More like this
Global warming could lift farmers out of poverty
Research suggests climate change could mean higher food prices - and give poor farmers a cash bonanza
The assumption that climate change will hit the poorest people hardest has been shaken by new research from Stanford University suggesting that the worst-case global warming scenario predicted by the United Nations over the next 20 years could actually lift millions of people out of poverty.
The Copenhagen climate conference agreed that the developed countries would establish a fund to help poorer countries to adapt to the worst effects of climate change, such as flooding and drought. The new research by David Lobell of Stanford University’s Program on Food Security and the Environment gives an idea of where some of that money ought to go.
Rising temperatures have a generally detrimental effect on plant growth. Lobell and his colleagues used predicted global temperature rises from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and extrapolated from them the likely increase or decrease in crop yields. That data was fed into a computer model developed by Purdue University agricultural economist Thomas Hertel which can predict the impact of yields on food prices and poverty by 2030 in 15 Asian, African and Latin American developing nations.
The results make for interesting reading. Under the IPCC’s ‘most likely’ scenario, that of a 1C temperature rise by 2030, there was no overall change in poverty levels.
But there are two less likely scenarios, which have a five per cent probability of coming to pass: a 0.5C rise and a 1.5C rise. These seemingly tiny differences in temperature will have very different effects on crop yields and poverty.
A 1.5C temperature rise would reduce crop yields and increase the price of wheat, rice and maize by 10-60 per cent. Although it would increase poverty overall in the 15 countries by three per cent, farmers who owned their own land would enjoy a bonanza: as food prices soar, they could sell their crops for a premium. It was those who farmed land that did not belong to them or city dwellers who became poorer.
If global temperatures rise by just 0.5C, crop yields will increase. The resulting food surplus would lead to a drop in prices which would benefit the non-farming poor. In Zambia, Mozambique, Malawi and Uganda, for instance, poverty among this group would fall by five per cent. But in Thailand, poverty among farmers would increase by 60 per cent.
At a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Lobell said: "Poverty impacts depend not only on food prices but also on the earnings of the poor. There are those who farm their own land and would actually benefit from higher crop prices, and there are rural wage labourers and people that live in cities who definitely will be hurt."
At Copenhagen, developed nations agreed a ‘goal’ to raise $100bn per year by 2020 to help developing countries cut their carbon emissions. Lobell’s findings suggest this money might be better spent on helping rural farm workers buy their own land – and benefit from the seeming inevitability of higher temperatures and higher food prices. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Oh dear Peter - a glitch in the Matrix appears to have swallowed some of your missive. You should work harder at concise, precise, well formed logical argument that fits in one paragraph. In short, try adhering to the rules of the blog rather than cheating to by trying to link away from where the action is! Our hosts may feel that you are being inelegantly ungrateful by attempting such abrupt hyperlink-out techniques. And stop banging on about 'climate change'. No one ever denied that Ice Ages come, and Ice Ages go. Climate changes. Get used to it, we all have. We learned that climate changes at school in our salad days, as the queen says, bless. What you MEAN is 'global warming', but even the Climategate Prof. Jones has been forced to admit that the temps are not powering up like they should. Backing off the 'global warming' phrase to more vague 'climate change' is really an admission of defeat, if not guilt. It is all scareology and carbon taxology really - isn't it? Come on now - admit it - you is beat!
More fiddling about with statistics rather than doing anything real; then down the line they'll realise they left out important factors and the computer program failed to evaluate others so th3e whole exercise was pointless. These people just don't get it. If food prices rise, it's because of shortages, shortages mean not enough food which means famine. No mention is made of flooding or of low-lying arable land not producing anything but mud - and where is all the flooding happening already? Rather than deny climate change [difficult as it's obvious to a blind fool] or denying it's linked to our activities [see link below] these wasters are trying to put a positive spin on it, ignoring key factors in the process. Just looking at temperature rise without acknowledging sea level rise and increased precipitation is worse than a waste of time [still, they all got paid good money for this, taxpayers' money]
For answers to all the so-called sceptics objections, site has the answers
Hmm. QUOTE: "Rising temperatures have a generally detrimental effect on plant growth." and..."A 1.5C temperature rise would reduce crop yields and increase the price of wheat, rice and maize by 10-60 per cent. " UNQUOTE. Er, no. It depends what the baseline starting point for the temperature graph is. First, one graph cannot conceivably cover rice, wheat, and maize. Second, if you concentrate on one crop, say wheat, then start the graph at the upper temp limit at which the crop can grow, then an increase in temp will have no effect on yield (flat graph), or a negative effect (yield down). What a drop in yield does to prices is dependent on the buying behaviour of the consumer, people might switch to more potatoes or rice or maize or barley depending on what their graphs do, which will not be the same. Also, lands that are marginal now at the lower temp limit will become viable, so more crops from different areas will be created by rising temps, and the lands (the majority) that are NOT at the upper temp limit for the crops will benefit by rising temps, and crops will increase and prices will on balance go down! The net effect will be a great increase in crop yields just as Europe experienced 1000 years ago in the Medieval Warm Period. Bring on the grape harvest I say.
Do you think the farmers would be allowed to keep their land if it ever became valuable; poor farmers live on poor land because the big guys don't want it. All changes if food prices rise.