The way climate scientists use those terms, I think of safeguarding soil quality and genetically engineering or otherwise modifying new crops for the heat as more of climate change adaption than mainstream mitigation problem.
Tony Allan who I quoted in a different comment also believed that there are a bunch of other ecological problems with the future of our current soil quality. This does seem important?
I don’t know nearly enough about the field to have any opinions on tractability or neglectedness (David Manheim who commented below seems to know more).
That said, I personally would be quite surprised if worldwide crop yields actually ended up decreasing by 10-30%. (Not an informed opinion, just vague intuitions about econ).
That said, I personally would be quite surprised if worldwide crop yields actually ended up decreasing by 10-30%. (Not an informed opinion, just vague intuitions about econ).
I hope they won’t too, if we manage to develop the changes we need to make before we need them. Economics isn’t magic
But I wanted to point out that there will probably be costs associated with stopping deaths associated with food shortages with adaptation. Are they bigger or smaller than mitigation by reducing CO2 output or geoengineering?
This case hasn’t been made either way to my knowledge and could help allocate resources effectively.
I found this report on adaptation, which suggest adaptation with some forethought will be better than waiting for problems to get worse. Talks about things other than crops too. The headlines
Without adaptation, climate change may depress growth in global agriculture yields up to 30 percent by 2050. The 500 million small farms around the world will be most affected.
The number of people who may lack sufficient water, at least one month per year, will soar from 3.6 billion today to more than 5 billion by 2050.
Rising seas and greater storm surges could force hundreds of millions of people in coastal cities from their homes, with a total cost to coastal urban areas of more than $1 trillion each year by 2050.
Climate change could push more than 100 million people within developing countries below the poverty line by 2030. The costs of climate change on people and the economy are clear. The toll on human life is irrefutable. The question is how will the world respond: Will we delay and pay more or plan ahead and prosper?
The way climate scientists use those terms, I think of safeguarding soil quality and genetically engineering or otherwise modifying new crops for the heat as more of climate change adaption than mainstream mitigation problem.
Tony Allan who I quoted in a different comment also believed that there are a bunch of other ecological problems with the future of our current soil quality. This does seem important?
I don’t know nearly enough about the field to have any opinions on tractability or neglectedness (David Manheim who commented below seems to know more).
That said, I personally would be quite surprised if worldwide crop yields actually ended up decreasing by 10-30%. (Not an informed opinion, just vague intuitions about econ).
I hope they won’t too, if we manage to develop the changes we need to make before we need them. Economics isn’t magic
But I wanted to point out that there will probably be costs associated with stopping deaths associated with food shortages with adaptation. Are they bigger or smaller than mitigation by reducing CO2 output or geoengineering?
This case hasn’t been made either way to my knowledge and could help allocate resources effectively.
I found this report on adaptation, which suggest adaptation with some forethought will be better than waiting for problems to get worse. Talks about things other than crops too. The headlines
Without adaptation, climate change may depress growth in global agriculture yields up to 30 percent by 2050. The 500 million small farms around the world will be most affected.
The number of people who may lack sufficient water, at least one month per year, will soar from 3.6 billion today to more than 5 billion by 2050.
Rising seas and greater storm surges could force hundreds of millions of people in coastal cities from their homes, with a total cost to coastal urban areas of more than $1 trillion each year by 2050.
Climate change could push more than 100 million people within developing countries below the poverty line by 2030. The costs of climate change on people and the economy are clear. The toll on human life is irrefutable. The question is how will the world respond: Will we delay and pay more or plan ahead and prosper?