exist, their consumption decisions can promote green designs and ultimately affect the types of products on the market. In a study that looked at consumer preferences for sustainability with respect to mobile phones, it found that consumers are not only interested in the physical product but also raw material sourcing and end of life product disposal. As a result, the study found that major manufacturers consider sustainability in their marketing and products.

Other studies have looked at consumer preferences regarding sustainably sourced food. Food sustainability can reduce the use of natural resources and limit waste. These improvements in food sustainability can have larger, global benefits such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, water usage, and waste. One study found that consumers who spent more time looking at the sustainability labels were individuals who cared more about sustainably sourced food, and who were more likely to select products with this labeling. Another study showed that not only does sustainable labeling cause consumers to look at the product for longer, but that the consumer choices as a result of that labeling is significant and positive. This means that if consumers value sustainable products that are verified through labeling and are more likely to purchase these products, then food producers and marketers can use this information to provide products that consumer is interested in. Additionally, if consumers are buying more of a product, they are also incentivizing and rewarding producers that are willing to responsibly source food.

Group and community actions

A community in the context of micro-sustainability is a group of people in the same geographic location that interact with one another. These can range from rural communities with low population density to highly dense urban communities. These communities are able to tackle a wider range of initiatives that range in scale from unaligned, independent affairs to organized networks. While small community initiatives can take many forms, they can be generalized as an organized collective bundle of actions stretching several years or decades intended to transform a community into a sustainable state.

Rural communities

Although there is no exact population size to define a rural community, they are typically seen as areas with lower population density. Green rural communities are places where people value a supportive social network and a low-impact, ecologically sustainable life. These can be defined as transition towns, Low Carbon Communities, or eco-villages.

Urban communities

Urban communities do not necessarily mean a larger population than rural communities, but that they are more densely populated and more influenced by the effects of urbanization.

Especially with transition towns and low carbon communities, the goal is to see if fundamental changes to society in these niches can lead to a wider acceptance of the innovation. This can occur by replicating, scaling, and translating successful practices. Although the goal is to see if changes on micro scale can ultimately lead to a successful macro-level change, 89% of transition towns were created by individual citizens coming together—not governments or larger organizations.

Types of work

Depending on the size, wealth, and organization of a community, a variety of sustainable actions can be achieved. These can be broken down into following categories:

Land use

Sustainable land use can be achieved when communities reduce greenhouse gas emissions by limiting development of roads, parking lots, etc., and focus on promoting green building design technologies and green spaces.

Transportation

Main article: Sustainable transport

Further information: Micromobility

The amount of greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere due to the number of cars on the roads can be minimized by increasing the number of safe bike lanes and pedestrian walkways, and making public transportation easily accessible.

Green spaces

High Point Community Garden in Seattle, Washington

Green spaces within a community protect the habitats of the wildlife in the area. These spaces can be gardens, parks, green alleys, green roofs, and green buffer zones. They can exist successfully when a community provides resources such as land, equipment, knowledge and standards regarding care of the green space, and some sort of governance to ensure that the space is well kept.

Renewable energy and waste management

Renewable energy can include hydropower, biomass energy, geothermal energy, wind power, and solar energy. Additionally, communities can educate and promote individual sustainable practices mentioned in part 2. This can be in the form of providing information such as directions to resources and household energy performance feedback, monitoring performance like annual surveys of energy usage, or initializing community challenges such as a goal to reach carbon neutrality. Communities can practice sustainable waste management such as incineration, biological treatment, zero waste, and recycling.

Methods for success

The following are themes seen across micro-sustainable groups that have resulted in increased success:

Community learning

Effective sustainable intervention occurs in small communities because these spaces allow for greater learning opportunities. One study showed that socialization encouraged learning and innovation which lead to 20% reduction in energy usage sustained over four years. With community gardening, it was found that it transformed an isolated, private task into one that was social, educational, and had a positive impact on the town. They claim that having a group of people in charge of the garden required social interaction and cooperation, and having many members resulted in a collective responsibility that promoted skill sharing and cohesion.

Goal setting

Another key factor was the community working together around a clear, well defined goal as group members are willing to participate when they know they are contributing to the good of the community. Towns that would offer similar goals such as a community gardens achieved very different levels of success based on the level of structure, goals, and plans that can unite a community and gain interest.

Criticisms

There have been concerns about the effectiveness of micro-sustainability. Much of the research into individual and small community practices are only able to analyze a limited amount of data and cannot fully conclude if the small community changes will result in changes at a larger scale. Additionally, due to its complex nature, it is almost impossible to model or keep track of all aspects of sustainability, and studies that do attempt to model this found that successful situations at a micro level will either not work, or will worsen environmental impacts at a larger scale.

Additionally, some raise questions about the magnitude of change that needs to occur. In the book Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air authored by British physicist and mathematician David J.C. MacKay, MacKay advocates against small changes with respect to sustainability and gives the example that if everyone unplugged their chargers from the outlet, this would save enough energy to power 66,000 homes for one year. MacKay warns that these types of statements can be misleading, as 66,000 homes out of approximately 25 million homes participating in this action is a quarter of one percent. In other words, each household is only saving one quarter of one percent by unplugging their phones.

A study that surveyed transition towns across the UK found that 76% of them struggle to grow after initial interest fades. This indicates that scaling up beyond committed environmentalists may not be the best approach.

Macro-sustainability

In contrast to micro-sustainability, the remaining large-scale plans for sustainability, are categorized under the term macro-sustainability. Macro-sustainability is a large systematic addressing of sustainability in most cases by the United Nations, governments, multi-national corporations or smaller companies. They discuss global issues including climate change, and reliance upon fossil fuel hydrocarbon based energy sources. Businesses primarily focus on the return of investment of changes such as their source of energy, consumption patterns or how they transport or manufacture products. Governments confront these larger issues through regulation of natural resources, improved practices, providing subsidies and directly investing in new technologies and renewable energy sources.

Fashion Industry

Landfill; where a majority of discarded clothing ends up.

The fashion sector is a major contributor to air, land, and water pollution. This industry accounts for 10% of carbon emissions. In textile production, there is a high use of chemicals and water, which then find their way back into waterways. In the US, over 85% of discarded clothes end up in landfills.

The industry’s main goal is obsolescence- new trends are constantly being put out to encourage consumption. Fast fashion has become increasingly popular, as it allows consumers to keep up with and then discard these trends at a low cost.

Companies often outsource their manufacturing to less developed countries to further reduce costs for consumers, which has led to the exploitation of workers, a complex supply chain, and pollution due to transportation. Insourcing products to their own facilities that they can maintain a strict standard over would lessen these issues.

Textile waste can be reduced by making higher quality garments that are built to last. A general rule of thumb for fast fashion companies is a “10 wash mark," in which clothes are made to last about ten cycles through a washer and dryer. By extending the practical life of a garment, people can use their clothes for longer periods of time before having to discard them, and thus consume and waste less. Textile waste may also be reduced through recycling and upcycling textile initiatives.

Research and development can also be invested into more eco-friendly dyeing methods. ColorZen, for example, has developed a process of dyeing cotton using 75% less energy and 90% less water.

Agricultural Sector

The agricultural sector is a major source of food waste, and also contributes to air, land, and water pollution. Food waste is a major component of landfills, which are in turn a major source of methane (a major global warming contributor).

Implementing a variety of sustainability measures would allow for the redistribution of edible food that would have otherwise been wasted, the reduction of competition for limited resources, and the reduction of pollution.

Crop diversification and crop rotation are more sustainable farming practices. They allow for healthier soil, which in turn reduces the need for fertilizers, which then reduces the amount of fertilizer runoff. It also helps in reducing the amount of insects and weeds, which would reduce the use of pesticides. Fertilizer runoff and pesticides both have the potential to disrupt and harm ecosystems. Having multiple crops, as opposed to monoculture, reduces the potential of entire crop yields failing- particularly in a time of climate change.

Pesticides being sprayed over crops.

Alternative forms of pesticides also contribute to sustainability. Birds, for example, play an important ecological role in the reduction of insect populations; using birds as a natural way of getting rid of insects could decrease the amount of pesticides used.

Water usage in agriculture can also be reduced, which would allow for the resource to be redistributed elsewhere. One method of this is drip irrigation, in which water is delivered directly to the roots of crops. This allows for less water to be used, since less water is lost to evaporation.

Although some food waste is unavoidable, such as bones or peels, there is a large component of avoidable waste. This is due to issues with over purchasing, poor preparation, and inadequate storage. In the US, “10.1 million tons [of food] are left unused on farms and in packing facilities each year.” Implementing government tax deductions may provide an incentive for those in the agricultural sector to donate food that would have otherwise been wasted.

Foreign policy of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States 

History of U.S. expansion and influence
American imperialism American exceptionalism Foreign policy Military history Military operations List of wars Military deployments Military bases abroad Territorial evolution Manifest destiny Non-interventionism Foreign interventions Pax Americana American Century America's Backyard Monroe Doctrine 51st state Involvement in regime change (Latin America) War crimes

The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States of America, including all the Bureaus and Offices in the United States Department of State, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the Department of State, are "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community". In addition, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs states as some of its jurisdictional goals: "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial interaction with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; international commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad and expulsion". U.S. foreign policy and foreign aid have been the subject of much debate, praise, and criticism, both domestically and abroad.

Powers of the President

The President sets the tone for all foreign policy. The State Department and all members design and implement all details to the President's policy.

The Treaty Clause in Article Two of the United States Constitution dictates that the President of the United States negotiates treaties with other countries or political entities, and signs them. Signed treaties enter into force only if ratified by at least two-thirds (67 members) of the United States Senate. (Technically, the Senate itself does not ratify treaties, it only approves or rejects resolutions of ratification submitted by the Committee on Foreign Relations; if approved, the United States exchanges the instruments of ratification with the foreign power(s)). Between 1789 and 1990, the Senate approved more than 1,500 treaties, rejected 21, and 85 treaties were withdrawn because the Senate did not act on them. As of December 2014, 36 treaties signed by the President were awaiting action by the Senate.

The Congress approves the President's picks for ambassadors and as a secondary function, can declare war. The President is also Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and as such has broad authority over the armed forces. The Secretary of State and ambassadors are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Secretary of State acts similarly to a foreign minister and under the President's leadership, is the primary conductor of state-to-state diplomacy.

Historical overview

Main articles: History of United States foreign policy and Timeline of United States diplomatic history

The main trend regarding the history of U.S. foreign policy since the American Revolution is the shift from non-interventionism before and after World War I, to its growth as a world power and global hegemony during and since World War II and the end of the Cold War in the 20th century. Since the 19th century, U.S. foreign policy also has been characterized by a shift from the realist school to the idealistic or Wilsonian school of international relations.

The Jay Treaty of 1795 aligned the U.S. more with Britain and less with France, leading to political polarization at home

Foreign policy themes were expressed considerably in George Washington's farewell address; these included, among other things, observing good faith and justice towards all nations and cultivating peace and harmony with all, excluding both "inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others", "steer[ing] clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world", and advocating trade with all nations. These policies became the basis of the Federalist Party in the 1790s, but the rival Jeffersonians feared Britain and favored France in the 1790s, declaring the War of 1812 on Britain. After the 1778 alliance with France, the U.S. did not sign another permanent treaty until the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. Over time, other themes, key goals, attitudes, or stances have been variously expressed by Presidential 'doctrines', named for them. Initially these were uncommon events, but since WWII, these have been made by most presidents.

Jeffersonians vigorously opposed a large standing army and any navy until attacks against American shipping by Barbary corsairs spurred the country into developing a naval force projection capability, resulting in the First Barbary War in 1801.

Despite two wars with European Powers—the War of 1812 and the Spanish–American War in 1898—American foreign policy was mostly peaceful and marked by steady expansion of its foreign trade during the 19th century. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 doubled the nation's geographical area; Spain ceded the territory of Florida in 1819; annexation brought in the independent Texas Republic in 1845; a war with Mexico added California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and New Mexico in 1848. The U.S. bought Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867, and it annexed the independent Republic of Hawaii in 1898. Victory over Spain in 1898 brought the Philippines and Puerto Rico, as well as oversight of Cuba. The short experiment in imperialism ended by 1908, as the U.S. turned its attention to the Panama Canal and the stabilization of regions to its south, including Mexico.

20th century

Further information: History of U.S. foreign policy, 1897–1913

World War I

Further information: Presidency of Woodrow Wilson and Foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson

The 20th century was marked by two world wars in which Allied powers, along with the United States, defeated their enemies, and through this participation the United States increased its international reputation. Entry into the First World War was a hotly debated issue in the 1916 presidential election.

President Wilson's Fourteen Points was developed from his idealistic Wilsonianism program of spreading democracy and fighting militarism to prevent future wars. It became the basis of the German Armistice (which amounted to a military surrender) and the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The resulting Treaty of Versailles, due to European allies' punitive and territorial designs, showed insufficient conformity with these points, and the U.S. signed separate treaties with each of its adversaries; due to Senate objections also, the U.S. never joined the League of Nations, which was established as a result of Wilson's initiative. In the 1920s, the United States followed an independent course, and succeeded in a program of naval disarmament, and refunding the German economy. Operating outside the League it became a dominant player in diplomatic affairs. New York became the financial capital of the world, but the Wall Street Crash of 1929 hurled the Western industrialized world into the Great Depression. American trade policy relied on high tariffs under the Republicans, and reciprocal trade agreements under the Democrats, but in any case exports were at very low levels in the 1930s.

World War II

Main article: Diplomatic history of World War II § United States

 

Allies of World War II at the Yalta Conference: Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin

The United States adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy from 1932 to 1938, but then President Franklin D. Roosevelt moved toward strong support of the Allies in their wars against Germany and Japan. As a result of intense internal debate, the national policy was one of becoming the Arsenal of Democracy, that is financing and equipping the Allied armies without sending American combat soldiers. Roosevelt mentioned four fundamental freedoms, which ought to be enjoyed by people "everywhere in the world"; these included the freedom of speech and religion, as well as freedom from want and fear. Roosevelt helped establish terms for a post-war world among potential allies at the Atlantic Conference; specific points were included to correct earlier failures, which became a step toward the United Nations. American policy was to threaten Japan, to force it out of China, and to prevent its attacking the Soviet Union. However, Japan reacted by an attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, and the United States was at war with Japan, Germany, and Italy. Instead of the loans given to allies in World War I, the United States provided Lend-Lease grants of $50,000,000,000. Working closely with Winston Churchill of Britain, and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, Roosevelt sent his forces into the Pacific against Japan, then into North Africa against Italy and Germany, and finally into Europe starting with France and Italy in 1944 against the Germans. The American economy roared forward, doubling industrial production, and building vast quantities of airplanes, ships, tanks, munitions, and, finally, the atomic bomb. Much of the American war effort went to strategic bombers, which flattened the cities of Japan and Germany.

Cold War

Main article: Cold War

 

President Richard Nixon went to China to open friendly relations and meet Chinese Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong in 1972.

After the war, the U.S. rose to become the dominant economic power with broad influence in much of the world, with the key policies of the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine. Almost immediately, however, the world witnessed division into broad two camps during the Cold War; one side was led by the U.S. and the other by the Soviet Union, but this situation also led to the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement. This period lasted until almost the end of the 20th century and is thought to be both an ideological and power struggle between the two superpowers. Policies of linkage and containment were adopted to limit Soviet expansion, and a series of proxy wars were fought with mixed results. In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved into separate nations, and the Cold War formally ended as the United States gave separate diplomatic recognition to the Russian Federation and other former Soviet states.

In domestic politics, foreign policy is not usually a central issue. In 1945–1970 the Democratic Party took a strong anti-Communist line and supported wars in Korea and Vietnam. Then the party split with a strong, "dovish", pacifist element (typified by 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern). Many "hawks", advocates for war, joined the Neoconservative movement and started supporting the Republicans—especially Reagan—based on foreign policy. Meanwhile, down to 1952 the Republican Party was split between an isolationist wing, based in the Midwest and led by Senator Robert A. Taft, and an internationalist wing based in the East and led by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower defeated Taft for the 1952 nomination largely on foreign policy grounds. Since then the Republicans have been characterized by a hawkish and intense American nationalism, strong opposition to Communism, and strong support for Israel.

21st century

In the 21st century, U.S. influence remains strong but, in relative terms, is declining in terms of economic output compared to rising nations such as China, India, Russia, and the newly consolidated European Union. Substantial problems remain, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, and the specter of nuclear terrorism. Foreign policy analysts Hachigian and Sutphen in their book The Next American Century suggest all five powers have similar vested interests in stability and terrorism prevention and trade; if they can find common ground, then the next decades may be marked by peaceful growth and prosperity.

President Donald Trump and his Western allies from G7 and NATO.

 

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad meets with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in 2018

In 2017 diplomats from other countries developed new tactics to engage with President Donald Trump's brand of American nationalism. The New York Times reported on the eve of his first foreign trip as president:

For foreign leaders trying to figure out the best way to approach an American president unlike any they have known, it is a time of experimentation. Embassies in Washington trade tips and ambassadors send cables to presidents and ministers back home suggesting how to handle a mercurial, strong-willed leader with no real experience on the world stage, a preference for personal diplomacy and a taste for glitz...certain rules have emerged: Keep it short — no 30-minute monologue for a 30-second attention span. Do not assume he knows the history of the country or its major points of contention. Compliment him on his Electoral College victory. Contrast him favorably with President Barack Obama. Do not get hung up on whatever was said during the campaign. Stay in regular touch. Do not go in with a shopping list but bring some sort of deal he can call a victory.

Trump had numerous aides giving advice on foreign policy. The chief diplomat was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. His major foreign policy positions were often at odds with Trump, including:

urging the United States to stay in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris climate accord, taking a hard line on Russia, advocating negotiations and dialogue to defuse the mounting crisis with North Korea, advocating for continued U.S. adherence to the Iran nuclear deal, taking a neutral position in the dispute between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and reassuring jittery allies, from South Korea and Japan to our NATO partners, that America still has their back.

Before the Trump presidency, foreign policy in the U.S. was the result of bipartisan consensus on an agenda of strengthening its position as the number one power. However, since then that consensus has fractured—with Republican and Democratic politicians increasingly calling for a more restrained approach.

Law

In the United States, there are three types of treaty-related law:

• Treaties are formal written agreements specified by the Treaty Clause of the Constitution. The President makes a treaty with foreign powers, but then the proposed treaty must be ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. For example, President Wilson proposed the Treaty of Versailles after World War I after consulting with allied powers, but this treaty was rejected by the Senate; as a result, the U.S. subsequently made separate agreements with different nations. While most international law has a broader interpretation of the term treaty, the U.S. sense of the term is more restricted. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states.
• Executive agreements are made by the President—in the exercise of his Constitutional executive powers—alone.
• Congressional-executive agreements are made by the President and Congress. A majority of both houses makes it binding much like regular legislation after it is signed by the president. The Constitution does not expressly state that these agreements are allowed, and constitutional scholars such as Laurence Tribe think they are unconstitutional.

In contrast to most other nations, the United States considers the three types of agreements as distinct. Further, the United States incorporates treaty law into the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties afterward. It can overrule an agreed-upon treaty obligation even if that is seen as a violation of the treaty under international law. Several U.S. court rulings confirmed this understanding, including Supreme Court decisions in Paquete Habana v. the United States (1900), and Reid v. Covert (1957), as well as a lower court ruling in Garcia-Mir v. Meese (1986).

The State Department has taken the position that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties represents established law. Generally, when the U.S. signs a treaty, it is binding. However, as a result of the Reid v. Covert decision, the U.S. adds a reservation to the text of every treaty that says in effect that the U.S. intends to abide by the treaty but that if the treaty is found to be in violation of the Constitution, the U.S. legally is then unable to abide by the treaty since the U.S. signature would be ultra vires.

International agreements

The United States has ratified and participates in many other multilateral treaties, including arms control treaties (especially with the Soviet Union), human rights treaties, environmental protocols, and free trade agreements.

Further information: List of United States treaties and List of treaties unsigned or unratified by the United States

Economic and general government

The United States is a founding member of the United Nations and most of its specialized agencies, notably the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund. The U.S. has at times withheld payment of dues, owing to disagreements with the UN.

The United States is also member of:

• Organization of American States
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
• Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
• USMCA, the regional trade bloc with Canada and Mexico
• World Trade Organization
• Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
• Group of Seven (G7)
• World Customs Organization

Freely Associated States

After it captured the islands from Japan during World War II, the United States administered the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands from 1947 to 1986 (1994 for Palau). The Northern Mariana Islands became a U.S. territory (part of the United States), while Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau became independent countries. Each has signed a Compact of Free Association that gives the United States exclusive military access in return for U.S. defense protection and conduct of military foreign affairs (except the declaration of war) and a few billion dollars of aid. These agreements also generally allow citizens of these countries to live and work in the United States with their spouses (and vice versa), and provide for largely free trade. The federal government also grants access to services from domestic agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Weather Service, the United States Postal Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and U.S. representation to the International Frequency Registration Board of the International Telecommunication Union.

Further information: Associated state

Non-participation in multi-lateral agreements

The United States notably does not participate in various international agreements adhered to by almost all other industrialized countries, by almost all the countries of the Americas, or by almost all other countries in the world. With a large population and economy, on a practical level this can undermine the effect of certain agreements, or give other countries a precedent to cite for non-participation in various agreements.

In some cases the arguments against participation include that the United States should maximize its sovereignty and freedom of action, or that ratification would create a basis for lawsuits that would treat American citizens unfairly. In other cases, the debate became involved in domestic political issues, such as gun control, climate change, and the death penalty.

Examples include:

• Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations covenant (in force 1920–45, signed but not ratified)
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (took effect in 1976, ratified with substantial reservations)
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (took effect in 1976, signed but not ratified)
• American Convention on Human Rights (took effect in 1978)
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (took effect in 1981, signed but not ratified)
• Convention on the Rights of the Child (took effect in 1990, signed but not ratified)
• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (took effect in 1994)
• Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (signed in 1996 but never ratified and never took effect)
• Mine Ban Treaty (took effect in 1999)
• International Criminal Court (took effect in 2002)
• Kyoto Protocol (in force 2005–12, signed but not ratified)
• Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (took effect in 2006)
• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (took effect in 2008, signed but not ratified)
• Convention on Cluster Munitions (took effect in 2010)
• International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (took effect in 2010)
• Arms Trade Treaty (took effect in 2014)
• Other human rights treaties

Further information: List of treaties unsigned or unratified by the United States

Hub and spoke vs multilateral

While America's relationships with Europe have tended to be in terms of multilateral frameworks, such as NATO, America's relations with Asia have tended to be based on a "hub and spoke" model using a series of bilateral relationships where states coordinate with the United States and do not collaborate with each other. On May 30, 2009, at the Shangri-La Dialogue Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urged the nations of Asia to build on this hub and spoke model as they established and grew multilateral institutions such as ASEAN, APEC and the ad hoc arrangements in the area. However, in 2011 Gates said that the United States must serve as the "indispensable nation," for building multilateral cooperation.

Oil

Persian Gulf

Further information: Energy policy of the United States and Petroleum politics

 

A U.S. soldier stands guard duty near a burning oil well in the Rumaila oil field, Iraq, April 2003

As of 2014, the U.S. currently produces about 66% of the oil that it consumed. By 2020, total U.S. annual petroleum production was greater than total petroleum consumption and exports. While its imports have exceeded domestic production since the early 1990s, new hydraulic fracturing techniques and discovery of shale oil deposits in Canada and the American Dakotas offer the potential for increased energy independence from oil exporting countries such as OPEC. Former U.S. President George W. Bush identified dependence on imported oil as an urgent "national security concern".

Two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves are estimated to be found in the Persian Gulf. Despite its distance, the Persian Gulf region was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States during World War II. Petroleum is of central importance to modern armies, and the United States—as the world's leading oil producer at that time—supplied most of the oil for the Allied armies. Many U.S. strategists were concerned that the war would dangerously reduce the U.S. oil supply, and so they sought to establish good relations with Saudi Arabia, a kingdom with large oil reserves.

The Persian Gulf region continued to be regarded as an area of vital importance to the United States during the Cold War. Three Cold War United States Presidential doctrines—the Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, and the Nixon Doctrine—played roles in the formulation of the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its "national interests" in the Persian Gulf region. Carter's successor, President Ronald Reagan, extended the policy in October 1981 with what is sometimes called the "Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine", which proclaimed that the United States would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was threatened after the outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War. Some analysts have argued that the implementation of the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Corollary also played a role in the outbreak of the 2003 Iraq War.

Canada

Almost all of Canada's energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.

Africa

In 2007 the U.S. was Sub-Saharan Africa's largest single export market accounting for 28% of exports (second in total to the EU at 31%). 81% of U.S. imports from this region were petroleum products.

Foreign aid

Main articles: United States foreign aid and United States Agency for International Development

Foreign assistance is a core component of the State Department's international affairs budget, which is $49 billion in all for 2014. Aid is considered an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. There are four major categories of non-military foreign assistance: bilateral development aid, economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals, humanitarian aid, and multilateral economic contributions (for example, contributions to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund).

In absolute dollar terms, the United States government is the largest international aid donor ($23 billion in 2014). The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral economic assistance; the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid. In addition many private agencies, churches and philanthropies provide aid.

Foreign aid is a highly partisan issue in the United States, with liberals, on average, supporting foreign aid much more than conservatives do.

Military

See also: Category:Bilateral military relations of the United States

As of 2016, the United States is actively conducting military operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Al-Qaeda under the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001, including in areas of fighting in the Syrian Civil War and Yemeni Civil War. The Guantanamo Bay Naval Base holds what the federal government considers unlawful combatants from these ongoing activities, and has been a controversial issue in foreign relations, domestic politics, and Cuba–United States relations. Other major U.S. military concerns include stability in Afghanistan and Iraq after the recent U.S.–led invasions of those countries, Russian military activity in Ukraine and Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. President Joe Biden has announced the end of military operations in Afghanistan by September 2021. Debate is ongoing regarding other reductions in peacekeeping roles.

Mutual defense agreements

A map of allies of the United States

  NATO member states, including their colonies and overseas possessions

  Major non-NATO allies, plus Republic of China (Taiwan)

  Signatories of Partnership for Peace with NATO

The United States is a founding member of NATO, an alliance of 29 North American and European nations formed to defend Western Europe against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Under the NATO charter, the United States is compelled to defend any NATO state that is attacked by a foreign power. The United States itself was the first country to invoke the mutual defense provisions of the alliance, in response to the September 11 attacks.

The United States also has mutual military defense treaties with:

• Australia and New Zealand
• Japan
• South Korea
• Philippines
• Thailand, with other states formerly in the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization
• Most countries in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean, through the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance

The United States has responsibility for the defense of the three Compact of Free Association states: Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau.

Other allies and multilateral organizations

Countries with U.S. military bases (excluding the U.S. Coast Guard).

In 1989, the United States also granted five nations the major non-NATO ally status (MNNA), and additions by later presidents have brought the list to 30 nations. Each such state has a unique relationship with the United States, involving various military and economic partnerships and alliances.

U.S. Air Force Special Tactics Commandos training with Jordanian special operations forces

and lesser agreements with:

• Taiwan
• Israel
• Saudi Arabia

The U.S. participates in various military-related multi-lateral organizations, including:

• Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
• International Atomic Energy Agency

The U.S. also operates hundreds of military bases around the world.

Unilateral vs. multilateral military actions

A protest sign opposing American invasion to Iraq.

The United States has undertaken unilateral and multilateral military operations throughout its history (see Timeline of United States military operations). In the post-World War II era, the country has had permanent membership and veto power in the United Nations Security Council, allowing it to undertake any military action without formal Security Council opposition. With vast military expenditures, the United States is known as the sole remaining superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S. contributes a relatively small number of personnel for United Nations peacekeeping operations. It sometimes acts through NATO, as with the NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina, NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, and ISAF in Afghanistan, but often acts unilaterally or in ad hoc coalitions as with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The United Nations Charter requires that military operations be either for self-defense or affirmatively approved by the Security Council. Though many of their operations have followed these rules, the United States and NATO have been accused of committing crimes against peace in international law, for example in the 1999 Yugoslavia and 2003 Iraq operations.

Aid

Main articles: United States military aid, United States Foreign Military Financing, and Foreign Military Sales

 

U.S. Soldiers unload humanitarian aid for distribution to the town of Rajan Kala, Afghanistan, December 2009

The U.S. provides military aid through many channels. Counting the items that appear in the budget as 'Foreign Military Financing' and 'Plan Colombia', the U.S. spent approximately $4.5 billion in military aid in 2001, of which $2 billion went to Israel, $1.3 billion went to Egypt, and $1 billion went to Colombia. Since 9/11, Pakistan has received approximately $11.5 billion in direct military aid.

As of 2004, according to Fox News, the U.S. had more than 700 military bases in 130 countries.

Estimated U.S. foreign military financing and aid by recipient for 2010:

Recipient	Military aid 2010 (USD Billions)
Iraq	6.50
Afghanistan	5.60
Israel	2.75
Egypt	1.75
Pakistan	1.60
Colombia	.834
Jordan	.300
Palestinian Authority	.100
Yemen	.070

According to a 2016 report by the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. topped the market in global weapon sales for 2015, with $40 billion sold. The largest buyers were Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Pakistan, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq.

Missile defense

Main articles: Missile defense systems by country and Strategic Defense Initiative

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a proposal by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983 to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles, later dubbed "Star Wars". The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD). Though it was never fully developed or deployed, the research and technologies of SDI paved the way for some anti-ballistic missile systems of today.

In February 2007, the U.S. started formal negotiations with Poland and Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system (in April 2007, 57% of Poles opposed the plan). According to press reports, the government of the Czech Republic agreed (while 67% Czechs disagree) to host a missile defense radar on its territory while a base of missile interceptors is supposed to be built in Poland.

Russia threatened to place short-range nuclear missiles on the Russia's border with NATO if the United States refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in Poland and the Czech Republic. In April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if the Americans deployed the shield in Central Europe. Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its obligations under an Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United States.

On August 14, 2008, the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system in Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic. "The fact that this was signed in a period of very difficult crisis in the relations between Russia and the United States over the situation in Georgia shows that, of course, the missile defense system will be deployed not against Iran but against the strategic potential of Russia", Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's NATO envoy, said.

Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, argue in Foreign Affairs that U.S. missile defenses are designed to secure Washington's nuclear primacy and are chiefly directed at potential rivals, such as Russia and China. The authors note that Washington continues to eschew nuclear first strike and contend that deploying missile defenses "would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one; as an adjunct to a US First Strike capability, not as a stand-alone shield":

If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with only a tiny surviving arsenal, if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes.

This analysis is corroborated by the Pentagon's 1992 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), prepared by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and his deputies. The DPG declares that the United States should use its power to "prevent the reemergence of a new rival" either on former Soviet territory or elsewhere. The authors of the Guidance determined that the United States had to "Field a missile defense system as a shield against accidental missile launches or limited missile strikes by 'international outlaws'" and also must "Find ways to integrate the 'new democracies' of the former Soviet bloc into the U.S.-led system". The National Archive notes that Document 10 of the DPG includes wording about "disarming capabilities to destroy" which is followed by several blacked out words. "This suggests that some of the heavily excised pages in the still-classified DPG drafts may include some discussion of preventive action against threatening nuclear and other WMD programs."

Finally, Robert David English, writing in Foreign Affairs, observes that in addition to the deployment U.S. missile defenses, the DPG's second recommendation has also been proceeding on course. "Washington has pursued policies that have ignored Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests."

Exporting democracy

See also: Democracy promotion by the United States

 

Indonesian President Suharto with U.S. President Gerald Ford in Jakarta on 6 December 1975, one day before the Indonesian invasion of East Timor.

Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations. Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive". Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results, and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.

Global opinion

International opinion about the US has often changed with different executive administrations. For example, in 2009, the French public favored the United States when President Barack Obama (75% favorable) replaced President George W. Bush (42%). After President Donald Trump took the helm in 2017, French public opinion about the US fell from 63% to 46%. These trends were also seen in other European countries.

Covert actions

Main articles: United States involvement in regime change and History of the Central Intelligence Agency

 

See also: Clandestine HUMINT and covert action

 

Covert United States involvement in regime change
20th century
1948–1960s Italy 1949 Syrian coup d'état 1949–1953 Albania 1953 Iranian coup d'état 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état 1956–57 Syria crisis 1957–58 Indonesian rebellion 1959–2000 assassination attempts on Fidel Castro 1959 Cambodia, Bangkok Plot 1960 Congo coup d'état 1961 Cuba, Bay of Pigs Invasion 1961 Cuba, Operation Mongoose 1961 Dominican Republic 1963 South Vietnamese coup d'état 1964 Brazilian coup d'état 1965–66 Indonesia, Transition to the New Order 1966 Ghanaian coup d'état 1971 Bolivian coup d'état 1970–73 Chile 1976 Argentine coup d'état 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état 1979–89 Afghanistan, Operation Cyclone 1980–92 Angola, UNITA 1981–87 Nicaragua, Contras 1982 Chad 1996 Iraq coup attempt
21st century
2012–17 Syria, Timber Sycamore

United States foreign policy also includes covert actions to topple foreign governments that have been opposed to the United States. According to J. Dana Stuster, writing in Foreign Policy, there are seven "confirmed cases" where the U.S.—acting principally through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), but sometimes with the support of other parts of the U.S. government, including the Navy and State Department—covertly assisted in the overthrow of a foreign government: Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Congo in 1960, the Dominican Republic in 1961, South Vietnam in 1963, Brazil in 1964, and Chile in 1973. Stuster states that this list excludes "U.S.-supported insurgencies and failed assassination attempts" such as those directed against Cuba's Fidel Castro, as well as instances where U.S. involvement has been alleged but not proven (such as Syria in 1949).

In 1953 the CIA, working with the British government, initiated Operation Ajax against the Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iran's oil, threatening the interests of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. This had the effect of restoring and strengthening the authoritarian monarchical reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 1957, the CIA and Israeli Mossad aided the Iranian government in establishing its intelligence service, SAVAK, later blamed for the torture and execution of the regime's opponents.

A year later, in Operation PBSuccess, the CIA assisted the local military in toppling the democratically elected left-wing government of Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala and installing the military dictator Carlos Castillo Armas. The United Fruit Company lobbied for Árbenz overthrow as his land reforms jeopardized their land holdings in Guatemala, and painted these reforms as a communist threat. The coup triggered a decades long civil war which claimed the lives of an estimated 200,000 people (42,275 individual cases have been documented), mostly through 626 massacres against the Maya population perpetrated by the U.S.-backed Guatemalan military. An independent Historical Clarification Commission found that U.S. corporations and government officials "exercised pressure to maintain the country's archaic and unjust socio-economic structure," and that U.S. military assistance had a "significant bearing on human rights violations during the armed confrontation".

During the massacre of at least 500,000 alleged communists in 1960s Indonesia, U.S. government officials encouraged and applauded the mass killings while providing covert assistance to the Indonesian military which helped facilitate them. This included the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta supplying Indonesian forces with lists of up to 5,000 names of suspected members of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), who were subsequently killed in the massacres. In 2001, the CIA attempted to prevent the publication of the State Department volume Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, which documents the U.S. role in providing covert assistance to the Indonesian military for the express purpose of the extirpation of the PKI. In July 2016, an international panel of judges ruled the killings constitute crimes against humanity, and that the US, along with other Western governments, were complicit in these crimes.

In 1970, the CIA worked with coup-plotters in Chile in the attempted kidnapping of General René Schneider, who was targeted for refusing to participate in a military coup upon the election of Salvador Allende. Schneider was shot in the botched attempt and died three days later. The CIA later paid the group $35,000 for the failed kidnapping.

Influencing foreign elections

Main article: Foreign electoral intervention

According to one peer-reviewed study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000, while the Soviet Union or Russia intervened in 36.

Human rights

See also: United States war crimes, Human rights violations by the CIA, United States and state-sponsored terrorism, and United States and state terrorism

 

Zairean dictator Mobutu Sese Seko and Richard Nixon in Washington, D.C., October 1973

Since the 1970s, issues of human rights have become increasingly important in American foreign policy. Congress took the lead in the 1970s. Following the Vietnam War, the feeling that U.S. foreign policy had grown apart from traditional American values was seized upon by Representative Donald M. Fraser (D, MN), leading the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, in criticizing Republican Foreign Policy under the Nixon administration. In the early 1970s, Congress concluded the Vietnam War and passed the War Powers Act. As "part of a growing assertiveness by Congress about many aspects of Foreign Policy," Human Rights concerns became a battleground between the Legislative and the Executive branches in the formulation of foreign policy. David Forsythe points to three specific, early examples of Congress interjecting its own thoughts on foreign policy:

1. Subsection (a) of the International Financial Assistance Act of 1977: ensured assistance through international financial institutions would be limited to countries "other than those whose governments engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights".
2. Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1984: reads in part, "No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."
3. Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1978: "No security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."

Barack Obama with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, January 2015. According to Amnesty International, "For too long, the USA has shied away from publicly confronting Saudi Arabia over its human rights record, largely turning a blind eye to a mounting catalogue of abuses."

These measures were repeatedly used by Congress, with varying success, to affect U.S. foreign policy towards the inclusion of Human Rights concerns. Specific examples include El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and South Africa. The Executive (from Nixon to Reagan) argued that the Cold War required placing regional security in favor of U.S. interests over any behavioral concerns of national allies. Congress argued the opposite, in favor of distancing the United States from oppressive regimes. Nevertheless, according to historian Daniel Goldhagen, during the last two decades of the Cold War, the number of American client states practicing mass murder outnumbered those of the Soviet Union. John Henry Coatsworth, a historian of Latin America and the provost of Columbia University, suggests the number of repression victims in Latin America alone far surpassed that of the USSR and its East European satellites during the period 1960 to 1990. W. John Green contends that the United States was an "essential enabler" of "Latin America's political murder habit, bringing out and allowing to flourish some of the region's worst tendencies".

On December 6, 2011, Obama instructed agencies to consider LGBT rights when issuing financial aid to foreign countries. He also criticized Russia's law discriminating against gays, joining other western leaders in the boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia.

In June 2014, a Chilean court ruled that the United States played a key role in the murders of Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi, both American citizens, shortly after the 1973 Chilean coup d'état.

War on Drugs

Main article: War on drugs

United States foreign policy is influenced by the efforts of the U.S. government to control imports of illicit drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and cannabis. This is especially true in Latin America, a focus for the U.S. War on Drugs. Those efforts date back to at least 1880, when the U.S. and China completed an agreement that prohibited the shipment of opium between the two countries.

Over a century later, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act requires the President to identify the major drug transit or major illicit drug-producing countries. In September 2005, the following countries were identified: Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. Two of these, Burma and Venezuela are countries that the U.S. considers to have failed to adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements during the previous 12 months. Notably absent from the 2005 list were Afghanistan, the People's Republic of China and Vietnam; Canada was also omitted in spite of evidence that criminal groups there are increasingly involved in the production of MDMA destined for the United States and that large-scale cross-border trafficking of Canadian-grown cannabis continues. The U.S. believes that the Netherlands are successfully countering the production and flow of MDMA to the U.S.

Criticism

Main article: Criticism of United States foreign policy

 

Demonstration at Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin against the NSA surveillance program PRISM, June 2013

Critics from the left cite episodes that undercut leftist governments or showed support for Israel. Others cite human rights abuses and violations of international law. Critics have charged that the U.S. presidents have used democracy to justify military intervention abroad. Critics also point to declassified records which indicate that the CIA under Allen Dulles and the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover aggressively recruited more than 1,000 Nazis, including those responsible for war crimes, to use as spies and informants against the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

The U.S. has faced criticism for backing right-wing dictators that systematically violated human rights, such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay, Efraín Ríos Montt of Guatemala, Jorge Rafael Videla of Argentina, Hissène Habré of Chad, Yahya Khan of Pakistan, and Suharto of Indonesia. Critics have also accused the United States of facilitating and supporting state terrorism in the Global South during the Cold War, such as Operation Condor, an international campaign of political assassination and state terror organized by right-wing military dictatorships in the Southern Cone of South America.

Journalists and human rights organizations have been critical of US-led airstrikes and targeted killings by drones which have in some cases resulted in collateral damage of civilian populations. In early 2017, the U.S. faced criticism from some scholars, activists and media outlets for dropping 26,171 bombs on seven countries throughout 2016: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. The U.S. has been accused of complicity in war crimes for backing the Saudi Arabian-led intervention into the Yemeni Civil War, which has triggered a humanitarian catastrophe, including a cholera outbreak and millions facing starvation.

Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations. Some scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive". Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results, and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries. A 2013 global poll in 68 countries with 66,000 respondents by Win/Gallup found that the U.S. is perceived as the biggest threat to world peace.

America's history of non-intervention has been criticized as well. In his World Policy Journal review of Bill Kauffman's 1995 book America First! Its History, Culture, and Politics, Benjamin Schwartz described America's history of isolationism as a "tragedy" and being rooted in Puritan thinking.

Support

President George W. Bush and Slovakia's Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda are greeted by a crowd of thousands gathered in Bratislava's Hviezdoslavovo Square (February 2005).

Regarding support for certain anti-Communist dictatorships during the Cold War, a response is that they were seen as a necessary evil, with the alternatives even worse Communist or fundamentalist dictatorships. David Schmitz says this policy did not serve U.S. interests. Friendly tyrants resisted necessary reforms and destroyed the political center (though not in South Korea), while the 'realist' policy of coddling dictators brought a backlash among foreign populations with long memories.

Many democracies have voluntary military ties with the United States. See NATO, ANZUS, Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan, Mutual Defense Treaty with South Korea, and Major non-NATO ally. Those nations with military alliances with the U.S. can spend less on the military since they can count on U.S. protection. This may give a false impression that the U.S. is less peaceful than those nations.

Research on the democratic peace theory has generally found that democracies, including the United States, have not made war on one another. There have been U.S. support for coups against some democracies, but for example Spencer R. Weart argues that part of the explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships. Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.

Empirical studies (see democide) have found that democracies, including the United States, have killed much fewer civilians than dictatorships. Media may be biased against the U.S. regarding reporting human rights violations. Studies have found that The New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations predominantly focuses on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations. For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the Second Congo War, which was almost completely ignored by the media.

Niall Ferguson argues that the U.S. is incorrectly blamed for all the human rights violations in nations they have supported. He writes that it is generally agreed that Guatemala was the worst of the US-backed regimes during the Cold War. However, the U.S. cannot credibly be blamed for all the 200,000 deaths during the long Guatemalan Civil War. The U.S. Intelligence Oversight Board writes that military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the U.S. helped stop a coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security services.

Bahraini pro-democracy protesters killed by the U.S.-allied regime, February 2011

Today the U.S. states that democratic nations best support U.S. national interests. According to the U.S. State Department, "Democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others. Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health." According to former U.S. President Bill Clinton, "Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other." In one view mentioned by the U.S. State Department, democracy is also good for business. Countries that embrace political reforms are also more likely to pursue economic reforms that improve the productivity of businesses. Accordingly, since the mid-1980s, under President Ronald Reagan, there has been an increase in levels of foreign direct investment going to emerging market democracies relative to countries that have not undertaken political reforms. Leaked cables in 2010 suggested that the "dark shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States' relations with the world".

The United States officially maintains that it supports democracy and human rights through several tools  Examples of these tools are as follows:

• A published yearly report by the State Department entitled "Advancing Freedom and Democracy", issued in compliance with ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2007 (earlier the report was known as "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record" and was issued in compliance with a 2002 law).
• A yearly published "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices".
• In 2006 (under President George W. Bush), the United States created a "Human Rights Defenders Fund" and "Freedom Awards".
• The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award" recognizes the exceptional achievement of officers of foreign affairs agencies posted abroad.
• The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are informal discussions between newly confirmed U.S. Ambassadors and human rights and democracy non-governmental organizations.
• The National Endowment for Democracy, a private non-profit created by Congress in 1983 (and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan), which is mostly funded by the U.S. Government and gives cash grants to strengthen democratic institutions around the world.