Support NeoGAF

[Sneds]

From The Observer:

Millions of people could become destitute in Africa and Asia as staple foods more than double in price by 2050 as a result of extreme temperatures, floods and droughts that will transform the way the world farms.

As food experts gather at two major conferences to discuss how to feed the nine billion people expected to be alive in 2050, leading scientists have told the Observer that food insecurity risks turning parts of Africa into permanent disaster areas. Rising temperatures will also have a drastic effect on access to basic foodstuffs, with potentially dire consequences for the poor.

Frank Rijsberman, head of the world's 15 international CGIAR crop research centres, which study food insecurity, said: "Food production will have to rise 60% by 2050 just to keep pace with expected global population increase and changing demand. Climate change comes on top of that. The annual production gains we have come to expect … will be taken away by climate change. We are not so worried about the total amount of food produced so much as the vulnerability of the one billion people who are without food already and who will be hit hardest by climate change. They have no capacity to adapt."

America's agricultural economy is set to undergo dramatic changes over the next three decades, as warmer temperatures devastate crops, according to a US government report. The draft US National Climate Assessment report predicts that a gradually warming climate and unpredictable severe weather, such as the drought that last year spread across two-thirds of the continental United States, will have serious consequences for farmers.

The full article is at the above link. Another article from The Observer focuses on the same issue:

"We should expect much more political destabilisation of countries as it bites," says Richard Choularton, a policy officer in the UN's World Food Programme climate change office. "What is different now from 20 years ago is that far more people are living in places with a higher climatic risk; 650 million people now live in arid or semi-arid areas where floods and droughts and price shocks are expected to have the most impact.

"The recent crises in the Horn of Africa and Sahel may be becoming the new normal. Droughts are expected to become more frequent. Studies suggest anything up to 200 million more food-insecure people by 2050 or an additional 24 million malnourished children. In parts of Africa we already have a protracted and growing humanitarian disaster. Climate change is a creeping disaster," he said. ...

All of the studies suggest the worst impacts will be felt by the poorest people. Robinson, the former Irish president, said: "Climate change is already having a domino effect on food and nutritional security for the world's poorest and most vulnerable people. Child malnutrition is predicted to increase by 20% by 2050. Climate change impacts will disproportionately fall on people living in tropical regions, and particularly on the most vulnerable and marginalised population groups. This is the injustice of climate change – the worst of the impacts are felt by those who contributed least to causing the problem."

But from Europe to the US to Asia, no population will remain insulated from the huge changes in food production that the rest of the century will bring.

Again, there's more at the link.

Remember this when someone tries to play down climate change.

 

[commedieu]

Eh people are still pretending that the reasons why are more important than making any effort we can.

Breaking records by the minute.

Have the technology..but.. no. Rabble rabble deny funding to climate research rabble rabble.

 

[Sneds]

Eh people are still pretending that the reasons why are more important than making any effort we can.

Breaking records by the minute.

Have the technology..but.. no. Rabble rabble deny funding to climate research rabble rabble.

How can we get governments to take climate change more seriously?

Because as individuals we can make the best choices we can to limit our carbon footprint but, ultimately, to really tackle climate change we need change at a systemic level.

 

[jdl]

if there will ever be change, it will likely be reactive, not pre-emptive.

 

[jay]

There is no way we will do anything meaningful before it's far too late.

 

[GrizzNKev]

Based on my education I'd say it's too late to stop this. Not too late to save the species in general though.

Things are going to get very, very bad on this planet before they get better.

 

[Sneds]

if there will ever be change, it will likely be reactive, not pre-emptive.

There is no way we will do anything meaningful before it's far too late.

Based on my education I'd say it's too late to stop this. Not too late to save the species in general though.

Things are going to get very, very bad on this planet before they get better.

I share these sentiments sometimes and I get depressed and worried. It makes me despair.

The problem with despair is that it can lead to apathy, i.e. "if I can't change anything then there's no point in trying or even caring." But that's obviously a self-fulfilling prophecy. Only if we try to combat climate change can something be achieved. If we continue on our present course people will die, millions of people.

 

[highrider]

I hear Vancouver is really nice.









Not to make light, but it's overwhelming.

 

[Batman]

You can't fight climate change since it's natural, the earth goes through cycles, we are heading towards another ice age.

 

[wenis]

You can't fight climate change since it's natural, the earth goes through cycles, we are heading towards another ice age.

Batman knows.

 

[kylej]

Our governments and people are reactive not proactive. Nothing will change in the first world until the first world feels it.

 

[jay]

You can't fight climate change since it's natural, the earth goes through cycles, we are heading towards another ice age.

Phew, I was terrified we would have to care for a moment.

 

[commedieu]

Our governments and people are reactive not proactive. Nothing will change in the first world until the first world feels it.

Hardly. America has had non stop weather shattering records and drought. It still pauses at the debate vs researching better heartier/alternatives.. as everyone has already said.. nothings going to change our system. Its reactive, but god damn.

 

[jdl]

I share these sentiments sometimes and I get depressed and worried. It makes me despair.

The problem with despair is that it can lead to apathy, i.e. "if I can't change anything then there's no point in trying or even caring." But that's obviously a self-fulfulfilling prophecy. Only if we try to combat climate change can something be achieved. If we continue on our present course people will die, millions of people.

probably the most potentially powerful solution at this point is to get something that does the job in the hands of consumers. if you can offer environmentally friendly alternatives that also happens to enhance the immediate convenience to first worlders, things will see gradual change. anything else and they will shrug it off as a guilt plea.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

We've established that the key to reducing the overflow of humans so there will be enough food for everyone, hopefully not succeding 10 billion people by the end of the 21th century, we need to improve conditions for life in these rural areas. Its a self fulfilled prophercy that with high death counts comes high birth counts. It's just how our culture works, even at a much more basic level. higher living standards, while being occupied by material wealth, capitalistic values and satisfied by pop culture urges, and things like porn and entertainment, lots of people can be dissuaded from having offspring. Huxley would call it a nightmare, people who think there are to many people for the earths resources, will think its a blessing.

 

[Sneds]

probably the most potentially powerful solution at this point is to get something that does the job in the hands of consumers. if you can offer environmentally friendly alternatives that also happens to enhance the immediate convenience to first worlders, things will see gradual change. anything else and they will shrug it off as a guilt plea.

I disagree with this.

Climate change is at the point now where we need to take drastic change and the sort of change that requires World War II levels of mass mobilisation. We need to switch to renewable forms of energy and we need to reduce the amount of energy we use. This can't be achieved by consumer choice. It requires organisation at a government level.

We've established that the key to reducing the overflow of humans so there will be enough food for everyone, hopefully not succeding 10 billion people by the end of the 21th century, we need to improve conditions for life in these rural areas. Its a self fulfilled prophercy that with high death counts comes high birth counts. It's just how our culture works, even at a much more basic level. higher living standards, while being occupied by material wealth, capitalistic values and satisfied by pop culture urges, and things like porn and entertainment, lots of people can be dissuaded from having offspring. Huxley would call it a nightmare, people who think there are to many people for the earths resources, will think its a blessing.

I also disagree with this. While population is a factor, how the inhabitants of the planet live is more important than the number of people. We need to alter our lifestyles and not just hope that the birth rate goes down.

 

[jdl]

I disagree with this.

Climate change is at the point now where we need to take drastic change and the sort of change that requires World War II levels of mass mobilisation. We need to switch to renewable forms of energy and we need to reduce the amount of energy we use. This can't be achieved by consumer choice. It requires organisation at a government level.



I also disagree with this. While population is a factor, how the inhabitants of the planet live is more important than the number of people. We need to alter our lifestyles and not just hope that the birth rate goes down.

the reason i go for the consumer route is because it's a potentially realistic one.

 

[Stinkles]

A senator grilling the EPA candidate asked if she had a climate change AGENDA. Wtf fucking f.

Oh and guess which party he was from.

 

[Roo]

I'll probably be dead by then...

 

[jerry113]

How can we get governments to take climate change more seriously?

Because as individuals we can make the best choices we can to limit our carbon footprint but, ultimately, to really tackle climate change we need change at a systemic level.

Too many politicians are only concerned with short-term outcomes that lead to their short-term elections...

 

[jerry113]

I'll probably be dead by then...

I hope you're not planning to have kids then

 

[jaxword]

Phew, I was terrified we would have to care for a moment.

I wouldn't listen to that guy, he says that kind of callous thing a lot.

 

[CornBurrito]

I wouldn't listen to that guy, he says that kind of callous thing a lot.

He also thinks that society has gotten steadily worse since the 1940s.

 

[BrokenEchelon]

Watched this in class the other day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwkw2aVohnQ

 

[Sneds]

the reason i go for the consumer route is because it's a potentially realistic one.

But it isn't a realistic solution because it isn't a solution. Consumer choice cannot bring about the systemic change that is necessary to reduce our energy and material consumption.

How does consumer choice tackle the various groups, such as oil companies, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status-quo? That's a political problem that requires a political solution.

 

[jaxword]

He also thinks that society has gotten steadily worse since the 1940s.

All the people that said that ran off when called out, so no surprise there.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

The 1940s were hotter.

 

[KHarvey16]

The 1940s were hotter.

Where?

 

[Loofy]

If everyone buys a hybrid car today we can push starvation back to 2055.

 

[Roo]

I hope you're not planning to have kids then

This and among other reasons is why I don't plan to have kids so don't worry

 

[Escape Goat]

Not that I discount the effects of climate change but science was predicting we'd run out of oil 10-15 years ago. Predicting the future is not one of sciences strong suits.

 

[Stinkles]

Where?

Conservistan.

 

[KHarvey16]

Not that I discount the effects of climate change but science was predicting we'd run out of oil 10-15 years ago. Predicting the future is not one of sciences strong suits.

"Science" predicted that? Can you cite "science" saying such a thing? I remember hearing how "science" predicted an ice age in the 70's once, so I'm a little skeptical when I hear that phrase tossed around.

Conservistan.

That would pretty much be hell, so it makes sense.

 

[derivative]

I wonder how many people starved back during the time of Christ, when the global temperature was higher than it is currently by several degrees.

 

[EnderWiggles]

I wonder how many people starved back during the time of Christ, when the global temperature was higher than it is currently by several degrees.

Wait what

 

[Perkel]

You can't fight climate change since it's natural, the earth goes through cycles, we are heading towards another ice age.

You are right but it is actually other way. We are still in ice age at end of it. It means it will be warmer in with ever new decade.

Those problems are rather human problems rather than climate problems and we can't fight it.

 

[SummitAve]

I wonder how many people starved back during the time of Christ, when the global temperature was higher than it is currently by several degrees.

It's kindergarten climatology to understand that it isn't the magnitude of temperature, but rather the rate of temperature change.

It's more than obvious that average temperatures have been higher in histories past than it is now. There is plenty of evidence to support that. That same evidence will also support that the temperature has never changed at the rate it currently is.

 

[Sec0nd]

Global warming scares me. It really seems there are some terrible times coming up.

 

[jaxword]

Global warming scares me. It really seems there are some terrible times coming up.

It should scare you; we're destroying our ecosystem for our grandchildren.

If only people would stop and actually think about more than themselves.

 

[tino]

Maybe after the Arctic ice is melt, we have more fishes?

 

[Sneds]

Not that I discount the effects of climate change but science was predicting we'd run out of oil 10-15 years ago. Predicting the future is not one of sciences strong suits.

Well, actually the predictions about peak oil were pretty accurate.

Brad Plumer: Let’s start with the basics. How would you define “peak oil”?

Chris Nelder: There has always been a lot of confusion about this point. Peak oil was never about “running out of oil.” The only people who characterized it that way either didn’t know what they were talking about or were trying to confuse the issue. Peak oil has always referred to the production rate of oil — it’s about finding the point where that production rate peaks.

BP: So back in 2005, plenty of analysts were suggesting that the world would soon hit a ceiling in annual oil production. How has that panned out?

CN: The predictions weren’t monolithic. But what everyone agreed on was that at some point in the near future, maybe five or 10 or 15 years away, the rate of oil production would stop growing. Some said we’d hit an absolute peak in a specific year. Others said we’d reach a “bumpy plateau” that might be five or 10 years long. But everyone agreed that sometime after 2005, within 10 or 15 years, global oil production would stop growing.
And that’s exactly what happened. The growth in conventional oil production ended in 2004, and we’ve been on a bumpy plateau ever since.

Maybe after the Arctic ice is melt, we have more fishes?

What we'll actually get is more oil production because there are oil deposits in the Arctic.

 

[entremet]

Why does climate change have to a liberal/conservative thing? The research is all there and hardly inconclusive.

 

[Ultima_5]

Why does climate change have to a liberal/conservative thing? The research is all there and hardly inconclusive.

People are dumb

 

[Sneds]

Why does climate change have to a liberal/conservative thing? The research is all there and hardly inconclusive.

This is an interesting question. I think a big part of why the Republican Party, and other conservative groups around the world, are so sceptical about climate change is that it doesn't fit with their free-market ideology. Climate change cannot be tackled by the market - it requires government intervention and international cooperation. If we took climate change seriously what would that mean for oil, gas and coal companies? What would it mean for manufacturing? These are questions that the market, left to its own devices, can't handle and so Republicans put their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.

It's worth remembering as well that the political process in the USA and other countries is beign lobbied hard by vested interests.

 

[KHarvey16]

I wonder how many people starved back during the time of Christ, when the global temperature was higher than it is currently by several degrees.

You can stop wondering because that's not true in the slightest.

 

[Loofy]

Why does climate change have to a liberal/conservative thing? The research is all there and hardly inconclusive.

What are we supposed to do though. If liberals had there way are you saying we can stop climate change? where can I read this study.

imo climate change is exactly the kind of problem that will create a scientific revolution. Instead coming up with ways to delay it, mankind should prepare to face it. In 50 years I expect new agriculture techniques, maybe biodomes, terraforming techniques(that we can also use on Mars), weather control etc.
Dooming our grandchildren? our grandchildren will laugh at us.

Maybe I just have too much faith in science.

 

[demon]

What are we supposed to do though. If liberals had there way are you saying we can stop climate change? where can I read this study.

If "liberals had their way" we could act in ways that acknowledge climate change in the first place. Conservatives made this a liberal vs conservative issue, not liberals.

 

[Stinkles]

What are we supposed to do though. If liberals had there way are you saying we can stop climate change? where can I read this study.

imo climate change is exactly the kind of problem that will create a scientific revolution. Instead coming up with ways to delay it, mankind should prepare to face it. In 50 years I expect new agriculture techniques, maybe biodomes, terraforming techniques(that we can also use on Mars), weather control etc.
Dooming our grandchildren? our grandchildren will laugh at us.

Maybe I just have too much faith in science.

I think you actually have too much faith in Bioshock.

 

[pompidu]

People are dumb

They are uneducated, a little tact seems less condescending. Reason people don't believe global warming is they don't even know how our own fucking sun works, which can be rectified with a simple google search and 1 min of their time.

 

[Loofy]

If "liberals had their way" we could act in ways that acknowledge climate change in the first place. Conservatives made this a liberal vs conservative issue, not liberals.

It isnt just about 'acknowledging climate change,' like oh 'yeah its happening.' They'll usually call for green initiatives that may or may not stop climate change.
Actually in the past couple years Ive barely been hearing anything about imposing emission caps. It seems environmentalists thought that was a pretty silly thing to push for.