Climate change threatens world food supply. How bad could it be in the U.S.?
It's especially worrisome in the United States, where top crop production could drop by as much as 50% by 2100.
The planet's food system faces growing risks from climate change, a new study says. It's especially worrisome in the United States, where top crop production could drop by as much as 50% by 2100.
The study, published June 18, assessed six staple crops – maize (corn), soybeans, rice, wheat, cassava and sorghum – and found that only rice might avoid substantial losses from rising temperatures.
'If the climate warms by 3 degrees, that's basically like everyone on the planet giving up breakfast," study co-author Solomon Hsiang of Stanford University said in a statement.
Will there still be a Corn Belt?
The projected losses for U.S. agriculture are especially steep, according to the study. 'Places in the Midwest that are really well suited for present-day corn and soybean production just get hammered under a high warming future,' said lead study author Andrew Hultgren of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. 'You do start to wonder if the Corn Belt is going to be the Corn Belt in the future.'
Scientists estimated that for every 1.8-degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature above pre-industrial levels, production will decline by 120 calories per person per day, the equivalent of 4.4% of today's daily consumption.
That will push up prices and make it harder for people to access food, Hsiang told CNN.
Wheat, soy and corn most affected
Wheat and corn will be among the crops most at risk, the study found.
The study suggested that under a high-emissions scenario, by the end of the century, maize production could decline by up to 40% in the United States, Eastern China, Central Asia, Southern Africa and the Middle East. Wheat loses could range from 15% to 25% in Europe, Africa and South America and 30% to 40% in China, Russia, the United States and Canada.
'This is basically like sending our agricultural profits overseas," Hsiang said in a statement from Stanford. "We will be sending benefits to producers in Canada, Russia, China. Those are the winners, and we in the U.S. are the losers. The longer we wait to reduce emissions, the more money we lose.'
Data center: Hot, hotter, hottest: How much will climate change warm your county?
Steepest losses at the extremes
The steepest losses occur at the extremes of the agricultural economy, according to a statement from Stanford University. That includes modern breadbaskets that now enjoy some of the world's best growing conditions, such as the United States, and subsistence farming communities that rely on small harvests of cassava.
In terms of food production capacity from staple crops, the analysis found yield losses may average 41% in the wealthiest regions and 28% in the lowest-income regions by 2100.
In the study, scientists concluded further adaptation and the expansion of cropland may be needed to ensure food security and limit the effects of climate change.
A favorable climate, Hsiang said, is a big part of what keeps farmland productive across generations. 'Farmers know how to maintain the soil, invest in infrastructure, repair the barn,' Hsiang said. 'But if you're letting the climate depreciate, the rest of it is a waste. The land you leave to your kids will be good for something, but not for farming.'
The study was published in the peer-reviewed British journal Nature.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Humanity could be just 3 years away from crossing a dire climate threshold, report warns
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. Record greenhouse gas emissions could exhaust Earth's "carbon budget" in as little as three years, dooming the planet to breach the symbolic threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warming. Global warming of 2 C (3.6 F) is considered an important threshold — warming beyond this greatly increases the likelihood of devastating and irreversible climate breakdown that include extreme heatwaves, droughts and the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, nearly 200 countries pledged to limit global temperature rises to ideally 1.5 C and safely below 2 C. Yet, according to a new assessment by more than 60 of the world's leading climate scientists, this target is quickly moving out of reach — only 143 billion tons (130 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide remains before we have likely exceeded the Paris Agreement target, and humanity is already releasing over 46 billion tons (42 billion metric tons) each year. The researchers published their findings June 19 in the journal Earth System Science Data. "The window to stay within 1.5 C is rapidly closing," study co-author Joeri Rogelj, a professor of climate science and policy at Imperial College London, said in a statement. "Global warming is already affecting the lives of billions of people around the world. Every small increase in warming matters, leading to more frequent, more intense weather extremes." Warnings that the Earth is careening beyond the 1.5 C limit, and the dire consequences that would follow from such a breach, are not new. In 2020, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated Earth's remaining climate budget to be around 550 billion tons (500 billion metric tons). Related: Earth's energy imbalance is rising much faster than scientists expected — and now researchers worry they might lose the means to figure out why Yet with emissions reaching record highs in the years since, and the next IPCC report not due until 2029, the scientists behind the new annual study wanted to fill the gap. The paper made its assessment by looking at 10 indicators of climate change, including net greenhouse gas emissions, Earth's energy imbalance, surface temperature changes, sea-level rises, global temperature extremes, and the remaining budget. The scientists' analysis makes for alarming reading, with warming occurring at a rate of about 0.49 F (0.27 C) each decade and the world standing at about 2.2 F (1.24 C) above preindustrial averages. This is causing extra heat to accumulate at more than double the rate seen in the 1970s and 1980s, and Earth is trapping heat 25% faster in this decade than it did in the last. Around 90% of this excess heat is being trapped in the oceans, disrupting marine ecosystems, melting ice and causing sea levels to rise at double the rate they were in the 1990s. RELATED STORIES —Climate wars are approaching — and they will redefine global conflict —Kids born today are going to grow up in a hellscape, grim climate study finds —Global carbon emissions reach new record high in 2024, with no end in sight, scientists say "Since 1900, the global mean sea level has risen by around 228 mm. This seemingly small number is having an outsized impact on low-lying coastal areas, making storm surges more damaging and causing more coastal erosion, posing a threat to humans and coastal ecosystems," co-author Aimée Slangen, a climatologist at the NIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, said in the statement. "The concerning part is that we know that sea-level rise in response to climate change is relatively slow, which means that we have already locked in further increases in the coming years and decades." The consequences of this warming are likely to hit humanity hard, with one recent study suggesting that yields of key crops such as maize and wheat in the U.S., China and Russia could drop by up to 40% before the end of the century. Another study has suggested an unprecedented global increase in drought severity is already underway, with 30% of Earth's land area experiencing moderate to extreme drought in 2022. Nonetheless, the report also stressed that global greenhouse gas emissions will likely peak this decade before decreasing. But for this to happen, we must continue to rapidly adopt wind, solar and other clean energy sources, while drastically reducing carbon emissions, the authors noted. "Emissions over the next decade will determine how soon and how fast 1.5°C of warming is reached," Rogelj said. "They need to be swiftly reduced to meet the climate goals of the Paris Agreement."
The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
Colorado River ‘water market' could bring security to farmers, fish and families: Study
Applying a market-based approach to Colorado River management could ensure more robust and reliable supplies for farmers, communities and the environment, a new study has found. Without considerable cutbacks in basin-wide water consumption, fish populations could face dire consequences for at least one month of the irrigation season, scientists warned in the study, published on Friday in Nature Sustainability. But if action were taken to deploy strategic water transactions among the basin's stakeholders, resultant reductions in usage could improve the situation of more than 380 miles of restorable segments, per the research. 'By strategically directing river water to the right places, even under drought conditions, fish can be saved with targeted restoration at nominal additional cost,' senior author Steven Gorelick, a hydrologist at Stanford University, said in a statement. The 1,450-mile Colorado River provides drinking water and agricultural irrigation to about 40 million people across seven U.S. states, 30 tribal nations and two states in Mexico. On the domestic side, the region is divided into the Upper and Lower basins: Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico; and California, Nevada and Arizona. As the West becomes increasingly arid and a growing population consumes more water, this critical transboundary artery is dwindling. Meanwhile, the U.S. basin states are currently negotiating an update to the river's operational guidelines, which expire at the end of 2026. Stakeholders across the region adhere to a century-old Colorado River Compact that allocated 7.5 million acre-feet annually to each of the two basins. The average suburban household consumes about half an acre-foot of water per year. Also at play is a historic U.S. West 'water rights' system, a 'first in time, first in right' approach to water that stems from the mid-19th century homesteading and gold rush era. At the time, farmers and miners secured and diverted water according to their arrival, rather than their geographical position along the river — creating a prioritization structure that is still in effect today. But the authors of Friday's study stressed that climate change has since exacerbated the Colorado River's shortages, noting that recent research has indicated that the artery's flows are at their lowest in at least 2,000 years. 'Given the overallocation of the river water, we explored how the needs of people and the environment can both be served,' Gorelick said. With the goal of compensating for potential cutbacks, water users in the Lower Basin states have created systems for voluntary water market transactions, the authors explained. The Upper Basin states — which are responsible for fulfilling the Lower Basin's allocations — have also explored the idea of designing a water market. Such a market, the researchers continued, would involve proactive reductions that ensure downstream deliveries. Nonetheless, they stressed that existing programs generally do not prioritize water necessary to maintain critical fish habitats. To quantify the cost of improving these environments, the researchers simulated potential transactions and ecological effects at the river's headwaters in Colorado — the source of about a quarter of the artery's natural annual flow into the Lake Powell reservoir. Farmers, irrigation organizations, cities and other water sellers would lease senior water rights to both governments and nongovernmental organizations interested in protecting fish habitats, per the model. Those senior water rights, the authors contended, are critical to environmental protection because they are always fulfilled prior to any junior water rights claims. 'One key characteristic of water law across the western U.S. is our 'use it or lose it' principle,' lead author Philip Womble, who conducted the research as a Stanford graduate student, said in a statement. 'That can be a disincentive to water conservation,' added Womble, who is now an assistant professor at the University of Washington. Womble, Gorelick and their colleagues assessed six scenarios to understand possible outcomes amid future drought conditions. They compared the effects of a 'protected' market — in which newer uses would be legally barred from diverting restored flows — to an unprotected market with no such limits. Ultimately, they found that without decreases in water consumption, the consequences to fish would be devastating. But when strategic water transactions were in place, 380 miles of river segments stood to benefit, while hundreds more could enjoy at least partial improvements. 'Strategic environmental water transactions would simultaneously reduce water consumption and preserve fish habitat at the lowest cost to the buyer,' the authors wrote. Moderate reductions in water usage could be achieved with an investment of about $29 million in a protected market, while aggressive cuts could occur at a cost of about $120 million, according to the study. In an unprotected market, similar such decreases would require about 12 percent more money, per the research. The researchers suggested that one source of the necessary funds could be the increasing number of corporations seeking to offset water use from their operations. Even the lowest cost water-use reductions, as modeled in the study, would yield improvement over about a third of restorable river habitat, the authors found. But an investment that was just 8 percent more than the least-cost plan could triple the amount of restored habitat in a protected water market with aggressive usage reductions, according to the study. 'Rivers worldwide have been overallocated by society,' the authors concluded. 'While strategic approaches may cost marginally more, we show modest additional funding can have outsized ecological impacts.'
USA Today
10 hours ago
- USA Today
Climate change threatens world food supply. How bad could it be in the U.S.?
It's especially worrisome in the United States, where top crop production could drop by as much as 50% by 2100. The planet's food system faces growing risks from climate change, a new study says. It's especially worrisome in the United States, where top crop production could drop by as much as 50% by 2100. The study, published June 18, assessed six staple crops – maize (corn), soybeans, rice, wheat, cassava and sorghum – and found that only rice might avoid substantial losses from rising temperatures. 'If the climate warms by 3 degrees, that's basically like everyone on the planet giving up breakfast," study co-author Solomon Hsiang of Stanford University said in a statement. Will there still be a Corn Belt? The projected losses for U.S. agriculture are especially steep, according to the study. 'Places in the Midwest that are really well suited for present-day corn and soybean production just get hammered under a high warming future,' said lead study author Andrew Hultgren of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. 'You do start to wonder if the Corn Belt is going to be the Corn Belt in the future.' Scientists estimated that for every 1.8-degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature above pre-industrial levels, production will decline by 120 calories per person per day, the equivalent of 4.4% of today's daily consumption. That will push up prices and make it harder for people to access food, Hsiang told CNN. Wheat, soy and corn most affected Wheat and corn will be among the crops most at risk, the study found. The study suggested that under a high-emissions scenario, by the end of the century, maize production could decline by up to 40% in the United States, Eastern China, Central Asia, Southern Africa and the Middle East. Wheat loses could range from 15% to 25% in Europe, Africa and South America and 30% to 40% in China, Russia, the United States and Canada. 'This is basically like sending our agricultural profits overseas," Hsiang said in a statement from Stanford. "We will be sending benefits to producers in Canada, Russia, China. Those are the winners, and we in the U.S. are the losers. The longer we wait to reduce emissions, the more money we lose.' Data center: Hot, hotter, hottest: How much will climate change warm your county? Steepest losses at the extremes The steepest losses occur at the extremes of the agricultural economy, according to a statement from Stanford University. That includes modern breadbaskets that now enjoy some of the world's best growing conditions, such as the United States, and subsistence farming communities that rely on small harvests of cassava. In terms of food production capacity from staple crops, the analysis found yield losses may average 41% in the wealthiest regions and 28% in the lowest-income regions by 2100. In the study, scientists concluded further adaptation and the expansion of cropland may be needed to ensure food security and limit the effects of climate change. A favorable climate, Hsiang said, is a big part of what keeps farmland productive across generations. 'Farmers know how to maintain the soil, invest in infrastructure, repair the barn,' Hsiang said. 'But if you're letting the climate depreciate, the rest of it is a waste. The land you leave to your kids will be good for something, but not for farming.' The study was published in the peer-reviewed British journal Nature.
