Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Efforts to mitigate climate change could cause 8-fold increase in hunger.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Efforts to mitigate climate change could cause 8-fold increase in hunger.

    Consequence of Climate Mitigation on the Risk of Hunger
    Tomoko Hasegawa, Shinichiro Fujimori, Yonghee Shin, Akemi Tanaka, Kiyoshi Takahashi, and Toshihiko Masui
    Environmental Science & Technology 2015 49 (12), 7245-7253
    DOI: 10.1021/es5051748
    Abstract

    Climate change and mitigation measures have three major impacts on food consumption and the risk of hunger: (1) changes in crop yields caused by climate change; (2) competition for land between food crops and energy crops driven by the use of bioenergy; and (3) costs associated with mitigation measures taken to meet an emissions reduction target that keeps the global average temperature increase to 2 C. In this study, we combined a global computable general equilibrium model and a crop model (M-GAEZ), and we quantified the three impacts on risk of hunger through 2050 based on the uncertainty range associated with 12 climate models and one economic and demographic scenario. The strong mitigation measures aimed at attaining the 2 C target reduce the negative effects of climate change on yields but have large negative impacts on the risk of hunger due to mitigation costs in the low-income countries. We also found that in a strongly carbon-constrained world, the change in food consumption resulting from mitigation measures depends more strongly on the change in incomes than the change in food prices.


    http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/...1021/es5051748




    Somebody better alert the Pope.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

  • #2
    And make more money for Big Oil in the form of fertilizers, farm fuel and similar items.

    You must be quite proud of yourself.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      And make more money for Big Oil in the form of fertilizers, farm fuel and similar items.

      You must be quite proud of yourself.
      More accurately that would be "Big Oil" Stock/Shareholders.
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
        More accurately that would be "Big Oil" Stock/Shareholders.
        More accurately, he doesn't have the slightest clue as to what I posted.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
          More accurately, he doesn't have the slightest clue as to what I posted.
          Yeah ... I know that.

          I was tryin' to be sort of "PC", polite/diplomatic and cutting a bit of slack ...

          When talking a finite sphere of bio-synergies, limitations and boundaries begin to appear on the fringes and work inward. A dynamic of the terrestrial matrix that too few appreachiate ...

          Dry terra can only support so much assorted Flora, and where food and "energy" sources cross over in habitat, hard call which should be the preferred ... (Political Perspective the operative ...)
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • #6
            What better way to limit our planet's ridiculous population growth than STARVATION!


            Much safer to the "well fed" than virus attacks like smallpox, malaria, AIDS, ebola, and such.


            Nukes and meteor impacts are less discriminating for curbing the population growth of those backwards "groups" of people who don't use birth control, for what ever reason...
            Last edited by Pirate-Drakk; 05 Aug 15, 00:39.
            Battles are dangerous affairs... Wang Hsi

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pirate-Drakk View Post
              What better way to limit our planet's ridiculous population growth than STARVATION!


              Much safer to the "well fed" than virus attacks like smallpox, malaria, AIDS, ebola, and such.


              Nukes and meteor impacts are less discriminating for curbing the population growth of those backwards "groups" of people who don't use birth control, for what ever reason...
              Plague or natural disaster, both of which are faster and probably more humane in the long run. Dying of starvation is a slow and very painful process.

              However, we are more likely to all die off in the near future when the Yellowstone super-volcano blows.

              Starvation, BTW, is Natures way of telling us two very important things:

              1. We're living where the food isn't, and

              2. There are too many of us.

              In the days before world-wide transport networks and all of this foreign aid, Nature adjusted the world's population to what was currently sustainable in each area. Many great civilizations perished entirely because they could no longer support themselves, including the Mayans, the Anazi and many others.

              We are our own worst enemies when it comes to managing ourselves.

              Sam Kinnison's famous cure for starvation:




              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Bump ...
                ... Think onb the title ...
                TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X