Wheat Feels the Heat

(A follow up to DarkSyde's terrific post on Arctic ice.)

In yesterday's commodity trading, wheat closed at record highs.  Why is wheat shooting up?  Because a hot, dry wind in Australia threatens to strip the last drop of moisture from fields that are already hurting for rain.  At the same time, several other countries in the Southern Hemisphere have turned from wheat exporters, to wheat importers.  But if today's trading was focused on problems in the south, that's not the only place where rains have been sporadic in the last couple of years.  Wheat growing areas in many northern countries, including Eastern Europe and the United States, have faced unusually hot and dry weather.  

As with any short-term weather pattern, it's difficult to say if the wheat shortage is directly related to the broader issue of climate change -- though with widespread and persistent droughts in several areas, it's tempting to draw that connection.  However, what this phenomenon does show is the idiocy behind those "climate change might not even be bad" statements pouring from such right wing organizations as the American Enterprise Institute.  

Yes, a warmer climate might ultimately result in a greater net biomass on Planet Earth.  It might even mean that one day we have a larger wheat crop.  But since wheat farms are located in the places where wheat has grown well in the past, not those places where it will grow in some future climate regime, the immediate effect of climate change will be enormous disruptions to the very basics.

Observers in Europe said hikes in bread prices are inevitable.

"We'll be very surprised if general bread prices don't go up because the pressures upon us all are the same," Robert Schofield, Chief Executive of Premier Foods, Britain's biggest food producer, told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Just a hint, AEI.  You better warm up the spin machine, because when a loaf of Wonder Bread starts to top the price of a gallon of high test, even those who have snoozed through the climate change debate so far are going to start to notice.

•  Great point

  Bread and circuses won't work without the bread.

  by ignatz uk on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:49:08 AM PDT

  •  Paired with

    
    Bread and circuses won't work without the bread.
    
    And the parable of the loaves and fishes wouldn't work very well either. Especially now given that overexploitation by humans has driven the great oceanic fisheries to outright collapse as well. Note that fish are the traditional source of cheap protein for the Third World poor. Without that, they are heading for Soylent Green territory.

    Sigh. If we had some ham, we could have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.

    Meanwhile, as global food supplies are poised to shrink precipitously, global human population continues to grow at a completely irrational and unsustainable clip. Which includes the United States, which a few short generations ago was actually stabilizing in terms of population growth. Now we are back on the rocket sled (thanks to a flood of immigrants who are reproducing way above replacement level) and the nation is now due to blow through the mark of HALF A BILLION Americans by midcentury.

    My guess is that things are going to be getting pretty hungry in the by and by.

    --

    by marquer on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 11:28:44 AM PDT

    •  Aye but the latest

      population growth charts I've seen have the world slowing down.  I can't quite remember all the Limits To Growth stuff, but maybe some weird mixture of conflict, increasing political uncertainty and - hopefully - decreasing poverty and less capitalistic capitalism, might cap our population expansion before the food runs out.

      Here's hoping, anyway...

      by ignatz uk on Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 02:25:49 AM PDT

•  Record wheat harvest this year in Colorado

  Eastern Colorado had a record wheat harvest this year and much of it is sitting on the ground because there aren't enough rail cars and trucks to haul it.

  From the Los Angeles Times, just four days ago, Mountains of wheat grow as price rises:

  Grain-elevator operators have overflow wheat piling up on the ground -- as much as 10 million bushels statewide -- which is vulnerable to rain and windstorms. "It makes you nervous," said Steve Bahnsen, general Paoli Farmers Co-op manager, who estimates he has $1.9 million worth of wheat -- 300,000 bushels -- piled in front of his elevator.

  The problem, officials said, is that Colorado has suffered through a lingering drought that depressed wheat yields for the last decade. Grain-hauling outfits went bankrupt and rail lines didn't schedule as many cars to run to the high plains.

  This summer's bounty follows -- and in large part is due to -- the brutal winter, which left behind much-needed moisture. Now there isn't enough transportation to take the wheat bonanza to the Gulf or Pacific coasts, where 80% of it is usually shipped for export.

  Gov. Bill Ritter declared a statewide emergency late last month to allow vehicles with farm license plates to haul wheat to rail yards.

  by Magnifico on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:50:08 AM PDT

  •  The problems this year

    Were mostly in areas to the east of CO.

    Still... crops rotting in the fields because the trains can't be made available.  I remember that exact example of inefficiency in Russia used as a way to demonstrate how communism would never be compete.

    by Devilstower on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:55:55 AM PDT

  •  Not sure if it's related

    But here in Seattle, which ships around 1/3 of the wheat that this country exports, being a major port and rail terminus, the grain tankers have been stacked one after another like I've never seen, waiting their turn at the grain terminal on Elliot Bay.

    That's a lot of cookies and pizza dough.

    by kovie on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:03:56 AM PDT

  •  So the abundance is purely situational and due to

    years of previous bad harvests, not due to the introduction of a new rust resistent variety for example.
    If harvests are going to become more erratic over the years, then an adequate infrastructure to transport production becomes essential, which means roads, bridges and railways, exactly what the GOP has been starving for years now.  

    by entlord1 on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:19:41 AM PDT

    •  WSU major developer of wheat varieties

      I've seen some terminals overflowing in Wheat Land. Maybe it's the same all over, maybe not. Maybe the rails are at capacity already. I know they looked crowded, but lots of flat cars go back to port empty. There may be a convertible container design that takes wheat to port on the empty flats.

      Or, if the fields are producing more than can be used, it could pay to grow premium varieties on some fields, either with access to dedicated elevators, or maturing at different times.

      WSU has an active breeding program, so check them out:

      WSU Receives $680,000 Grant for Organic Wheat Breeding
      ...
      For the past five years, Jones has been crossing modern wheat varieties with 163 varieties grown from the 1840's to the 1950's, a period of time preceding the use of nitrogen fertilizers and other inputs.

      by chimpy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:05:55 AM PDT

  •  'depressed wheat yields for the last decade'

    Right.  All the GW deniers and the AEI types (and the corporate media) will focus on is this year's record harvest.  They will completely ignore the fact that the US grain surplus has been trending downward for the last decade or so.

    by sxwarren on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:19:47 AM PDT

    •  More gain stats

      There's a huge amount of info in  the FAS report

      From yesterdays wheat diary.

      by Downpuppy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:45:43 AM PDT

      •  Great diary, but your FAS link gets a '404'.

        You somehow "doubled" the URL.  Edited, it works though.  Thanks!

        by sxwarren on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:19:16 AM PDT

        •  Doh!

          August is
          http://www.fas.usda.gov/...

          & the full archives are
          http://www.fas.usda.gov/...

          by Downpuppy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:24:06 AM PDT

          •  to elucidate

            we have had a series of wheat production failures among major exporting nations around the world the last two years, and they've all been for different reasons.  it started when russia and eastern europe lost much of their crop to an extremely severe winter (for those who are unfamiliar, there are two types of wheat; some is planted in fall, revives in spring and ripens in summer, and the rest is spring planted and fall harvested.  add northern and southern hemisphere production, and wheat supplies are constantly being replenished, which has made this situation all the more unusual).  the US southern plains suffered severe drought last year and australia had a major crop failure.  this year, the easter weekend freeze destroyed the crop here in arkansas, which was just heading, and damaged crops to the west.  heavy rains in the southern plains did further damage.  europe was too wet in the west and too dry in the east.  I'm not saying it isn't climate change; it could well be--all of these violent changes in weather patterns could be due to the turbulence caused by the steady warming of the earth.  typically when a major exporter (the US, EU, canada, australia, argentina, and now russia/ukraine) has a bad crop, it only takes six months or a year for wheat supplies to be restored and prices to fall.  but over the last two years, we've put a dollar/bushel on the market with every new calamity, every six months.  another problem--wheat has to compete for acreage with corn, which is in demand for ethanol and animal feed, and oilseeds like soybeans, used for biodiesel and also animal feed.  government subsidies for biofuels are helping to keep wheat acreage down.

            by gjdodger on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:03:37 AM PDT

            •  Turbulence.

              The timing and quantity of local precipitation is largely dependent on long- and short-term oscillations and interactions ("teleconnections") of large scale weather features (El Nino/La Nina, the NAO, the Arctic Oscillation, etc).  The pattern of these oscillations and interactions has been fairly stable, more or less in a very specific equilibrium,  for the 10+ millennia during which the human species has expanded its range, domesticated the handful of plant and animal species that provide us with the bulk of "our daily bread" that, in turn, enabled humanity to develop its sophisticated social organizations, economies (actually highly abstract representations of acquisition/distribution of "our daily bread", IMHO) and technologies.

              In the aggregate, it might be said that these large scale patterns represent the swirls and eddies in the system that conveys planetary heat from the equator to the poles.  I believe that it's one of the predictions of Global Warming research that the poles, especially the Arctic, would warm faster than equatorial regions.  

              It's not difficult to imagine that adding an extraordinary amount of heat energy to this system is likely to alter the behavior of these large patterns significantly, nudge them out of their long-standing equilibrium.  I'm guessing that the planet is currently experiencing the beginnings of the destruction of that equilibrium, resulting in wild swings in local weather.  Eventually, a new equilibrium will be established, I'd guess, but this new regime may be significantly different than the "old" regime and much less favorable to established human agriculture.  I'm also guessing that new climate constraints on agricultural production and distribution, in addition to the wars over hydrocarbon and fresh water resources, will overtake human society long before our coastal cities might be permanently flooded by rising sea levels.

              This potential crisis of the imposition of new physical limits on agricultural production is exacerbated and, perhaps, accelerated by corporations and governments playing the commodities markets (both food and energy) for short-term financial gain.  I feel that what's required is a global, "big picture" re-evaluation of current agricultural production and distribution systems and methods with a goal of determining how human society may need to re-engineer these systems to keep itself fed in the face of potential new climate/weather constraints.  However, I think that there will be exponentially greater resistance to this than there is to efforts to re-engineer our energy systems to reduce potential human contributions to Global Warming itself.

              by sxwarren on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:52:14 AM PDT

          •  Earth Policy Institute from last year:

            WORLD GRAIN STOCKS FALL TO 57 DAYS OF CONSUMPTION

            And from The Southwest Farm Press, May 2007:
            Wheat stocks should remain tight until June 2008.

            So, applying current figures from Australia and the US, I wonder where we stand now.

            by sxwarren on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:08:34 AM PDT

            •  wonder no more

              as of august 1, USDA had the '07-08 world stocks to use ratio at 18.5%.  in may, they only had it at 18.1%.  of course, if australia's as bad as they're saying, that would change things.

              by gjdodger on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:14:36 AM PDT

•  I can't remember the last real snow in GA

  When I was a kid we usually had two or three good snowfalls every winter.  One in 1980 left 12" on the ground.  

  Other than a few icestorms and flurries I can't remember seeing real winter precipitation in decades.

  I am lucky to have my garden near a water source, otherwise it would have dried up two months ago.  Next year I am going to begin collecting water in cisterns though I really don't know how much would be required to keep a 1/2 acre garden watered in a drought.  

  by pkbarbiedoll on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:50:26 AM PDT

  •  Drought in the SE

    The Carolinas are one area where rainfall has fallen behind in the last few years, to the point where not just reservoirs, but wells, are getting down to their last drops.

    Meanwhile, other areas are seeing record rains.  And of course, we can't posit any definitive trends from what we're seeing, since as the climate changes, the patterns will change over and over again.

    What's dry today could be a swamp ten years from now, and a desert again ten years after that.

    by Devilstower on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:54:06 AM PDT

    •  What "just folks" just "don't get" -

      As water temps rise, wind patterns change.

      THIS leads to bigtime climate shifts.
      THAT'S why YOU may be extra-cold one winter (or one summer!), and THAT'S why ANY change is a red flag for disaster.

      Not that hard to explain to anyone, really, when you put it that way.

      by Blue Waters Run Deep on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:01:56 AM PDT

      •  OF course it doesn't take milenium of climate

        change to effect major changes in flora and fauna.  The loss of the megafauna in North America seems to have happened within one hundred to one thousand years.

        by entlord1 on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:21:45 AM PDT

        •  Antarctic ice cores have shown

          that from 150 years ago, exactly at the beginning of the height of the industrial revolution, massive amts of human-caused pollutants in the air, the effects of which are felt today in geometrically increasing amounts.

          by Blue Waters Run Deep on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:24:15 AM PDT

    •  Global Pattern of Heat, Drought, Floods (link)

      Europe has had flood in the north and record heat in the south, depressing their crops also. Os this a new status quo?

      http://inel.wordpress.com/...

      by bernardpliers on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:14:55 AM PDT

    •  In North Carolina...

         there was little rainfall in August but we also experienced the highest temperatures ever recorded for any month, any year. At RDU in Raleigh, we had 12 days where the temperature set or matched record highs for those dates. I have my own well which is over 200 ft deep so I'm OK thus far. With watering restrictions in some towns the fine for violations on 2nd offenses are $2000. The third violation gets your water shut off completely.
          Wheat may be the issue of concern for this diary and for those that consume large quantities of bread but water will be the resource that brings riots and deaths to many areas of the world. Large corporations are already studying ways to market water worldwide more efficiently and take advantage of the citizens of the world.

      by NC Dem on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:25:05 AM PDT

      •  Same in SW Ohio

        August was the hottest and driest month ever.  We're officially in an "extreme drought".  We're 12" behind on rainfall.

        The future of water supplies is what worries me the most, as NC Dem said.  It's the most precious and necessary resource we have.

        Mel

        by ClickerMel on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:57:47 AM PDT

        •  Same in Mass and New Hampshire

          August was the second driest month on record - less than a half an inch of rain fell.

          by AnneElizabeth on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:10:25 AM PDT

•  I don't

  think people understand what 'greater biomass' really means. It could mean algal blooms of variously nasty kinds, or outbreaks of mold and fungi, coral reef crashes in some places and jellyfish and parasite swarms in others. When people hear biomass they tend to think of lush green jungle or wet woodlands. But there's plenty of life that either doesn't do us a bit of good or is downright unfriendly to us and our ways of modern subsistence.

  by DarkSyde on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:53:26 AM PDT

  •  Right. 'Lush, green jungle' has yet to produce

    plant life that could be domesticated to produce calories in the quantity that's anywhere near what's required to support current human populations.

    by sxwarren on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:11:28 AM PDT

  •  how about that proliferation of jellies

    in oceans where fish predators are overfished. There's some biomass we don't necessarily need more of (unless we can all come up with some great jellyfish recipes really fast).  As we change the planet in various ways, there may be just as many creatures around, just not the right kind.

    Though with the massive proliferation of Canada Geese, perhaps we will all be looking to the fat flying footstools of the sky for our future nourishment.

    by decembersue on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:21:19 AM PDT

    •  I've eaten jellyfish.

      It's gawdawful.

      by northsylvania on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:36:39 AM PDT

      •  Cnidaria is one multicellular-animal phylum

        ... that seems particularly unlikely to produce anything useful for human nourishment.

        by lotlizard on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:40:28 AM PDT

      •  kurage

        Don't try to tell the Japanese that jellyfish (kurage) are not edible.

        I eat it here quite often.

        by PoPEar on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:57:57 AM PDT

        •  Mine was Vietnamese

          There were two of them that sat in state atop some noodles, along with some form of unusually inedible sausage. I'm usually crazy about Vietnamese food, but not jellyfish a la mode.

          by northsylvania on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:40:49 AM PDT

  •  And much of that biomass

    will be of lower nutritional value, even if notionally "wheat" or other crops due to rising CO2 levels.  We might have more that will be worth far less ...

    by A Siegel on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:13:50 AM PDT

•  AEI is just wingnut propaganda.

  The only people whose interests they represent are their own.

  by manwithnoname on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:55:16 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately, they have reach and influence

    in the current "decision-making" environment.

    :/

    Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
      Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
    Tempest even in reason's seat.

    by GreyHawk on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:58:15 AM PDT

  •  It's where Paul Wolfowitz works now

    ... as a "visiting scholar," after his glorious World Bank adventure.

    by lotlizard on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:38:32 AM PDT

•  Climate change == volatility

  Yes, you can find a crop that grows well in most climates, but if the climate is changing, you don't know what crop to grow from one year to the next.

  It's the volatility seems to be the Big Issue, not the trend.  I'm working in the UK at the moment, and 2006 was one of the driest years on record, while 2007 was one of the wettest.  The farmers got hammered both years.  What are they to expect in 2008?

  by DemCurious on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:56:03 AM PDT

  •  asdf

    I'm working in the UK at the moment, and 2006 was one of the driest years on record, while 2007 was one of the wettest.  The farmers got hammered both years.  

    Farmers in the American SE had the opposite pattern, plus a huge killing frost on Easter that wiped out entire crops.

    by bernardpliers on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:18:29 AM PDT

•  Also read feduphoosier's piece.

  To dust we shall return is a great piece that feduphoosier posted shortly before midnight last night.

  Here's the text from the BuzzFlash entry I posted about it:

  Excerpts from feduphoosier's provocative piece: "The dust storms of the 1930s began with intense heat... and drought. The heat and drought grew increasingly worse, until at last the wind came and the soil simply blew away. ... the dirt probably won't blow away this time, due to modern farming practices. But add climate change to the mix, and long term affects of a megadrought are hard to predict. ... The long term affects have yet to be seen, but it appears the changes are already upon us..."

  We've front-paged her piece on ePluribus Media -- it's fantastic, and quite timely.

  ...thanks, DT.

  Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
    Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
  Tempest even in reason's seat.

  by GreyHawk on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:57:03 AM PDT

  •  People often forget that Nebraska

    is covered with thin sheet of topsoil covering a massive sand dune.  

    http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/...

    It is now known that most dune fields in the region have been active many times in the past 10,000 years and even within the past 3,000 years. The same is true for many dune fields in the western United States. Thus, dunes in both regions can be active under an essentially modern, interglacial climatic regime. Although most dune fields in both the central and western U.S. are now stable, future climates or land use practices could activate them. In the Great Plains, this would result in serious impacts on grazing resources, croplands, wildlife habitats and transportation routes. In the western United States, many dune fields occur on Federal lands administered by the National Park Service (NPS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), or Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Land officials with these agencies need to understand the potential for landscape changes due to dune reactivation in order to provide enlightened guidance for land management.

    The myth that climate change will be good for America is dangerous.

    by DWG on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:15:33 AM PDT

    •  Dangerous, foolhardy...and profitable for those

      who seek to avoid accountability long enough for them to find someone else to hold accountable.

      :/

      Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
        Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
      Tempest even in reason's seat.

      by GreyHawk on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:37:36 AM PDT

      •  That says it all n/t

        by DWG on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:51:39 AM PDT

    •  The Sand Hills region of Nebraska

      is roughly 25,000 square miles, about one third of the  state. There isn't any topsoil in most of the region, except for river valleys. It's grass covered sand dunes that sit over part of the Ogalalla Aquifer.

      It's a starkly beautiful region full of contrasts, an apparently semi-desert dune region that's dotted with clear water lakes and dissected by the North, Middle and South Loup Rivers in its center and the Niobrara River in the north.

      Most of the area is privately owned ranch land. All of the ranchers, and most Nebraskans, are aware of the fragility of the region and its potential for destabilization. The ranchers are careful not to overgraze the dunes. They reduce their herd size in drought cycles. Ted Turner is the largest landowner in the Sand Hills, and the state, at 290,000 acres.

      A great trip thru the Sand Hills, if you can justify the fossil fuel consumption, is to take the I-80 exit at Grand Island, drive Hwy. 2 to Thedford, take Hwy. 83 north to Valentine and then go to Smith Falls state park, 18 miles east. The Niobrara River is beautiful there, great for canoeing and birding.

      by dirtfarmer on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 08:15:50 AM PDT

      •  I know the area well

        I often stop when heading out I80 to get to Rocky Mountain National Park or Grand Tetons/Yellowstone.

        I am glad to hear that people are respectful of the fragility.  Even so, climate will place further stress on the land.  

        by DWG on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 08:36:30 AM PDT

        •  Agreed. And ever increasing ground water use

          for corn irrigation combined with various schemes by distant metro areas to tap the Ogalalla Aquifer could make things get really ugly.

          by dirtfarmer on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:01:11 AM PDT

          •  Oh yeah

            This one in particular.  T. Boone Pickens can go to hell.  He wants turn Nebraska into a desert so he can sell water to Texas cities.  

            various schemes by distant metro areas to tap the Ogalalla Aquifer could make things get really ugly.

            by DWG on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:33:12 AM PDT

  •  floods & drought at the same time, same state

    You need Bill Murray to narrate..

    by Downpuppy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:56:11 AM PDT

•  Umm...

  Let them eat (wheat-free) cake? ;-)

  AEI = American Evil Institute (except Norm Ornstein--poor fella).

  by kovie on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:57:57 AM PDT

•  Exactly what my Australian friends have told me.

  ... a hot, dry wind in Australia threatens to strip the last drop of moisture from fields that are already hurting for rain.

  This is not only hurting their economy, their farmers, and the national product output of Australia, but much of their wheat goes also to their sheep population, which are shipped to other countries around the world, especially needy ones, as well as their wheat.

  I am afraid of the ripple effects that something like this can have; one country reels and another feels the ripples.

  Kind of like a tidal wave of effects.

  by Blue Waters Run Deep on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 04:59:39 AM PDT

•  Well, down here in San Antonio

  We've had close to record setting rains, the aquifer is almost at record levels and it has been a cooler than normal summer.

  So global warming is a hoax.

  At least, that is what the wingnuts are saying...and our summer is their "proof".

  So, corn prices skyrocket because of the ethanol craze, now wheat is going to get expensive?

  That really is not good news.  Kind of predictable, but not good.

  I cry when I see the beautiful fertile lands that get paved over and turned into big box crap-extravaganzas or McMansion subdivisions.  Land that could feed the people that destroy it....I guess we reap what we sow.

  by blue armadillo on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:03:22 AM PDT

•  China endorsed Kyoto over non-binding bs

  From the Sydney Herald

  The President of China, Hu Jintao, has delivered a strong endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol saying the United Nations negotiated treaty remains the most effective way of tackling climate change.

  The speech is a setback for Prime Minister John Howard who was hoping to persuade countries participating in the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation summit that an alternative international arrangement should be set up to replace Kyoto when its first phase expires in 2012.

  Mr Hu told the opening of the APEC business summit that climate change was a significant issue facing the world but that it was also "ultimately a development issue".

  He said the Kyoto Protocol was the appropriate "path for action" and he supported its consideration of the differing needs of developing and developed countries.

  Australia and the United States are pushing for a different international arrangement to begin early next decade that would be based on non-binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

  The Bush-Howard do-nothing proposal was less popular.

  by DWG on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:04:40 AM PDT

  •  He also recently reaffirmed Aussie's in Iraq

    despite opposition there. The guys days have to be numbered. The only reason he's in there is because of some extreme xenophobia in certain regions, but that can't carry him forever.

    by decembersue on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:24:15 AM PDT

•  It may not be limted to wheat in the long run.

  And it's not just the heat/drought that may cause problems.  As I've been saying for a couple years now.

  Excess precipitation/cloud cover/cool temps at the "wrong" times of the growing season can degrade harvest quantity and quality just as much as heat and drought.  And a whole range of crops, besides wheat, can be significantly affected, whether they're grown on factory farms or in small, local gardens.

  Our capacity to produce food at our current input costs (in terms of water, acreage, fertilization, pest management, pollination) may be significantly altered (and not in a good way) by the climate changes wrought by Global Warming in the very, very near future.

  Efforts to mitigate or reduce human emissions of greenhouse gasses are valuable and must continue.  But  the more immediate crisis will be in food production and this side of the coin isn't receiving nearly enough attention.

  by sxwarren on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:07:01 AM PDT

  •  In Missouri this year

    We had an extremely warm winter that had fruit trees blooming in February.  Then a sudden snap of cold weather that included a couple of huge ice storms (and accompanying power outages).  The result was that almost the entire fruit crop was wiped out -- cherries, apples, peaches, all gone.

    Then the early part of summer was amazingly cool, followed by a month so hot and dry that corn was scorched in the fields.

    The papers are often sympathetic to the farmers, and the lawmakers are quick to hand out disaster funding.  But no one seems to be drawing the line between farmers and the rest of us, and no one seems to be pondering what happens when "disaster" becomes "normal."

    by Devilstower on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:13:56 AM PDT

    •  Sounds like the UK

      except for the hot dry part at the end.
      I could sympathise with the Irish potato farmers when the blight hit during the rains in July. There's something fearsome in leaving a healthy set of plants one night and coming back the next morning to total rot. It was OK for us as we got the majority of the potatoes out of the ground in time, but we had the luxury of not having to store them for the entire rest of the year. I doubt they would have made it.

      by northsylvania on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:56:03 AM PDT

  •  In the long run, the entire ecosystem will be

    thrown into flux and the face of this planet will change to accommodate, and perhaps then the corporations will see an opening to create more technologically advanced, more efficient and humanly protective and dependent means to promote further exploitation and degradation of the planet.

    What I don't get is why people are so willing to give the basic essentials of life over to corporations who have a proven track record for destroying the quality of our air, water and land, all for the sake of cutting a few corners and saving a few bucks. Is life really worth so very little?

    Al Gore, if not president, then definitely head of the EPA.

    by xobehtedistuo on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:51:42 AM PDT

•  Not to worry

  Some agribusiness no doubt is already working on a genetically modified wheat-camel hybrid that they can sell at indecent prices to desperate farmers.  Hopefully, our descendants won't mind having two humps and bad breath.

  by Deep Harm on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:08:05 AM PDT

  •  'two humps an bad breath'

    Sounds like someone I woke up next to once after a night of binge drinking in college.

    by sxwarren on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:14:47 AM PDT

•  Add Political Instability and Voila - Famine

  Thus it begins

  by bernardpliers on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:10:02 AM PDT

•  Let's not forget ethanol's contribution

  to high wheat prices, as more acres typically used for wheat have been turned over to corn for ethanol.  This is yest another reason why Iowa should not get to have the first primary, as alot of our ethanol policy is born out of pandering to win the caucus's.

  by SilverOz on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:12:15 AM PDT

  •  And next year...

    More farmers will plant wheat to take advantage of high prices there, leading to increases in corn prices.

    Not only are they not making any more farm land, we insist on covering what we have with new interstates, fast food places, and suburbs.

    by Devilstower on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:15:37 AM PDT

•  Here in Japan

  ... apparently the crop yield of rice is expected to be lower than what is considered desirable (yes they measure everything to an extreme here), yet still not alarmingly bad. Above average cloudiness has been blamed, though you wouldn't know it from the hot summer we have been experiencing.

  Not a whole lot of wheat grown here, but lots of bread sold, so, though Japanese are proud of their ability to meet local needs with rice, they clearly are net importers of wheat by a longshot. Indeed, wheat products constitute a large portion of the Japanese diet.

  Thanks Devilstower and Darksyde. I don't come here for science writing, but it's what keeps me coming back!

  by PoPEar on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:13:42 AM PDT

  •  japanese are still labor intensive in rice

    production, I believe and the government still provides a subsidy and tariffs to protect their rice farmers. At the same time, I cannot envision Americans going back to the days of subsistence farming and stoop labor.

    by entlord1 on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:25:53 AM PDT

    •  Yes

      Rice production is heavily regulated, protected and relatively expensive in world terms. However, it is not so labor intensive. Yes, you still see people hand planting, but that is not the norm. Even if it was, planting is only a small fraction of the work needed to grow rice. Most of the work uses machines (small machines in U.S. terms).

      Indeed farming is relatively small scale compared to the industrial farms common in the U.S. now, but the family farmer still exists and thank goodness there are protections. If not, all of the rice here would come from outside this country and all the land dedicated to farming would soon be prime land for real estate. No thanks, no more car sprawl here, please! Give me "expensive" rice any day. Indeed, it is only expensive when compared to third world economies, not if you consider it in comparison to the wages here. If you have friends who have families who grow rice, you eat it for free. Amazing but true. When we lived in Hiroshima we never bought rice. Now we do, here in Osaka.

      by PoPEar on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:12:50 AM PDT

•  Important to remember there are several types

  of wheat, and not all of them interchangable and not all of them suited for the same areas. In the US you have hard red spring wheat, soft red winter wheat, hard red winter wheat and white wheat. While much of the US is currently suited to growing wheat, wheat is traditionally a "low" value crop so that the profit margin is very low on each bushel. For this reason, wheat and many grains are best suited to mechanized types of husbandry which means the farmer ideally needs very large, very flat fields in order to enjoy the maximum benefits of his equipment.
  Also, while wheat is a dryland crop, there are stages in its development where water is absolutely essential.  Most of the areas best adapted to wheat production are already in production while most of the areas adapted to wheat production are also suited to many other things and acreage is lost each year to exterior factors such as urban sprawl.
  Also, it is important to keep in mind wheat is usually cheaper than corn and when corn becomes too expensive, wheat is one of the possible replacement ingredients in animal feed which would further constrict supplies.

  The current problem with wheat production is not good news except maybe to a few daytraders.  

  by entlord1 on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:16:24 AM PDT

•  Really, it is a multi-edged sword.

  It is not just climate change, for the moment, it is also fuel prices.  Combine the two, and it is dynamite!

  In Australia, there are predictions of food prices rising generally on the order of 50% over the next two to three years... and they have already risen tremendously over the last two or three.

  Part of it is drought, not just in Australia, and decreasing world supply.  Part of it is transport costs... there are few developed countries which do not, at least seasonally, import significant portions of their food supply.

  Australia is a major world exporter of wheat, but as you note, the exports are being significantly reduced because of rainfall (or a lack, thereof).  Will this be a generally permanent state?  Will it get worse?  No one knows.

  Now, I am quite old in relative terms.  Yet, I recall reading an article in the late 1950's - early 1960's discussing climate change.  The article was focused on deliberate climate change, as a means of warfare (long-term) by blocking/diverting specific ocean currents.  (Does that scare your ass off?  It does, and did, mine -- and no, I am not saying that is what has happened, at all -- my tinfoil hat is in storage.)

  I could tell you the publication in which the article appeared, but that would be, at this point, of no value.  But what really stuck with me were predictions of climate change <bsans human imvolvement/b>... that the Gu;lf of California would encroach, that Arizona would become tropical, and that Florida would become a desert!  So, there have been folks cognizant of the impact of climate change, accepting of climate change, for yonks... just that they never found much of an audience, outside of the CIA and the Pentagon, and even there a very small one that withered away.

  Scared the hell outta me, even at the time.  And I think there is reason to be a bit more than just concerned, now.  (No, no CIA or Pentagon calculated malfeasance... just the stupidity of our own species, in general.)  

  Of course, climate, based on our best understanding, is much like a locomotive.  It takes a lot to get change started; once it starts, it has a huge momentum; there are likely no means by which the locomotive will be stopped on a dime.  I fear that no matter what steps are taken, there will be adverse effects for years and decades to come, many of which may well be, in human terms, irreversible.

  by wgard on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:16:50 AM PDT

•  Agro terrorism next

  The U.S. is pushing Afghanistan hard to allow the spraying of their opium crop with chemical poisons and biological agents.

  What will happen to the world's grain and food crops once crop spraying gives  the extremists the idea that they can target agriculture for terrorist action?

  Agriculture is the soft under belly of the world.

  by lennyb on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:27:07 AM PDT

•  Who here is doing anything about it?

  All this talk about Global Warming is great, and it is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, but how many people here are making changes in their own lives to try to reduce their CO2 output?

  There are too many individuals who fret about global warming, while doing jack about it.  There are things each and every one of us is capable of doing, small as they may be.  

  I see too many on this site who proclaim their "need" to drive around in an SUV, for utterly spurious reasons.  Before turning one's gaze outward to complain about what is not being done by the government, or by others, one should first look inward and ask what personal steps can be taken.  

  We definitely need to work to get things changed and to get awareness out there, but first of all we need to take action on our own.  Actions speak louder than words, and actions are the only way we're going to address this problem.  

  by Asak on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:29:01 AM PDT

  •  Increasingly, more and more people are doing

    their part to address global warming.

    Actions speak louder than words, and actions are the only way we're going to address this problem.

    Yes, but regulation would ensure that action is taken. And while many individuals are responding accordingly to climate change and making the necessary adjustments, what we really need is for the biggest offenders, the corporate behemoths, to fall under mandatory regulations, along with the citizenry.

    by xobehtedistuo on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:00:57 AM PDT

•  Not "climate change" but global warming

  "Climate change" is a term coined by GOP spinster Frank Luntz to make it sound like a wholly natural process.

  by Joe B on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:32:17 AM PDT

•  More Chinese Melamine and Cyanuric Acid imports?

  So, let's get this straight.  American wheat harvests are rotting on the ground from a lack of rail cars.

  That means we will be importing more Chinese wheat products containing Melamine and Cyanuric Acid.  You remember?  The stuff that turns kidneys into plastic and killed our dogs and cats, and that has been used in other animal feed products that corporate chicken and hog farms feed our domestic food supply.

  Oh, that kidney thing, melamine ad cyanuric acid, plasticizing is a very agonizing way to die.

  I'm just saying...

  by nuQler ostrich on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:36:22 AM PDT

•  Several issues

  1. Not only is wheat production being influenced by climate change BUT demand is increasing as worldwide income rises (China, India, Brazil etc.)

  2. As incomes rise, so does meat consumption, which requires more grain to raise.

  3. The world population continues to grow at about 70 million per year - new mouths to feed.

  4. As CO2 increases there are clues that plants produce in different ways - possibly with LESS protein per plant.

  5. Water is becoming more and more of an issue. Many areas are tapping long term stored water without allowing replenishment. This can no continue forever.

  6. Biofuels are using more land, leaving less for food.

  7. Another example is milk. Milk prices are soaring worldwide as higher incomes drive consumption.

  Remember price is the clue. As wheat prices hit new highs, we should be listening!

  by taonow on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:39:19 AM PDT

•  Biofuel is also to blame

  Our thirst for gasoline drives up the price of wheat.  Food is now fuel given the exponential rise in ethanol plants: this drives up the price of all food commodities.  

  No that is something to chew on.  

  by Must Have Been The Roses on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:44:02 AM PDT

  •  Blofeld is also to blame...

    Didn't the American Enterprise Institute say that Ernst Stavro Blofeld was behind the recent temperature changes?

    by angrytoyrobot on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:53:18 AM PDT

•  Notice? NOTICE?!

  Hell son, (trying to sound like Fred the T Man of  Hollywood), people are too busy drinking five dollar coffees at Starbucks and watching the football season to notice a lil' old thing like bread prices.

  Look, people are stupid.  They still believe in an invisible sky god that loves you unconditionally but smites you for using a six inch piece of skin (ten inch) to give someone else pleasure.

  People aren't starving in the streets, yet.  (Not many anyway.)  Iran is the current Evil Empire.  People are busy with their daily lives and can't be bothered.

  by angrytoyrobot on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:51:39 AM PDT

  •  In the US, you're right

    Heck, we're a wheat exporter - high prices are good for the ol' economy.

    Other places, especially poor ones, the results are not so sweet.

    by Downpuppy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:40:28 AM PDT

    •  Not sweet at all

      unless you use the flour to make donuts!

      Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

      by PoPEar on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:16:58 AM PDT

•  An excellent collection of graphs on AGW

  courtesy of tamino of the Open Mind Blog:

  Graphic Evidence
  September 5th, 2007

  A "must frequent" blog, and the host, tamino, is very sharp and knowledgeable, and (s)he is responsive to any questions pertaining to global warming.

  Strongly recommended reading.

  by NeuvoLiberal on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:55:48 AM PDT

•  This explains what I recently saw in the news

  re the spike in interest in Saskatchewan farm properties.  From here:

  While the big headlines have been reserved for the screaming growth in neighbouring Alberta, growing numbers of buyers have been snapping up cropland in the prairie province more synonymous with wheat fields than investment opportunities.

  Harry Janzen began to get calls last fall from as far away as Australia from potential buyers looking for "the next hotbed" in investment.

  "As far as people putting their dollars into the province, that started in January and have been accelerating ever since," said Janzen, executive officer of the Saskatoon Real Estate Board.

  This has the feel more of a secular shift in the agricultural sector, which would not likely be caused by a short term blip in an annual harvest.  This could be in anticipation of future shortages due to global warming, or it could be an expected long-term tightening in the market due to the rise of biofuels, which compete for land and crop output.  The biofuel phenomenon is itself a product of the approaching liquid-fuels crunch due to global peak oil production rates, followed of course by a steady contraction in supply thereafter.

  My advice to everyone: get away from financial services and the discretionary side of the economy and focus on productive investments around key commodities such as food and energy!

  by mojo workin on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 05:58:52 AM PDT

•  The price of a loaf of bread

  Interesting comment about how the increased price for wheat might lead to an increase in the price of a loaf of bread. Since the cost of wheat contained in a $3 loaf of bread is estimated at 14 cents, I think a more likey culprit in a possible price spike might be the increased cost of the fuel to transport the loaf to your local grocer or even the cost of the petroleum-based plastic wrapper for the loaf. Wheat prices would have to increase much more dramatically to have a significant impact on the cost of a loaf of bread.
  The same thing applies to a box of cereal. A box of corn flakes contains about 8 cents worth of corn. The box probably costs more than the corn used to make the corn flakes in the box.
  Farmers receive on a very small portion of the consumers food dollar. Quite often that portion does not even cover our costs of producing the commodity.

  by farmgirl on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:31:14 AM PDT

  •  Other factors involved -- like gaming the market

    See this article about the Communist Party of India protesting government buy of wheat at prices above that of Indian farmers, when there is plenty of wheat...

    http://www.hindu.com/...

    What the hell is going on?

    This sure looks like market manipulation to me.

    Note also that the Indian Government may walk out because of a rift in a power bloc; the same Communist Party is protesting a joint naval exercise with the good old U.S. of A....

    Something smells about this whole mess.

    by Rayne on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 12:26:17 PM PDT

•  Any evidence that increased corn planting

  to take advantage of higher corn prices driven, in part, by demand for corn for ethanol production has caused a decrease in acreage traditionally used for wheat?

  I know the prices of other crops used for livestock feeds, especially soybeans, are up, too.  Some of these increases have been attributed directly to the amount of corn planted for ethanol displacing other crops.

  by Eddie Haskell on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:32:32 AM PDT

  •  In the SE

    corn and wheat traditionally do not compete for acreage as wheat is a winter crop usually doublecropped with soybeans and corn is a full season crop. Then of course, corn takes moister, richer soil than wheat and finally, corn historically sells for around what wheat does per bushel, taking into account the difference in yields.
    Since most corn is produced for animal feed, I really think biofuels have a small impact if any. The other time everyone got excited about biofuels was back in the 70s and it never resulted in that many acres in cropping shifts.  

    by entlord1 on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:41:00 AM PDT

    •  srw

      soft red winter wheat would compete with corn and soybeans for acreage largely in the eastern corn belt--ohio, indiana, illinois.  they do not double crop.  wheat acreage in those states has been shrinking over time, anyway.

      by gjdodger on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:11:16 AM PDT

      •  same here

        in Missouri.

        You can sometimes double crop winter wheat followed by late beans.  But corn must be planted before late June while the srw is still standing.

        Around here I've seen a lot more corn in places where I'd usually see wheat.  MO is a big ethanol producer and as new conversion facilities are sprouting up all over the place more growers seem to be planting more corn.  I have to think there's some effect on wheat acreage, but I haven't run across any studies that confirm it.

        by Eddie Haskell on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 08:42:03 AM PDT

•  It seems to me that global warming

  ought to create a lot of fresh new arable land.
  It's the dislocation and transition that will be the killers.

  By the way, there's something I wanted to say on yesterday's global warming (arctic ice) diary.
  Isn't it time to consider radical technological solutions? I have in mind the American scientist who suggested seeding the air above Greenland with compounds that would cause more clouds to be formed ( I think). Does anyone know what I'm talking about?
  There was a lot of pooh-poohing of this idea, mainly on the grounds that "well, we don't know what kind of bad side effects this might have in Europe".
  If global warming is such a threat, we will have to take some big risks. Among the risks I believe we must endure is that of relying on more nuclear reactors for power in the coming decades. The risks of nuclear power use pale besides the scale of global warming catastrophes.

  by BoringDem on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 06:57:58 AM PDT

•  In Oklahoma

  This year was a strange roller-coaster for wheat.  Late freezes had people worrying about massive damage to the wheat crop, but as it panned out, that was not a real problem.  Throughout the spring, there was heavy rain which really got the wheat growing so that we were all set for a bumper crop.  However, during harvest time, it would not stop raining, so the tractors could not get into the fields to harvest, and the wheat that was harvested was often rejected by the milling companies, because it was too wet.  (Wet grain can lead to mold in the elevators.)  It turned out to be a bad year here.

  by nanoboy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 07:17:39 AM PDT

•  Please let Bush say this...........

  If people start complaining about the price of bread to the Prez I hope he says "let them eat cake." We all know how well that comment works. ;)

  by southern and liberal on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:44:58 AM PDT

  •  not cake

    Cornbread. The economists are already talking substitution.

    For a lot of the world, corn is considered hogslop. It won't go over well.

    by Downpuppy on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:56:54 AM PDT

•  All North American Wheat in Canada by 2050?

  I am curently at the Greening of the Campus VII conference in Muncie, Indiana. This morning, the keynote speaker was David Orr of Oberlin College. One of his slides was a very effective one of North American geography with areas "Viable for Wheat"  now as opposed to viable for wheat in 2050.

  The now viability image was most of the eastern and southern US and the northern states out west, including parts of Canada.

  The 2050 viability image showed the viability entirely within Canada.

  I can't find the image on their website, but it came from this group: http://www.cgiar.org/...

  by splendid1 on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 10:44:35 AM PDT

•  Now don't jump to conclusions

  Many people will read an article like this and think, "Wow.  Global Warming is bad.  We must do something fast.  I need to use more ethanol in my car."  
  Unfortunately, corn ethanol is not very green.  
  Furthermore, allocating food resources to energy raises the price of food, (which everyone needs,) and lowers the price of gasoline, (which the poor of the world do not need.)  It is a reverse Robin Hood.  

  by gmatt on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 02:12:01 PM PDT