Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
The year 2013 has been a great year for global agriculture. Record world production of rice and healthy production of wheat and corn produced strong harvests across the world. These gains were achieved despite continuing predictions that world agricultural output is headed for a decline.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that world rice harvests for 2012/2013 were a record 469 million metric tons. Corn and wheat harvests were also strong, following record harvests for both grains during the 2011/2012 season. The USDA is now projecting world record harvests for corn, wheat, and rice for 2013/2014.
See this graph:
These numbers cap a 50-year trend of remarkable growth in world grain production. Since 1960, global wheat and rice production has tripled, and corn production is almost five times higher.
For decades, doomsayers predicted that food production would fail to keep up with the needs of humanity. In 1972, Donella Meadows and others of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published The Limits to Growth, which asked the question, “Do these rather dismal statistics mean that the limits of food production on the earth have already been reached?” Paul Ehrlich wrote in The End of Affluence in 1974, “Due to a combination of ignorance, greed and callousness, a situation has been created that could lead to a billion or more people starving to death.”
But Norman Borlaug’s development of disease-resistant, high-yield strains of wheat and rice had already revolutionized twentieth century agriculture. A few years before Meadows and Ehrlich warned about coming famines, Borlaug’s wheat and rice were introduced into Latin America and Asia with astounding results. Mexico’s wheat production soared six-fold by 1970 from levels in the 1940s. India’s wheat production jumped from a huge deficit in 1965 to a surplus only five years later.
Food production continues to grow faster than population. Data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations shows a 30 percent gain in the per capita agricultural production index from 1980 to 2010. World citizens have access to more grain, meat, dairy products, and fruits and vegetables. Even fish production is climbing with large gains in aquaculture fish farming.
The increased availability of food reduced the undernourished portion of the world’s population from 18.6 percent in 1990 to 12.5 percent in 2010, according to the FAO. A total of 868 million people are still classified as undernourished.
Today’s leading agriculture alarmists are proponents of the ideology of Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate. Earlier this month, a leaked draft report from Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that man-made climate change would reduce global agricultural production yields by up to two percent per decade throughout the twenty-first century.
Lester Brown’s Earth Policy Institute has long been a predictor of agricultural collapse. His website states, “…climate change is heightening the likelihood of weather extremes, like heat waves, droughts, and flooding, that can so easily decimate harvests.” Even the USDA warns that man-made climate change threatens US agriculture.
Yet, one must wonder when the climate-damaging effects on agriculture will appear. The IPCC states that 1983-2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period in the Northern Hemisphere of the last 1,400 years. Certainly we should have seen some negative agricultural impact by now?
Maybe rising agricultural production is like rising polar bear populations―the decline begins tomorrow.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@njsnowfan says: November 26, 2013 at 11:54 pm
“GeeJam says:
Firstly, a huge thank you njsnowfan for the link to Hydrofarm.com. Like many here, refuting that CAGW even exists or is linked to CO2 emissions from fossil fuel has been an obsession of mine for about four years. Many WUWT regulars know that when I post a comment, it’s nearly always about CO2. Your link gives me loads of percentage figures that I have been searching endlessly for – particularly the ‘fermentation’ method of increasing CO2 for plants “A pound of sugar will ferment into approximately half a pound of ethyl alcohol (C2H5OH) and half a pound of CO2. One pound of CO2 makes 8.7 cubic feet of CO2 gas at normal atmospheric conditions.” This is brilliant. From this, I have calculated the following . . . . (please bear with me)
1 tsp of sugar (weighing 0.2 oz) added to 0.5 oz fresh yeast, 15 fl oz warm water and 1.5 lbs strong white flour produces 2 x standard size white loaves of bread.
Therefore 5 tsp of sugar (weighing 1 oz) are needed for 10 x loaves of bread.
There are 16 oz in 1 lb.
Therefore 80 tsp of sugar (weighing 1 lb.) are needed for 160 white loaves.
160 x loaves of bread produce half a pound of CO2 (see from above hydrofarm quote).
In the UK, we consume 8,800,000 loaves each day (220M slices).
If 160 x loaves produce half a pound of CO2, then 8.8M loaves will produce 27,500 lbs of CO2.
If there are 2,000 lbs in a ton, UK bread production alone produces 13.75 tons of CO2 every day.
This means that annual UK ‘CO2 emissions’ just from man-made bread production is 5,018.75 tons.
Assume that out of the 193 countries in the world, 60% of them consume the same amount of bread as the UK.
This means that 116 countries (60%) collectively emit 582,175 tons of man-made CO2 every year from making bread.
In comparison, a typical passenger vehicle emits about 5.1 tons of carbon dioxide per year.
Secondly, your point about my comment “I do not believe for one minute that increased global agricultural yield has got anything to do with an incy wincy increase in CO2.”. Whilst I agree with your 50% higher growth rate, surely this applies to plants where the 400 ppm of CO2 is concentrated (eg sealed polytunnels) and only during the optimum growth cycle of a plant (springtime). The insignificant 0.0086% rise in global CO2 levels (from 314 ppm to 400 ppm) is so small that with atmospheric dilution (even at the lower regions of the troposphere), the time span (incl. when deciduous plants lie dormant in winter) and the seasonal differences between the earth’s northern and southern hemispheres, plant life would not benefit noticeably any more than when CO2 was at 314 ppm 40 years ago. So, I’ll stick by guns on this one.
Ah – but have we reached ‘peak’ corn/wheat/rice – in the same way that we’ve reached – er – ‘peak oil’…?
Nah – thought not – MORE CO2, please..!
Hello Galvanize:
I plotted the world grain production graph from data at the USDA at this web link: http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdHome.aspx
If you send me an email at gorehamsa@comcast.net, I’ll send you a jpeg of the graph.
prkralex says:
November 27, 2013 at 2:11 am
New report lays climate change blame with fossil fuels industry. Ninety companies, including BP, Shell and Exxon Mobil, have been blamed for causing the climate change crisis. But can we really blame climate change on fossil fuel providers alone – aren’t the public and government responsible too?
Well, except there is no crisis and the positive aspects of the “changed climate” are enough that we should change the words “blame/blamed” to “credit/credited”.
Ok, maybe we can still blame government for something for sure.
Good news for man; bad news for climatists, who thrive on death and destruction, which is their meat and potatoes.
I’ll put my two cents worth in. Part of the increased production is the infrastructure improvements in producing nations. Better transportation networks have enabled more producers to ship their output elsewhere (expand their markets), therefore they are encouraged to increased production.
John F. Hultquist says:
November 26, 2013 at 9:11 pm
Also, remember that the cereal grains that the Russians produced rotted in the fields due to the facts that the Russians neither had the equipment to harvest nor the supply chain to move it to market.
With the interconnected world we live in moving foodstuff around the globe is no longer a problem.
Nick, you do realize that the 0 to 2% AGW-induced statistic you quote is buried in the unfiltered production variation data that occurs for other reasons, yes? It is similar to temperature. Unfiltered temperature variation buries the AGW trend. This means that you have not made a point at all, unless you unwittingly wish to be seen as a person who is unfamiliar with “statistical significance”.
Why is it that little ol’ me, this one-hit wonder in the science world, far less notorious than you and the rest of the AGW rent seeking gang of scientists, understands the glaringly obvious and you apparently do not?
Petrossa says:
November 27, 2013 at 2:23 am
There is no way possible with 1 planet worth of resources to keep a population of billions at even the lowest level of western civilization.
=================
nonsense. we already have 1+ billion people living at that level and above. if what you say was true, if resources were truly finite, then prices of resources would be increasing. but they are not, they are decreasing in real dollar terms. get out and travel the world. you will be surprised at how well people are doing in many, many countries.
the problem is lack of imagination. people don’t see how the problems will be solved, so they think they cannot be solved. however, we forget. We also have billions of people working on solving the problems. And from those billions have come some pretty good answers.
If it’s too warm in the USA for wheat then grow it in Canada, Siberia etc The USA can then grow crops that do better in warmer conditions. Warmists seem to think that humans just can’t adapt. Humans have been adapting and changing the land for thousands of years and are prone to migrate and switch crops.
Sorry to repeat this but the past few decades has see the greening biosphere with pasture lands doing well too. The greening has been projected to increase in future.
After the “HOTTEST DECADE ON THE RECORD!” yields are up. Hmmmmm!
Surely the Medieval Warm Period shows us that things were really, really bad? Here are the signs from Dr. Michael Mann.
That last paragraph is the hint as to what really damages crops. 🙂 Don’t worry, be happy.
Nick Stokes says:
November 27, 2013 at 3:30 am
I don’t myself have a firm view on how that would work out. But I think they should not be misquoted.
============
Nick, the answer is in their quote:
“Without adaptation”
That is the nonsense of their argument. Doom and gloom is based on the assumption that people will not plant different crops in response to changing climate. That completely ignores what has made humans successful world-wide. We adapt. Climate changes, we plant different crops. Or we invent new ones.
Humans prosper when there is change, because we are so adaptable. Not genetically, rather we adapt via society and technology. If you neighbor plants wheat and you plant corn and at the end of the year one of you does better than the other, by next year you will both be planting the crop that did better. This process goes on all over the world, everyone using the experience of their neighbor to improve their own lot in life. With change come opportunity.
Some farmers are able to grow 1000kg pumpkins every year, I’d say we haven’t even scratched the surface regarding how much more food we can produce. I can’t wait to see a 100kg beefsteak tomato or a 20kg carrot.
We are at 400ppm (disputed) and it’s turning out to be a calamity. At 450ppm it will be the end of veggie as we know it. At 800ppm the world will EXPLODE!
Here are the results of a future co2 of 1,270ppm on the delicate Vigna unguiculata (Cowpea.) We must act NOW!!!
http://youtu.be/P2qVNK6zFgE
Global warming could open certain regions to new crops. Now how about that!? Do these nutters always suffer from logic bypasses. Furthermore, warmer arid regions could have crops that are suited to those areas as new crops. Recent years has seen a greening of these warm arid areas too.
Here are the results after the dangerous warming of the last few decades. It looks like it will soon be over. NICK STOKES look at the last paper. They use models so I think you will like. No?
It’s worse than we thought! The IPCC must be right. Observations during the warming has shown us once and for all. We are doomed.
What if the doom mongers are right? What options do we have?
Look to formerly colder lands and grow suited crops there.
Desert farming.
Dryland farming.
Vertical farms.
Biotechnology / genetically modified foods.
Precision agriculture technologies.
New innovations / inventions yet to happen during this century.
Or try the 20 technologies changing agriculture.
I suspect that unless we get thermageddon we will be OK. There is plenty of farm land NOT IN USE. 100 million (2008) in Russia alone. I hear there’s lots and lots in Africa too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7528850.stm
Did you know that in the European Union some farmers were paid NOT to grow food? There used to be a huge problem with food mountains – the CAP was TOO successful. Imagine in a warmer world if they had to. The potential is mindboggling. Even if yeilds went down the potential for new production is all around us.
Do not listen to these pessimistic, Warmist fools. They are just a pack of liars, and deceivers who need to keep their snouts in the global warming trough or drive their agendas forward through fear.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11216061
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/farmer-earns-pounds-19000-a-year-for-growing-nothing-for-five-years-the-only-crop-on-215-highquality-arable-acres-has-been-grass-nicholas-schoon-reports-1429787.html
Adam says:
November 27, 2013 at 1:23 am
And still people starve to death on this planet. It is the worse tragedy. There is so much food, but we have organised ourselves in such a way that people still starve to death. What? We can move 100,000 troops into Iraq and feed them but we can’t move some Wheat and Corn to starving children? What the hell are we doing?
==========
Please define “we”.
Oh noes. It is better than we thought.
I would rather be malnourished than starving. What do you propose we do about the “80% of the worlds population lives at a subsistence level.”? Get rid of them? Let me tell you a little dirty secret. All over the world it has been noticed that the higher the standard of living of people the fewer, better educated kids they have. This wealth comes through fossil fuels. The poorer people are the more kids they have. And finally don’t panic.
http://youtu.be/OpNywwsSEmc
All I want is for people to have a better standard of living. I am not saying that someone living in Cambodia should have the standard of living of someone in Switzerland. Understand that first. Secondly, your claim might be correct today regarding lowest level of western civilization, but it might be shown to be utter horseshit in the future. Do some research on Dr. Paul Ehrlich who is an expert on population matters. Read about the things he predicted in the 1960s and 1970s then look at yourself in the mirror.
I will ask you again Petrossa, what do you propose to do about the mass of the world’s poor? I hear complaint but what is your solution? I can whine all day about the hot sun but what to do?
Ohhh Petrossa,
You might have missed this about that basket case called Africa. It really has no future and is performing terribly. A sure sign for the future. A sure sign for the year 2100 when they will be eating dirt and twigs. As for farm land there is a nasty, vicious rumor that it’s under-utilized. All ye hope is lost.
Arable land in the land of the DOOMED!
There simply won’t be enough food as Malthusian nuts like to say. They just can’t see the land for the trees (greened by co2). 🙂
Did I say water? I hear there is about 100 times more water in the newly discovered aquifers than is on the surface Africa.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17775211
Dooooom and glooooom is their mantra. But they always fail in their population predictions of doooooom
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/25/the-simon-erlich-wager-at-seven-billion-people/
And lifelong parasite, Paul Ehrlich, still has a job and the respect of his peers. Academia will be tainted, at the least, until Ehrlich gets a major and widely accepted slap down. He had his acolytes have wormed their way into the deceision making process for decades and have infested policy making and popular thought for far too long.
Mods, Thorsten has written a truly objectionable post.
Say, Moderator, I second Zeke (re: Thorsten the bigot at 4:56am today).
(Objectionable comment snipped. ~ mod)