climate change seen posing risk to food supplies

[bcbm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/science/earth/science-panel-warns-of-risks-to-food-supply-from-climate-change.html?hp&_r=2&

[Red Commissar]

One thing that didn't come to mind that the article pointed out was how increased demand for food supplies may lead people to clear more land, say rainforests and jungles, for cultivation. That in of itself will have some dire environmental effects and exacerbate the issue.

I can see unfortunately some people trying to runaway with this in a neo-malthusian direction too though.

(btw it might be good to post ny times articles in the post, it can go behind the paywall for people who've hit their view limit)

[Aware]

At this point, climate seems to be self reinforcing, both through our actions and the emergent patterns in the environment.

The food supply may not be as unstable as we think several decades from now. Some areas of the globe are becoming less favorable to agriculture, while some areas are just now slowly becoming more favorable to agriculture, like Siberia.

Of course, like you said, people's efforts to feed themselves will cause even more accelerated deforestation. Due to food being treated as nothing more than another commodity causes massive waste, allowing hundreds of millions to starve while tons of food is simply allowed to rot. The same goes with water. We could prevent further deforestation by simply making sure the excess food isn't wasted.

Climates affect on water systems seems more likely to have a more apparent impact on agriculture. The world uses staggering amounts of water everyday. Fresh water is slowly depleting, and we all have already been seeing the early warning signs for the last decade. Climate reports recently conceyed that scientists underestimated the likely rise in sea level within this century. Initial estimates suggested 1 meter or less. We are not slowly down our activities, and as the rest of the world industrialized, the planet will continue to fill with pollution. By 2030, let's say, sea level rises 2, 3 meters? Swathes of Miami, New York, Bangladesh underneath water much of the year. 5 or 6 meters, and we'd see much of Florida and Louisiana underwater. Not entire continents, but regions filled with millions of people and billions of dollars worth of capital.

If all this seawater all of a sudden (in climate timescales) rushes ashore, how are aquifers going to react, the flow of rivers, etc.? These are things we can only wonder at, since even today, our best climate scientists scarcely do better than guess as the quantities/magnitudes of any of this.

Our entire planet is a delicate, highly dynamic system, and, in turn, every subsystem that makes it up is equally as stochastic and complex. Capitalism, unfortunately, feeds right into this trap. Rational production is pushed aside for the profit motive.

[bcbm]

Our entire planet is a delicate, highly dynamic system, and, in turn, every subsystem that makes it up is equally as stochastic and complex.

i wouldn't say it is delicate, but rather the maintenance of the conditions that we require or at least have thus enjoyed is. in the larger picture, barring something truly cataclysmic like a nuclear war (and perhaps even then) our meddling will simply wipe the slate in preparation for the ecosystems and species that will thrive after we have gone.

[consuming negativity]

i wouldn't say it is delicate, but rather the maintenance of the conditions that we require or at least have thus enjoyed is. in the larger picture, barring something truly cataclysmic like a nuclear war (and perhaps even then) our meddling will simply wipe the slate in preparation for the ecosystems and species that will thrive after we have gone.

Precisely how I feel about it. The planet is extremely complex and interconnected, but there's nothing we can do to it that would truly harm it, let alone cause an extinction of life. If we screw up our environment, we're the ones who are going to be paying the price... Earth is just going to keep on spinning unaware that we were ever even here. At it's heart, environmentalism can be seen as self-preservation.

[Aware]

Precisely how I feel about it. The planet is extremely complex and interconnected, but there's nothing we can do to it that would truly harm it, let alone cause an extinction of life. If we screw up our environment, we're the ones who are going to be paying the price... Earth is just going to keep on spinning unaware that we were ever even here. At it's heart, environmentalism can be seen as self-preservation.
We may not pose a threat to Earth and life itself, but we do pose a major threat to MANY species on this planet, not only through direct killing, but the degradation and destruction of ecosystems. Based on current patterns, it has been surmised that a significant percentage of currently living species, many of which we depend on for various things (even if we don't realize it) will go extinct by this century's end, some predictions as high as 30%. And this is only in regard to anthropogenic climate change.

If you take nuclear war into account, then, yes, humans actually are capable of ending ALL life on this planet.

[Ritzy Cat]

We may not pose a threat to Earth and life itself, but we do pose a major threat to MANY species on this planet, not only through direct killing, but the degradation and destruction of ecosystems. Based on current patterns, it has been surmised that a significant percentage of currently living species, many of which we depend on for various things (even if we don't realize it) will go extinct by this century's end, some predictions as high as 30%. And this is only in regard to anthropogenic climate change.

If you take nuclear war into account, then, yes, humans actually are capable of ending ALL life on this planet.

I agree with you on most things, except the last comment. With current technology, or any technology humans are capable of in the near future, humans will not be able to completely exterminate life as we know it on Earth. We simply don't have the tools or capacity, and a nuclear war could not occur on that scale to the point photosynthesis will never occur on the planet.

Back to the subject, we can tie climate change to tons of different things, and supposedly in this scenario, as a threat to food supply.


Precisely how I feel about it. The planet is extremely complex and interconnected, but there's nothing we can do to it that would truly harm it, let alone cause an extinction of life. If we screw up our environment, we're the ones who are going to be paying the price... Earth is just going to keep on spinning unaware that we were ever even here. At it's heart, environmentalism can be seen as self-preservation.


I like how you put this. Earth will rebound if we screw it up, and it will come back to us. We can pollute the planet, overuse it...abuse it... but in the end, we'll be the ones paying the price.

Environmentalism, in my opinion, is just a method of creating means of preparing Earth's resources for future generations. Although yes, it will lead to your conclusion, the self-preservation of the human race.

Food is only a problem in certain countries. USA is the largest producer of corn for example in the world, and exports the most agricultural goods. Not to mention, the amount of food Americans throw away could be used to feed everyone in Africa. However of course, transporting this food would be a problem, and no capitalist company with half a brain would undertake such a philanthropic action!

I doubt America's food supply will be ruined any time soon, but very large countries with agricultural bases should not really suffer unless there is a completely major change to climate. Genetic engineers are able to adapt plants to the situation before they can too, so they can keep up with the changing climate.


One thing that didn't come to mind that the article pointed out was how increased demand for food supplies may lead people to clear more land, say rainforests and jungles, for cultivation. That in of itself will have some dire environmental effects and exacerbate the issue.

This is true. Notably through slash-and-burn agricultural techniques, as decribed by Wikipedia: "Old terms for slash-and-burn in English include assarting, swidden, and fire-fallow cultivation. Today the term slash-and-burn is mainly associated with tropical rain forests. Slash-and-burn techniques are used by between 200 and 500 million people worldwide. In 2004 it was estimated that, in Brazil alone, 500,000 small farmers were each clearing an average of one hectare of forest per year."

A large reason why this is worse than other agriculture techniques is that, these trees are burnt for room to grow crops. The soil is originally rich in nutrients and organic material because of the recently decomposed ashes of the burnt trees (this usually occurs in tropical rain forests/tropical dry forests). However, the soil is quickly deprived of its richness and the family that used that land moves onto a new plot, and repeats the process. Keep in mind this is a method of sustenance agriculture. This ruins the ground that is used to farm, and also contributes to the global loss of rain forests.

Of course we all know how important rainforests are because of how much our capitalist wood-logging companies are telling us about, as a result: they are covering less than 2 percent of the Earth's total surface area, the world's rainforests are home to 50 percent of the Earth's plants and animals.

Back to the subject of food, many people in America complain "Food is too expensive nowadays!" It is actually far too cheap. It can be the price it is because of the large amounts of pesticides used in crops, reducing the loss on the end of these "farmers" to insects and other pests, so they can maximize their output of crops. These pesticides have been proven to cause many health issues, as well as other nature-related issues that can have a dire effect in the future: ( I can't post links yet so ask me if youdl ike to see these)

Next time you're in the grocery store, the most perfect and well-rounded apple is often the one that has the most pesticide and growth hormones in it. I pick up the ones that have the flaws, because that's how nature intended it to be.