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.
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.