23/06/2021

(Yahoo News) From Burgers To Chocolate To Beer: How Climate Change Will Affect What We Eat

Yahoo NewsDavid Knowles



Unless climate change can be greatly minimized, rising temperatures will disrupt food production around the world and potentially alter the way we eat, a new study finds. 

The continued buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could imperil "nearly one-third of global food crop production and over one-third of livestock production" by 2081-2100, the peer-reviewed study, published in May by researchers at Aalto University in Espoo, Finland, concludes. 

The findings put a fine point on what climate scientists have warned for decades: that climate change will render certain parts of the globe incapable of producing food for the people who live there. 

The study notes that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate, the most vulnerable areas will be South and Southeast Asia, as well as Africa's Sudano-Sahelian zone. But the vast majority of land on earth will be affected. 

There is hope, however: If the world's nations are successful in their goal of limiting global mean temperatures to warming between 1.5° and 2°C, the impacts on food production will be lessened. 

Numerous other studies have looked at how climate change will affect individual crops or growing areas, and some have concluded that global warming is already wreaking havoc on food production. Others make the case that dietary changes are imperative to prevent temperatures from rising even further. 

The following is a sample of the growing body of research on how climate change will affect the world's diet. As certain food industries feel the impact, their products won't go away, but prices could rise and change behaviors.

Wine

A worker picks grapes at a vineyard in California's Napa Valley. (Robert Galbraith/Reuters)

In early April of this year, following an unusually warm March, France experienced several days of severe frost that devastated grape crops, resulting in an estimated $1.7 billion to $2.3 billion in losses. A study released by the research consortium World Weather Attribution concluded that climate change had made the "false spring" event 60 percent more likely. 

Previous studies have concluded that rising temperatures will shrink the area in California's Napa Valley and other vaunted wine-growing regions in the U.S. that will be able to continue producing premium grapes. 

"Over the next century, the area suitable for premium wine grape production is likely to shrink and shift," a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded. "According to the higher emissions projections, premium wine grapes could only be grown in a thin strip of land along the coast of California, with premium wine-producing regions shifting northward to coastal Oregon and Washington."

Beer

Beer mugs in Abensberg, Germany. (Michael Dalder/Reuters)

A 2018 study published in the journal Nature found that weather disruptions spurred by climate change will also affect the production of beer, thanks to the impact on barley crops. 

"Beer is the most popular alcoholic beverage in the world by volume consumed, and yields of its main ingredient, barley, decline sharply in periods of extreme drought and heat," the study's authors wrote.

Depending on the severity of drought and rising temperatures, barley yields are forecast to decline anywhere from 3 to 17 percent annually. As a result, the Chinese and American researchers concluded, beer prices could double in some parts of the world by the end of the century. 

Coffee and chocolate

Coffee beans in the window of a store in Dublin, Ireland. (Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Alarm bells went off in Europe, which accounts for one-third of global coffee consumption, when research released this month found that 35 percent of the regions where the EU imports crops, including coffee beans, will be threatened by severe drought brought on by climate change that will likely disrupt food production. 

An April study found that coffee production in Ethiopia will be especially vulnerable. "We conclude that depending on drivers of suitability and projected impacts, climate change will significantly affect the Ethiopian speciality coffee sector and area-specific adaptation measures are required to build resilience," wrote the authors of the study, published in Nature

Cocoa beans, which are used to make chocolate, face a similar threat due to rising temperatures and drought. A 2018 study published in the journal PLOS One concluded that "drought effects on cocoa agroforestry could be a ‘canary in the coal mine’ warning of problems to come both in agriculture and in semi-natural and natural vegetation due to increased intensity and frequency." 

Meat

Cattle at a ranch in Tomales, Calif. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, meat and dairy production accounts for 14.5 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions.

Citing deforestation that is carried out to create grazing land for livestock, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change included a section in its landmark 2019 special report that declared that the prospect of eating less meat could "present major opportunities for adaptation and mitigation while generating significant co-benefits in terms of human health." 

“We don’t want to tell people what to eat,” Hans-Otto Pörtner, an ecologist who co-chairs the IPCC’s working group on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, told Nature. “But it would indeed be beneficial, for both climate and human health, if people in many rich countries consumed less meat, and if politics would create appropriate incentives to that effect.”

Beef is, by far, one of the worst food sources in terms of its impact on climate change, in part because of the methane gas that cows produce. Beef production generates 60 kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of meat, more than double that of lamb, which ranks second, Forbes reported

Wheat and corn

A damaged corn crop in Kansas in 2012. (Jeff Tuttle/Reuters)

A staple of the global diet that accounts for 20 percent of all calories consumed by people, wheat is one crop that humans need to ensure survives in the coming decades. While wheat yields have, in some countries, increased in the short term as the concentration of carbon dioxide has risen in the atmosphere, a major concern is the prevalence of drought in parts of the world where it is grown. 

A 2019 study published in Science Advances found that unless global mean temperatures can be kept from rising, major droughts will affect 60 percent of areas where wheat is grown. That is dramatically higher than the current 15 percent of wheat-growing areas affected by drought conditions. The backdrop to the rise in the prevalence of drought, the study noted, is that demand for wheat was projected to increase 43 percent from 2006 to 2050. 

A similar dynamic is at play with corn, 30 percent of the world's supply of which is grown in the U.S. Weather patterns resulting in drought or widespread flooding that can overlap with the growing season for corn are projected to reduce yields by 20 to 40 percent over the decade spanning 2046-2055, a study released in April concluded. 

"That poor weather can take the form of extremes in temperature such as cold snaps or heat waves during the growing season," the authors wrote. "It can also be expressed as excessive variation in rainfall resulting in drought or flood, including floods before a crop’s growing season that prevent the planting of that crop in the first place."

Almonds

A field of dead almond trees next to a field of growing almond trees in California's Central Valley in 2015. (Lucy Nicholson/Reuters)

California, which is currently in the grip of a mega-drought, is the world's leading producer of almonds, growing roughly 80 percent of the global supply. Thanks to rising temperatures and the drought, which has depleted groundwater and deprived the state of a robust snowpack, the future of the water-intensive crop has been made more precarious. 

Yet, as with many other crops, climate change may present the opportunity for almonds to be grown in latitudes currently too cold to support them. 

Researcher Lauren Parker of the University of California, Davis, is studying whether, as temperatures continue to rise, almond trees could thrive in states like Oregon and Washington. 

"Under climate change, what we anticipate is seeing a reduction in the frost risk even for almonds, which bloom pretty early in the year," Parker told Yale Climate Connections.  

Pet food

Fly larvae waiting to be harvested at a farm near Cape Town, South Africa. (Mike Hutchings/Reuters)

What people feed their pets, it turns out, also has a big impact on climate change. A 2020 study published in the journal Global Environmental Change found that the annual production of pet food worldwide resulted in average greenhouse gas emissions of 106 million metric tons of CO2. In terms of emissions, that is the equivalent of a country the size of the Philippines, the study noted. 

In part, that's due to the rise in "premium" pet food, according to the study, which more closely mirrors a meat-heavy human diet. At present, pets consume roughly 20 percent of the meat and fish in a given country. But what if humans changed what they fed their pets, substituting insect protein for meat? While that idea may sound lifted from a dystopian science fiction film, it's already happening in many countries. 

In fact, a 2017 study recommended that insect protein replace that of meat for humans, too, as a way to fight climate change, though with some caveats attached.

"Insect production has great potential with respect to sustainably providing food for the growing population," the study authors wrote. "However, further technological development of this sector and monitoring of the effects of these developments on the environmental impact of insect production are needed."

Links

(AU The Guardian) Guardian Essential Poll: Majority Of Voters Fear Australia Will Be Left Behind On Climate Change

The Guardian

Poll finds 59% believe Australia needs to follow the lead of other countries and make action a priority

A majority of respondents (59%) believe Australia needs to follow other countries’ lead on climate change action or risk being left behind. Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP

A majority of voters fear Australia will be left behind unless the Morrison government follows the lead of other countries in prioritising serious action to combat global heating, according to the latest Guardian Essential poll.

The findings from the fortnightly survey of 1,087 respondents come as Barnaby Joyce deposed Michael McCormack and returned to lead the National party after a week where senior Nationals expressed open hostility about the government adopting a net zero emissions target by 2050. Scott Morrison says achieving net zero as soon as possible is Australia’s preference.

Joyce was asked on Monday whether or not he would make fresh climate policy demands when he renegotiated the Coalition agreement with Morrison. The returning National party leader and deputy prime minister deflected. “I’ll be talking with my party room, about what they believe is best for them, and then fighting on that premise,” he said.

The new Guardian Essential poll suggests over half (56%) of Australians now believe climate change is happening and that heating is caused by human activity – which is similar to results earlier in 2021 (58%) and in 2020 (56%).

The issue of whether or not the Morrison government is taking sufficient action to combat the threat divides the Guardian Essential sample but the largest group (45%) thinks the Coalition isn’t taking enough action. Fewer people now think Australia is doing enough to address climate change (30%) than they did in January (35%).

The government is allocating $600m through Snowy Hydro for a new gas peaking plant in the Hunter Valley but a strong majority now favour supporting renewable energy rather than fossil fuel alternatives. Some 73% of respondents want renewables to replace the ageing coal fleet, while only 12% want gas-fired power, and 15% think Australia should persist with coal-fired power stations.

A majority of respondents (59%) believe Australia needs to follow other countries’ lead and make climate change action a priority, or we will risk being left behind, while 67% sees the transition as an economic opportunity – believing Australian businesses have the opportunity to develop expertise in renewable energy and innovative technologies that other countries will demand.

Voters also know that renewable power means cheaper energy, with 65% of the sample saying Australian manufacturing could benefit from cheap electricity if more solar and wind farms were built, while 59% agree with the statement: “Australia cannot afford to be locked out of the European Union or other trade markets for failing to adopt a net zero emissions target by 2050.”

There are nuances in the survey. Acceptance that climate change is real, and induced by human activity, is highest among self-identified progressive voters, and respondents who think what the world is experiencing is normal fluctuation in the earth’s climate are more likely to vote Coalition, to be male, and aged over 55 years.

People who vote for Labor or the Greens are more likely to worry Australia is not doing enough to deal with the threat of runaway heating, while Coalition voters are more likely to think that enough is being done. Women are also more likely to worry than men, although this consciousness among men in the sample is higher than it was at the start of the year.

Women and voters aged under 55, as well as progressive voters, are significantly on board with renewables being the future, but a clear majority of Coalition voters also prefer the government to support renewable energy sources over gas or coal (61%).

With Scott Morrison away for much of last week at the G7 summit, and with China’s rise a significant talking point among the leaders of the developed world, voters were asked to prioritise various issues in Australia’s foreign policy relationships.

Only 12% of respondents want closer ties with China, and 50% want Australia to become less close with China, while a further quarter (24%) think our relationship with China should stay the same at most, and 13% don’t know.

Compared with results in the survey back in August 2019, Australians are less likely to rate China’s influence on Australia as positive – particularly in respect of international trade (the percentage has gone from 59% to 28%), and Chinese corporations operating in Australia (from 41% to 22%).

When asked to compare Australia’s most important security ally, the United States, with our largest economic partner, China, Australians in the survey say they want closer relations with the US, with 57% of the Guardian Essential sample wanting to deepen the relationship, while only 14% think Australia should strengthen our relationship with China over the US (which is a decrease from 28% in 2019).

Links

(AU ABC) Environment Minister Says Government Will Challenge UNESCO Move To List Great Barrier Reef As 'In Danger'

ABC News

Sussan Ley says UNESCO's report on the Great Barrier Reef '"singles out" Australia.

Key points
  • The World Heritage Committee will consider the recommendation at a meeting in China next month
  • Ms Ley says the draft decision was made without the latest information on the health of the Reef
  • A marine expert says the government should not be surprised by the recommendation
Environment Minister Sussan Ley says Australia has been "blindsided" by a draft recommendation to list the Great Barrier Reef as "in danger", suggesting the decision was politically motivated.

The World Heritage Committee, which sits under UNESCO, has proposed moving the reef to the list because of the impact of climate change, and will consider the decision at a meeting in China, which is the chair, next month.

Ms Ley described the decision as a "backflip" and said United Nations officials had assured the government the reef would not face this kind of recommendation before the July meeting.

"We were blindsided by a sudden late decision," she said.

"It is almost unheard of for a site to be added to the endangered list, or recommended … without the necessary consultation leading up to it.

"It is a deviation from normal process."

Ms Ley said the draft recommendation was based on a "desktop review" that did not have the latest information on a range of measures taken to protect the reef, including work on restoring corals and water quality management.

She also said there were dozens of other World Heritage-listed sites considered at risk that had not been subject to draft recommendations, saying Australia had been "singled out".

"For us to be singled out in a way that completely distorts the normal process was something we were very strong about," she said.

"We made the point that we will challenge this decision when it comes before the full committee later on in July.
"When procedures are not followed, when the process is turned on its head five minutes before the draft decision is due to be published, when the assurances my officials received and indeed I did have been upended. What else can you conclude but that it is politics?
"The decision has not been transparent in my view."

The Environment Minister said there was no doubt climate change was one of, if not the, greatest threat to the reef, but argued the government was taking extensive action to mitigate that as much as possible.

Experts say the potential listing of the Reef as "in danger" should not come as a surprise. (Unsplash: Daniel Pelaez Duque)

But Imogen Zethoven, an environmental consultant to the Australian Marine Conservation Society, said the potential listing should not come as a surprise.

"There is no doubt at all that the Great Barrier Reef is in danger from climate change," she said.

"Last year the [International Union for Conservation of Nature or IUCN], which is the advisory body to the World Heritage Committee, identified that because of climate change the outlook for the Great Barrier Reef was now critical.

"So I don't think anyone could be surprised that UNESCO has come up with this draft decision to put [it] on the 'in danger' list."

Experts reject claim that listing is political

Ms Zethoven said there was no guarantee the draft recommendation would be adopted but she disputed the idea that it was a politically motivated move by China.

"It is 100 per cent an environmental decision," she said.
"The only agencies that had any involvement in this recommendation are the World Heritage Centre and the IUCN, and any other claim is just a complete fabrication."
Queensland Treasurer Cameron Dick said the state government would continue advocate for the work being done to protect the reef.

But he said yesterday's National leadership spill and the return of Barnaby Joyce, who is vocally against a net zero emissions by 2050 target, sent the wrong message about the government's plan for tackling climate change.

"On the day that a climate change denier and sceptic, a man that wants to wreck our climate change ambitions, Barnaby Joyce, becomes Deputy Prime Minister again, we find out we've got this very serious decision about the Great Barrier Reef," Mr Dick said.


Great Barrier Reef deemed 'critical'
The Great Barrier Reef's classification worsens to "critical", with climate change named the biggest threat to the planet's natural world heritage by a new report. Read more
"I just think it's absolutely retrograde, it's selfish and self-indulgent to bring on this spill … who are these people to turn climate policy upside down, to turn the federal government upside down, and send a message internationally that climate change deniers … are now in charge of the federal government."

Mr Joyce defeated Michael McCormack in a leadership vote yesterday and was sworn in as Deputy Prime Minister this morning.

One of the issues that led to the leadership spill was ongoing disquiet in the Nationals about the Prime Minister's increasing support of a net zero by 2050 emissions target.

Mr Joyce said he would be guided by his party room when it comes to pushing against the government's plan to reach net zero emissions "preferably" by 2050, despite his open opposition to the policy.

Labor's spokesperson for climate change, Chris Bowen, said the government has been too slow to recognise the reef was under threat.

"The government says they are surprised, but they shouldn't be surprised about the fact the reef has encountered three bleaching events in the last five years," he said.

"I'm not aware of how this decision came about or what motivated it. Of course it should only be motivated by environmental concerns about the reef."

Links