Some time ago in the not so distant past, someone suggested to me that with climate change a warmer planet would actually be a benefit to mankind. The idea was that there would be a longer growing season and regions in the northern climates would now be more agriculturally productive. While there may be some truth to those two factors I never believed that on a whole society would be better off. A new study confirms this premise.
“Crop yields could significantly decrease in the coming decades as temperatures rise, the study found, contrasting with a claim that’s popular among some Republicans who say that a warming planet and climbing levels of CO2 will benefit plants.”
“The new review of 70 earlier studies on climate and agriculture says that for every degree Celsius of warming, wheat yields globally could be reduced by 6 percent, rice by 3.2 percent, corn by 7.4 percent and soybeans by 3.1 percent (Climatewire, Aug. 16).
Those crops account for about two-thirds of humanity’s caloric intake, according to the study, published by 29 researchers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”
My perception has always been that we are headed into a very disruptive future. Let me give an example. With a warmer climate and changing weather patterns consider that the Rocky Mountains won’t get the amount of snow in winter that we have come to expect and rely upon. That would have a significant impact on the towns and operations that rely on that snow for skiing and other winter activities. More importantly, it would mean less snow melting and providing the water for irrigation upon which farmers east of the mountains have come to rely. If the world’s “breadbasket” has a vastly lower yield or becomes desert, that will have catastrophic impact. What would the country with the most powerful military this planet has ever seen do to get enough food to feed our population. Look at the wars we’ve fought over oil for an example.
Another impact of the loss of water coming out of the Rockies would also be that it would be coming at the wrong time. With warmer weather coming earlier in the season it would be coming at the wrong time when it is needed further impacting the ecosystem. Migrating birds and other animals would be all discombobulated. Pollinators would see their norm completely destroyed. Basically, the web of life upon which civilization has come to depend would be completely disrupted with enormous consequences.
“But global warming has also increased extreme precipitation, which can damage plants and fields and wash away essential topsoil. Longer periods of higher temperatures can also cut into yields, according to the most recent draft of the National Climate Assessment, a congressionally mandated report updated every four years with the latest scientific findings.
“Longer growing seasons can also limit the types of crops that can be grown, encourage invasive species encroachment or weed growth, or increase demand for irrigation, possibly beyond the limits of water availability,” the assessment says. “They could also disrupt the function and structure of a region’s ecosystems and could, for example, alter the range and types of animal species in the area.””
These outcomes will cause large numbers of food deprived refugees. We are already seeing the consequences of huge shifts in populations in war torn and starving countries that could reasonably be, in some cases, attributed to a warmer and changing climate. In fact, this connection has already been made by some scholars.
My whole point is that are outcomes of climate change that will cause a much warmer planet to experience very consequential outcomes and that we must do so much more than we are doing and resist in any way possible the damaging actions that the Trump Administration is doing to preempt all the steps we should be taking to minimize the impact of the catastrophe that is coming our way…and sooner than many are willing to predict.
“Would-be climate refugees are beginning to get governments’ attention. But so far, the help has been narrow, limited and far from adequate, advocates say.
The U.S. federal government has put up $92 million for two coastal resilience-building projects. Louisiana earmarked $48 million to relocate 99 people from a small, sinking island.”
One last observation. It is ironic that the people that deny that the climate is actually changing and getting warmer are exactly the same people that are saying that a warmer climate is good for the planet. Which is it? The climate is NOT changing and temperatures are getting hotter. Or that it is changing and this is a positive development. Seems that they can’t and shouldn’t have it both ways. But… that’s just my thinking.
Some Conservatives Say CO2 Helps Crops. A Big Study Disagrees
Crop yields could significantly decrease in the coming decades as temperatures rise, the study found, contrasting with a claim that’s popular among some Republicans who say that a warming planet and climbing levels of CO2 will benefit plants.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, penned an op-ed for the Heritage Foundation in which he claimed the “benefits” of global warming could include increased agricultural income.
“While crops typically suffer from high heat and lack of rainfall, carbon enrichment helps produce more resilient food crops, such as maize, soybeans, wheat, and rice,” he wrote, soon after returning from a trip to visit U.S. research facilities in the Arctic.
In the piece, titled “Don’t Believe the Hysteria over Carbon Dioxide,” Smith envisioned a green future thanks to humanity’s consumption of fossil fuels and the carbon dioxide it releases.
“A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would aid photosynthesis, which in turn contributes to increased plant growth,” he wrote. “This correlates to a greater volume of food production and better quality food.”
However, the study released this week undermines that claim and notes that all of the crops highlighted by Smith are expected to suffer as a result of climate change.
The new review of 70 earlier studies on climate and agriculture says that for every degree Celsius of warming, wheat yields globally could be reduced by 6 percent, rice by 3.2 percent, corn by 7.4 percent and soybeans by 3.1 percent (Climatewire, Aug. 16).
Those crops account for about two-thirds of humanity’s caloric intake, according to the study, published by 29 researchers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Corn could drop even more precipitously, by 7.4 percent globally and 10.3 percent domestically, researchers found. The United States is the world’s largest producer of corn.
Collectively, research on sites across the globe showed “negative temperature impacts on crop yield at the global scale,” the authors wrote.
“Further increases in temperatures will continue to suppress yields, despite farmers’ adaptation efforts,” they wrote.
In addition, crop yields are affected in other ways by global warming, and not all of the impacts are negative. Growing seasons could be longer, and increases in annual harvests might be seen in some areas of the United States, research has found.
But global warming has also increased extreme precipitation, which can damage plants and fields and wash away essential topsoil. Longer periods of higher temperatures can also cut into yields, according to the most recent draft of the National Climate Assessment, a congressionally mandated report updated every four years with the latest scientific findings.
“Longer growing seasons can also limit the types of crops that can be grown, encourage invasive species encroachment or weed growth, or increase demand for irrigation, possibly beyond the limits of water availability,” the assessment says. “They could also disrupt the function and structure of a region’s ecosystems and could, for example, alter the range and types of animal species in the area.”
Smith has accused some scientists of fraud, and he subpoenaed the emails of NOAA researchers whose work undermined a popular talking point among conservatives about a warming pause. NOAA researchers corrected the temperature record after realizing it was inaccurate, and found there had been no pause.
Smith’s comments echo those of other officials being considered for roles in the Trump administration. Craig Idso, founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, is a main proponent of the idea that rising levels of carbon dioxide benefit the planet.
At the annual Conservative Political Action Conference gathering in Washington last fall, Idso appeared on a panel with Kathleen Hartnett White, who could be appointed to lead the Trump administration’s Council on Environmental Quality.
Idso gave a presentation about carbon dioxide and how it’s the “elixir of life.” White supported his assertions that rising levels of the gas could boost plant growth across the globe.
“No, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and fossil fuels are not the agents of death,” Hartnett White told the receptive audience.
Other potential Trump administration nominees have also argued that more CO2 is a benefit to the Earth. William Happer, a Princeton University physics professor, met with Trump and is considered a front-runner to be the president’s science adviser. He is also on the board of directors for the CO2 Coalition.
“The main thing is that people don’t realize we’re in a CO2 famine right now,” Happer said at a Heritage Foundation event in December. “We’re way down. We’re down by a factor of 4 or 5 over the levels that plants would really like.”
Climate Refugee Prospects ‘Overwhelming,’ Expensive
Would-be climate refugees are beginning to get governments’ attention. But so far, the help has been narrow, limited and far from adequate, advocates say.
The U.S. federal government has put up $92 million for two coastal resilience-building projects. Louisiana earmarked $48 million to relocate 99 people from a small, sinking island. And Panama has pledged to help relocate an indigenous population called the Kuna from its low-lying islands to the mainland.
But promises might be outpacing action on the ground.
“There is zero infrastructure on the mainland right now,” said Diwigdi Valiente, a member of the Kuna who works for Panama’s Ministry of Economics and Finance. “The Kuna will have to rebuild what they built up on their islands over the last 150 years, and who knows how much that will cost?”
Countries around the world need to adapt more quickly to the coming population changes, experts said. Rising sea levels could displace at least 150 million people by 2050, according to the Worldwatch Institute. Flooding could render large portions of the United States unlivable.
But South Miami Mayor Philip Stoddard said he doesn’t expect federal help anytime soon.
“In the short run … the problem is almost overwhelming to the most clear-thinking of politicians,” he said. “In the long run, the entire menu of possible solutions is unaffordable” (Matt Zdun, CNBC, Aug. 13). — AAA
