Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to rise with a mix of old and new polluters, according to the Little Green Data Book 2006, launched today on the occasion of the Fourteenth Session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-14). An annual publication of the World Bank, according to this year's edition, CO2 emissions worldwide have now topped 24 billion metric tons (the most recent comprehensive data are for 2002), an increase of 15 percent compared to the 1992 levels.
google_protectAndRun("render_ads.js::google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad);
The rapidly expanding economies of China and India are showing a swift increase in CO2 emissions. China, which is already the second largest polluter, has increased its emissions by 33 percent between 1992 and 2002, while India's emissions have grown 57 percent in the same period. This trend will likely continue as economic activity grows. Such an increase in emissions has taken place despite improvements in energy efficiency by China in the last decade. In 1992, a dollar of GDP was associated with the production of 4.8Kg of CO2. In 2002, every dollar of GDP was associated with 2.5Kg of CO2. Still, CO2 emissions stem mainly from rich countries, with the United States contributing 24 percent of total emissions and the countries of the European Monetary Union contributing 10 percent. But the share of developing country contributions to CO2 emissions is rapidly increasing. From 2000 to 2002, global CO2 emissions increased by 2.5 percent annually, and about two-thirds of this increase came from low and middle income countries. According to Steen Jorgensen, Acting Vice-President for Sustainable Development at the World Bank, "This reality shows us that we need to find creative ways to engage all major economies of the world to solve a global problem such as climate change. The recently launched Investment Framework for Clean Energy and Development is an attempt by the World Bank to contribute in this direction."
Jorgensen was referring to a new approach — the Clean Energy & Development: Towards an Investment Framework — recently endorsed by the Governors of the World Bank designed to boost energy investments while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. "All countries are vulnerable to climate change," says Warren Evans, Environment Director, World Bank, "but the poorest countries are the most exposed, and have the least means to adapt to it. Climate change may hamper efforts to reduce poverty in agriculture-dependent countries in Africa and low-lying coastal areas. Climate proofing development initiatives is an urgent need in order to avoid human disasters." CO2 emissions stem mainly from the combustion of fossil fuels. The energy sector accounts for about 80 percent of greenhouse gas emissions and the agricultural sector for most of the remaining 20 percent (source: Clean Energy and Development: Towards an Investment Framework, the World Bank, April 23, 2006). "Coal is by far the main source of energy for electricity generation," says Jamal Saghir, Director Energy & Water, World Bank. "The relevance of coal has increased over time, particularly in low-income countries where the share of electricity generated by coal has shifted from 41 percent in 1990 to 46 percent in 2003. In China, the use of coal has increased from 71 percent in 1990 to 79 percent in 2003. In India, the increment has been from 65 percent to 68 percent." Energy use per capita is highest in rich countries, which consume on average 11 times more energy per person than low income countries. High income countries in total use 51 percent of the world's energy production, followed by East Asia and Pacific, 18 percent, and Europe and Central Asia, 13 percent. While rich countries have developed modern sources of energy, wood fuels are still the primary source of energy for approximately 2 billion people in poor countries. Solid biomass is associated with respiratory problems caused by indoor smoke. Most of the victims are infants, children, and women from poor rural families. Acute respiratory infections in children and chronic pulmonary disease in women are a common feature. Indoor smoke accounts for 3.6 percent of the burden of disease in developing countries with high mortality, following the lack of water supply and sanitation which accounts for 5.5 percent of death and illness. The data shows very little progress in the past 10 years. In low income countries, the use of biomass products and waste as a percent of total energy use has gone from 55 percent in 1992 to 49 percent in 2003. At the same time, livelihoods of the rural poor depend heavily on the ecosystem capacity to provide a sustained source of energy, and in some regions fuel wood crises may take place in the next decade with subsequent effects on ecosystems. Countries rich in fossil energy resources on an unsustainable trajectory
GA_googleFillSlot("news_160x600_inline");
Are countries saving enough for future growth? The Little Green Data Book shows that, by and large, countries with large endowments of fossil energy resources choose to consume rather than to invest the returns generated by energy resources. Sub-soil wealth is not being transformed into assets necessary to sustain growth. Countries such as Angola, Nigeria, and Venezuela, that enjoy high energy returns, have negative saving rates. In these countries, total wealth — the sum of man-made, natural, and human capital — is declining, posing serious risk on the sustainability of future growth rates. A negative savings rate implies that welfare will decline at some point in the future as a result of decisions made today. Sustainability in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa appears very low once traditional savings measures are adjusted to take into account the loss of natural capital. By contrast, East Asian economies, such as China and the Philippines, enjoy very high savings rates. For these countries, asset accumulation is a precondition for future growth. Commenting on how the LGDB is developed, Eric Swanson, Program Manager for global monitoring in the World Bank's Development Data Group, says that, "The Little Green Data Book is the World Bank's comprehensive guide to environmental statistics. With data for 48 indicators in 222 countries, territories, and regions, it provides a statistical portrait of the state of the world and the impact of human activity." The Little Green Data Book draws on the World Bank's recently released World Development Indicators database and makes key development indicators widely available to a global audience.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C
More than 100 countries have adopted a global warming limit of 2 °C or below (relative to pre-industrial levels) as a guiding principle for mitigation efforts to reduce climate change risks, impacts and damages1, 2. However, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions corresponding to a specified maximum warming are poorly known owing to uncertainties in the carbon cycle and the climate response. Here we provide a comprehensive probabilistic analysis aimed at quantifying GHG emission budgets for the 2000–50 period that would limit warming throughout the twenty-first century to below 2 °C, based on a combination of published distributions of climate system properties and observational constraints. We show that, for the chosen class of emission scenarios, both cumulative emissions up to 2050 and emission levels in 2050 are robust indicators of the probability that twenty-first century warming will not exceed 2 °C relative to pre-industrial temperatures. Limiting cumulative CO2 emissions over 2000–50 to 1,000 Gt CO2 yields a 25% probability of warming exceeding 2 °C—and a limit of 1,440 Gt CO2 yields a 50% probability—given a representative estimate of the distribution of climate system properties. As known 2000–06 CO2 emissions3 were 234 Gt CO2, less than half the proven economically recoverable oil, gas and coal reserves4, 5, 6 can still be emitted up to 2050 to achieve such a goal. Recent G8 Communiqués7 envisage halved global GHG emissions by 2050, for which we estimate a 12–45% probability of exceeding 2 °C—assuming 1990 as emission base year and a range of published climate sensitivity distributions. Emissions levels in 2020 are a less robust indicator, but for the scenarios considered, the probability of exceeding 2 °C rises to 53–87% if global GHG emissions are still more than 25% above 2000 levels in 2020.
Global Warming: Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would Save Arctic Ice, Reduce Sea Level Rise
The threat of global warming can still be greatly diminished if nations cut emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by 70 percent this century, according to a new analysis. While global temperatures would rise, the most dangerous potential aspects of climate change, including massive losses of Arctic sea ice and permafrost and significant sea level rise, could be partially avoided.
The study, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), will be published next week in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor.
"This research indicates that we can no longer avoid significant warming during this century," says NCAR scientist Warren Washington, the lead author. "But if the world were to implement this level of emission cuts, we could stabilize the threat of climate change and avoid catastrophe."
Avoiding dangerous climate change
Average global temperatures have warmed by close to 1 degree Celsius (almost 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the pre-industrial era. Much of the warming is due to human-produced emissions of greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide. This heat-trapping gas has increased from a pre-industrial level of about 284 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to more than 380 ppm today.
With research showing that additional warming of about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) may be the threshold for dangerous climate change, the European Union has called for dramatic cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The U.S. Congress is also debating the issue.
To examine the impact of such cuts on the world's climate, Washington and his colleagues ran a series of global supercomputer studies with the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model. They assumed that carbon dioxide levels could be held to 450 ppm at the end of this century. That figure comes from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which has cited 450 ppm as an attainable target if the world quickly adapts conservation practices and new green technologies to cut emissions dramatically. In contrast, emissions are now on track to reach about 750 ppm by 2100 if unchecked.
The team's results showed that if carbon dioxide were held to 450 ppm, global temperatures would increase by 0.6 degrees C (about 1 degree F) above current readings by the end of the century. In contrast, the study showed that temperatures would rise by almost four times that amount, to 2.2 degrees C (4 degrees F) above current readings, if emissions were allowed to continue on their present course.
Holding carbon dioxide levels to 450 ppm would have other impacts, according to the climate modeling study:
Sea level rise due to thermal expansion as water temperatures warmed would be 14 centimeters (about 5.5 inches) instead of 22 centimeters (8.7 inches). Significant additional sea level rise would be expected in either scenario from melting ice sheets and glaciers.
Arctic ice in the summertime would shrink by about a quarter in volume and stabilize by 2100, as opposed to shrinking at least three-quarters and continuing to melt. Some research has suggested the summertime ice will disappear altogether this century if emissions continue on their current trajectory.
Arctic warming would be reduced by almost half, helping preserve fisheries and populations of sea birds and Arctic mammals in such regions as the northern Bering Sea.
Significant regional changes in precipitation, including decreased precipitation in the U.S. Southwest and an increase in the U.S. Northeast and Canada, would be cut in half if emissions were kept to 450 ppm.
The climate system would stabilize by about 2100, instead of continuing to warm.
The research team used supercomputer simulations to compare a business-as-usual scenario to one with dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions beginning in about a decade. The authors stressed that they were not studying how such cuts could be achieved nor advocating a particular policy.
"Our goal is to provide policymakers with appropriate research so they can make informed decisions," Washington says. "This study provides some hope that we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change--if society can cut emissions substantially over the next several decades and continue major cuts through the century."
The study, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), will be published next week in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor.
"This research indicates that we can no longer avoid significant warming during this century," says NCAR scientist Warren Washington, the lead author. "But if the world were to implement this level of emission cuts, we could stabilize the threat of climate change and avoid catastrophe."
Avoiding dangerous climate change
Average global temperatures have warmed by close to 1 degree Celsius (almost 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the pre-industrial era. Much of the warming is due to human-produced emissions of greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide. This heat-trapping gas has increased from a pre-industrial level of about 284 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to more than 380 ppm today.
With research showing that additional warming of about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) may be the threshold for dangerous climate change, the European Union has called for dramatic cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The U.S. Congress is also debating the issue.
To examine the impact of such cuts on the world's climate, Washington and his colleagues ran a series of global supercomputer studies with the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model. They assumed that carbon dioxide levels could be held to 450 ppm at the end of this century. That figure comes from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, which has cited 450 ppm as an attainable target if the world quickly adapts conservation practices and new green technologies to cut emissions dramatically. In contrast, emissions are now on track to reach about 750 ppm by 2100 if unchecked.
The team's results showed that if carbon dioxide were held to 450 ppm, global temperatures would increase by 0.6 degrees C (about 1 degree F) above current readings by the end of the century. In contrast, the study showed that temperatures would rise by almost four times that amount, to 2.2 degrees C (4 degrees F) above current readings, if emissions were allowed to continue on their present course.
Holding carbon dioxide levels to 450 ppm would have other impacts, according to the climate modeling study:
Sea level rise due to thermal expansion as water temperatures warmed would be 14 centimeters (about 5.5 inches) instead of 22 centimeters (8.7 inches). Significant additional sea level rise would be expected in either scenario from melting ice sheets and glaciers.
Arctic ice in the summertime would shrink by about a quarter in volume and stabilize by 2100, as opposed to shrinking at least three-quarters and continuing to melt. Some research has suggested the summertime ice will disappear altogether this century if emissions continue on their current trajectory.
Arctic warming would be reduced by almost half, helping preserve fisheries and populations of sea birds and Arctic mammals in such regions as the northern Bering Sea.
Significant regional changes in precipitation, including decreased precipitation in the U.S. Southwest and an increase in the U.S. Northeast and Canada, would be cut in half if emissions were kept to 450 ppm.
The climate system would stabilize by about 2100, instead of continuing to warm.
The research team used supercomputer simulations to compare a business-as-usual scenario to one with dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide emissions beginning in about a decade. The authors stressed that they were not studying how such cuts could be achieved nor advocating a particular policy.
"Our goal is to provide policymakers with appropriate research so they can make informed decisions," Washington says. "This study provides some hope that we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change--if society can cut emissions substantially over the next several decades and continue major cuts through the century."
Industry's Anti-Global Warming Misinformation Campaign Reminiscent of Big Tobacco's Strategy
The idea stated in the title of this blog post is not novel--far from it, in fact. We have known for a long time that the auto industry, the oil industry, and others with a vested interest have engaged in a long-running campaign of misinformation to discredit the science behind global warming. Manufacturing doubt is a common strategy employed by those whose agenda falls on the wrong side of scientific fact. This includes creationists, pseudoscientists, global warming denialists, HIV denialists, and, very notably, the tobacco industry's notorious decades-long campaign to deny the link between smoking and cancer, despite the deniers' own undeniable knowledge that such a link existed.
The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:
For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
"The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood," the coalition said in a scientific "backgrounder" provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that "scientists differ" on the issue.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied," the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.
The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups
The reason I bring all of this up now, though, is that The New York Times has an article by Andrew Revkin about some particularly interesting documents recently acquired by the Times. The documents, from the Global Climate Coalition (an industry group), shed light on how the group suppressed its own scientists and demonstrate that the group was actively aware it was spreading misinformation:
For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.
"The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood," the coalition said in a scientific "backgrounder" provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that "scientists differ" on the issue.
But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.
"The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied," the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.
The coalition was financed by fees from large corporations and trade groups representing the oil, coal and auto industries, among others. In 1997, the year an international climate agreement that came to be known as the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, its budget totaled $1.68 million, according to tax records obtained by environmental groups
Effects of Global Warming on Agriculture
It's not exactly clear why the '50s beatnik crowd thought the phrase "that's a gas, man" was cool. But today and in the future, ever-increasing amounts of gas—carbon dioxide, methane, and all the other members of the greenhouse gas gang—are likely to make the planet anything but cool. The climate effects will be far reaching, from higher electricity costs to soaring prices for the Spam and mashed potatoes on your plate.
Today's article explores not only the coming effects of global warming on agriculture, but also the impact that farming and agriculture are having on global warming. That is, how much are agriculture and food operations contributing to global climate change? And how at-risk is our food-production system from the effects of global warming?
We're fortunate to have a great guest article on this subject from Guillermo Payet of LocalHarvest, a web site that helps people find farmers markets, CSAs, and other local food sources in their area.
~ ~ ~
Climate Change and Farming by Guillermo Payet, LocalHarvest
The earth's climate has been relatively stable for thousands of years. We know intuitively that it is hot, humid, and rainy in the Amazon, and that corn grows well in the US Midwest. We know that at a particular altitude we should plant a crop during a certain week of the year because conditions for it are just right then. For most of our memory as humans, our climates have closely oscillated around predictable patterns, and this has allowed us to feed ourselves and flourish.
When a stable climate system is modified beyond its "tipping point," it gets out of balance and loses its equilibrium. While the system searches for a new set of patterns to stabilize around, variability and uncertainly are the norm. This, in essence, is the nature of the challenge that we are now facing.
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
Agriculture's Contribution to Global Climate Change
Agriculture is one of the most weather-dependent of all human activities. It is ironic, then, that a significant percentage of greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. Fossil fuel-intensive agriculture is contributing to the creation of the unpredictable weather conditions that all farmers will need to battle in the not-too-distant future
The Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s allowed us to increase yields by "borrowing" solar energy from the past in the form of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers and pesticides. When one adds in the oil used for processing and packaging foods and for refrigerating and shipping them long distances, it's easy to see how the food industry consumes about 20% of all the oil used in the US.
About 1% of the world's annual energy usage goes into the production of fertilizers. This might not seem like much, but it ties the price of food to that of natural gas, and will make food prices shoot up once energy supplies start to dwindle.
FOOD GIVING US GAS(ES)? BLIMEY!
In the UK, food production and distribution account for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. The 18% is split fairly evenly between "on-the-farm emissions" (from farming activities) and "beyond-the-farm emissions" (from transportation and processing activities, etc.).
While we've all gotten used to carbon dioxide being the bad boy on the global warming block, agriculture's greenhouse-gas contributions include healthy shares of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are more potent than CO2.
Finally, while production and transport of chemical fertilizers and pesticides lead directly to creation of greenhouse gases, use of these chemicals also does so indirectly by reducing farm soil's capacity to store carbon.
So, what to do? Go organic! United Kingdom's Environment Secretary notes that, in many cases, organic agriculture produces fewer greenhouse gases than conventional equivalents. There's a catch, though. Organic food transported long distances is NOT helpful. So, go organic AND local.
— Grinning Planet
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
Agriculture—Bracing for Global Warming
We are already seeing some climate changes that may be indicative of what's to come for agriculture:
Maple syrup production in the American northeast is suffering. The climate in which maple trees thrive is expected to move about two degrees (of latitude) north to Canada. Maple syrup production is already down by about 10% because of warmer and shorter winters.
The southwestern United States is already experiencing a lack of water—without water for irrigation, this area is too dry for large-scale agriculture—and serious desertification is expected to happen within the next few decades. Conditions similar to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s are expected to be the norm in the area by the 2030s.
All over the country, we are seeing earlier bird migrations and northward shifts in the ranges of crops and pests.
We're also seeing increased peaks in spring run-off from glacier melt and snow-fed rivers.
Global-warming-related changes will affect the future of farming in myriad ways. Here are some examples:
The snow pack in California's Sierra Mountains has been gradually declining for the last 50 years, and the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report says that it could ultimately be reduced by 60% to 90%. This will result in a very serious lack of water for Central Valley farmers during the summer months. Southern California will be particularly hard hit.
A Colorado State University study shows that warming will cause Colorado's grazing lands to become less productive.
Florida is expected to get heavier rains and flooding, which will be hard on citrus and other crops.
Most importantly for the US economy and for the "mainstream" industrial food system, which is primarily "corn-fed," the latest climate models predict that it might become too hot and dry to grow corn in what is now called the Corn Belt.
DENTED BUMPER CROP
Scientists believe that higher carbon dioxide levels and temperatures may actually increase yields slightly—as long as the temperature increase is no more that a few degrees C. Beyond that, the warming effect dominates and crop yields decrease. Keeping in mind that, so far, observed global warming effects keep surpassing scientists expectations (in a bad way), it seems likely that rising temperatures in farming regions will wreak havoc on crop yields.
Less availability of irrigation water due to warmer temperatures will also be a big negative for dry areas. Many of our most productive farming areas depend heavily on irrigation. Further, there is a local cooling effect in irrigated areas (from evaporating water) that moderates temperatures, helping crops survive withering summer temps. Thus, less irrigation will exacerbate global-warming-driven temperature increases in water-short areas. And remember—40% of the world's food supply comes from the 2% of land that is dependent on irrigation.
On the other side of the water issue, global warming is expected to increase "severe weather events." That will be another blow to global agricultural output.
— Grinning Planet
Globally, yields for many of the world's main staple crops are bound to decline. A study by researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs and Stanford University compared yields for the world's six main staple crops—wheat, rice, corn, soybeans, barley and sorghum—and found a 3% to 5% decline for every one degree of temperature increase. Those six crops account for at least 55% of non-meat calories consumed by people, and more than 70% of the world's animal feed. The IPCC's latest report estimates an average warming of between 3 and 11 degrees by the end of the century.
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
It's Note Hopeless—We Haven't "Bought the Farm" Yet
The good news is that we can still do something about it. Supporting sustainable agriculture by buying from your local organic farms is a significant action to take. Many small farms are now developing highly productive farming systems with low environmental impact. These are the right kinds of farms for the future. We are likely to achieve better results by learning to collaborate with nature rather than using brute-force to bend it to our will, as is the norm with today's widespread industrial agriculture practices.
The type of food we eat is as important as how farmers grow our food. Eating "lower on the food chain"—getting less of our protein from meat and more from nuts, seeds, beans, legumes, grains, and vegetables—can make a huge difference in the energy consumption associated with our personal menus.
Regardless of what corporate marketeers tell us, we cannot "save the world by shopping." Global climate change will dictate that the over-consumption binge of the last 50 years will have to come to an end. Changes in our eating habits and food systems will be a part of much larger changes in our culture. Adapting to the coming changes and avoiding further harm will require us to abandon the principle of immediate gratification and once again learn the benefits of frugality, conservation of resources, and thinking and acting with future generations in mind.
Changing our diets to healthier, more sustainable foods is not as hard as you might think. As the author Michael Pollan says:
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Add to that:
"Buy local and organic whenever possible."
Doing so will help reduce agriculture's effect on global warming and contribute to an overall healthier environment and better future
Today's article explores not only the coming effects of global warming on agriculture, but also the impact that farming and agriculture are having on global warming. That is, how much are agriculture and food operations contributing to global climate change? And how at-risk is our food-production system from the effects of global warming?
We're fortunate to have a great guest article on this subject from Guillermo Payet of LocalHarvest, a web site that helps people find farmers markets, CSAs, and other local food sources in their area.
~ ~ ~
Climate Change and Farming by Guillermo Payet, LocalHarvest
The earth's climate has been relatively stable for thousands of years. We know intuitively that it is hot, humid, and rainy in the Amazon, and that corn grows well in the US Midwest. We know that at a particular altitude we should plant a crop during a certain week of the year because conditions for it are just right then. For most of our memory as humans, our climates have closely oscillated around predictable patterns, and this has allowed us to feed ourselves and flourish.
When a stable climate system is modified beyond its "tipping point," it gets out of balance and loses its equilibrium. While the system searches for a new set of patterns to stabilize around, variability and uncertainly are the norm. This, in essence, is the nature of the challenge that we are now facing.
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
Agriculture's Contribution to Global Climate Change
Agriculture is one of the most weather-dependent of all human activities. It is ironic, then, that a significant percentage of greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture. Fossil fuel-intensive agriculture is contributing to the creation of the unpredictable weather conditions that all farmers will need to battle in the not-too-distant future
The Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s allowed us to increase yields by "borrowing" solar energy from the past in the form of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers and pesticides. When one adds in the oil used for processing and packaging foods and for refrigerating and shipping them long distances, it's easy to see how the food industry consumes about 20% of all the oil used in the US.
About 1% of the world's annual energy usage goes into the production of fertilizers. This might not seem like much, but it ties the price of food to that of natural gas, and will make food prices shoot up once energy supplies start to dwindle.
FOOD GIVING US GAS(ES)? BLIMEY!
In the UK, food production and distribution account for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. The 18% is split fairly evenly between "on-the-farm emissions" (from farming activities) and "beyond-the-farm emissions" (from transportation and processing activities, etc.).
While we've all gotten used to carbon dioxide being the bad boy on the global warming block, agriculture's greenhouse-gas contributions include healthy shares of methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are more potent than CO2.
Finally, while production and transport of chemical fertilizers and pesticides lead directly to creation of greenhouse gases, use of these chemicals also does so indirectly by reducing farm soil's capacity to store carbon.
So, what to do? Go organic! United Kingdom's Environment Secretary notes that, in many cases, organic agriculture produces fewer greenhouse gases than conventional equivalents. There's a catch, though. Organic food transported long distances is NOT helpful. So, go organic AND local.
— Grinning Planet
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
Agriculture—Bracing for Global Warming
We are already seeing some climate changes that may be indicative of what's to come for agriculture:
Maple syrup production in the American northeast is suffering. The climate in which maple trees thrive is expected to move about two degrees (of latitude) north to Canada. Maple syrup production is already down by about 10% because of warmer and shorter winters.
The southwestern United States is already experiencing a lack of water—without water for irrigation, this area is too dry for large-scale agriculture—and serious desertification is expected to happen within the next few decades. Conditions similar to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s are expected to be the norm in the area by the 2030s.
All over the country, we are seeing earlier bird migrations and northward shifts in the ranges of crops and pests.
We're also seeing increased peaks in spring run-off from glacier melt and snow-fed rivers.
Global-warming-related changes will affect the future of farming in myriad ways. Here are some examples:
The snow pack in California's Sierra Mountains has been gradually declining for the last 50 years, and the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report says that it could ultimately be reduced by 60% to 90%. This will result in a very serious lack of water for Central Valley farmers during the summer months. Southern California will be particularly hard hit.
A Colorado State University study shows that warming will cause Colorado's grazing lands to become less productive.
Florida is expected to get heavier rains and flooding, which will be hard on citrus and other crops.
Most importantly for the US economy and for the "mainstream" industrial food system, which is primarily "corn-fed," the latest climate models predict that it might become too hot and dry to grow corn in what is now called the Corn Belt.
DENTED BUMPER CROP
Scientists believe that higher carbon dioxide levels and temperatures may actually increase yields slightly—as long as the temperature increase is no more that a few degrees C. Beyond that, the warming effect dominates and crop yields decrease. Keeping in mind that, so far, observed global warming effects keep surpassing scientists expectations (in a bad way), it seems likely that rising temperatures in farming regions will wreak havoc on crop yields.
Less availability of irrigation water due to warmer temperatures will also be a big negative for dry areas. Many of our most productive farming areas depend heavily on irrigation. Further, there is a local cooling effect in irrigated areas (from evaporating water) that moderates temperatures, helping crops survive withering summer temps. Thus, less irrigation will exacerbate global-warming-driven temperature increases in water-short areas. And remember—40% of the world's food supply comes from the 2% of land that is dependent on irrigation.
On the other side of the water issue, global warming is expected to increase "severe weather events." That will be another blow to global agricultural output.
— Grinning Planet
Globally, yields for many of the world's main staple crops are bound to decline. A study by researchers at the Lawrence Livermore National Labs and Stanford University compared yields for the world's six main staple crops—wheat, rice, corn, soybeans, barley and sorghum—and found a 3% to 5% decline for every one degree of temperature increase. Those six crops account for at least 55% of non-meat calories consumed by people, and more than 70% of the world's animal feed. The IPCC's latest report estimates an average warming of between 3 and 11 degrees by the end of the century.
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON AGRICULTURE
It's Note Hopeless—We Haven't "Bought the Farm" Yet
The good news is that we can still do something about it. Supporting sustainable agriculture by buying from your local organic farms is a significant action to take. Many small farms are now developing highly productive farming systems with low environmental impact. These are the right kinds of farms for the future. We are likely to achieve better results by learning to collaborate with nature rather than using brute-force to bend it to our will, as is the norm with today's widespread industrial agriculture practices.
The type of food we eat is as important as how farmers grow our food. Eating "lower on the food chain"—getting less of our protein from meat and more from nuts, seeds, beans, legumes, grains, and vegetables—can make a huge difference in the energy consumption associated with our personal menus.
Regardless of what corporate marketeers tell us, we cannot "save the world by shopping." Global climate change will dictate that the over-consumption binge of the last 50 years will have to come to an end. Changes in our eating habits and food systems will be a part of much larger changes in our culture. Adapting to the coming changes and avoiding further harm will require us to abandon the principle of immediate gratification and once again learn the benefits of frugality, conservation of resources, and thinking and acting with future generations in mind.
Changing our diets to healthier, more sustainable foods is not as hard as you might think. As the author Michael Pollan says:
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Add to that:
"Buy local and organic whenever possible."
Doing so will help reduce agriculture's effect on global warming and contribute to an overall healthier environment and better future
5 Deadliest Effects of Global Warming
Green house gases stay can stay in the atmosphere for an amount of years ranging from decades to hundreds and thousands of years. No matter what we do, global warming is going to have some effect on Earth. Here are the 5 deadliest effects of global warming.
5. Spread of diseaseAs northern countries warm, disease carrying insects migrate north, bringing plague and disease with them. Indeed some scientists believe that in some countries thanks to global warming, malaria has not been fully eradicated
2. Economic consequencesMost of the effects of anthropogenic global warming won’t be good. And these effects spell one thing for the countries of the world: economic consequences. Hurricanes cause do billions of dollars in damage, diseases cost money to treat and control and conflicts exacerbate all of these
. Polar ice caps meltingThe ice caps melting is a four-pronged danger.
First, it will raise sea levels. There are 5,773,000 cubic miles of water in ice caps, glaciers, and permanent snow. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, if all glaciers melted today the seas would rise about 230 feet. Luckily, that’s not going to happen all in one go! But sea levels will rise.
Second, melting ice caps will throw the global ecosystem out of balance. The ice caps are fresh water, and when they melt they will desalinate the ocean, or in plain English - make it less salty. The desalinization of the gulf current will “screw up” ocean currents, which regulate temperatures. The stream shutdown or irregularity would cool the area around north-east America and Western Europe. Luckily, that will slow some of the other effects of global warming in that area!
Third, temperature rises and changing landscapes in the artic circle will endanger several species of animals. Only the most adaptable will survive.
Fourth, global warming could snowball with the ice caps gone. Ice caps are white, and reflect sunlight, much of which is relected back into space, further cooling Earth. If the ice caps melt, the only reflector is the ocean. Darker colors absorb sunlight, further warming the Earth.
5. Spread of diseaseAs northern countries warm, disease carrying insects migrate north, bringing plague and disease with them. Indeed some scientists believe that in some countries thanks to global warming, malaria has not been fully eradicated
2. Economic consequencesMost of the effects of anthropogenic global warming won’t be good. And these effects spell one thing for the countries of the world: economic consequences. Hurricanes cause do billions of dollars in damage, diseases cost money to treat and control and conflicts exacerbate all of these
. Polar ice caps meltingThe ice caps melting is a four-pronged danger.
First, it will raise sea levels. There are 5,773,000 cubic miles of water in ice caps, glaciers, and permanent snow. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, if all glaciers melted today the seas would rise about 230 feet. Luckily, that’s not going to happen all in one go! But sea levels will rise.
Second, melting ice caps will throw the global ecosystem out of balance. The ice caps are fresh water, and when they melt they will desalinate the ocean, or in plain English - make it less salty. The desalinization of the gulf current will “screw up” ocean currents, which regulate temperatures. The stream shutdown or irregularity would cool the area around north-east America and Western Europe. Luckily, that will slow some of the other effects of global warming in that area!
Third, temperature rises and changing landscapes in the artic circle will endanger several species of animals. Only the most adaptable will survive.
Fourth, global warming could snowball with the ice caps gone. Ice caps are white, and reflect sunlight, much of which is relected back into space, further cooling Earth. If the ice caps melt, the only reflector is the ocean. Darker colors absorb sunlight, further warming the Earth.
Cleaner and greener future their joint aim
A CLEANER, greener future for the next generation was the driving force behind a meeting held in Ballarat yesterday.
Emissions trading, renewable energy and incentives for farmers were also on the agenda, as opposition spokesman for environment Greg Hunt visited Ballarat.
Mr Hunt, Senator Julian McGauran, and representatives of Mount Alexander Sustainability Group met with members of Ballarat Renewable Energy and Zero Emissions to discuss the plan for the region.
Mr Hunt said the opposition was keen to support BREAZE for Ballarat to become Australia's leading solar city.
He also said it was important to look at ways farmers and local groups could benefit from trading schemes.
"We want people to be empowered, to have a role and a chance to participate," he said.
"There is enormous income potential for people in the district through solar power, wind, even hot rocks."
The meeting also discussed the vote on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, due to be held in the Senate in August.
The scheme proposes a reduction target of five to 25 per cent by 2020, which BREAZE member Andrew Bray said was not good enough.
"We believe those targets are not ambitious enough and it has been acknowledged that the targets that developed countries set are insufficient to keep us below two degrees of warming," he said.
"It's time for countries like ours to step up."
Members from MASG attended the meeting to share ideas about how communities can utilise alternative energy sources.
MASG chair Jim Norris said the group had an alliance with BREAZE and was working towards a common goal.
"We need the Federal Government to come on board to work towards a cleaner, greener future for our kids," he said.
Emissions trading, renewable energy and incentives for farmers were also on the agenda, as opposition spokesman for environment Greg Hunt visited Ballarat.
Mr Hunt, Senator Julian McGauran, and representatives of Mount Alexander Sustainability Group met with members of Ballarat Renewable Energy and Zero Emissions to discuss the plan for the region.
Mr Hunt said the opposition was keen to support BREAZE for Ballarat to become Australia's leading solar city.
He also said it was important to look at ways farmers and local groups could benefit from trading schemes.
"We want people to be empowered, to have a role and a chance to participate," he said.
"There is enormous income potential for people in the district through solar power, wind, even hot rocks."
The meeting also discussed the vote on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, due to be held in the Senate in August.
The scheme proposes a reduction target of five to 25 per cent by 2020, which BREAZE member Andrew Bray said was not good enough.
"We believe those targets are not ambitious enough and it has been acknowledged that the targets that developed countries set are insufficient to keep us below two degrees of warming," he said.
"It's time for countries like ours to step up."
Members from MASG attended the meeting to share ideas about how communities can utilise alternative energy sources.
MASG chair Jim Norris said the group had an alliance with BREAZE and was working towards a common goal.
"We need the Federal Government to come on board to work towards a cleaner, greener future for our kids," he said.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)