Climate Change Poses Threat to Food Supply, Scientists Say

[chlamor]

Climate change poses threat to food supply, scientists say
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor

27 April 2005

Worldwide production of essential crops such as wheat, rice, maize and soya beans is likely to be hit much harder by global warming than previously predicted, an international conference in London has heard.

The benefits of higher levels of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, will in fact be outweighed by the downsides of climate change, a Royal Society discussion meeting was told yesterday. It had been thought that the gas might act as a fertiliser to increase plant growth. Rising atmospheric temperatures, longer droughts and side-effects of both, such as higher levels of ground-level ozone gas, are likely to bring about a substantial reduction in crop yields in the coming decades, large-scale experiments have shown.

The two-day meeting, entitled Food Crops in a Changing Climate, is focusing largely on tropical countries where most of the world's food is grown, and where people are most vulnerable to climate change.

It is bringing together leading scientists in the fields of meteorology, climate science and agriculture to report on the latest research, including growing crops in experimental conditions in the open air that simulate advanced global warming. Previously, such experiments had taken place in closed chambers, and these had suggested that the "fertilisation" effect of rising CO2 would offset the detrimental effects of rising temperatures and drought incidence on crop production.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=633349

[shanti]

1. why does it feel

like we are being hit with "climate news" (bad, at that) on pretty much a daily basis? :-(

[unhappycamper]

8. You are hearing this type of news every day because the

Corporate Owned News can no longer suppress this information. This is not new news; scientists have been saying "climate change" for a long time.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. I was hearing about the coming climate change in the early 1970s.

[Barrett808]

19. I read the original IPCC report in 1991

I think it was...And I was suitably alarmed.

[Barrett808]

20. Seems to be happening with Peak Oil, as well n/t

[PartyPooper]

2. Well, that's one way to finally lose some weight!

:D

:hi:

[Kerrytravelers]

3. But don't worry- the wealthy will always have enough to eat.

And apparently, it is the welfare of the rich that AMerica seems to consider when voting.

So, everyone, don't worry. The rich will be just fine. Whew.

[glitch]

6. they can eat

us.

[Acryliccalico]

18. That must be the reason

we have all been fattened UP! :kick:

[Bridget Burke]

31. The chubby little kids will be especially tasty...

Tender, too!

[Delphinus]

34. Solyent Green!

Solyent Green is People! :)

[wallwriter]

15. My thoughts exactly

[vonSchloegel]

4. Highly questionable

Since CO2 levels have been increasing for the past two hundred years, shouldn't we have already noticed a decline in food production? On the contrary, world farm output continues to rise year after year.

[chlamor]

5. The decline has begun

World food production has declined in the last few years drawing down food stores to their lowest levels in years. Many countries which were once food exporters are now food importers. For a more thorough analysis look and/or listen to Lester Browns most recent reports/talks on worldwide food production.

Now not all of this diminishment is attributable to weather related stuff but much is.
Of course much arable land has gone into "development" and fresh water supplies have been reduced contributing greatly.

[vonSchloegel]

7. You're wrong

According to the FAO, food production has increased EVERY year for the past ten years. Sorry for the mess, I'm certain there is a more elegant way to post these stats, but it is beyond my expertise.

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=436&Years=2004&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=436&Years=2003&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=436&Years=2002&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=436&Years=2001&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=436&Years=2000&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=436&Years=1999&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=436&Years=1998&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=436&Years=1997&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=436&Years=1996&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=436&Years=1995&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

Moreover:

http://www.migrationint.com.au/ruralnews/georgia/jan_1997-21rmn.asp

"World food production doubled between 1973 and 1996."

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. Has world food production kept pace with world population growth?

[vonSchloegel]

12. yes

Here's the annual pin per capita, it also has increased over the past ten years:

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=438&Years=2004&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=438&Years=2003&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=438&Years=2002&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=438&Years=2001&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=438&Years=2000&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=438&Years=1999&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=438&Years=1998&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=438&Years=1997&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=438&Years=1996&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/servlet/XteServlet3?Areas=862&Items=2054&Elements=438&Years=1995&Format=Table&Xaxis=Years&Yaxis=Countries&Aggregate=&Calculate=&Domain=PIN&ItemTypes=Crops.Primary&language=EN

[chlamor]

17. Do you

have stats on last 4 years?

I don't want to wade through all those links. This contradicts-if true what Worldwatch Institute has been stating in its recent reports.

[vonSchloegel]

22. Certainly,

The pin's for the last four years:

2004 - 108.9
2003 - 106.1
2002 - 103.3
2001 - 101.5

the pin is an index that compares the amount of food produced in a year to the average from 1999 - 2001, so there was roughly 9% more food produced in 2004 as there was produced annually between 1999 and 2001.

[chlamor]

26. Thanx

I heard Lester Brown speak the other day and his figures were quite different. Perhaps we could find a breakdown of what crops are grown i.e. corn, soy say versus diversified crops. And possibly how much of the grain crops included in the FAO figures go for animal feed.

[vonSchloegel]

29. None

Of the output calculated by the FAO goes to animal feed. Things like feed, seed, and eggs incubated to raise chickens, are not included in the final result, this is just food.

You can go here:

http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/form?collection=Crops.Primary&Domain=PIN&servlet=1&hasbulk=0&version=ext&language=EN

and the calculator will let you break down the statistics by foodstuff, country, region or year

[HereSince1628]

13. Self delete as FAO gif file contained illegal code...

[bemildred]

16. "Past results are not a predictor of future performance".

Things always go up until they go down.

More to the point, weather is a chaotic system, there is no reason
at all to assume it will always change in a smooth manner, causing
smooth changes in food production. In fact that would be contrary
to simple observation, big weather and climate disasters do occur,
big famines do too.

[Viking12]

21. Simplistic reductionism

There are many factors involved in the rate of food production. To say that food production has increased therefore climate change has had no effect on farm output is not logically supportable.

Will climate change lead to a reduction in gross production? Maybe, maybe not. If the area of tilled land increases and yield/per acre is increased through chemical/bio-engineering production lost by climate change may be offset.

Will climate change result in less than maximum potential yields? Yes. Numerous studies have already demonstrated the impact of climate change on crop production. See for instance the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, July 6, 2004, vol. 101, no. 27 | 9971-9975:

The impact of projected global warming on crop yields has been evaluated by indirect methods using simulation models. Direct studies on the effects of observed climate change on crop growth and yield could provide more accurate information for assessing the impact of climate change on crop production. We analyzed weather data at the International Rice Research Institute Farm from 1979 to 2003 to examine temperature trends and the relationship between rice yield and temperature by using data from irrigated field experiments conducted at the International Rice Research Institute Farm from 1992 to 2003. Here we report that annual mean maximum and minimum temperatures have increased by 0.35°C and 1.13°C, respectively, for the period 1979–2003 and a close linkage between rice grain yield and mean minimum temperature during the dry cropping season (January to April). Grain yield declined by 10% for each 1°C increase in growing-season minimum temperature in the dry season, whereas the effect of maximum temperature on crop yield was insignificant. This report provides a direct evidence of decreased rice yields from increased nighttime temperature associated with global warming.
(subscription required):
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/27/9971?ijkey=764c391db467e3e8887e49232cb1ae7719c34373&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

A summary of the study is available here:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn6082

Will CO2 affect the nutrition value of food? Most likely. Some species grow faster, but provide reduced nutritional value. The effects of increased CO2 level off at some point; thus, continuing to increase CO2 levels will not result in increased plant growth indefinitely.

Edited to add: Also don't forget the very likely changes in the ranges of crop eating insects.

[vonSchloegel]

25. I agree,

We don't know what effect global warming will have on future crop yield. But it seems easier for everyone to believe the negative predictions, than to consider that the observed positive trend will continue. I'll never understand the pessimism of environmentalists.

As an avid gardener, I know all too well that cold weather plants will not thrive in warmer temperatures, but I also know that southern perennials, like geraniums, will do fine up north if you just bring them in for the winter. If rice won't grow because it gets too warm, you can always plant it just a little further north. Your study ignores the adaptive nature of modern agriculture.

And yes, the benefits of increased CO2 level off at some point, but note that there ARE indeed benefits. Anybody who has ever built an indoor garden knows that adding a CO2 tank will make the flowers exceptionally large and sticky. And they're always loaded with "nutrition."

[Viking12]

28. Concern is not pessimism. Increase is not necessarily positive.

You confuse "increase" (a factual statement) with "positive" (a value statement). While we have increased crop production that doesn't necessarily make it "positive." Taking into account the environmental costs of agricultural, the short term benefit will likely be outweighed by the long term costs.

Your assertion that we can just pack-it-up and move crop production is so heinously silly I won't bother to respond. Your contrarianism, marked by your inability to grasp complex systems, is getting old. I'm done feeding trolls.

[vonSchloegel]

35. Well,

After I installed the CO2 tank in MY closet, the yield was increased, and I became quite a popular person on campus. It was a very "positive" experience.

And I never said we could just pack up crop production and move it. The most dire predictions for global warming are about 1ºC over twenty five years. That's not overnight. My tomato yield was off last year because the summer was so cold, so this year, I'm planting a variety better suited to more northerly climates. Likewise, the hybrid seeds that farmers use today are quite different from those used in 1980, and a world away from those used in 1955. If their rice yield declines, they'll just switch to another variety. I'm quite certain that agriculture can adapt quite well over the next twenty five years.

And careful throwing that "T" word around. That's the kind of thing what gets you deleted.

[PaulaFarrell]

42. I wonder if you have considerted the effects of erratic seasons

For\ exampls, there were cherry trees blooimg in January where I live and I'm pretty sure no cherries are going to come off those trees. I personally don't think 25 years is enough for agriulture to adapt, especially given that the clinmate will continue to keep changing.

[NickB79]

30. Grow rice further north?

Rice requires wet conditions to grow well. Further north of much of it's current growing range in Southeast Asia, for example, starts putting it into the central plains and mountain range areas of many of those countries, where rice can't be grown successfully.

You can overdo CO2 "fertilization" and reduce growth on plants, not just level off the growth.

[vonSchloegel]

36. But isn't global warming

going to cause the plains to be flooded?

Here in North America rice is already grown well into Canada.

[LdyGuique]

37. Cool . . . the we don't have to supply any aid to the world's

starving populations -- afterall there is plenty of food to go around. It must be social reasons, such as civil war, that is the sole culprit --and afterall, that is THEIR problem, not ours.

There is no global warming, Exxon has paid for scientific reports that say so; there is no peak oil issues, there is a glut -- even Iran just said that today; and, of course, none of those people are really starving -- they're just on a radical diet. :sarcasm:

[Eloriel]

38. It's not CO2 levels per se

but the climate change involved. So even if you were correct about world farm output (which I seriously doubt), you could still be VERY wrong about what's coming (which I don't doubt for a minute).

[PaulaFarrell]

41. CO2 itself is not the problem

That is, extra CO2 in the atmosphere will not cause the deline in food production, but the rather the increased temperature. CO2 has been increasing for a long time but we are only really starting to see the effcts of climate change.In fact the article mentions that some people had predicted the increased CO2 would lead to faster growing plants and higher production, but appareantly thgis is not going to happen. So baiscally we're fucked.

[rndmprsn]

9. Global Warming

Climate Change is their frank luntz/focus grouped way of using language to minimize politically for them the damage being done to our environment.

thanks for info

[bemildred]

14. This is all informed speculation.

We don't know what's going to happen.
We just know it is going to happen.
That's what's scary.

[Geo55]

23. There is speculation that there is not enough Hydrocarbons

to facilitate a global change....hmmm....GOD in control, has knowledge of human idiotcy.........no control, we flame out in this vast thing we perceive to be the UNIVERSE.....questions,questions

[jpak]

24. Climate change and Peak Oil = the Agricultural Double Whammy

One my favorite books is: Beyond Oil - The Threat to Food and Fuel in the Coming Decades.

It was published in 1986 by the Complex Systems Research Center at the University of New Hampshire and the first scholarly analysis of the impact of oil and gas depletion on the US economy.

One of the more frightening conclusions of the report was that depletion of natural gas and oil would seriously threaten the US food supply.

The study concluded that by 2025 we would have to allocate 10% of our oil production and 60% our remaining natural gas supplies to the agricultural sector - at the expense of all other end uses of natural gas and oil.

Overlay the insults of global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, photochemical smog, the loss of farmland to sprawl, population increases and the depletion of major aquifers on top of this and it does not present a pretty picture of the near future...

[bemildred]

32. That issue (eating hydrocarbons) worries me a good deal more.

But mainly it's the "precautionary principle". We are frobbing the
levers and knobs of a machine that we don't understand, that is not
understandable in principle to some degree, and pretending that
we know what we are about. Like a kid walking down a dark alley in the
night and saying to himself "I'm prefectly safe, I know what I'm
doing, everything will be fine." I think there are potholes and open
manhole covers and maybe a mugger or two.

[november3rd]

27. front page news

This is the story of the millenium. It's going to take a meltdown of the corporate media to get it into the headlines, though.

[left15]

33. what about Wisconsin?

The study focused on tropical countries. But what about Wisconsin, and Canada, wouldn't global warming improve farming in those areas?

Can someone tell me why we pay farmers not to grow crops, when people around the world go hungry?

Instead to paying farmers not to farm, to keep the prices up, why not let the farmers farm, and keep the price up by buying excess US production to give to the hungry people of the world?

[tjwash]

39. The answer to that is a lot more complicated than a single post...

...could explain, however in a nutshell, when the temperature jumps, and by several scientists estimates, using the current amount of greenhouse gasses being pumped into the atmosphere at present, around the year 2015-2020, it could reach a critical threshold of the ratio of temperature absorption to reflected energy . From one month to the next, the climate of the world will go wild. Temperatures will jump, the ice caps of the poles will crumble pushing the sea levels up, and the snow caps on the mountain tops melt, turning even the tiniest rivulet into a roaring body of water. Cities will flooded, countries washed away. Tornadoes and hurricanes push across the globe. Harvests fail. Economies crumble. Tropical diseases like malaria and dengue push north-wards. Forests turn into deserts. And of course, millions of people perish during all the mayhem.

Cheery huh? Of course according to Bill OReilly and Rush the lush, the scientists don't know what they are talking about...

[Viking12]

40. All other factors remaining equal, it could

If deltaT were the only factor in the equation to change, midwest crop production could improve. However, all other factors are VERY unlikely to remain equal. We've already measured significant changes in the hydrological cycles. We have already significantly stressed aquifers to water crops and will be unable to depend on them in the future. There is a very high likelihood of increased insect damage. Despite bogus assertions to the contrary, we have dramatically reduced the genome variation in modern crops limiting our possibilites to adapt.

Add in the very likely oil supply problems and the prospects look even more challenging (modern agriculture is extremely fossil fuel dependent).