Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A study in The Lancet claims that by 2050, climate change could cause 500,000 extra deaths per year, due to reduced food production. However the study is model based – where is the supporting evidence?
The abstract of the study;
Global and regional health effects of future food production under climate change: a modelling study
Summary
Background
One of the most important consequences of climate change could be its effects on agriculture. Although much research has focused on questions of food security, less has been devoted to assessing the wider health impacts of future changes in agricultural production. In this modelling study, we estimate excess mortality attributable to agriculturally mediated changes in dietary and weight-related risk factors by cause of death for 155 world regions in the year 2050.
Methods
For this modelling study, we linked a detailed agricultural modelling framework, the International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT), to a comparative risk assessment of changes in fruit and vegetable consumption, red meat consumption, and bodyweight for deaths from coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, and an aggregate of other causes. We calculated the change in the number of deaths attributable to climate-related changes in weight and diets for the combination of four emissions pathways (a high emissions pathway, two medium emissions pathways, and a low emissions pathway) and three socioeconomic pathways (sustainable development, middle of the road, and more fragmented development), which each included six scenarios with variable climatic inputs.
Findings
The model projects that by 2050, climate change will lead to per-person reductions of 3·2% (SD 0·4%) in global food availability, 4·0% (0·7%) in fruit and vegetable consumption, and 0·7% (0·1%) in red meat consumption. These changes will be associated with 529 000 climate-related deaths worldwide (95% CI 314 000–736 000), representing a 28% (95% CI 26–33) reduction in the number of deaths that would be avoided because of changes in dietary and weight-related risk factors between 2010 and 2050. Twice as many climate-related deaths were associated with reductions in fruit and vegetable consumption than with climate-related increases in the prevalence of underweight, and most climate-related deaths were projected to occur in south and east Asia. Adoption of climate-stabilisation pathways would reduce the number of climate-related deaths by 29–71%, depending on their stringency.
Interpretation
The health effects of climate change from changes in dietary and weight-related risk factors could be substantial, and exceed other climate-related health impacts that have been estimated. Climate change mitigation could prevent many climate-related deaths. Strengthening of public health programmes aimed at preventing and treating diet and weight-related risk factors could be a suitable climate change adaptation strategy.
Funding
Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food.
Read more: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)01156-3/abstract
Sadly the full study is paywalled, but like a lot of model based studies, in my opinion this one doesn’t pass the smell test.
For starters, global warming, or more likely CO2 greening and improved agricultural techniques, are causing agricultural production to soar. There is no reason to think this trend will end anytime soon.
If substantial global warming occurs, vast regions of Canada, Siberia, Northern Europe, even Greenland, which are currently too cold for reliable grain production, will become more agriculturally viable.
Even if global warming causes an increase in extreme weather (note there are substantial thermodynamic limits to this possibility), the increased land surface available for agriculture, combined with 34 years of genetic research and agricultural science, would surely ensure there was plenty for everyone.
Assuming some staples for whatever reason are no longer viable, genetic engineering will ensure proper nutrition. A lot of work has been performed producing nutrition enhanced crops such as golden rice. There is every reason to think this promising line of research will continue to improve the nutritional content of staple foods.
If all else fails, we could simply grow extra food in storm proof greenhouses. Greenhouses are already used extensively in Northern Europe, to produce year round crops of tomatoes and other vegetables, which require a warm growing environment. In 34 years, even at a modest global annual growth rate of 2%, the global economy will still be almost twice as productive as today’s economy – more than enough spare capacity to produce whatever agricultural infrastructure we need, to ensure food production keeps up with demand.
(1 + 0.02) ^ 34 = 1.96
Finally, there is simple experience. I’ve grown vegetables in Britain, on the cool Southern coast of Australia, and on the edge of the tropics. The occasional severe tropical storm does damage my veggie patch, say by knocking some of the fruit off my pepper plants. Yet the tropics are still far more productive than any other region I’ve tried; despite occasional storm damage, the growing season lasts longer, and produces a much greater quantity of produce, for a given area of land. Tropical land experiences ridiculous plant growth rates – you literally have to mow your lawn every few days at the height of wet season, as soon as you get a break in the rain. If more of the world experiences a tropical climate, simple common sense dictates that more agricultural land will be able to sustain tropical levels of food production.
How many people starved to death because of the increase in the increasing price of food due to biofuels?
The World production of food is increasing faster than the population. The increase in CO2 aids plant growth and reduces the need for water,. The warmer the weather, the faster plants grow; try some gardening in the tropics and see how easy it is. Just where are these 500,000 extra deaths per year from Malnutrition by 2050 going to come from.
Human life expectancy has increased more in the last 50 years than it did in the previous 200,000 years of human existence. In 1950, life expectancy was 47 years. In 2011, it was 70.
Why? Fossil fuels.
From the first paragraph of the next WUWT posting (Not so Friday Funny – Science is turning back to the dark ages).
Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, has written bleakly: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” –Melanie Phillips, The Times, 4 March 2016
A bit ironic.
“For starters, global warming, or more likely CO2 greening and improved agricultural techniques, are causing agricultural production to soar. There is no reason to think this trend will end anytime soon.”
There is this minor detail called rainfall. Increased CO2 does not help crops that don’t have enough water. Parts of the Middle East, for example, are experiencing the worst drought in 900 years: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0302/Spurred-by-climate-change-Middle-East-faces-worst-drought-in-900-years
“If substantial global warming occurs, vast regions of Canada, Siberia, Northern Europe, even Greenland, which are currently too cold for reliable grain production, will become more agriculturally viable.”
And how will countries whose grain production declined buy from these countries?
You can get the Lancet article free if you register. It’s got some publicity at Euractiv, the Official News Outlet of the European Union, where they charmingly report that Britain France, Italy and Greece will suffer more than Syria. My comment is at
http://cliscep.com/2016/03/04/turning-out-nice-in-syria/
If the world ever stops ignoring alternative ag we will be more then fine. Groups across africa for instance growin reliably with onsite inputs in areas considered non arable with mainly tree based things. My own work here in the high desdert which uses treecrops, I grow several things humans eat but since half the worlds meat comes from arid regions Im also looking at things to feed our animals. Long story short even in arid regions we can grow multiples more food per acre with less inputs then modern industrial ag, which ye such trees grow in more fertile areas as well, but the point here being we can readily make factory farming of meat as we know it today obsolete with treecrops that need less inputs and produce more per unit, with more stability. opening up our good farmlands to grow grains and other staples for humans while our arid regions only useful for cattle currently can feed multiples more animals then it does today. This is WAY over a 2% potential increase. This is ignoring all other types of increases, keep in mind much of the world can improve drastically more then even the consistently higher yields out of industrialized nations. If people go hungry it will most likely be politically driven, we definitely have answers that heck are more sustainable then current methds including current “organic” methods.
All the shipping containers that are going to be idled as a result of oppressive green economics can be converted to homes and farms. Don’t you just love it when ignorance breeds its own solution.
Re: the premise of the article. Since it is paywalled are we certain they are not talking about the effect of climate change REGULATIONS put in place to try to reduce climate change? Ie, is it not probable that the actions taken by the warmists are the proximate cause of the 50,000 deaths reported to be projected?
IMO – if the planet warms – the growing season moves further north – opening up more land for agriculture. If it cools, the opposite occurs and I think the US breadbasket of the world would shrink? Am I wrong? It just seems like common sense to me.