Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to climate researcher Nancy Fresco, Alaska could have the potential to feed itself by 2100 – but lots of government intervention is required to kickstart Alaska’s agricultural revolution.
Climate change could enable Alaska to grow more of its own food – now is the time to plan for it
February 4, 2022 12.10am AEDT
Nancy Fresco
SNAP Coordinator, Research Faculty, University of Alaska Fairbanks…
As a climate researcher at the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, I recently worked with other scholars, farmers and gardeners to begin investigating our state’s agricultural future. We used global climate change models downscaled to the local level, coupled with insights from farmers growing vegetables for local markets and tribal groups interested in gardening and food security. Our goal was to take a preliminary look at what climate change might mean for agriculture in communities across the state, from Nome to Juneau and from Utqiaġvik to Unalaska.
Our research suggests that planning for future decades and even future generations may be crucial for keeping Alaska fed, healthy and economically stable. We have created online tools to help Alaskans start thinking about the possibilities.
…
Our climate modeling suggests a dramatically changing future for Alaska crops by 2100, with frost-free seasons extending not just by days, but by weeks or months; cumulative summer heat doubling or more; and the coldest winter days becoming 10 or 15 degrees less extreme.
…
Growing more fresh foods here would help Alaska economically and nutritionally – but it won’t happen automatically. To achieve meaningful long-term increases in agriculture, the Alaska Food Policy Council has recommended creating a proactive state-funded nutrition education program, developing more food storage infrastructure, offering financial incentives for expanding agriculture and teaching residents about northern growing methods. The council’s research suggests that the state could realize major benefits from investments in training, technology, support for clustered businesses such as packaging and storage, and programs to foster a farming culture.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/climate-change-could-enable-alaska-to-grow-more-of-its-own-food-now-is-the-time-to-plan-for-it-174939
The idea that kickstarting Alaskan agriculture would require government intervention is even more absurd than the idea that Alaska will experience dramatic warming over the next century.
Farmers are always on the lookout for low cost land which might be productive.
I remember a very educational radio interview with an Australian marginal desert wheat farmer. He explained he got into it because he couldn’t afford to buy a regular farm, but once you considered capital costs he was making more profit than regular farmers. He only harvested a decent crop two years in five, but leasing vast acreages of marginal land from the government was so cheap, it more than compensated for the bad years.
How many second sons of farmers are there, people with the skills but not the inherited land, who would flock to exploit any new land opened up by global warming? It would be like a new gold rush.
All the Alaskan government would have to do is get out of the way.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“and the coldest winter days becoming 10 or 15 degrees less extreme.” 15°C off of very, very, very cold is still very, very cold. And you can’t grow anything in the dark – unless you use intermittent wind power to light the grow lamps… but then that kind of crop is not considered a food.
While alaska is huge, it is 80% mountains. There isn’t enough flat land to farm on. In 1930 the us government sent Northern farmers to develop some lands for food. 🥔 grow fine, cucumbers also and cabbage also and pumpkins but forget corn, and other vegetables.
No amount of global warming will alter the fact that places like Barrow are dark for 6 months of the year. Plants and gardens don’t like that.
At least there are days of 24hr sunshine. But, yes, it’s going to require greenhouses and such. I would think they would focus on high value expensive crops – but everything is super expensive in the North because of transportation costs.
So growing local helps – but of course the little bit of extra CO2 in the atmosphere won’t make that much of a difference, it will be the artificial level of CO2 in the warm greenhouses that will be the big deal.