www.checkbiotech.org ; www.raupp.info ; www.czu.cz

Ignoring climate change will cost countries billions and lead to food
scarcity. The Stern Review, commissioned by the UK's chancellor in July last
year and published last week, is the most comprehensive study ever on the
economics of climate change, November 2006.

It is not some hysterical environmentalist rant. It is a sober wake-up
call to those that still have their heads in the sand.

Climate change, it says, is the greatest market failure the world has ever
seen.

Pre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were 280ppm CO2
equivalent (CO2e). The current concentration is 430ppm CO2e. Unabated
climate change, caused by CO2 emissions, risks raising average temperatures
by over 5C from pre-industrial levels.

Taking the most recent scientific evidence, the economic effects on human
life and the environment and weighting the effects appropriately, the review
estimates that the damage could be equivalent to 20 per cent of GDP or more.

Such changes will also transform the physical geography of our planet.
Agricultural practices would be catastrophically altered beyond recognition
in many parts of the world, as the UN's current climate change conference in
Nairobi confirms.

But there has been little focus on the role of agriculture in climate
change. Both agriculture and the food industry are not major producers of
CO2 emissions. In the UK agriculture is responsible for just 2.5 per cent of
CO2 emissions.

It is the effect, rather, of climate change on these sectors that can no
longer be ignored.

A temperature increase of just 2C would dramatically decrease productivity
in many parts of the world. Such a rise might raise agricultural
productivity in colder climates no one really knows for sure. But the net
effect would likely be a decline in output especially in the poorer south.

What's more, low-lying agricultural areas will increasingly be more
susceptible to flooding. This will pose a significant challenge to farmers
especially as most attention will be focused on protecting built-up areas
rather than the countryside.

All this with a global population of 6 billion, estimated to touch 10
billion within the next few decades, in need of food.

Up until now it has been relatively simple to dismiss climate change as a
natural phenomenon, or even as a grossly exaggerated problem. Even today, no
scientist can predict exactly how much temperatures will increase in the
near future, or how the planet will respond.

But what is emerging is a growing consensus that doing nothing will be a
hell of a lot more expensive than taking preventative action.

The Stern review estimates that the costs of action to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change can be limited to
around 1 per cent of global GDP each year. People would pay a little more
for carbon-intensive goods, but economies could continue to grow strongly.

Reducing emissions will make us better off, and stave off the threat of food
scarcity. According to one measure, the benefits over time of actions to
shift the world onto a low-carbon path could be in the order of $2.5
trillion each year.

Agriculture policies and practices will have to meet changing climate
regimes. A significant transition toward biofuels over the next 50 years is
needed, with agriculture and forestry among the leading sources for both
liquid and solid fuels.

Crops such as sugar cane, corn and soybean are already being used to produce
ethanol or bio-diesel.

But above all, the agriculture and food sector needs to become engaged in
the debate. It must find its voice. It is not a big polluter or emitter of
CO2, but it will be one of worst hit sectors if climate change is not
tackled.

Tackling climate change now is the only option. Ignoring it will undermine
economic growth - and contribute to food scarcity.

[www.foodproductiondaily.com]

------------------------------------------
Posted to Phorum via PhorumMail