Thanks for the comment and these very useful links—will check with our food expert colleague and get back to you, especially on the probability question.
Just personally, however, let me note that we say that those four factors you mention are current ‘sources of significant stress’ for systems for the production and allocation of food—and we note that while ‘global food productivity and production has increased dramatically’ we are concerned about the ‘vulnerability of our global food supply to rapid and global disruptions’ and shocks. The three ways we describe climate change further reducing food security are growing conditions, agricultural pests and diseases, and the occurrence of extreme weather events.
Note also that the global catastrophe is the shock (hazard) plus how it cascades through interconnected systems with feedback. We’re explicitly suggesting that the field move beyond ‘is x a catastrophe?’ to ‘how does x effect critical systems, which can feed into one another, and may act more on our vulnerability and exposure than as a direct, single hazard’.
Note also that the global catastrophe is the shock (hazard) plus how it cascades through interconnected systems with feedback. We’re explicitly suggesting that the field move beyond ‘is x a catastrophe?’ to ‘how does x effect critical systems, which can feed into one another, and may act more on our vulnerability and exposure than as a direct, single hazard’.
My understanding is that we all agree on that (I certainly do). It just seems that the direct risk to food security is overstated in the article.
Thanks for the comment and these very useful links—will check with our food expert colleague and get back to you, especially on the probability question.
Just personally, however, let me note that we say that those four factors you mention are current ‘sources of significant stress’ for systems for the production and allocation of food—and we note that while ‘global food productivity and production has increased dramatically’ we are concerned about the ‘vulnerability of our global food supply to rapid and global disruptions’ and shocks. The three ways we describe climate change further reducing food security are growing conditions, agricultural pests and diseases, and the occurrence of extreme weather events.
Note also that the global catastrophe is the shock (hazard) plus how it cascades through interconnected systems with feedback. We’re explicitly suggesting that the field move beyond ‘is x a catastrophe?’ to ‘how does x effect critical systems, which can feed into one another, and may act more on our vulnerability and exposure than as a direct, single hazard’.
My understanding is that we all agree on that (I certainly do).
It just seems that the direct risk to food security is overstated in the article.
The factors you mention therefore seem to increase vulnerability, but merely in the following sense
Some of the factors don’t seem relevant at all (phosphorous depletion)
The food system will be much less vulnerable in the future vs today despite these factors.
Some other event would have to do 99% of the work in bringing about a global food catastrophe
Sorry its taking a while to get back to you!
In the meantime, you might be interested in this from our Catherine Richards: https://www.cser.ac.uk/resources/reframing-threat-global-warming/