Where climate change is most likely to induce food violence
Study finds capable governments more important than weather
From the OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY via Eurekalert
COLUMBUS, Ohio – While climate change is expected to lead to more violence related to food scarcity, new research suggests that the strength of a country’s government plays a vital role in preventing uprisings.
“A capable government is even more important to keeping the peace than good weather,” said Bear Braumoeller, co-author of the study and associate professor of political science at The Ohio State University.
While previous studies had examined the impact of climate change-induced weather patterns on violence and the increased danger of violence in weak or failing states, this is the first study to demonstrate that the combination of the two risk factors is even more dangerous than they would be separately.
Braumoeller conducted the study with his former doctoral students Benjamin Jones, now at the University of Mississippi, and Eleonora Mattiacci, now at Amherst College.
Their results appear in the Journal of Peace Research.
“We’ve already started to see climate change as an issue that won’t just put the coasts under water, but as something that could cause food riots in some parts of the world,” Braumoeller said.
Extreme weather such as droughts and floods could hurt agricultural production in some countries, leading to violence there or elsewhere by people who are desperate for food.
“Climate-induced food scarcity is going to become an increasingly big issue and we wanted to understand which countries are most threatened by it,” he said.
The researchers estimated the effects of food insecurity and state vulnerability on the occurrence of violent uprisings in Africa for the years 1991 to 2011.
The researchers used a variety of measurements for both food shocks that lead to violence and to gauge the vulnerability of countries.
For the climate-related causes of food shocks, the researchers analyzed rainfall, temperature and – importantly – the international prices of food, including sudden increases in prices.
“We recognized that countries that imported food could be impacted by climate shocks in other parts of the world that suddenly increased prices, even if they weren’t experiencing any significant weather impacts themselves,” Braumoeller said.
When examining countries’ vulnerabilities, the researchers analyzed a host of factors including a country’s dependence on agricultural production, its imports, the strength of its political institutions and its wealth.
“We found that the most vulnerable countries are those that have weak political institutions, are relatively poor and rely more on agriculture,” he said.
“Less vulnerable countries can better handle the problems that droughts or food price fluctuations create.”
These results suggest ways that the United States and the worldwide community can respond to these challenges.
Addressing the vulnerabilities of countries is “crucial to breaking the link between food insecurity and violence,” Braumoeller said.
That means more than providing food aid to offset shortages in the short-term. More broadly, efforts should be focused on strengthening government institutions in vulnerable countries and helping them invest in “green growth” policies aimed at increasing economic growth while fostering resilience to climate shocks, he said.
“Development aid is important now and it is likely to be even more important in the future as we look for ways to increase climate resilience,” Braumoeller said.
###
Contact: Bear Braumoeller, Braumoeller.1@osu.edu
Written by Jeff Grabmeier, 614-292-8457; Grabmeier.1@osu.edu
Looks like another study that has it 100% wrong. It would be much more likely to see food scarcity without high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere given continued population increases.
Richard M says: “It would be much more likely to see food scarcity without high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere ”
Exactly right! All food contains carbon, and all carbon in all food comes from atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. It is the base of the food chain for all Carbon Based life forms.
All Life depends on the chemical transaction of extracting Carbon from atmospheric Carbon dioxide through photosynthesis/phytoplankton.
The Carbon Cycle of Life cannot complete without Carbon Dioxide.
When considered as a whole, Carbon Based Life Forms consume Carbon Dioxide.
Carbon Dioxide is the fuel of Life.
Thomas, you are 99.99999(not sure how many 9’s)% correct about carbon dioxide jump-starting the food chain. However, there are entire ecosystems, including animal kingdom critters, based on the gases emitted by submarine black smokers. The first explorers to see these ecosystems were stunned, and yes, it is very dark down there and there is no photosynthesis. I wonder what a crab sucking down volcanic-gas-based plants tastes like?
ron long – Thank you for your reply.
I understand what you’re saying. And yet, I will assume that those ‘entire ecosystems’ are considered Carbon Based Life Forms. And as such, they require Carbon. I will also assume that the ‘gases emitted by submarine black smokers’ contain Carbon Dioxide. I will make the claim that this ecosystem is extracting Carbon from those gases. Whether that process of carbon extraction can be considered ‘photosynthesis’ at such great ocean depth, I am not certain.
Thomas, the black smokers emit mostly metal sulfides and sulfates, with some calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous, and these collect into metal deposits known as volcanogenic massive sulfides. Also, the black smokers emit hydrogen, methane, and carbon dioxide (primitive carbon dioxide derived from cooling magma). The genus Archaen micro organisims actually process the sulfates and phosphates into plant-like tissue, then the food chain proceeds normally. There is no photosynthesis, this is the primitive form of life that very well may have began life on our planet. This may also represent the lifeform existing on other planets, a lifeform not likely to be touring around in spaceships.
Climate change will definitely cause food scarcity. They are just avoiding saying it is climate change to COLD that will be the cause.
BTW did you notice that they added “climate shock” to the vocabulary. I guess “change” was scary enough.
“wasn’t” scary enough.
“Journal of Peace Research?” Like, pass me another doobie, maaaannn . . .
For example in Greenland in the 13th through 15th centuries–see Why did Greenland’s Vikings disappear?
And that a lot of the food shortages we see in the world today are the direct result of poor governments.
Poor government, war, civil unrest. Most of the famines in the last century are mostly human caused.
For sure, in the history of mankind, there have been examples of famine caused by the climate. These days, they are mostly human caused, sometimes deliberately. link
Not only does CO2 increase agricultural productivity, warmer temperature and longer growing seasons do as well. The alarmists refuse to admit that more atmospheric CO2 and warming are both more beneficial to the biosphere then they are harmful to the climate, even when considering the absurdly high climate sensitivity that’s about 4x larger than the laws of physics can support. It’s undeniably clear that a balanced cost/benefit analysis would put climate alarmism on an equal footing with an Earth centric Universe. But then again, a balanced cost/benefit analysis would undermine the entire progressive agenda, of which the radical green mythology is only a tiny, but highly emotionally charged driver.
My thoughts exactly when I read this.
You write: ‘..But then again, a balanced cost/benefit analysis would undermine the entire progressive agenda, of which the radical green mythology is only a tiny, but highly emotionally charged driver…’
The ‘green mythology’ is the VEHICLE for the progressive agenda (which is to replace Capitalism with Collectivism)!
The green mythology is just one of the vehicles used by the progressive agenda. Others vehicles include the divisions arising from identity politics, the flawed idea that government knows best, infiltrating the mains stream media, demonizing dissent, how populations split on how to resolve conflict between logic and emotion and disguising evil intent as benevolent actions for the greater good.
You wanna know what is gonna induce “food violence”? If any of these climatistas try to get me to eat worm and insect paste, like some of them were threatening not to long ago. Oh they’ll see some food violence if they try that!
Actually, the food riots, such as years ago in Egypt, were because of the AGW push for biofuels which has driven up the cost of care and thus other grains, starving people around the world.
We need to cancel ALL biofuels programs and return the corn to been eaten only and the other land that has been coopted for inedible biofuel sources be returned to agriculture for food, or allowed to go back to rain forest in some areas.
Biofuels are a broken-window economy as it takes more energy to make them than you get back when burning them. Just the wrong thing to do, but it does give the government a chance to ramp up that wonderful crony capitalism and throw billions of our tax dollars to people who have no idea how to keep track of all those many millions. So much money just seems to vaporize.
it’s not just bio fuels, a few months ago I noticed that my company was proudly posting around the copy room that the paper is now made from wheat rather than tree wood.
My first reaction was “great, more people starve to death because of someone’s ignorance and they will blame it on those greedy conservatives”.
The ridiculousness never ends.
Though the authors of the research made some appropriate points [in fact I made these in the previous articles] the main issue is what they mean by climate change: Is it natural variability in rainfall or global warming? In the natural variability floods and droughts play the pivotal role in food production.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
must be super hot in Venezuela
Climate change caused the civil war in Syria
Climate chage also cause Obuma to forget where he put the red line.
Climate change caused Hillary to forget where she put her e-mail server.
The fear of climate change has encouraged the progressive left to further deny the ground truth.
The current worsening food and other consumables shortage situation in Venezuela indicates that governments are able to and do cause far more damage than any natural event.
Yes, but the question really is WHICH government is causing the damage, the one in power of the other government that has been trying to instigate a regime change? My bet would be that if the outside government that is trying to instigate a regime change would just go home and tend its own business, the one in power would find a way out of the mess and Venezuela could well find peace and prosperity.
Stupid does not even begin to describe your claim.
Although, paranoid would come close. “Conspiracy ideation”, much? You need to talk to your pal Lewandowsky about that.
Like all communists, Tom relies on invisible boogey men to try and distract from his regimes failures.
There are no outside governments trying to overthrow the Venezuelan government. Their problems are 100% home grown.
Who is this, Sean Penn’s Sock Puppet?
(knocks on head) Wake UP IN THERE! SOCIALISM CAUSES FOOD VIOLENCE!!!
Every time it is tried, in fact.
The Venezuelan regime’s problems are entirely self-inflicted. The only foreign interference during its tenure was support from Cuba and its own intervention in Colombia to back and provide bases for the FARC narcoterrorists.
It’s always someone else’s doing, isn’t it?
VENEZUELA
Stuck in a death spiral, Venezuela is borrowing money at any cost
By Nick Miroff June 8, WaPo
How did the country with the world’s largest oil reserves end up in this trash-strewn dark alley? Middling petroleum prices don’t come close to explaining it.
It’s a whole stewing miasma of mismanagement. Currency controls that produced the world’s highest inflation rate. Capricious, ill-advised nationalization schemes. Oceanic corruption. An endless spending binge on Russian weapons, gasoline subsidies and grandiose infrastructure projects that went bust. Those are just a few reasons.
Really, Venezuela’s most expensive habit appears to be its addiction to credit, no matter what the cost.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/06/08/stuck-in-a-death-spiral-venezuela-is-borrowing-money-at-any-cost/?utm_term=.11e5b9aefb58
Hey, why not? ClimateChange™ has already induced mental illnesses and emotional incontinence.
Get the true sense
Of food violence
Consider the power
Of mad Cauliflower
Actin’ correctly,
The veg will directly
Seek another number
Covered in umber
Gunk. So ‘deniers’
Will get all the highers.
Blimey – maybe I should have been a rapper [no ‘C”, thanks]
Auto.
Perhaps if environmentalists and profiteers didn’t convince the US to dedicate a large amount of land and 40% of the corn crop to pointlessly add ETOH to our gasoline, there would be less food shortages and less price stress in places like Africa.
Ten out of ten. And now if we could stop ‘bringing democracy’ to the likes of Somalia, Yemen, Syria, etc then some resources might be available to mitigate the occasional natural disaster rather than the string of man-made disasters and displacements.
Libya.
You forgot Libya.
As the UK’s ruling class have, too.
Auto.
Cameron had no idea about military.
Monetary, maybe he did – but not military.
But least bad, and at least the harm is – mostly – confined to North Africa and London Bridge.
I am not being flippant – maudlin, more like: I cross London Bridge every day.
I have seen the floral tributes to the victims – many brave resisters, too.
I hope I would react similarly if placed in the way of a loser, who will burn in hell for all eternity, smelling his (or her, possibly) own flesh burning . . .
Auto
So the wealthier, food producing, politically stable governments are able the deal with climate caused food shortages. Who’d have thunk?
Hmmm, that seems to leave the US out since it certainly isn’t wealthier, produces less food, and isn’t showing real political stability towards managing itself as a nation or neighbor.
Wow Tom, would you please describe the color of the sky in your world, because it bears no relationship to the world the rest of us live in.
Tom O,
Only your second post and you have doubled down on stupid. I can’t wait to see what other gems of wisdom you have left down thread.
Tom, cut it out! You/re making Griff look clever.
Kalifornia K
Wow!
Spilt my wine (but no monitor this time).
Plus lots.
Auto
An study about the impact of climate by political science academics in the Journal of Peace Research. What could go wrong with that?
Paul R.
Another wine spill!
Auto – with many plusnesses.
As Sun cycles 24-27 take the planet into a new grand minimum..I expect there will be more crop failures and the inability to plant crops until too late into the normal growth year.
yup thats my worry
last yr i lost a crop of oats to flooding
this yr it was too dry early on and now its so wet i cant get tractor in
add a probable mouse plague coming to eat anything i might get planted either as seed or as grown later,
and im going to plant pasture instead.
gave up on food for humans this yr
but obviously changing weather patterns play no role at all in your troubles /s
And as everyone knows, prior to SUV’s, the climate never changed.
Oz: sorry for your troubles. Time to go a huntin’. Perhaps, like the gent from Maine who had similar troubles, you’ll cross a stream and spot a deer off to your left, then another to the right. Taking careful aim at the rock midway between and squeezing that trigger, you’ll split the rock and kill both deer. The kick from the gun will propel you back into the stream, knocking you out when your head hits a rock. When you come to, your right hand will be on an otter’s head, your left on a beaver’s tail, and your trouser pockets will be so full of trout that a button will pop off your fly and kill a partridge. 🙂
Benben is right, consider the Irish Potato Famine. Climate change caused the famine and over a million people died and another million immigrated. Over 40% of the population of Ireland was lost in only four years!!!
Oh, wait…that took place in 1845 when the climate was yet unspoiled by man.
How about those Egyptian famines we always heard about in….uhh, the Bible…never mind.
I got it. There was the Great Famine of 1315-1317, no that won’t work..how about the Great Famine of 1590…no, the Great Famine of 1620…no, the famine of 1742…no…
Damn, it looks like the weather has been changing and causing crop failures for as long as there have been crops. But what about man made climate change???
/sarc
Absolutely Mark
Up until 1880 the climate was so stable that:
…you could set your watch by it
…there were never any droughts
…there were never any tornados
…there were never any hurricanes
…there were never any floods
…there were never any heat waves or cold snaps
…first NH snow always fell on Nov 3rd
…last NH snow always fell on April 3rd
…Punxsutawney Phil couldn’t predict the end of winter (always 6 weeks between Feb 2 and the spring equinox)
…the temp was never higher than 85f in the summer, and never colder than 19f in the winter
…the Arctic ice pack never melted in the summer nor grew in the winter
…Polar Bear populations numbered in the hundreds of thousands
…the 3 magic words “Sea Level Rise” had never been used in a sentence together
How many people got publication creds for stating the obvious: at strong (effective?) government does better than a weak one. I suppose if you add climate change, climate shock and other buzz words stating the obvious becomes novel research.
I searched for climate shock and learned someone had written a book with that name. Something about the effects of a hotter world. So, I did learn something from this, it looks like the hotter planet hysteria was bundled into a book and given a name to add to the lexicon.
They seem to be talking about weather, here – that stuff we used not to have until we began to use fossil fuels.
the combination of the two risk factors is even more dangerous than they would be separately……
They never qualify this crap…….How much more?…..0.000001%
Actually it is infinitely more dangerous.
Separately, neither is much of a risk factor.
One can grow their own food or one can buy it. This is why weather related crop failures have never caused a famine in an industrialized capitalist society. When wealthy societies fail to grow their own food, they merely purchase it from someone else.
In nations with failed economic and political systems, the people are impoverished, can not buy food and must produce their own. Any time they fail, famine ensues.
The reason there is hunger is not because there is not enough food, it is because people have no money to buy food.
The key to eliminating world hunger therefore is not climate, because in any climate, periodic crop failures occur (it’s called weather). The key is to not to adopt policies that inhibit industrialization, prevent the creation of wealth, or confiscate and squander the nations wealth so that when food production is insufficient they can not purchase food… the exact opposite of the policies that the green blob endorses. (Politicians and academics such as the one in the article who propose economic solutions while rejecting the principles of economics have the same track record as people who build bridges while rejecting the principles of engineering).
As a farmer, I can tell you that my per acre food production has roughly doubled in the last 25 years, mostly due to technology. If it were cost effective, it could be doubled again. It isn’t even close to being cost effective to spend more on inputs, adopt more labor intensive practices or dig wells for irrigation at $5/bushel wheat, at $20/bushel it is. The problem is that the hungry don’t have the $5, let alone the $20 to buy my wheat. If the areas of the world where hunger is an issue were more productive and wealthy, they would be well fed.
Not necessarily. Despots figured out a long time ago that, with reasonable probability, a hungry populace hasn’t enough energy to rise over and topple him.
“We’ve already started to see climate change as an issue that won’t just put the coasts under water, but as something that could cause food riots in some parts of the world,”
And what of the record yields and harvests?
Global crop yields hit record levels, according to United Nations data.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/19/2016s-record-warmth-brought-record-crop-yields-fewer-storms/
The money quote is “Development aid is important now and it is likely to be even more important in the future as we look for ways to increase climate resilience,”
https://news.osu.edu/news/2017/06/08/climate-food-violence/
And just what exactly is “climate resilience”???? And how do we increase it? I wonder if they are talking about other peoples money! Naw.
They should store a portion of the abundance just in case a series of bad growing seasons pop up.
Chuckle.
I wonder if it’s funded by the same people who bankrolled other “peace” groups in the past?
Oops, buggered-up the link.
I wonder if it’s funded by the same people who bankrolled other “peace” groups in the past?
I assume the taxpayers funded this cr@p.
Trump needs to stop the nonsense of this waste of resources.
“entitlement” grants for the unemployables
When poly-sci people start to talk I quit listening, they are worse at predicting the future than economists
Let’s see now – they assume something not true – that global warming leads to more floods and droughts, and then disregard the beneficial effects of higher levels of CO2 on crop growth, and, being from an agricultural state, they naturally disregard the beneficial effects of genetic breeding. And there you have a paper that is 100% wrong.
I wonder if they see more socialism coming up as means to control the masses.
After all, in socialism you wait on the bread. In capitalism, the bread waits on you!
“violence related to food scarcity” ?? Do these people live on a different planet ? The Earth is “Greening” from extra CO2 …
In support of Butch’s comment.
Hello. The following quantifies the plant benefits for increased CO2.
Big surprise: The increase in atmospheric CO2 is environmentally beneficial !!! Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into their greenhouses to increase yield, C3 plants require less water when CO2 increase, higher CO2 levels hence results in less desertification.
Increased atmospheric CO2 is a good thing, not a bad thing.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 has two benefits: 1) Increased plant growth and higher yields (including cereals and grains) by roughly 50% and 2) Reduction in plant loss of water due to less trans-respiration.
C3 plants (trees, cereal crops, and shrubs) lose roughly 50% of the water they absorb due to trans-respiration (loss of water from the plant’s stomata.) When CO2 rises C3 plants produce less stomata which reduces water loss in the plant. This results in more water at the root of the plant which enables synergistic bacteria on the roots to produce more nitrogen byproducts which increases plant growth.
A higher level of atmospheric CO2 enables plants to make more effective use of water and enables the plant to survive in regions of low water such as deserts. Higher levels of atmospheric CO2 are beneficial net significantly beneficial to the biosphere.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
Great iformative post. However, there also appears to be some controversy here. Check out this story out of Stanford: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html which claims increased CO2 can actually reduce plant growth (from 2002). On the other hand a remoted sensing study conducted at MIT found that the amount of increased vegetation, inferred to be due to the rise in CO2 levels, going from 1970 to dateof study (2015?) was equivalent to the 2x amount of vegetation over the area of the United States. Can’t find a link to the this later story.
Kenneth N. Shonk says: “Check out this story … which claims increased CO2 can actually reduce plant growth”
From the linked article:
“The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding CO2 reduced this to 40 percent,” Shaw and her colleagues wrote.
So plant growth still increased with the additional CO2, but not at the same rate is what they claim. Is that “reducing plant growth”?
In reply to: Kenneth N. Shonk
Hello. You are quoting a cult of CAGW fake scientific study where the objective of their “experiment” is to provide political support for the cult’s agenda, as opposed to providing scientific data and analysis for us to determine the benefits of CO2 Vs the risk of CAGW.
A quote from the pitiful, fake study:
It is a fact that increased CO2 causes increased plant grow (roughly 50% increase). That is the reason commercial greenhouses purchase and install equipment and burn natural gas to inject CO2 into their greenhouses.
The cult of CAGW reduced the amount of water provided to the test plants and big surprise, there was less increase in plant growth due to the increased CO2. Their justification is there will be more draughts due to CAGW.
Increased nitrogen does not reduce plant growth, it increases plant growth.
The inaccurately written, sciency summary meant to say that if there was insufficient nitrogen available to the plant, the plant could not take advantage of the increased CO2. That was the cult of CAGW’s argument.
That assertion has been proven incorrect, by experiments and by the fact there is unequivocal evidence of a significant increase in plant growth on the entire planet.
The increase in atmospheric CO2 is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Notice how “more government” is always the answer?
Climate change has caused me to get older! Urika! If we can all stop driving I will get younger! No mechanism required. Just short term correlation and bad-ass dialed-in guesses about future scenarios. Who do I call to get my next grant? I could use a new computer, phone, and office.
Hi, Pamela! 🙂 Hope all is well…. 🙂
I was kinda counting on the last Liberal Government to but everyone a Tesla so that they could claim ending the need for Gas and Oil in the transportation industry. Well, at least I’m not stuck with a Pacer or Grimlin or Pinto
Starts off suggesting and then elevates to demonstrating. Actually bad autocratic governments don’t have any problem with such riots. e. g. North Korea.
But on the bright side, No K. probably doesn’t have an obesity epidemic.
Another report about something that doesn’t exist causing something that doesn’t exist.
Exactly!
What is amazing about this “prediction” tactic is how very easy it is to see through them. PiperPaul (above) is right. Only a delusional/brain or emotionally-impaired person would be fooled by:
Start.
Step 1: Run “Look” Macro {Look around for a bad thing that is either:
A. Just getting underway
or
B. Almost certain to occur in the normal course of things}
Step 2: Run “Write” Macro {Write a little article stating that human CO2 caused the bad thing.}
“Goal” = “Goal” + 1.
Repeat Until “Goal” = 1,000,000.
Run “Find New Globalization Excuse.”
End.
Hi Janice,
Just a few problems here. You wrote:
“Goal” = “Goal” + 1
ERROR: Undefined/Uninitialized variable!
You could write something like this:
Start.
“Goal” = 0
Step 1: Run “Look” Macro
But look carefully: The declaration of “Goal” is within the loop, so “Goal” gets reset to 0 on every pass. So “goal” never gets to 1,000,000. This is an infinite loop that will run forever, until forcibly terminated.
Of course, this seems to be exactly the situation we have today, anyway.
Cheers!
Thank — you, TONY L, for correcting my syntax. Lol, I was just trying to create a “sort of” code example, there. I like your endless loop dealio — good one. (but, you know that I would never initialize my variables inside a loop!!!!).
Of course, I understand you know better.
One guy I worked with, accidentally initialized inside a loop. When I found his error, he thought about it for a minute, then declared “When I initialize a variable, it stays initialized!”.
Another guy did not initialize his variables at all. That made for interesting randomness.
Been doing a fair bit of R programming lately, highly recommended.
I’d assume that “Goal” was a self-instantiating and intializing variable …..
” I was just trying to create a “sort of” code example, there”
Ahhh .. Its Uni exam marking time down here. 🙂
And AndyG! 🙂 I knew that you are a math professor. THAT is why I said something like “how’s school going.” Not a demotion — just a little communication glitch. OKAY?
🙂
Food violence? Lettuce pray the taters stay neutral.