Share

Billions Face Food Shortages, Study Warns

by: Ian Sample  |  The Guardian UK

photo
Flood victims in Bangaldesh wait in line for food at a relief center. Extreme flooding in 2007 across South Asia wiped out agricultural fields and killed thousands. (Photo: Pavel Rahman / AP)

    Half of the world's population could face severe food shortages by the end of the century as rising temperatures take their toll on farmers' crops, scientists have warned.

    Harvests of staple food crops such as rice and maize could fall by between 20% and 40% as a result of higher temperatures during the growing season in the tropics and subtropics. Warmer temperatures in the region are also expected to increase the risk of drought, cutting crop losses further, according to a new study.

    The worst of the food shortages are expected to hit the poor, densely inhabited regions of the equatorial belt, where demand for food is already soaring because of a rapid growth in population.

    A study in the US journal Science found there was a 90% chance that by the end of the century, the coolest temperatures in the tropics during the crop growing season would exceed the hottest temperatures recorded between 1900 and 2006.

    More temperate regions such as Europe could expect to see previous record temperatures become the norm by 2100.

    "The stress on global food production from temperatures alone is going to be huge, and that doesn't take into account water supplies stressed by the higher temperatures," said David Battisti, at the University of Washington, who led the study.

    Battisti and Rosamond Naylor, at Stanford University in California, combined climate models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and historical examples of the impact of heatwaves on agriculture, and found severe food shortages were likely to become more common.

    Among the periods they examined was the record heatwave across western Europe in 2003, which killed an estimated 52,000 people and also cut yields of wheat and fodder by a third. In 1972, a prolonged hot summer in south-east Ukraine and south-west Russia saw temperatures rise by between 2C and 4C above the norm, driving down wheat and coarse grain yields for the whole of the USSR by 13%. The disruption affected the global cereal market for two years.

    Naylor, who is director of food security and the environment at Stanford, said the study emphasised the need for countries to invest in adapting to a changing climate. To develop new crops to withstand higher temperatures could take decades, she added.

    "When we looked at our historical examples there were ways to address the problem within a given year," Naylor said. "People could always turn somewhere else to find food. But in the future there's not going to be any place to turn unless we rethink our food supplies."

    The tropics and subtropics, which stretch from the southern US to northern Argentina and southern Brazil, from northern India and southern China to southern Australia, and cover all of Africa, are currently home to 3 billion people. Future temperature rises are expected to have a greater impact in the tropics because the crops grown there are less resilient to changes in climate.

    According to the study, many local populations now live on less than £1.30 a day and depend on agriculture. The need for food is due to become more urgent as populations are expected to nearly double by the end of the century.

    "When all the signs point in the same direction, and in this case it's a bad direction, you pretty much know what's going to happen," Battisti said. "You're talking about hundreds of millions of additional people looking for food because they won't be able to find it where they find it now.

    "You can let it happen and painfully adapt, or you can plan for it. You could also mitigate [climate change] and not let it happen in the first place, but we're not doing a very good job of that."

    Naylor added: "We have to be rethinking agriculture systems as a whole, not only thinking about new varieties [of crops], but also recognising that many people will just move out of agriculture, and even move from the lands where they live now."

    In many countries, a combination of poor farming practices and deforestation, exacerbated by climate change, may steadily degrade soil fertility, leaving vast areas unsuitable for crops or grazing. In 2007, scientists warned that poor soil fertility meant a global food crisis was likely in the next half-century.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

It is far past time for

It is far past time for family planning, sex education...POPULATION CONTROL. The outgoing administration refused money for HIV administering if sex education and condoms were part of the package. Get the patriarchal church leaders out of the way. This over population is now a crisis and it is only a tip of the ice berg. What will happen to diversity which is the main nutriment of a healthy earth and human psyche? The parks and natural areas will be overwhelmed, gulped up in the frantic search for food by a bludgeoning over population. What is more humane? The control of births or watching the starving die and cry?

Limiting population growth

Limiting population growth is as important as reducing our reliance on fossil fuels to avoid famines caused by global warming.

Stop producing babies, is

Stop producing babies, is the only solutions for the planet, is the insane grow of population cousing shortage of food in the future. Stop producing babies please.

Global warming certainly is

Global warming certainly is cause for concern regarding food availability over the next several years. But what really needs serious discussion as a core concern is the world population growth that is reaching the point of un-sustainability. World population control and reduction needs to be a top-level issue for discussion and remediation with a level of importance at least that which global warming currently holds.

In view of the dire

In view of the dire projections re widespread hunger, isn't it insane to continue animal-based diets that involve 70% of the grain produced in the US and 49% of the grain produced worldwide being fed to animals? Making it worse is that animal-based agriculture, according to a 2006 UN report "Livestock's Long Shadow," emits more greenhouse gases (In CO2 equivalents) than all the cars and other means of trabsportation worldwide combined. And still worse is that the same UN report projects that the number of farmed animals worldwide will double in 50 years, with the added greenhouse gas emissions negating the effects of many positive changes.

The problem with these

The problem with these unwashed starving masses is that they don't buy American made SUVs and as a consequence they are not eligible for all those tax rebates that they could then use to buy food. It is really a simple solution, by George.

Thank you for your article.

Thank you for your article. It points out the gravest human threat of all (through the ages I might ad): imminent hunger spreading around the globe --like a virus. What we need now is singular attention to this issue. Unfortunately food shortages are not only acerbated by needless distractions of war and illusions of wealth: the issue of hunger is virtually drowned out in a sea of posturing and cabal of tyrants a la Bush all over the world. (One wonders sometimes: whatever happened to the meaning of "diplomacy") The crisis we are facing involves a complete restructuring and decentralizing of power by developing food, energy and water resources under local control. Max Keiser is waiting for the day that Americans with their pitchforks will march onto Washington. Any one ready ? And does Obama really understand, or not ? The appointment of Tom Vilsack points out that Obama has no clue about food reality all over the world.

As stated in this thread,

As stated in this thread, there are a multitude of reasons and solutions, they all mean hardship for those undertaking the task of re-engineering the way we eat, grow, discard waste, and yes create. Simply put our excessive "use it and toss it" mentality has spread to all corners of the globe. Farming practices need serious change, as do the way we allow Big Ag interests to write the way into their profitable future with GMO seed that is sterile, to the pesticides they sell that comes back into our country on untested food, and over the nutrification of the soil and water that has salt levels as high as the dead sea. (Well not quite), but my point is, if we don't totally retrain the trainers, restructure the FDA and Big Ag we will never see a change, just starvation and death at a scale so large the winds will blow the decay through the continents and across this globe. Greed will continue to rule most governments and environmental policies, they are only affordable when there is nothing left to destroy, and survival hinges on that change. Some believe there will be a time when we are all gone and the earth will begin to heal, evolution has shown us the planet will survive. As far as the millions that will ultimately perish at this past administrations bright example, with total disregard to all most believe precious, will serve as a warning to other generations that we saw the warning 20+ years ago, but it was too easy to continue to rape what we saw no value in until the commodity ran out. Wall street has shown us what speculation and corporate control has produced, nothing but rape and profits for the few. These are the same industries you hope will change there ways to help mankind, this is laughable as they will spin off farm commodities like they did the dot/com days and sell more green industry bullshit to those dumb enough to buy it. Face it were all fucked. If you want change you must do it yourself.

World wide permanent end to

World wide permanent end to war, and unnecessary competition between nation states; Find healthy ways to channel our natural aggressive tendencies. Teach the kids to cooperate. Imagine. It's the only way to clear our collective heads and deal creatively, intelligently, with what needs doing. In a constant state of fight or flight-there's nothing left for anything else. NO MORE WAR.

Yes, reducing population

Yes, reducing population growth is certainly an important objective. But, while most demographers indicate that human population is starting to level off and couple reach a peak by mid-century and then start to decrease, animal populations are growing far more rapidly. While it is projected that the human population will reach 7 billion in 2012, the non-human animal population is projected to double in 50 years. A major societal shift toward plant-based diets can make a major difference in helping reduce global warming and many current environmental threats. For example, in what some are calling "the century of drought," an animal-based diet requires up to 14 times as much water as a vegan diet. The negative effects of animal-based agriculture are an inconvenient truth that even Al Gore is generally ignoring.

How interesting that all we

How interesting that all we see in line are women. Are women the only ones who wait for food, care for the family? Where are the men? What are the men doing while to women go begging? And, what are the real implications of that photograph if we ask social, political, economic and human rights questions... just for starter?

If, as Mr. Schwartz says,

If, as Mr. Schwartz says, animal populations are increasing, wouldn't it make sense to eat more of them, rather than less? That ought to curb their growth. It also ought to keep them from getting any big ideas about trying to take over the world. I'll go get my spear.

It is largely that "rapid

It is largely that "rapid rise in population" that makes the greatest problem in this scenario. The cockamamie Bush policy of withholding funds from family planning groups that even mention the word "abortion" is in part responsible for this situation. We must erase these asinine Bush policies and encourage, even strongly encourage, limiting population growth worldwide. It is far easier to feed a smaller population than a constantly expanding one. It is far better to provide funds to improve family planning than to have to place the army on our borders to prevent our being overrun by hordes of desperate people. This country cannot take in every unfortunate person on the face of the planet. It is in our own interest...and theirs...to promote family planning in overpopulated and impoverished countries.