Essay by Eric Worrall
Because people will forget how to build water infrastructure?
AUGUST 21, 2026
Climate change could triple the price of wheat
by Camilla Brodam Galacho, Aarhus University
edited by Gaby Clark, reviewed by Robert Egan…
Among the co-authors is Jørgen E. Olesen, professor and head of the Department of Agroecology at Aarhus University.
“We already know that climate change affects agricultural production. What is new here is that we can document a clear link between widespread drought across the globe and the prices faced by consumers and food markets,” he says.
…
Historical data show that, on average, around 5% of the world’s wheat-growing area has experienced severe water scarcity in any given year. However, this share has increased alongside climate change, and in particularly dry years such as 2000, 2010, 2012 and 2020, it exceeded 15%.
The research team then used climate models to explore how this trend may develop in the future. The study suggests that severe water scarcity will spread across larger portions of the world’s wheat-growing regions as temperatures continue to rise.
At around 2 degrees of global warming, the model estimates an average wheat price of approximately USD 273 per tonne. At 3 degrees of warming, that figure rises to about USD 364 per tonne, roughly three times the inflation-adjusted global wheat price recorded in 2010.
…
Read more: https://phys.org/news/2026-08-climate-triple-price-wheat.html
The abstract of the study;
Climate-Induced Severe Water Scarcity Events as Harbingers of Global Wheat Price
Miroslav Trnka, Jan Meitner, Jan Balek, Song Feng, Juliana Arbelaez Gaviria, Milan Fischer, Esther Boere, Petr Havlík, Kurt-Christian Kersebaum, Claas Nendel, Margarita Ruiz-Ramos, Daniela Semerádová, Mikhail A. Semenov, Markéta Poděbradská, Jan Esper, Ulf Büntgen, Max Torbenson, Jáchym Brzezina, Zdeněk Žalud, Gabriel Katul, Jørgen E. Olesen
First published: 21 August 2026
Abstract
This study connects the dots between global extent of severe water scarcity (SWS) events and spikes in food price. The authors start with three staple crops (rice, wheat, and maize) using a empirical but crop specific characterization of severe water scarcity occurrence, which is defined based on the area of land cultivated with each studied crop that on a given year is under SWS conditions. Water scarcity is estimated based on 1, 3, and 12 months standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index during crop specific sensitive periods (SPs). SPs coincide with the 4 months prior to harvest. A SWS-wheat price relationship model was developed for period 2001–2021 and tested for 1986–2000 and 2022–2024 with future projections calculated under climate change using climate model simulations from CMIP5 and CMIP6 up to 2100. The results show a marked increase in wheat prices driven by increasing SWS area, which is in turn a function of greenhouse gas emissions. The results indicate that the meanglobal mean temperature increase by 3°C (compared to 1951–1980) could lead to the tripling of the mean global wheat price compared to 2010 (after deflating).
Plain Language Summary
Water scarcity is a growing threat to global food production, particularly for crops that depend on rainfall rather than irrigation. When soils do not receive enough moisture during key growing periods, harvests can fail, and food prices can rise. In this study, we introduce a new way to track severe water scarcity (SWS) by measuring the area of cropland affected during sensitive stages of crop growth. We apply this method to major staple crops and examine how changes in SWS are associated with global food prices. We find a clear link between the area affected by severe water scarcity and global wheat prices. Years with larger affected areas tend to coincide with higher prices. Looking ahead, climate model projections suggest that water scarcity will expand under continued warming. Our results indicate that a temperature increase of about 3°C could triple average global wheat prices relative to 2010. These findings highlight the risks climate change poses to global food security and the consequences of more frequent water shortages in agriculture.
Read more: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025EF006095
The study notes there has been a significant increase in prices since 2000, leading to more global hunger;
… Approximately 14% of global cereal production is traded internationally, with 90% of these exports generated by the top 10 producing countries. While wheat, maize, and rice production has steadily increased over the past 60 years, the prices of these cereals showed a marginal overall increase between 1960 and 2000, followed by significant increases over the past 24 years. Among the three crops, wheat is a particularly volatile commodity (Conceição & Mendoza, 2009) exhibiting punctuated growth. During the grain price crises of 2007/08, 2010/11 and 2021/22, wheat prices increased by 97%, 46%, 64%, respectively, relative to the preceding years of increased prices. In comparison, rice prices changed by 124%, 2%, and −4%, respectively, and maize prices changed by 79%, 70%, and 66%, respectively in these years (IGC, 2022). Of far greater concern is the number of undernourished individuals. This number increased from 598 million in 2010 to 735 million by 2020 (FAO, 2022), an increase of 23% in 12 years. …
And the magic words, which indicate how unrealistic the projection scenario is;
… The results of our study indicate that projected increase in the SWS extent and frequency may result (if other parameters are kept the same) to quite high increase of the wheat prices. … The projected increase in food price impacts of SWS events thus require urgent attention in terms of adaptation measures on the one hand and disaster-relief systems on the other hand. …
Interestingly though they claim a shift in growing regions would not fix the problem;
…
4.2 Study Assumptions
The estimates of crop price response to SWS builds on a number of assumptions, which were invoked to ensure that the SWS extent is primarily a function of changing climate conditions. It was assumed that the current wheat-growing areas, their relative weights and the top 10 exporting countries would remain unchanged during the time frame of the analysis. Thus, the potential benefit of shifting wheat production to other agricultural land with a lower SWS probability could lower the model reliability. However, two findings suggest that the conclusions drawn here are little sensitive to this simplification. First, two out of the four models in the final model ensemble are based on SWS occurrence across the entire arable land area; thus, a change in the wheat-growing area would generate no effect. Second, the data revealed that there is little to be gained globally in terms of decreasing SWS exposure by shifting wheat-producing areas both within and outside the present wheat-growing areas, as SWS exposure increases at a similar pace across all regions as already shown by Trnka et al. (2019).
…
Read more: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025EF006095
Their conclusion is their projection is robust –
… Regardless of the discussed assumptions, the SWS–wheat price relations could be in our view considered robust and warrant their inclusion in the projected impacts of the SWS-affected area on wheat prices. In light of the crop price volatility over past 20 years, the projected increase in space‒time coherent SWS occurrence cannot be overlooked in any estimates of future price levels, at least in the case of wheat and to some extent maize. …
I think the biggest weakness is the failure to model adaption to changed conditions beyond simple changes to growing regions. The main reason farmers haven’t invested in sufficient water infrastructure to mitigate those 5-15% of production area severe water shortage years is it isn’t worth the investment. But if the price of wheat was to rise significantly, the value of producing wheat would justify far greater investment in reservoirs and if necessary desalination plants.
In addition the study fails to mention biofuel mandates as a driver of recent price increases – at one point the problem go so severe, even President Obama pulled back from funding starvation in poor countries.
And of course there is the fundamental reality that like many climate models, this food price model contradicts evidence that climate change and CO2 fertilisation is driving an abundance of food production. Future increases in drought are speculation, the evidence is industrial CO2 emissions are good for food availability.
In my opinion this study is a pretty poor effort. The study authors at least mentioned adaption as a viable mitigation study, but didn’t explore in depth the most obvious adaption, investment in water infrastructure. They completely missed the impact of biofuels on recent food prices. And their language is unnecessarily alarmist. I would have had a lot more respect for the authors if they had couched the study as “more water infrastructure required”, rather than headlining with emotionally laden terms like “Harbinger” in the title of their study.
