The Irony of Climate

Related Links

• "The Irony of Climate" (World Watch Magazine: March/ April 2005)
• Eat Here: Reclaiming Homegrown Pleasures in a Global Supermarket

Worldwatch Live Online Discussion

Brian Halweil: Senior Researcher

February 24, 2005 - 3:00pm EDT

In "The Irony of Climate" (World Watch Magazine - March/April 2005) Halweil explores the links between climate change and agriculture shifts.† "Farming may be the human endeavor most dependent on a stable climateóand the industry that will struggle most to cope with more erratic weather, severe storms, and shifts in growing season lengths," writes Halweil.

Submit your questions now and return on Thursday, February 24, 2005 at 2:00 p.m. EST for the discussion.

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Welcome to Worldwatch Live. Worldwatch Senior Researcher Brian Halweil joins us today to answer your questions on "The Irony of Climate," Brian's feature article in the March/April 2005 edition of World Watch Magazine. Welcome, Brian!

Brian Halweil: Thanks for starting us out, Steve. And thank you everyone for your participation. Let's get started, Brian

Brisbane, Australia: Do you agree that predicted climate change (causing agricultural disruption) will place much more emphasis on hydroponics (inorganic and organic), recirculation aquaculture and recirculation aquaponics, where control of plant and animal food production can be well manipulated via use of structures and heating and cooling quipment, so that existing varieties and cultivars of food plants can be maintained ?

Brian Halweil: Good question. There is no doubt that climate change will put pressure on most agricultural resources and force farmers and nations to take better advantage of all agricultural resources available. This might include urban farms in densely populated areas. More efficient use of water in water scarce area. Or, as you say, indoor or hydroponic production. Yes, hydroponics and greenhouse production give more control over the growing conditions. But in a situation of more extreme temperatures and rainfall, it might also become much more costly to maintain the climate in hydroponic and greenhouse production. The bottom line is that we'll need to cope in many ways.

Brisbane, Australia: Do you think governments should now develop new priorities in research and development aimed at increasing food production from urban investments -- focused on home-owner food production, community garden food production and intensive commercial production of food plants, food fish, food crustaceans and food molluscs ?

Brian Halweil: Again, climate change will force farmers to look for all sorts of solutions to raising food. And urban farming is just one part of that. Not just because there are many unused spaces in urban areas, but because we are becoming a more urban society and the logistics of moving large quantities of food into urban areas necessitate that cities depend as much as possible on nearby production. Climate change or no climate change.

Netherlands: Why the connection between H.A.A.R.P. project and today's climate changes seems to have been overseen? Will you include the issue in the discussion?

Brian Halweil: I'm not familar with H.A.A.R.P. Can you describe it in more detail.

Florianopolis, SC - Brazil: Regarding only the mean temperature shift due to global warming (forgeting for a moment the other climatic modifications!) is it true that harvesting will be increased, as some anti IPCC guys sustain?

Brian Halweil: As I note in the article, climate models are always evolving. Most climate scientists would agree the models have gotten very good, but many scientists still refer to them as "crystal balls." Of the six or so major model that I studied, none shows major increases in harvests over the long-term, to 2050 or 2080, for instance. Growing seasons will increase in certain regions, including northern areas like Siberia or Canada, but it's not clear if these areas will have the water, equipment, soil fertility and other conditions needed to raise more food. And even optimistic increases in these areas don't offset the much larger losses predicted everywhere else.

Portsmouth, Rhode Island: Brian, my understanding is perhaps one of the largest impacts of global warming early on will be its effects on the water cycle where droughts and prolonged wet periods leading to flooding will become much more common. Please speak to what areas of the world this is likely to occur in and the impacts on things like decreasing wheat or rice production. Thanks!

Brian Halweil: You're right. One of the largest and clearest effects of climate change will be increased "hydrological intensity." That is, more severe rain patterns, more droughts, more flooding, and more erratic rainfall in general. You don't need to be a farmer to realize why this will be difficult to cope with. The point is that farming today, and farming for the last 10,000 or so years, has depended on stable, predictable conditions. And our crops have evolved and been bred for those conditions. More erratic rainfall patterns, particularly at key periods in the crop's lifecycle can be devastating.

And the impact on the water cycle can be very complex. In irrigation dependent parts of the world, like California, or parts of Northern China, increased temperatures are shrinking mountain glaciers which feed rivers with spring snowmelt. As the glaciers shrink, there is less snowmelt and less river water available to irrigate crops, which are also likely dealing with warmer conditions and therefore need more water. And the snowmelt is probably coming much more rapidly and much earlier, which isn't necessarily when the crops need it.

New Delhi, INDIA: Have we lost all hopes. Is it possible to salvage through use of AEROPONICS. I made a p[resentation at the 5th World Environment Congress held in Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, India. You might want to read

Brian Halweil: There is no need to lose all hope. But there is a need for some sort of response. Governments have been very slow to respond to climate change, even those governments signed onto the Climate Treaty. And those that haven't signed on, like the United States, of course, are being most irresponsible. Farmers and farm organizations aren't responding much either.

This is all rather short-sighted, not just because climate change will have huge economic impacts. But because farmers could reap economic benefits by raising energy crops (biodiesel, wind energy, etc.) and storing carbon in the soils that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reverse climate change.

And I'm not as familiar with aeroponics. Could you describe in a bit more detail?

Louisville, Ky: Hi Chris, I would like to know more about the carbon sink function of soil, and how its capacity to capture carbon differs depending on the type of crops, farming, weather, etc. Thanks, andrew

Brian Halweil: Thanks for the question, Andrew. It's a pretty complex question, though, and there are entire books written on it. In most of the world, soils could store a lot more carbon than they already are. In recent decades, modern farming techniques, including short-rotations, planting the same crop every year (monocultures), removal of livestock from the land, and chemical fertilizers, have removed most of the carbon stored in these soils, and also reduced the capacity of soils to hold more carbon. There is good long-term research from the Rodale Institute that organic farming, with heavy emphasis on covercrops, legumes, rotations, and manuring, stores considerably more carbon than nonorganic farming. Fields planted in trees and other perennial crops can also hold more carbon, in terms of plant material, than fields planted in row crops.

Regardless of the conditions, farmers everywhere can store more carbon. But, it's important to remember that even if the world's soils stored as much carbon as possible, this would not completely take care of the massive amounts of atmospheric carbon being generated by fossil fuel use.

Bhubaneswar, Orissa.: Dear Brian, Climate change and global warming has been bandied about by many for a decade or so. Agriculture is a major source of livelihood for the majority of the poor in the developing world. And so your topic for discussion is vital to many. May I know what each one of us can do to mitigate to whatever little extent the adverse effects of climate? And this applies to one and all, not just to farmers. As the poem goes: "Little drops of water, Little grains of sand, Make the mighty ocean And the pleasant land. Liitle deed of kindness, Little words of love, Make the earth an Eden, Like the Heaven above."

Brian Halweil: Thanks for your question. As you note, it's clear that developing nations will be most affected by climate change. Not just because they are mostly located in the tropics, where temperatures are already high and there is less cushion for conditions to get warmer without damaging crops. But also because poorer nations are less able to cope.

There are many steps that individual farmers can take to cope. Diversify their crop mix. Plant trees and other perennials to buffer against severe conditions. Develop emergency irrigation and weather prediction systems. Choose more resilient crop types.

But everyone can do something. Drive our cars less. Eat less factory farmed meat (as factory farming is very energy intensive, and much more so than grazed animals). Demand that our politicians support a shift to alternative, nonpolluting fuels.

And then there is the old advice on one small act that can actually have quite an impact when many people do it: plant a tree.

chatsworth, ca: how can we in the united states introduce legislation that would help curb climate change? some ideas i have is to meet with progressive politicians such as henry waxman at the federal level and also with state politicians in california, and ask for solutions: 1) tax shifts: tax what we don't want, wasted fossil fuels, and don't tax other things we do want people to do more. it may be too radical for most politicians though. 2)another is to do rebates for solar energy. 3) could solutions be added as amendments to the energy bill? if they could it would embaress bush if he vetoed the energy bill because of amendments to reduce pollution and global warming. how doable do you think these are? do you have ideas of steps that might be more doable?

Brian Halweil: The three areas you suggest are all important, and have worked in Europe and Brazil and other settings. (They have hardly been tapped yet in the United States.) Local initiatives and laws are great, but can only go so far of course. The United States need to sign onto the Climate Treaty. If that doesn't happen, then some federal law is still needed that encourages renewable energy production, taxes fossil fuel use, mandates higher fuel effeciency for our car fleet, and supports the adoption of solar, windmills, and other clean energy technologies. There is public support for these sorts of changes, but they are opposed by powerful interests, including the oil and coal lobbies and their allies.

Along the lines of my article, I think the farmers can be allies for addressing climate change, and that there may be room for encouraging renewables in the 2007 Farm Bill or earlier farm policy.

London, Ontario: Is it possible for a climatic event of the magnitude of the Younger Dryas period to occur, because of carbon dioxide emmissions? What impact will that have on agriculture in North America?

Brian Halweil: It's definitely possible, although frightening to imagine. The Younger Dryas period was an abrupt shift in the global climate that occured several thousand years ago and plunged much of the northern hemisphere into an Ice Age that lasted several hundred years. The shift happened over just a few decades. These sorts of flips show up in the climate record and often come just after a warming period. Some climatologists, including Wally Broecker at Columbia University, have raised the possibility of a similar abrupt shift in modern times. The impact on agriculture in North America, Europe, and everywhere would be devastating. Actually, it was this sort of scenario that prompted the Pentagon and other members of the defense community to begin studying climate change, since severe weather changes and the related food shortages could provoke chaos (famine, war, illness) on a scale not seen in modern times.

Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India: The Green Revolution in India has ensured food security for the last 2 decades. Do you think India will again revert to food insecurity due to climate change in the next decade or two?

Brian Halweil: It's hard to predict what will happen in specific regions or nations. But I think that climate change will put pressure on food security in every nation and every region. Climate change will come on top of those other conditions--poverty, political corruption, war--that already cause people to go hungry.

Kampala: It is good to hear about the coming into force of the Kyoto Protocol. It gives the vulnerable poor farmers in Africa the hope that the World is 'caring'. BUT the US - what do you see as the best way to have them appreciate the need to sign up, as I am wary about their huge contribution to GHG emissions and hence need to be part of this pact right away?

Brian Halweil: I agree that the US must join up, and I think the international community needs to do whatever it can to convince the US of the urgency. This might include ostracizing the US from international affairs until the US joins the Treaty. Of course, pressure can also come from US citizens, who can not only lobby against current US policies, but also support those American politicians and organizations who are trying to respond to climate change. And, yes, the fact that the US is the largest GHG contributor, by far, makes its absence from the treaty that much more hard to swallow.

Bloomington, Indiana: Thanks for your excellent article. I am currently involved in a local project on global warming to help people understand the impact of their actions. I realize that methane, as well as carbon dioxide, contributes to global warming. And I know that at least some rice cultivation is part of the problem. As I understand it, the methane comes from microorganisms that live in rice paddies, such as those in Southeast Asia. Is it also a problem with most rice grown in the United States? Iím embarrassingly ignorant of how American rice is grown. It would be interesting to know whether those of us who are vegans still have an important change to make if weíre to eat responsibly.

Brian Halweil: Your question points to the complex questions about how our diets affect climate change. Being vegetarian, of course, generates fewer greenhouse emissions than eating lots of meat. But what if all the vegetables are being shipped in by refrigerated cargo jet--which some veggies are. And grassfed meat raised nearby might be much less energy intensive than a head of lettuce coming from thousands of miles away.

Regarding rice, the methane is generated by rice paddies that are flooded. Bacteria in the soils create methane in flooded conditions without oxygen. Most of the rice in the world, including in California, is grown this way. However, this seems to be larger a matter of tradition and convenience. There is good research showing that rice can be grown with much less water, while achieving similar or even higher yields (because the roots actually do better with more oxygen in the soil) and of course there is much less methane production. Right now, it's hard for consumers buying rice to know how the rice was grown, particularly if the fields were flooded or not, without speaking directly to the farmer.

Indore(M.P): In India Kashmir state is having long snowfall .After 30yrs citizens observed such snowfall.Does it related to climate change?

Brian Halweil: It's hard to tie climate change to changes in the weather that are happening on a very local level. Climate models aren't good enough to predict or explain such things. However, climate scientists do agree that more greenhouse gases mean a warmer atmosphere with more energy, which leads to more erratic and unusual weather conditions. That might mean more severe flooding, more severe droughts, more severe heat waves, and even more severe snowfall, although that might be hard to reconcile with the term "global warming."

New Delhi: What can India do to check the climate change? Is their any immdeiate danger to our (India's) food security?

Brian Halweil: In the answers to the questions from Orissa and Maharashtra, I note some of the steps that farmers and politicians in India can take. In the article, I note that some people who study the monsoon suggest that climate change will likely make the monsoon less predictable, which will difficult for monsoon dependent agriculture in Asia. Regarding food security, again, there are many factors that leave people hungry, including political decisions. Climate change will come on top of these factors and may force politicians to confront some of the underlying causes of hunger.

Nigeria: What will be the role of third world countries in this new thinking?

Brian Halweil: Third World nations have a big role to play in addressing climate change, not just because they will be disproportionately affected by climate change, but also because they represent the majority of the world's citizens and food producers (farmers, fishers, food makers).

In addition, because much of the developing world still does not have enough energy to meet basic needs for heating, cooking, and living a healthy life, its citizens face a situation where they need more energy, but it must be renewable energy that is both nonpolluting and affordable. There will be homegrown solutions to this problem, but researchers, governments, and companies in wealthier nations can also help. In this sense, the issue of climate change might provide a platform for unifying the Third World in terms of its shared interests and its bargaining power with the First World.

Bangkok: What is your opinion on the environmental optimism expressed by the people who believe on free market policy?How should the developing countries reorient for maintaining ecological balance?

Brian Halweil: I don't agree that free market solutions alone will work. They have a role to play. Carbon trading markets can help reduce emissions and encourage more energy efficiency. But companies won't necessarily participate. A problem with the urgency and scale of climate change will require both voluntary free market solutions as well as mandatory regulations, including taxes that discourage certain energy use and subsidies that encourage other energy use.

As noted in the answer to the previous question, developing nations that are building housing, transport systems, and other infrastructure over coming decades should keep energy efficiency and the goal of reducing greenhouse emissions in the fronts of their minds. Greenhouse gas emissions are not necessarily essential to development. That's just the way we've been doing things until now.

Charlottetown PEI Canada: Do you think that farmers may have a higher adaptive capacity than those in other sectors and that might help them deal with climate impacts?

Brian Halweil: In some ways, farmers have a higher adaptive capacity. They are used to dealing with short-term weather fluctuations, sudden storms, changing prices and market conditions. They usually deal on an annual timeline, so decisions can be changed relatively quickly. However, farming might also be that sector most dependent on a stable climate. So although farmers can adapt, the costs of adapting will not be small.

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Thanks for joining us today, Brian!

Brian Halweil: It was a pleasure to discuss these topics with you all. Thanks for your questions and for tolerating my slow typing. Brian