iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

UN Climate Conference: Global Warming Could Double Food Prices

CHARLES J. HANLEY   12/ 1/10 05:59 PM ET   AP

Food Prices

CANCUN, Mexico — Even if we stopped spewing global warming gases today, the world would face a steady rise in food prices this century. But on our current emissions path, climate change becomes the "threat multiplier" that could double grain prices by 2050 and leave millions more children malnourished, global food experts reported Wednesday.

Beyond 2050, when climate scientists project temperatures might rise to as much as 6.4 degrees C (11.5 degrees F) over 20th century levels, the planet grows "gloomy" for agriculture, said senior research fellow Gerald Nelson of the International Food Policy Research Institute.

The specialists of the authoritative, Washington-based IFPRI said they fed 15 scenarios of population and income growth into supercomputer models of climate and found that "climate change worsens future human well-being, especially among the world's poorest people."

The study, issued here at the annual U.N. climate conference, said prices will be driven up by a combination of factors: a slowdown in productivity in some places caused by warming and shifting rain patterns, and an increase in demand because of population and income growth.

Change apparently already is under way. Returning from northern India, agricultural scientist Andrew Jarvis said wheat farmers there were finding warming was maturing their crops too quickly.

"The temperatures are high and they're getting reduced yields," Jarvis, of the Colombia-based International Center for Tropical Agriculture, told reporters last month.

For most farmers around the world, trying to adapt to these changes "will pose major challenges," Wednesday's IFPRI report said.

Research points to future climate disruption for agricultural zones in much of sub-Saharan Africa, south Asia and parts of Latin America, including Mexico. In one combination of climate models and scenarios, "the corn belt in the United States could actually see a significant reduction in productivity potential," Nelson told reporters here.

"Unlike the 20th century, when real agricultural prices declined, the first half of the 21st century is likely to see increases in real agricultural prices," the IFPRI report said.

Even with "perfect mitigation," the implausible complete elimination immediately of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, it said real prices for grain would rise because of growing demand and other factors – by 18 percent for rice by 2050 under the most optimistic scenario, to up to 34 percent for corn in the most pessimistic, a scenario envisioning high population growth.

But climate change "acts as a threat multiplier," making feeding billions more mouths even more challenging, IFPRI said.

With climate change factored in, the increases in real prices by 2050 could range from 31 percent for rice in the most optimistic scenario, to 100 percent for corn in the most pessimistic. And IFPRI has estimated that such skyrocketing prices could boost the global population of undernourished children by 20 percent, by an additional 25 million children.

Up until 2050, endpoint of the experts' projections, some of the impact could be offset by research development of higher-yielding varieties of corn, wheat and other crops, and by freer, more flexible global trade in food commodities, IFPRI said.

But beyond 2050, if temperatures rise sharply, "the world is a much more gloomy place for agriculture," Nelson said.

Only deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and billions spent to help farmers adapt to a changing climate can head off serious food shortages, Nelson said. IFPRI, which is supported by world governments, estimates that at least $7 billion additional spending a year is needed for crop research and improved irrigation, roads and other upgrades of agricultural infrastructure.

Needed just as much, it said, are better satellite data on how the world's farming zones are changing crops, land use and practices, and on-the-ground information from "citizen data-gatherers equipped with GPS-enabled camera phones and other measuring devices.

"Such data would yield huge payoffs in illuminating the state of the world as it unfolds," it said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

CANCUN, Mexico — Even if we stopped spewing global warming gases today, the world would face a steady rise in food prices this century. But on our current emissions path, climate change becomes ...
CANCUN, Mexico — Even if we stopped spewing global warming gases today, the world would face a steady rise in food prices this century. But on our current emissions path, climate change becomes ...
Filed by Travis Donovan  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,216
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (23 total)
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:21 AM on 12/07/2010
The Pentagon: "Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity..."

From their 2010 Quadrennia­­l Defense Review:

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---

Climate-re­­lated changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the United States and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperatur­­e and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost­­, lengthenin­­g growing seasons, lengthenin­­g ice-free seasons in the oceans and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alteration­­s in river flows.

Assessment­­s conducted by the intelligen­­ce community indicate that climate change could have significan­­t geopolitic­­al impacts around the world, contributi­­ng to poverty, environmen­­tal degradatio­­n, and the further weakening of fragile government­­s. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.

While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instabilit­­y or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutio­­ns and militaries around the world. In addition, extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authoritie­­s for humanitari­­an assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas.

http://www­­.defense.­g­ov/qdr/i­ma­ges/QDR­_as­_of_­1­2Feb10_1­0­­00.pdf
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
04:51 AM on 12/06/2010
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/11/24/lets-give-thanks-for-co2/

Perhaps if we pumped more Co2's into the atmosphere, our global crop yields would increase. It seems to work for greenhouse growers.

Nothing would be green without Co2's
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
05:16 PM on 12/06/2010
LetsGoSteve: "Nothing would be green without Co2's "

Reminds me of that old Monsanto motto:

"Without chemicals life itself would be impossible."

Given that you deny evolution science Steve it's no surprise that you parrot climate science denier talking points as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
07:45 PM on 12/13/2010
CO2 is a good thing. Besides helping plants grow, without it this planet would be a snowball. But, like many things, you need just the right amount. Too little, and plants can't grow. Way too little, and the planet becomes a snowball. Too much, and weeds grow uncontrollably, plants like wheat grow fast but produce less yield, and the greenhouse effect that keeps us from becoming a snowball and heats the planet to an unbearable hell, like Venus.
04:26 AM on 12/06/2010
Yes growing your own food is a great idea, and make it organic that way you also help sequester the greenhouse gases up there in our atmosphere, and you gain many blessing from having all those beautiful bountiful plants around you, and you'll also enjoy the flavour a lot more compared to what you get in the supermarket. Even you can grow veggies on your balcony, there are so many options these days, just take the time to look and do it.
03:45 AM on 12/05/2010
The only reason the price may double is because they'll charge more for the energy to produce the food. Got nuthin to do with global warming - that's just the convenient patsy.
05:41 PM on 12/05/2010
You don't think they're gonna charge more for energy as worldwide demand surges for limited and increasingly difficult to extract fossil fuel? Maybe not in the next decade, but without investment in accelerating change now, it will only become more expensive and painful. What will be INconvenient is trying to change when food AND fuel prices combine with the increasing burden of climatic disruption.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
04:53 AM on 12/06/2010
fanned - Nothing would be green without Co2's
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
VanessaFas
11:10 PM on 12/04/2010
Big if. Leavitt et al have already said that global warming is not accurate. What else will we discuss next? Let's all grow our own food, and stop complaining about how much food we will throw away anyway will cost us in the future.
05:36 PM on 12/05/2010
You mean Steven Leavitt the economist? If so, since when are economists authorities on climate science?
http://climateprogress.org/?s=leavitt
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
VanessaFas
06:54 PM on 12/05/2010
He may just be an economist, but he is an excellent researcher. Read the last three chapters of his last book, where he searches for the think tank who can explain global warming.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:05 PM on 12/04/2010
Ever wonder why Richard2 always scrupulous­ly avoids an unequivoca­l answer to the following question:

"Are you now, or have you ever been paid to deny anthropoge­nic global warming and/or its impacts?"

His few, carefully crafted responses always leave him plausible legal deniabilit­y.

But, if you're lying incessantl­y about everything else, why not just lie about that too?

Well, David Brin suggests that denialism may eventually involve overwhelmi­ng legal liability. http://www­.davidbrin­.com/clima­te2.htm

"If the Denier Movement's knowing and deliberate obstructio­n of climate remediatio­n can be plausibly shown to have contribute­d toward vast losses of real and intangible property and the displaceme­nt of millions of refugees, will the top-most Deniers then be liable for damages, under common and tort law, as well as precedents set by the tobacco judgments?

This appears to not have been discussed anywhere that I know of. But neither was the possibilit­y of tort penalties against Big Tobacco, back when the cancer findings were new...

... those who directly and deliberate­ly obstructed reasonable precaution­s and progress toward efficiency may face an angry and litigious world, if the expert forecasts prove to have been right, all along. Preventing action that, upon expert advice, might have staunched or curtailed harm, is legally culpable.

Are they so very sure that they will be able to control politics and the courts next time the chickens come home to roost? In effect, the topmost promoters of Denialism are betting everything they own.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:32 PM on 12/04/2010
From http://www­.sciencene­ws.org/vie­w/generic/­id/66955/t­itle/Heavi­er_crudes%2C_heavie­r_footprin­ts

"Relying on heavy oils and tar sands as the feedstock for liquid fuels will exaggerate the greenhouse­-gas emissions associated with fossil-fue­l use, a new study finds.

Light crudes are the easiest to work with. But as their biggest and most accessible reservoirs have been tapped — and often tapped out — the oil industry has increasing­ly been turning to what has been termed “unconvent­ional” stocks. These are viscous, if not tarry, forms of petroleum. And as the upper graph below shows, the average “gravity” — viscosity of crude — has fallen into the heavy range (below an average of about 31 degrees on the American Petroleum Institute scale) beginning in 2000. At least for oil processed by U.S. refineries­.

Not surprising­ly, it takes extra work to convert viscous gunk into the gasoline, diesel and other high-value fuels that power engines the world over. And the extra fuel that powers those upgrades releases bonus greenhouse­-gas emissions, thereby upping the carbon footprint of each gallon of refined product created.

It also takes extra energy to process “sour” crude — petroleum naturally bearing high concentrat­ions of sulfur. That sulfur can poison catalysts used in refining. And as the lower graph below (courtesy of the Department of Energy) indicates, the sulfur content of crude oil entering U.S. refineries has been climbing steadily since at least 1985.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BannedNBoston
Is hemp legal yet?
02:56 PM on 12/04/2010
Thorium Reactor?
Why not cold fusion of water into HYDROXY GAS with electricity from solar and windmills?
You can store HYDROXY GAS in propane tanks.
NO STORAGE FOR WIND AND SOLAR? ANOTHER LIE USE PROPANE TANKS.

Hydrogen a future fuel?
No hydrogen AGGLOMERATES when it sits.. (IT CLUMPS TOGETHER)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BannedNBoston
Is hemp legal yet?
02:47 PM on 12/04/2010
Hi AnnieNomad,
We have cars USING PETROLEUM NOW that can be converted to 100% ethanol.
We have BIG-RIGS RUNNING NOW that need hemp-bio-diesel.
We need wind solar and bio-fuels too we need it ALL!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bootzey Jones
3/4th covered with water, 93 million miles from th
11:46 AM on 12/04/2010
That's some BS. Even if the temperature of the planet increases, there will be places on the planet temperate enough to grow grain. Also there was a time when the planet was warmer, the plants were larger and tropical produce can grow in more places. they are just looking for reasons to raise prices of food, because folks can't not eat food and live.
05:38 PM on 12/04/2010
You seem to assume a lot, particularly when today's world is a bit different geographically and biologically than millions of years ago. How much temperate land WITH SUITABLE SOILS will be producing crops like corn, wheat, and rice at normal yields? As an example, heat, drought and severe weather are expected to dent U.S. grain yields, but you can't just move all that production up to the soil-poor precambrian shield. This is about staple crops in today's holocene world at a high rate of climate change, not the tropical fruits, weedy vines, and cyads that dominated a prehistoric world. The crops sustaining much of today's population, even those bred for drought tolerance, tend to have reduced yields under stress. And sometimes reduced nutritional content at high CO2 levels, despite greater vegetative growth (with sufficient soil nutrient and moisture availability). If anything, we need to be INCREASING yields to keep up with population and greater demand for protein-rich foods. If seafood stocks also decline because oceanic ecosystems have trouble keeping up with accelerated climate change (and CO2-induced ocean acidification), there would be even more pressure on land-based food resources.
04:21 AM on 12/06/2010
We can live without food and water too, its all over the internet, here's a link to one of them and there are many alive now and documented in the past also
http://www.librarising.com/health/jerichosunfire.html
10:53 AM on 12/04/2010
Global warming is code for over population. demand for food is whats going to effect its price. Also the majority of the worlds food is grown using petroleum based pesticides and fertilizers and petroleum will run out within our lifetime. interesting times we live in
any one see the movie The Road?
05:48 PM on 12/04/2010
Really, it's code for overpopulation x mindless consumption. More of the world's billions seeking a more resource-intensive and energy-intensive (in terms of both BTUs and calories) lifestyle. Even today's population level is a threat if a significant percentage decide to adopt the wasteful, bigger-is-always-better, throw-away approach to life.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sabelmouse
i love to tumble , ask me why .
06:23 AM on 12/05/2010
how about those of the worlds billions who have been mindlessly consuming for decades cut back and stop going on about what the poor billions might do if they could.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sabelmouse
i love to tumble , ask me why .
10:24 PM on 12/03/2010
Simple answer: birth control
11:11 AM on 12/04/2010
Latinos first.
07:08 PM on 12/04/2010
Progressives dusting off their eugenics plans...?
05:49 PM on 12/05/2010
I didn't say forced birth control, just birth control. In an world dealing with obvious over population issues, it is completely absurd that we make access to effective birth control so difficult for so many people. Case in point, the conservatives are actively fighting to keep contraceptives from being covered as preventative care under the new health care law. http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/11/birth-control-climate-change. Similarly, conservative groups have fought the use and distribution of condoms for years and years, even in AIDS ridden Africa! I'm not saying that we should force anyone who wants kids not to have them, but we should also make every effort to allow those who do not wish to procreate to have that option.
InLosAngeles
Speaking Truth to Groupthink
01:57 PM on 12/12/2010
Shhh.
05:01 PM on 12/03/2010
Every step of the modern mega-agri-business method of factory food production/distribution is massively dependant on Oil being "cheap". The physical reality (post-peak) of oil's rising prices and growing scarcity is the other primary reason for food prices rapidly climbing out of many peoples reach....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
b525
10:36 AM on 12/03/2010
Another reason that food prices could rise is that the world's river and ocean commercial fisheries have declined up to 90% in many parts of the world from dams, pollution, overfishing, environmental degradation in general and lack of adequate government oversight.

Billions of people who have traditionally depended on fish for protein are now turning increasingly to farming and factory farming to get protein which is further degrading land and polluting water with agricultural waste, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides etc.

Coastal fish and shrimp farming is also now polluting coastal waters and spreading disease to remaining wild fish populations.

Coastal shrimp farming is now one of the largest sources of coastal Mangrove forest destruction in the world. Coastal Mangrove forests and coastal river deltas are the nurseries for the world's ocean and river fish.....or used to be....this is quickly changing and destruction will likely ensue.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BannedNBoston
Is hemp legal yet?
10:20 AM on 12/03/2010
Its not ethanol that's the problem. ITS KING CORN PRODUCING ETHANOL!!!!
Roundup pollution chemical fertilizer pollution from corn and soybeans.

Replace half the corn and soybeans with hemp and you would more healthy animal feed
HEMP SEEDS!!
Bio-diesel from the stems and leaves.1,000 gallons per acre!!!
Ethanol from the fiber.

Indiana ranks 4th in the production of corn for grain. On average, Indiana farmers harvest 884 million acres of corn a year ( hemp would 6X more btus)
photo
Pandoras Folly
This Micro-bio is of legendary quality
12:30 PM on 12/03/2010
thorium reactors. that is the best energy production method we have currently. but i like the hemp seed idea, in all ways it is the superior plant.
01:52 PM on 12/03/2010
Yes, hemp is the better plant but the problem is using ARABLE LAND for fuel production instead of food.

Solar/Wind is endlessly renewable, the sun/wind will last at least as long as we do and it can not be over-farmed. Plus, Solar/Wind is democratic because it is available to everyone with the technology to harness it, which means a move in the direction of an end to resource-driven War, which means a move toward World Peace.

Which makes Solar/Wind the environmental and political superior choice. Which means it is the Evolutionary choice. http://theconsumerparty.org