Global climate frameworks miss the ‘big picture’ on food, say scientists

Schemes may fall short of ambitions by dealing separately with food production, supply and consumption


Global schemes to fight climate change may miss their mark by ignoring the “fundamental connections” in how food is produced, supplied and consumed, say scientists in a new paper published in the journal Nature Food. Global bodies such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), handle the different components of the food system separately. This includes crop and livestock production; food processing, storage and transport; and food consumption. Scientists argue this disjointed approach may harm strategies to reduce food emissions and safeguard food from climate impacts, and that a “comprehensive” and “unified” approach is needed.

Food and climate change are deeply interlinked, but food emissions need to be tracked beyond the “farm gate,” that is, beyond the emissions arising from growing crops or raising livestock. Researchers are uncovering new insights on how the different subcomponents of the food system contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. They argue that we must understand how these components work together — or clash in some cases — in order to effectively address agriculture in a changing climate.

A systems approach is crucial for achieving lasting change at a large scale, and for bringing a much broader set of players into the discussion, say the authors. “Actions aimed at changing only some of the component parts of the food system are not going to solve the climate crisis,” said Cynthia Rosenzweig, the lead author of the paper. “We need all actors and institutions involved in the many different parts of the food system to understand their roles and impacts, and to make the informed choices needed for widespread transformation,” she explained.

Towards a unified food systems approach

The authors recommend that global reporting systems take a unified food systems approach in measuring their emissions. They argue this could improve international and national-level responses to climate change in agriculture in three important ways.

First, a systems approach would allow for much better estimates of the whole food system’s contribution to total human-induced greenhouse gases. “Current best estimates of emissions from food production, related land-use changes, processing, consumption and management of food waste, range from 21 to 37 percent of all human-induced emissions,” said paper co-author Tek Sapkota, a scientist with the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT). “While this overall figure helps us recognize that the food system is an important source of greenhouse gas emissions, we need a complete accounting of emissions from all components of food systems in order to inform appropriate responses,” he explained.

Secondly, a big-picture view could help us understand how growing demand for climate-friendly foods might interact with climate-efficient food production. “There is increasing awareness of the link between diets, nutrition, and climate change, informed by recent studies such as the EAT-Lancet Commission report,” said co-author Prajal Pradhan from the Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “Dietary changes are important, but measures need to be taken across the whole system, and must deal with production, consumption and also food loss and waste at all stages of the supply chain.”

Finally, the interconnectivity of all parts of the food system means that measures in one area will have positive or negative consequences elsewhere. “We want to avoid situations where strategies to fight climate change, such as growing bioenergy crops or protecting forests, have a detrimental effect on food supply,” said Luis G. Barioni, another co-author of the paper based at the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA). “The goal is to develop actions that strike a balance between food security, adaptation and mitigation. A food system gives us the unique vantage point to assess this,” he said.

Many agricultural practices can increase yields and resilience to climate change, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions, say the authors. Farming techniques that increase the amount of organic matter in soils — such as leaving behind stems from harvested crops, or using livestock manure for fertilizer — can boost the resilience of some crops to rising temperatures, without harming yields or increasing emissions. “These interactions are only clear when we look through the lens of the whole food system,” emphasized Sapkota. “This kind of understanding is crucial to the success of any climate change response in agriculture.”


Read more: Rosenzweig C et al. 2020. Climate change responses benefit from a global food system approach. Nature Food

This article is a synthesis of chapter 5 of the IPCC’s Special Report on “Climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems” which was contributed collectively by the authors in the manuscript.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Tillman
February 19, 2020 2:08 pm

The only fact that matters is that more plant food in the air means more trees and crops on the land.

Reply to  John Tillman
February 19, 2020 3:40 pm

Who needs food? Bloomberg will say you’re better off without it.

Reply to  Scissor
February 19, 2020 3:41 pm

He eats shit.

Reply to  Luke
February 19, 2020 7:21 pm

Wow, just like a dung beetle?

Reply to  John Tillman
February 19, 2020 3:46 pm

So glad that we have a President again who sides with the working man, and working woman, over the credentialed idiot. So glad that we have a President again who sides with the miner, the farmer, and the factory worker over the faculty.

Reply to  Luke
February 22, 2020 3:59 am

You sure he’s not pretending? Like a pawn in the bigger game?

Reply to  John Tillman
February 19, 2020 7:14 pm

When they figure out that CO2 is good and not bad, they will have moved on to other fearful topics. There are over 20 ways that CO2 cannot and does not do what they say, but they want to ignore all of these real world facts and behave like we have to cut back on everything. We need the food, which means we need the CO2. Anyone who says otherwise is either evil or stupid, bathing in the confidence of ignorance.

Reply to  Charles Higley
February 21, 2020 6:51 pm

I’ve identified three categories of CAGW Alarmists. Lunatics, Liars, and Lemmings (the 3 Ls). These authors seem to me to be among the Lunatic group.

Reply to  John Tillman
February 20, 2020 12:38 am

John Tillman wrote:
“The only fact that matters is that more plant food in the air means more trees and crops on the land.”

John, you are entirely correct.

For the record:

CO2 in the atmosphere is good , and more CO2 is better.

Excerpt from my recent paper:

15. Atmospheric CO2 is not alarmingly high, it is too low for optimal plant growth and alarmingly low for the survival of carbon-based terrestrial life. The real danger is not too much CO2 – it is CO2 starvation. Over geologic time, CO2 is ~permanently sequestered in carbonate rocks.

Plants evolved at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 2000 ppm and greater, and many grow best at about 1200 ppm CO2 – about 3 times current levels. That is why greenhouse operators pump 1000-1200 ppm CO2 into their greenhouses.

Major food crops (except corn) use the C3 photosynthetic pathway, and die at about 150 ppm from CO2 starvation – that is just 30 ppm below the minimum levels during the last Ice Age, which ended just 10,000 years ago – “the blink of an eye” in geologic time. Earth came that close to a major extinction event.

During one of the next Ice Ages, unless there is massive human intervention, atmospheric CO2 will decline to below 150 ppm and that will be the next major extinction event – not just for a few species but for ~all complex terrestrial carbon-based life forms.

Reference: “(Plant) Food for Thought”
(first posted in January 2009 on, published on in December 2014)
by Allan MacRae, Dec 18, 2014

Reference: “Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?”
by Patrick Moore, October 15, 2015

Excerpts from
“CO2, Global Warming, Climate and Energy”
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng.

February 19, 2020 2:10 pm

To ascertain whether this paper is correct or not, all UN officials and climate warmists are required to immediately live only on subsistence farmed food for a minimum of 10 years to allow some vagaries of teh weather such as drought, floods etc to inform the research.

Reply to  Quilter52
February 19, 2020 5:38 pm

Sustainable and planet-friendly domiciles, services, and products including green (e.g. fruit and vegetable) quotas. Not shifted. Not shared. First step is to reduce, reuse, and recycle urban jungles that are first-order forcings of climate change. Let Gaia breath.

Betty Luks
Reply to  Quilter52
February 19, 2020 8:11 pm

If only it was that simple.

We are to believe “Climate change responses (will) benefit from a global food system approach”? We must also believe that ‘pigs might fly!

Have we got the full picture, purpose and intent of what these United Nations bureaucrats have in their minds? Or is it nearer the truth that unless we know our history we don’t have a clear picture of what is our future intended by these people?

It is only but a few years since the Soviet regime was allowed to collapse – and those who know that part of history know that one of the ways the Soviets kept the people under control was by rationing food supplies. In fact if you want to see the same pattern – read Genesis 49 of the Old Testament. Ancient history I know but it was how Joseph communised and controlled Egypt.

Rationing was not for the Soviet elite of course, they had their own special shops and supplies – just as I am sure do the Chinese elite.

Partial glimpses are not good enough – we must get the whole picture. In my understanding the Chinese communists learnt much from the Soviet experiment. But it is still a structure based on a Pyramid of Power and history is replete with examples of such Pyramids of Power structures – Sumer, Greece, Rome, etc.

What has been around for thousands of years is Money and Prices. Ration the supply of credit/money and inflate prices – and what have you got? Hunger? Starvation? I now read there are suggestions notes and coins should be withdrawn and only bank credit be available.

That would further centralise the power of the Financial sector which is privately owned.

Read how money/credit is created in the modern world.

This article explains how the majority of money /credit in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans.

• Money creation in practice differs from some popular misconceptions — banks do not act simply as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’ central bank money to create new loans and deposits.

• The amount of money created in the economy ultimately depends on the monetary policy of the central bank. In normal times, this is carried out by setting interest rates. The central bank can also affect the amount of money directly through purchasing assets or ‘quantitative easing’.

Money creation in the modern Economy
By Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas of the Bank’s Monetary Analysis Directorate.(1

Is this what a ‘World Government’ would look like? A Pyramid of Power?
Under ‘Resources’ Library:

Reply to  Betty Luks
February 20, 2020 5:51 am

”Rationing was not for the Soviet elite of course, they had their own special shops and supplies – just as I am sure do the Chinese elite.” – Betty Luks

Actually, in the cities, common Chinese grocery stores are huge with almost any product you would like. You can buy 30 gallon drums of cooking oil, or Guinness beer (although in oddly small cans). Food is plentiful, as are convenience items. Other stores have anything else you want, at many price points. Cars, clothes, electronics are all plentiful. China is no longer a communist country, regardless of labels. From my first-hand observations of the last decade or so, it is a market economy with authoritarian control and investment. It’s fascism on a scale that would have boggled minds in WWII. It’s actually amazing, in that it has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty, and created a substantial middle class. That said, the government is horrible and causes other suffering that is only glimpsed by the west.

Betty Luks
Reply to  Monster
February 20, 2020 8:27 pm

Monster, you make the point: “China is no longer a communist country, regardless of labels”.
Yes, we must look beyond the label. A jar of pink powder may be labelled icing sugar but contain strychnine powder!

Much as I would like to continue down this thread, for now I refer to what is known as the Pedigree of Ideas. There is so much evidence of these ideas being promoted I am surprised more people have not learnt of them. Who has heard of Technocracy and the idea of a Carbon Currency to replace a Financial system?

Popular in the 1930s, today there are two principal websites representing Technocracy in North America: Technocracy, Inc., located in Ferndale, Washington, at A sister organization in Vancouver, British Columbia is Technocracy Vancouver, can be found at

The Network of European Technocrats was formed in 2005 as “an autonomous research and social movement that aims to explore and develop both the theory and design of technocracy”.

The Modern Proposal: Environment, Global Warming & Energy Certificates

Technocratic concept of Energy Certificates and a Carbon Currency. In 1995, Judith Hanna wrote in New Scientist, “Toward a single carbon currency”, “My proposal is to set a global quota for fossil fuel combustion every year, and to share it equally between all the adults in the world.”

In 2004, the prestigious Harvard International Review published “A New Currency” and stated:
“For those keen to slow global warming, the most effective actions are in the creation of strong national carbon currencies… For scholars and policymakers, the key task is to mine history for guides that are more useful. Global warming is considered an environmental issue, but its best solutions are not to be found in the canon of environmental law. . .

Carbon Becomes a New Currency
In 2006, UK Environment Secretary David Miliband spoke to the Audit Commission Annual Lecture and flatly stated, “Imagine a country where carbon becomes a new currency. We carry bankcards that store both pounds and carbon points. When we buy electricity, gas and fuel, we use our carbon points, as well as pounds. To help reduce carbon emissions, the Government would set limits on the amount of carbon that could be used.”

In 2007, New York Times published “When Carbon Is Currency” by Hannah Fairfield. She pointedly stated “To build a carbon market, its originators must create a currency of carbon credits that participants can trade.”
PointCarbon, a leading global consultancy, is partnered with Bank of New York Mellon to assess rapidly growing carbon markets. In 2008 they published “Towards a Common Carbon Currency: Exploring the prospects for integrated global carbon markets.” This report discusses both environmental and economic efficiency in a similar context as originally seen with Hubbert in 1933.

Finally, on November 9 2009, the Telegraph (UK) presented an article “Everyone in Britain could be given a personal ‘carbon allowance.’” “… implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.
Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using. If their “carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits”. . .

Carbon Currencies: Matt Taibbi in the Rolling Stone magazine 5th April 2010 wrote a comprehensive report about Goldman Sachs’ involvement in the new scheme – reminding his readers – “From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great depression – and they’re about to do it again…” []

Now do you think I might have a point about planned, controlled hunger and starvation?

Reply to  Betty Luks
February 20, 2020 7:52 am

And furthermore, I don’t recall electing ANY of these “credentialed idiots” to power over the USA’s agricultural markets or our dietary choices. This is why Trump’s recent rescue of American sovreignty is so essential. GLOBAL CENTRAL PLANNERS are the REAL “existential threat!”

The UN was formed to intervene to prevent future world wars; it is way out of its lane now and has obviously outlived its usefulness. Time to get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US. Let them set up HQ in one of their garden spots like Mogadishu!

Bryan A
February 19, 2020 2:14 pm

Many agricultural practices can increase yields and resilience to climate change, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions, say the authors. Farming techniques that increase the amount of organic matter in soils — such as leaving behind stems from harvested crops, or using livestock manure for fertilizer — can boost the resilience of some crops to rising temperatures, without harming yields or increasing emissions. “These interactions are only clear when we look through the lens of the whole food system,” emphasized Sapkota. “This kind of understanding is crucial to the success of any climate change response in agriculture.”

The goal is to have the Climate Cabal eliminate Meat Production and Consumption by the Hoi-Polloi … Eliminating the production of Meat Livestock eliminates the possibility of a source for Manure Fertilizer for enhanced crop production

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Bryan A
February 19, 2020 6:54 pm

Bryan, you have a valid argument, yet I still believe you are wrong.

The government-funded global warming studies for just the year 2020, will produce sufficient manure to supply 100% of agricultural demand until at least 2030.

Bryan A
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 19, 2020 7:09 pm

Ya know…I forgot about All THAT SCHIST

February 19, 2020 2:16 pm

she used a lot of liberal trigger words….so I had to look her up

comment image

Reply to  Latitude
February 19, 2020 2:23 pm

Some more food appreciated 😀

John Tillman
Reply to  Latitude
February 19, 2020 2:24 pm

All the more reason to shut down GISS.

shortus cynicus
Reply to  Latitude
February 20, 2020 12:00 am

Her old holly book stopped working, so she needs to invent new one.

February 19, 2020 2:19 pm

At least it’s a somewhat interesting grant request….

Joe Germany
February 19, 2020 2:22 pm
February 19, 2020 2:35 pm

I wonder if she’s ever visited a farm?

…like in her entire life?

Or is her perception of farming like Bloomberg’s ignorant rant: dig hole, drop seed, water, harvest.

Does she know where cows come from?

She claims to want to “fight climate change”, but never says exactly how or in which direction the climate needs to be fought!

I suspect this is just more “hope and change” and of course, send money!

Reply to  RockyRoad
February 19, 2020 3:04 pm

It has been my experience that the people who are the biggest experts of farming are those who have never spent 1 full hour working in the hot sun in their entire life. The people who have never working physically hard in the hot sun and who have never used any farm implements are logically the best people to decide how farming should be done.

Of course, I am being sarcastic. But it certainly seems like the ones telling us how farming should be done are the ones who have absolutely no real world experience in it. These people have an illogical hatred of Monsanto (now Beyer) for having to make genetically modified crops.

I watched a documentary called Food, Inc and it came down hard on Monsanto. Being the inquisitive person that I was, I asked the farmers I know what they think of Monsanto. Every one spoke well of the company. But that documentary made out like Monsanto was a big evil corporation oppressing small farmers. The documentary even (purposefully) left out key details in a lawsuit by Monsanto against a farmer. It has been a while, so I forgot what it was. All I remember is that when I learned it, I learned the farmer was not innocent. Yes, he had less money to defend himself than Monsanto had to go after him; no, he did not act in ignorance.

It was after I had the never to find out the complete picture of a situation that I realized that the biggest experts — the ones who get the most airtime — about a subject are almost always the ones who have little to no experience in the subject they are experts on. It was about this time I found wattsupwiththat and quickly realized the biggest voices in many subjects are usually the most wrong.

I am no farmer. But I have spent several hours in the hot sun tending a small garden. The amount of time I spent in one day doing this is probably more than every member of the UN IPCC member has combined and doubled. The same for this lady who wrote this “study” — Rosenzweig.

Reply to  Wade
February 20, 2020 7:56 am

Big Media wants you to believe the PETA and “organic” hippies’ distortions of farming.

Reply to  RockyRoad
February 19, 2020 10:22 pm

Nobody knows where cows come from. It is one of life’s deepest mysteries.

Reply to  Leo Smith
February 20, 2020 8:31 pm

Wonderous legend has it that when the 1st chicken crossed the road a cow was already on the other side.

Jeffery P
February 19, 2020 2:37 pm

There is near zero doubt in my mind that human greenhouse gas emissions are not the driving factor for climate change. Nevertheless, if they are studying how to make farming more efficient, I am all for it. Improved efficiency means less energy expended, less fuel consumed. *

February 19, 2020 2:38 pm

I’m far less concerned about emissions tied to food production than I am about emissions tied to food consumption. My areas of greatest concern, in this regard are crowded elevators and the daily carpool.



Reply to  Max
February 19, 2020 7:32 pm

You’re right about that, Max.

The heck with banning fossil fuels. Ban Brussel Sprouts!

Right-Handed Shark
February 19, 2020 2:44 pm

Once again, the publication “Nature” demonstrates that they know nothing about nature.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
February 19, 2020 3:59 pm

It took 14 people from around the world to produce this POS article?

February 19, 2020 2:56 pm

What about rice production, lots and lots of Methane. So even the Vegans are a part of the so
called problem. .

Plus where is the real evidence that he Worlds temperature is too high. We are still coming out of the Little Ice Age.


Reply to  Michael
February 20, 2020 7:57 am

Any goldurn phool who thinks it should be COLDER–and snowier, icier, windier–has obviously NEVER spent a day working outside.

Must be hell in those 5th Avenue salons . . . drinking warm Chardonnay!

michael hart
February 19, 2020 2:59 pm

Towards a unified food systems approach.

From a bunch of planet-saving authors who probably never even grew their own marijuana, never mind learned the first thing about what much of the human race has to do every day in order to survive.

February 19, 2020 3:19 pm

I had a quick look at the paper and of course on the second page there it is Methane emissions from live stock
Methane emissions from live stock should never be counted as an emission as the process is a cycle and not one additional atom of carbon or molecule containing is emitted to the atmosphere over any time frame .
These people have science degrees and they cannot work this out for themselves .
All other emissions are from coal oil gas and cement manufacture that has been locked up for millions of years .How did biogenic methane get lumped in the same category ?
Methane from livestock is exactly the same as burning wood pellets .
Trees absorb CO2 from the air ,and grow and when the trees are burnt the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere .
Livestock eat forage that has absorbed CO2 from the air and during digestion a minute amount of methane is released into the atmosphere .
In around 10 years the CH4 is broken down into CO2 and water vapour and the cycle continues .
Because climate activists are against farmed animals methane emissions from livestock was introduced at the Kyoto climate meeting and not one scientist there questioned this .
Are they so blinkered in their field of science that they cannot reason for themselves and believe every thing that people tell them
Proud to be a farmer exporting food to the world.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Gwan
February 19, 2020 4:24 pm

To be fair to the authors, there are inputs to agriculture (industrial agriculture) which draw upon fossil fuels and which produce some emissions to the air. But the magnitude of these is likely to be quite variable depending on one’s operation, and in the worst case don’t contribute a measurable temperature difference at all. I grew up engaged in farming/ranching, and even owned an integrated irrigated farming/cow-calf operation for 14 years. My cow-calf operation was range grazing, with some winter feeding of alfalfa, and produced just about nil for net “emissions”. Not that the authors of this study would really understand such a thing.

February 19, 2020 3:36 pm

Are they so blinkered in their field of science that they cannot reason for themselves and believe every thing that people tell them“?

All the evidence seems to point to the answers: No they are not that blinkered, yes they can reason for themselves, and no they don’t believe everything that people tell them. They have an agenda and/or those controlling their environment have an agenda, and they need the income.

Kevin kilty
February 19, 2020 4:13 pm

At present mechanized agriculture is so efficient that only a small percentage of our population need to engage in it to feed everyone else. The transportation system is so efficient we can transport these foodstuffs around the planet and food is still quite inexpensive. All that a “systems” approach, managed by the genius authors of this article, can do, is muck the whole thing up.

V. Dominique
February 19, 2020 4:18 pm

They lost me when they cited EAT-Lancet.

Reply to  V. Dominique
February 20, 2020 6:28 am

they lost me at the very first few words..
Schemes may fall short of ambitions

these idiots think a farm and animals can be neatly boxed and controlled.
systems analysis
more fool them

Reply to  V. Dominique
February 20, 2020 8:01 am

Our UN overlords would have a much easier time instituing Central Planning with an undernourished, ill and pharma-dependent, mostly infertile and docile world population. Meanwhile, they’ll keep right on eating foie gras, flying private and enjoying their yachts.

Now shaddup n’ eat your lentils, Comrade! 😉

Steve Z
February 19, 2020 4:46 pm

[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE]“We want to avoid situations where strategies to fight climate change, such as growing bioenergy crops or protecting forests, have a detrimental effect on food supply,” said Luis G. Barioni, another co-author of the paper based at the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA).

Ethanol from corn is a great example where “growing bioenergy crops…have a detrimental effect on food supply”. Per unit energy produced (heat of combustion), burning ethanol emits about the same amount of CO2 as burning gasoline. But the fermentation process to convert corn to ethanol consumes energy, and whatever corn is used to make ethanol is lost to the world’s food supply.

Ethanol from corn might have made sense back in the 1980’s when the USA was importing more than half of its crude oil consumption from the Middle East. But with the advent of fracking, when the USA is now self-sufficient in oil and gas, corn ethanol makes no sense whatsoever, except to the lobbyists in Iowa. Let’s just eat the corn, feed it to livestock, or export it, and not bother with ethanol.

The global-warming alarmists need to factor into their analysis that any plant grown for food consumes CO2 by photosynthesis, removing it from the air. Even parts of the plants that humans don’t eat (such as the leaves of a corn plant or fruit tree) have removed CO2 from the air during their lifetime.

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve Z
February 20, 2020 12:26 pm

Plus, ethanol in your fuel really dilutes mileage potential per gallon burned.

February 19, 2020 4:59 pm

What “Climate Crisis”? SHOW US, PLEASE.

February 19, 2020 5:06 pm

“Towards a unified food systems approach.”

Hey, that worked great in China in the 1960’s. Millions of people starved to death.

Maybe they can call it something catchy like the Great Climate Leap Forward.

February 19, 2020 5:07 pm

You want to get an academic publication? Include the following sentence, and throw in some additional buzzwords related to the specific field of study:

“A systems approach is crucial for achieving lasting change at a large scale, and for bringing a much broader set of players into the discussion “

February 19, 2020 5:13 pm

Two scary things:
Central planners trying to figure out food growing and distribution.
And then think they can control it.
Very good instruction on farming corn and soybeans can be found in:

Michael Jankowski
February 19, 2020 5:16 pm

“…There is increasing awareness of the link between diets, nutrition, and climate change…”

Maybe in that co-author’s echo chamber. We get it…you want us to stop killing animals and eating meat.

February 19, 2020 5:37 pm

The best thing we can do for crop resilience is to keep using fossil fuels without limit for their production. It’s a win-win-win. More CO2, and better production methods allows less land to be utilized for production. Plants win, the biosphere wins, humanity wins.

Which of course the Malthusian ecoterrorists like Paul Ehrlich want to put an end to modern farming methods and their use of fossil fuels. They all just want to bring on his proclaimed genocide, as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Tom Abbott
February 19, 2020 6:16 pm

After reading this article, it sounds like the Alarmists have our future all figured out for us. Every little detail.

Sorry, I’m a non-conformist. Go away.

February 19, 2020 6:19 pm

I sure hope they are not proposing a government controlled central planning mechanism for food production. That system has a rather poor track record, to say the least.

Mike Dubrasich
February 19, 2020 6:53 pm

Warmer is better for food production. Witness last year’s record corn (maize) and soybean harvests in Brazil — on the Equator, the warmest region on Earth.

The most productive (agriculturally) land in the US is the Imperial Valley, a below-sea-level valley just south of Death Valley. They get six (6) cuttings per year of alfalfa there. How’s that compare with your neck of the farm? Next most productive is the San Joaquin Valley. Ever been in Fresno in August?

Most of our food crops are tropical in origin. According to Biz Insider the most important crops worldwide, listed by annual production and average yield in 2008, are corn, wheat, rice, potatoes, cassava, soybeans, sweet potatoes, sorghum, yams, and plantains. Hey, they’re all tropical or semi-tropical plants! Not listed but also semi-tropical are grapes and barley. Hops are from temperate climes (just being honest).

A warmer globe means more rain, according the IPCC (but it makes sense, which is remarkable). They (the IPCC experts) predict (scenario model) a 7% increase in rain in the next few decades. That would increase agricultural productivity worldwide. Yes. Better for ag. Warmer is.

Conversely, the Little Ice Age was an agricultural disaster. Big famines. Not enough to eat. Lots of hunger.

This is not rocket science. Even Mike Bloomberg should get it.

February 19, 2020 7:06 pm

Terrible truths our children still don’t get taught at school: The United Nations is the mother of all misanthropy and an unwavering enemy of Humanity. Smallpox was successfully eliminated so we can take heart that the United Nations can be systematically eliminated too.

It’s my hope that during the next term US Presidential term, President Trump will evict the United Nations from the Western world, with 3 months notice, cut all funding to it, and ensure that no similar organisation can ever arise again within the United States, and demolish the UN Headquarters building at the earliest available date.

A July 4th, 2021, as “Demolition Day” would be perfect.

Everyone likes demo day!

February 19, 2020 7:23 pm

back to Kelvin Kilty post….”…and food is still quite inexpensive..”
this has always amazed me in the USA…I work in industry not food related…but have to transport product from manufacturer to user. Not a cheap item.
How food can be as cheap in a grocery story or many restaurants is baffling …go get an egg, bacon, cheese biscuit for a breakfast snack…consider the cost to grow the egg and put it in a shipping container…the cost to raise a pig and harvest it for the bacon…the cost to produce the cheese, grow the wheat to produce the flour for the biscuit…then move it to your location in order for the restaurant to make your breakfast and pay their bills/salaries.
Think about it…not a single egg is produced within “how many miles” of NY City…yet how many eggs are consumed in a single day?
Cut out the trucks run on oil…Hunger Games in a week…and that is only one item.
Funny to me, a military veteran….the logistics to feed and supply the fighting force is the defining difference between winning and losing…and requires the most man power…
but in the civilian world…we who have it easy completely forget the work to create and move the food and needed/wanted materials for our existence.
Oil got us here and is still the solution.

February 19, 2020 7:59 pm

Me I like climate friendly food! Nothing better on a climate change induced hot day than a big steak on the BBQ washed down by an ice cold CO2 laden beer!
For those skeptical warmunists I’m talking about vegetable concentrates in the steak!

February 19, 2020 11:48 pm

Here we go again. Endless paragraphs of waffle from ‘the tree-hugging experts’ without any direct specific reference to what it is that we should all stop eating (or drinking) in order to save the world from impending doom. No examples. No lists.

I’ll do it for them.

MAP (Modified Air Packaging): Man-made CO2 (a bi-product of ammonia manufacture) is injected into food packaging to (i) prevent oxidisation, (ii) prolong shelf life and (iii) protect easily damaged goods. By removing MAP, we can all enjoy tiny bits of crushed stale crisps (potato chips USA), eat grey looking pre-packed ham and develop an appetite for breakfast cereals that have lost their snap, crackle and pop. However, apart from dramatically increasing the amount of food waste, we will save the planet from Armageddon.

Flat Lemonade and Coke: No more effervescent tiny bubbles of evil man-made CO2 injected into drinks. By eliminating the novelty effect of carbonated drinks (CO2 adds no flavour), ocean levels will stop rising at the alarming rate we were promised three decades ago.

Ban Baking Powder: Bicarbonate of Soda, as used in the snack foods industry, cake manufacture on a global scale, biscuits, crackers, rusks, liver salts (Andrews) and denture cleaning products – all makes CO2. So, just think, what a fluffy American pancake ban would do to stop climate change.

A Worldwide Fermented Yeast Ban: If, like us, you’re fed up with tiny pockets of CO2 making bread rise, astonished at the way beer is brewed, wine is fermented, etc., then stop. You know it makes sense.

Fermented Soya Beans Ban: No more Tofu from now on (can’t stand the stuff anyway). Vegans need to discover another way of consuming what little protein they don’t already eat. Think of how skin and muscle doesn’t require any protein whatsoever to rejuvenate. Think of complexion. Think of anaemia.

Dry Ice Pellets: Used in large scale bakeries to ‘sand-blast’ baking equipment – more effective than cleaning down with water and detergents. Goodness knows what dry ice is made from, but I’ve been told it’s evil – apparently.

Decaffeinated Coffee: This is getting boring now.

Refrigerants: I give up.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  GeeJam
February 20, 2020 5:47 am

“Flat Lemonade and Coke: No more effervescent tiny bubbles of evil man-made CO2 injected into drinks. By eliminating the novelty effect of carbonated drinks (CO2 adds no flavour), ocean levels will stop rising at the alarming rate we were promised three decades ago.”

No, that is going too far! I would rather have the seas rise than do away with my carbonated Dr. Pepper.

Some things are just sacred.

Andy Pattullo
February 20, 2020 7:49 am

“Global schemes to fight climate change may miss their mark“

If that isn’t self evident to the folks writing this nonsense, I have to wonder what credentials allowed them into the academic fold. Oh that’s right, I forgot the standards have been consistently lowered over the last many decades so that belief systems can be respected and never confronted with real facts. Global schemes to fight climate change are as likely to be successful as plans to reverse the Earth’s orbit about the sun.

AK in VT
February 20, 2020 2:52 pm

This is nothing short of finding ways to control what you can raise for food. It was done in WWII with a law passed (and surviving US Supreme Court scrutiny) which controlled through interstate commerce clause how many acres of certain crops certain farmers were allowed to raise: the Ohio farmer lost and the Supreme Court even ruled that the interstate commerce clause could be used to control how much one could grow in his/her own backyard for personal consumption!

As Prince Philip infamously one said, “He who controls the food controls the populace” (Paraphrase).


%d bloggers like this: