View Story | 358 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
The place where most of the world's people could first begin to feel the consequences of global warming may come as a surprise: in the stomach, via the supper plate. That's the view of a small but influential group of agricultural experts who are increasingly worried that global warming will trigger food shortages long before it causes better known but more distant threats, such as rising sea levels that flood coastal cities. The scale of agriculture's vulnerability to global warming was highlighted late last year when the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), an umbrella organization representing 15 of the world's top crop research centres, issued an astounding estimate of the impact of climate change on a single crop, wheat, in one of the world's major breadbaskets. Researchers using computer models to simulate the weather patterns likely to exist around 2050 found that the best wheat-growing land in the wide arc of fertile farmland stretching from Pakistan through Northern India and Nepal to Bangladesh would be decimated. Much of the area would become too hot and dry for the crop, placing the food supply of 200 million people at risk.
Link to the story:
http://www.heatisonline.org/...
Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything. Harry S. Truman
by deepsouthdoug on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 05:48:50 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
I live in an agricultural area, and I can tell you that the drought last summer took a terrific toll. The leaves on the corn plants looked positively withered. As I recall, many farm states declared a state of emergency last summer for the farmers because of the weather. Senator Conrad, too, was prepared to be a one-man fillibuster for emergency aid to farmers. I don't think you can ignore the serious impact of changing climate.
by grayslady on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:07:13 AM PDT
by causing dry weather in a number of grain growing areas, globally.
El Nino weather gives a preview of what global warming might do to grain belts in 50-100 years.
"It's the planet, stupid."
by FishOutofWater on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:24:44 AM PDT
projected wheat-growing areas of North America in a couple of decades: Canada and Alska, none in the lower 48. The Ogallala aquifer provides much of the irrigation for our grain belt, and is projected to run dry in 20 years.
Most of the rice-growing land in Bangladesh, India, etc. is coastal lowland that is already being swallowed up by the sea. The Blackwater Wildlife Refuge in MD, on the Chesapeake Bay is only half the size it was 30 years ago, and now we learn that the glacier melt is steeply accelerating, so the Bangladeshis can't just move inland, because it will be their food-growing land that disappears.
Official Culture
by Halcyon on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:04:39 AM PDT
Not that far away!
http://bbs.keyhole.com/...
by deepsouthdoug on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:33:50 AM PDT
Traditional economics has placed little or no value on natural systems and pristine land. This of course, was a grossly wrong economic assumption. The assumption was based on the apparently infinite size of the natural world compared to the world dominated by man.
Modern economists know better, but many of our national and international policies are based on the old assumption that the natural world is infinite. When we hit natural limits , something will give.
We need new policies based on correct valuation of nature. Failure to do so will result in collapse of the food supply or some other catastrophe.
by FishOutofWater on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:46:24 AM PDT
You're probably familiar with the work of the economist Herman Daly. He completely dismantles the assumptions of mainstream economics.
My question: How will capitalism, which in my understanding requires perpetual economic growth, accommodate to the sustainability imperative, which would seem to require a substantial contraction of the total economy?
My further question: How will our most fundamental values sort themselves out as we adjust to the requirements of sustainability?
We are in for an interesting ride, eh?
by DBunn on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:41:52 AM PDT
deepshouthdog and others. I think this is so important. It shows a tangible, right now effect.
Global Warming --> Your Food prices rise (Here in the US Now)
I wrote a little diary on the subject, to highlight it, and give it more discussion room.
If you love Bush, Vote John McCain '08
by biscobosco on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 01:28:33 PM PDT
...much.
Moving agriculture north means much of the growing season is lost - the shorter days prevent the growth of multiple harvests. The plants themselves just can't be picked up and moved, they have been programed to grow with X amount of sunlight a day.
It really needs to be pointed out to anyone who thinks that the grain belts will just move north that this will still result in mass starvation.
Woof!
by Mysticdog on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:18:22 AM PDT
I think the global die is cast.
by deepsouthdoug on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:53:08 AM PDT
2050 is as close to us in time as 1964.
by Rick Winrod on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:54:40 AM PDT
Did you know that something like seven out of the ten worst natural disasters have happened in Bangladesh due to the fact that most of the place is below sea level and they are subjected to horrible deadly floods? And further that of the other three on the list one other was when Bangladesh had another name. I would imagine that the 2004 Tsunami probably changed that statistic, but still those people in Bangladesh have always been living on borrowed land that the sea is poised to reclaim. It is like people who live next to volcanoes. The soil is rich and productive due to the volcanic ash, but the risk of dying is very real if there is an eruption.
by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:43:16 AM PDT
just not be by very much, and that's the big problem. Check out google earth for this. very interesting and alarming....
You'll pay me the 8s I won of you a-betting?
by Boreal Ecologist on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 09:24:54 AM PDT
able to grow food is for all intents and purposes so low that these floods are extremely deadly. I read - and this was a long time ago - that one would have to go hundreds of miles in some places to get out of the flood plain - hence the high death rate because people just couldn't get away from these floods.
by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:40:59 AM PDT
Most of it less than 50 ft AMSL based moving my mouse around in Google Earth. The northern and western borders seem to roughly coincide with slope-breaks (places where the elevation starts to rise fairly rapdily).
I think it is threatened both by floods, because, well as noted, it is a flood plain, coastal erosion, storm surges from the Bay of Bengal and mabe encroaching salinity.
A surprisingly small rise in sea level would pretty much make most of the country uninhabitable, I'm guessing, and as someone alluded, seriously reduce ability to grow food. If I wake up a little later today, I'll look this up...there must be detailed studies, althrough projecting future coastlines from changes in sea level is tricky. Especially in places like that (or the Gulf Coast USA) it is not just the absolute rise in mean sea level, but the changing equilibrium between erosion and deposition that you have to worry about.
In any case, I was just being pedantic. Bengladesh is not like Holland, much of which nearly at or even below sea level. That does not mean that a huge catastrophe is not in the works.
by Boreal Ecologist on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 11:14:05 AM PDT
Bangladeshis. In 1970 they think that as many as 500,000 people were killed by flooding from a cyclone. In 1991 about 140,000 people were killed when the storm surge from a cyclone essentailly engulfed more than 50% of the country.
It is apparently like Holland though - they both keep coming up together as being endangered countries in the global warming papers - both apparently will be affected by a sea level rise of only one metre. Part of the reason that they are cited may be because they are one in the top ten most populated countries. That country is jam packed with people. Here's an intersting link to a topline description of the country that may interest you.
http://www.worldinfozone.com/...
by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 11:58:08 AM PDT
The DVD was released in 2005..Great performers, Harrison, Starr, Clapton, Dylan
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
by mariachi mama on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:08:35 PM PDT
is minor in a certain sense of absolute elevation. I still think I am correct in that considerable areas of Holland really are at or below sea level, not just close to it. This is not strictly true of Bangladesh. Much more important difference is, the Dutch are rich. Otherwise, I agree entirely that Bangladesh faces huge challenges. I now summarise some tidbits from a quick google search.
A summary discussion of climate change effects in a broader regional context is here
According to one study, 1.5m sea level rise would innundate 16% of the nations land area, and displace 15% of the population (this indicates, as one might guess from snooping on Google Earth) that the population and agricultural potential is not disproportionately distributed along the actual coast. Thank god for small mercies. The study does not estimate secondary (though presumably larger) inland effects of storm surges and what not.
For an explicit comparison of sea level effects in Bangladesh and the Netherlands, which highlights the economic differences I pulled out my hat, see this short (pdf) report by Germanwatch
I note some reports surfaced on my search (so to speak) with much higher estimates of proportional innundation due to 1m rise in sea level. It is possible that the UNEP study (15-16%) underestimates the net effect by not accounting for an additional geological process of subsidence. I have not gone into them carefully enough to assess which is most reliable, and don't have the technical expertise in any case. I have done a little serious digging into the related matter of sea-level effects in the Canadian Arctic, and I said indicated earlier, predicting the effects is complicated, not just a matter of fiddling with a topographic map.
But to return to the subject in question, I totally agree that Bangladesh is likely to be a humanitarian and ecological catastrophe in fairly near future. I am very sorry to say, but I am apprehensive that little mitigation will be attempted or is even possible.
(And yes, I even the Concert on vinyl. Somewhere)
by Boreal Ecologist on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 01:21:12 PM PDT
level and that was why I mentioned that the reason Bangladesh may be mentioned in tandem with Holland so often might be more about populations density - therefore posing a danger to many lives and livelihoods that they would be cited for that alone. Plus you are right. Holland is rich and Bangladesh is extremely poor and corrupt which does not give one great hope that they would be able to finance and execute a system of dykes or whatever to stem the rising tide...
The mere displacement of millions and millions of people is going to be a huge issue.
I wish I had that concert on vinyl.
by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 01:34:29 PM PDT
was inspired by a link gmoke posted to an interactive map of sea level rise, in his diary yesterday, which I followed because I'm staying on an island in the Gulf of Mexico whose highest elevation is 6'. I plugged in the 1 meter sea level rise, and found out that my island will disappear (according to IPCC by 2080, based on their now outdated projection). I googled more and found Lester R. Brown's free e-book Plan B 2.0, which is a description, and prescription for our future.
by Halcyon on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:19:58 PM PDT
I've lived on a few.
The flat ones really are so beautiful too. I hope that they either don't get swallowed up or that I don't live to see them swallowed up.
Then again, man has gotten a bit cockey about establishing out posts on these islands that are probably best left for the occastional visit rather than permanent inhabitation. There is usually a reason that the local indians only stopped by and never settled.
by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:30:34 PM PDT
in 1926, which permanently ended its exploitation by Caucasians for vegetable production, due to the storm surge's salting of the soil. It is now almost entirely built out with condos and 'trophy homes'. It has been a gold mine for contractors for decades, in collusion with city planners who routinely violated the city plan, granting building permits with a 'wink and a nod', in exchange for free swimming pools and additions to their own homes. The 3-mile-long causeway, built in 1963, is now being replaced with a new causeway, which I'm betting won't be needed long before its lifespan is completed (if it survives 'the big one'). We've been wintering here for 18 years and are ready now to acknowledge the inevitable and sell our home, which is now considered a 'tear-down'. It's not worth hurricane insurance, since the premiums would be better spent paying to haul away the debris. The lot is the value, so far. Our neighborhood was one of the first ones built, when people were actually modest in their expectations and desires for island life. Now it is being taken over by illegally permitted hulking monsters built 'on spec'. In a few years this place will only serve as a vacation destination where the tourist industry can 'make a buck'. Year-round residents, in order to preserve their equity, should seriously consider selling and moving within the next five years in order to enable themselves to start over elsewhere. In conversations with them, I detect no such awareness.
by Halcyon on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:44:37 PM PDT
Mostly the Bangladeshis won't die in floods, they'll leave Bangladesh and potentially destabilize other countries where they end up: India, Pakistan, ... ? The dire poverty there is already tilting a mostly Muslim population that was traditionally fairly moderate towards greater extremism. Dislocation will do the same, only more so.
"What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" - J. Madison
by berith on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:30:07 PM PDT
As El Nino is cyclical, we won't need to wait 50-100 years to see these effects again. I recall reading that the recent El Nino was stronger than usual, and also that it held off hurricanes last year. Also that its receding has led to predictions of a stronger hurricane season this year. If I have understood this correctly, it sounds like we are likely to have one or the other in a given year: drought or bad hurricanes. Ouch! If anyone has better info on El Nino, that would be great.
by liz on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:53:02 AM PDT
I don't know why this isn't talked about more when people talk about climate change. As we accelerate change to a hotter climate it will effect soil, water, and crops directly via elevated temperature. Crop yields will decline and land suitable for growing crops will diminish.
Our modern lifestyle has abstracted us from nature and deluded us into living as if we depend on the "economy" for our survival. We actually depend on agriculture for our survival, which is 100% dependant on a healthy natural world that grows plants easily. Getting enough food to survive with as little labor involved makes everything else that we call the "ecomomy" possible.
Love = Awareness of mutually beneficial exchange across semi-permeable boundaries. Political and economic systems either amplify or inhibit Love.
by Bob Guyer on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:32:16 AM PDT
I don't mean to trivialize anything said in this thread, but I honestly think that any policy maker or even voter should be required to play Sid Meier's Civilization game for at least some significant number of hours. That game shows very dramatically the chain of causality from food production to the rise and advancement of civilization as we commonly use the term.
The Cost of Energy
by loudGizmo on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:33:25 AM PDT
It seems so obvious, but it took reading Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel to focus my attention on the importance of food. Just shows how stupid a person can get when gorwing up out of synch with nature.
by Bob Guyer on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:48:59 AM PDT
-- or for just a quick look at the game, try Freeciv.
I've played it, and the experience is pretty comparable to Civ II (which came out in the late '90s, IIRC). Not bad for a free strategy game.
by lemming22 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 11:45:01 AM PDT
that climate change is having: prices. All of these bullshitter denialists that complain about the cost of mitigation are totally overlooking the severe economic impacts of doing nothing.
Sí Se Puede Cambiar
by pontechango on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:11:48 AM PDT
... in developing countries is going to be more significant than the effect of rising inflation among the world's affluent. People who have been accustomed to being fed adequately are not going to starve quietly. This may make some poorer nations effectively ungovernable.
by berith on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:37:51 PM PDT
We've been being hit for 20 years:
"... Precipitation in the US was above average in the center, while large sections of the East, Southeast and West were drier than average. The global average temperature was the warmest on record for the December-February period. ... In January, the coldest climate was registered in Southern Plains and in the West, determined by upper-level wind patterns. States like Arizona, Texas and even Southern California experienced snow and ice, with California suffering important losses in orange production. ... The conclusions [of a draft IPCC report] are negative for agriculture: it appears that the global warming process has produced damages to almost every commonly grown grains over 20 years. The damages are estimated at $5 billion. Warming temperatures from 1981 to 2002 cut the combined production of wheat, corn, barley and other crops by 40 million tonnes per year."
"... Precipitation in the US was above average in the center, while large sections of the East, Southeast and West were drier than average. The global average temperature was the warmest on record for the December-February period.
... In January, the coldest climate was registered in Southern Plains and in the West, determined by upper-level wind patterns. States like Arizona, Texas and even Southern California experienced snow and ice, with California suffering important losses in orange production.
... The conclusions [of a draft IPCC report] are negative for agriculture: it appears that the global warming process has produced damages to almost every commonly grown grains over 20 years. The damages are estimated at $5 billion.
Warming temperatures from 1981 to 2002 cut the combined production of wheat, corn, barley and other crops by 40 million tonnes per year."
Agriculture, not just some generalized idea of plant growth, depends on stable weather patterns and don't let anyone tell you different (it is a common denial argument that warming will improve crop growth.) Varieties often have to be carefully adapted to a local climate, with many aspects of plant growth being carefully timed to seasonal cues.
Also, warming temperatures help insects proliferate. Insects reproduce along a timeline that progresses in "degree days," in other words, if you multiply the number of days by the number of degrees during which the temperature is above a set point, you get the degree days. Insect life cycles and reproduction rates thus speed up in warmer weather, slowing, or even stopping, in colder weather.
I took a lot of insect pictures when I visited Costa Rica last summer, and you just could never escape the bugs. That's what you get when it's warm all the time. They were everywhere, all the time, except in those places that were sealed and air-conditioned. Global warming is going to be bringing those sorts of conditions farther north. What fun.
Get your natasha fix at Pacific Views!
by natasha on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:39:00 AM PDT
usually, central valley freezes are mediated by the pea soup-thick fog that forms when moist ground meets freezing alaskan air. but because this winter was so dry, there was no moisture to form the tule fog, and the citrus took the brunt of the 19-degree freeze.
whether the drought is related to climate change is still up in the air, but i wouldn't be surprised. it certainly was an exceptionally warm winter, and it feels like may right now.
surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat
by wu ming on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:05:46 AM PDT
California frost really affected prices citrus being the highest Also noticed that avocado are now from Chile. so it does affect locally , in that more importing becomes necessary.
"And if my thought-dreams could be seen They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Bob Dylan
by shaharazade on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 10:46:58 AM PDT
We live in SoCal nad have a number of citrus trees and an avocado tree on our property.
The avodacado tree is of the Gwen variety--its fruit is unbelievable--a very mild, nutty, creamy fruit that tastes so much better than the Hass or Fuertes varieties found in supermarkets.
Unfortunately, the avocado tree was affected much more by the cold this year than the citrus trees; all the foliage dies in the cold snap and we had to cut off some of the branches. The tree is thankfully alive and putting out new foliage, but there will be no fruit this year. Maybe not next year, either--there may not be enough foliage to nourish a full crop of fruit.
In previous years it yielded more fruit than we knew what to do with.
by marci in ca on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 11:34:34 AM PDT
from that same website. Byline is Reuters March 16th,2007. From a draft U.N. report,which is to be released in April:
Global warming has cut about $5 billion worth of the world's most commonly grown grains over 20 years, according to a new study. Warming temperatures from 1981 to 2002 cut the combined production of wheat, corn, barley and other crops by 40 million tonnes per year, according to the peer-reviewed study published in Environmental Research Letters on Friday. "Most people tend to think of climate change as something that will impact the future," Christopher Field, a co-author on the study and ecology expert at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California, said in an e-mail response to questions. "This study shows that warming over the past two decades has already had effects on global food supply," he added.
Global warming has cut about $5 billion worth of the world's most commonly grown grains over 20 years, according to a new study.
Warming temperatures from 1981 to 2002 cut the combined production of wheat, corn, barley and other crops by 40 million tonnes per year, according to the peer-reviewed study published in Environmental Research Letters on Friday.
"Most people tend to think of climate change as something that will impact the future," Christopher Field, a co-author on the study and ecology expert at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California, said in an e-mail response to questions.
"This study shows that warming over the past two decades has already had effects on global food supply," he added.
Wow. Yeah, my first thought in reading this diary was why is production down across the board? Yikes.
by biscobosco on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 11:50:56 AM PDT
in his book, Collapse. A small shift in climate tips the Australian wheat belt over the line from having enough rain for dryland wheat farming to having too little. The drought there may be the beginning of a permanent change which could eliminate one of the world's more significant grain exporters.
by berith on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 12:34:15 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 358 comments