EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Today Russia, Tomorrow the World
It cannot be proved that the wildfires now devastating western Russia are evidence of global warming. Once-in-a-century extreme weather events happen, on average, once a century. But the Russian response is precisely what you would expect when global warming really starts to bite: Moscow has just banned all grain exports for the rest of this year.
At least 20 percent of Russia's wheat crop has already been destroyed by the drought, the extreme heat -- circa 40 degrees C (104F) for several weeks now -- and the wildfires. The export ban is needed, explained Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, because "we shouldn't allow domestic prices in Russia to rise, we need to preserve our cattle and build up supplies for next year." If anybody starves, it won't be Russians.
That's a reasonable position for a Russian leader to take, but it does mean that some people will starve elsewhere. Russia is the world's fourth-largest grain exporter, and anticipated shortages in the international grain market had already driven the price of wheat up by more than 80 percent since early June. When Putin announced the export ban, it immediately jumped by another 8 percent.
This means that food prices will also rise, but that is a minor nuisance for most consumers in the developed countries, since they spend only about 10 percent of their income on food. In poor countries, where people spend up to half their income on food, the higher prices will mean that the poorest of the poor cannot afford to feed their children properly.
As a result, some will die -- probably a hundred or a thousand times as many as the thirty-odd Russians who have been killed by the flames and the smoke. But they will die quietly, one by one, in under-reported parts of the world, so nobody will notice. Not this time. But when food exports are severely reduced or banned by several major producers at once and the international grain market freezes up, everybody will notice.
Two problems are going to converge and merge in the next ten or fifteen years, with dramatic results. One is the fact that global grain production, which kept up with population growth from the 1950s to the 1990s, is no longer doing so. It may even have flat-lined in the past decade, although large annual variations make that uncertain. Whereas the world's population is still growing.
The world grain reserve, which was 150 days of eating for everybody on the planet ten years ago, has fallen to little more than a third of that. (The "world grain reserve" is not a mountain of grain somewhere, but the sum of all the grain from previous harvests that is still stored in various places just before the next big Northern Hemisphere harvest comes in.)
We now have a smaller grain reserve globally than a prudent civilisation in Mesopotamia or Egypt would have aimed for 3,000 years ago. Demand is growing not just because there are more people, but because there are more people rich enough to put more meat into their diet. So things are very tight even before climate change hits hard.
The second problem is, of course, global warming. The rule of thumb is that with every one-degree C rise (1.8 degrees F) in average global temperature, we lose 10 percent of global food production. In some places, the crops will be damaged by drought; in others by much hotter temperatures. Or, as in Russia's case today, by both.
So food production will be heading down as demand continues to increase, and something has to give. What will probably happen is that the amount of internationally traded grain will dwindle as countries ban exports and keep their supplies for themselves. That will mean that a country can no longer buy its way out of trouble when it has a local crop failure: there will not be enough exported grain for sale.
This is the vision of the future that has the soldiers and security experts worried: a world where access to enough food becomes a big political and strategic issue even for developed countries that do not have big surpluses at home. It would be a very ugly world indeed, teeming with climate refugees and failed states and interstate conflicts over water (which is just food at one remove).
What is happening in Russia now, and its impacts elsewhere, give us an early glimpse of what that world will be like. And although nobody can say for certain that the current disaster there is due to climate change, it certainly could be.
Late last year, Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Change produced a world map showing how different countries will be affected by the rise in average global temperature over the next fifty years. The European countries that the Hadley map predicts will be among the hardest hit -- Greece, Spain and Russia -- are precisely the ones have suffered most from extreme heat, runaway forest fires and wildfires in the past few years.
The main impact of global warming on human beings will be on the food supply, and eating is a non-negotiable activity. Today Russia, tomorrow the world.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

36 Comments so far
Show AllMaybe, in the long run, countries who cannot feed themselves will stop producing so many children. Any discussion of Climate Change, food, water, etc that neglects to address population control is pointless imo.
Peak people is a concept that I haven't seen discussed too much. Maybe it is beginning.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/13/21018/2121
Peak people was a very big deal 30 something years ago with the Zero Population Growth movement. But it wasn't good for business so..............the peak has been reached and exceeded. Get ready for soylent green.
Oh gee that's helpful. Africa has suffered scorching temperatures for decades and nobody complained about global warming then. California gets plenty of wildfires but nobody attaches it to global warming. What's so special about Europe and Russia getting hot weather and how come nobody talks about "global warming" when Florida gets really cold in the winter. Shouldn't we be calling this climate pattern changes all over the globe instead of that silly phrase "global warming"? I don't mind North Dakota gaining some degrees. The state can then have fertile soil for more crops to grow and we won't have to trade with other nations.
//Africa has suffered scorching temperatures for decades and nobody complained about global warming then. California gets plenty of wildfires but nobody attaches it to global warming.//
You've been falling asleep during class again, haven't you?
Huh?
Have you looked at a map?
Do you know why it snows In Canada but it does not snow in Costa Rica? Do you know why Greenland is covered by an Ice Cap and the Sahara is not?
I understand that but how do we get back at that or how to survive the new changes?
Sometimes I hear or read what you say about North Dakota. People claim our Northern
Territories in Canada will become a bread basket of some kind. HOwever, our present bread baskets have had a lot of centuries of top soil build up. I am not sure an area that has little or no build up of top soil can grow a lot of food, no matter what the climate.
I hadn't thought about the topsoil part. I heard about its erosion but that seems to be global. I don't know what can be done to restore the topsoil but some say it's possible. I wished I could give answer on how to restore it but farming isn't my area of expertise.
Pursuing NAWAPA (north american power and water association; a plan on the drawing board since FDR's time) would be a good 1st start to turning deserts into REAL "greenland". The new grasslands & forests would, of themselves,change weather conditions, cool the planet & provide more land for farming and population increases. This would be the TVA of the 21st century. This would be a new "new deal/marshall plan" for america, mexico, & canada. Can't happen until we run off the "wallstreet" pols & re-install glass-steagall to shut down the imperial monetarists & reactivate a "greenback" type of credit/fixed exchange rate system ("credit as a public utility", NOT a private profit-making scam).
That's a tall order, but do-able. I heard a town in california had its' citizens just run off their useless mayor & council. Told them to get out. Any truth to that? This is how the revolution starts, & God help those who stand in its' way.
Sorry. NAWAPA is a 60's era design in the style of FDR's new deal/TVA ideal.
Also, NAWAPA should be pursued in concert with mexico's "PLHINO" water plan, with a "Marshall Plan"/credit assist from the U.S. Same assist to Canada, if needed. Afterall, water IS life on planet earth.
you haven't thought about the topsoil part?.....ok, i'll bite...what is your field of expertise?
Physics. Engineering mainly. Not enough money to pursue a research masters.
thanks...so you have a b.sc in "applied physics"...specifically what? control theory? nano technology? optics? mech/elec? solid-state?...
General degree. No specialization at that time.
It's not the restoration of topsoil. It is that these would-be new grain belts further north have little topsoil, except for peat bogs, because of the hard Canadian shield rocks cold climate, and the glacier cover that they had until recently. So it doesn't natter if the area around the Hudson Bay becomes warm enough to grow grains; clear the trees, and there is little soil to support crops.
Oh, and the land area up there is at least 50% lakes too.
I used to live in Milwaukee but that's as close to getting surrounded by lakes as I could get. I've been assuming, and I've been slammed by many for saying this, that if the glaciers melted, then water could be distributed to soil otherwise unfit for farming. But seeing that it wouldn't matter without topsoil, other than NAWAPA which requires getting Wall Street out of the way I'm stumped. We have a state owned mill and produce a lot of wheat, sunflower seeds, and barley. We can't get past that though that I can think of. Some farmers want to grow pot. They say it's supposed to be helpful.
By the way, I did some more looking up on my state's economy. I can't believe that this is the only state with a state owned bank, state owned mills, and growing strong in wind energy even though coal dominates as the main source of electricity. I got to go back and tell GWNorth about this. Don't they call this socialism? I've been hating socialism all along. I think I'm getting more confused or something's not right.
Centipede grass will grow directly upon sand. I had to trim it away from sandtraps when I worked on a golf course.It would completely cover the sandtraps if we let it. I think alot of "deserty-type" planets can be encouraged to grow ferociously, with steady water. maybe their seeds can be harvested, & then plow under the rest of the plant to make topsoil. Just a quick thought from a totally untrained/unqualified person. What if we had our experts pursuing these ideas in right earnest, as if our life depended on it (because it does)?
oops. "Planets"=plants.
Peak oil, peak food, peak water, and peak democracy.
All those peaks are hoaxes designed to keep us from fighting the thieves running our lives.
You are a hoax designed to stop us from having a productive discussion.
So are you. What was your discussion anyway? I get it. You have none. Talk about know it all arrogants like you. Go back to your hole.
There's some truth in what you say.
Peak oil is only the imminent catastrophe if we continue to use fossil fuels (or energy in general) at the rate we are - which is clearly unsustainable. If we switch to a no-growth economic system, matched with strong conservation, peak oil could be way off in the future.
Peak water is not that there is a new lack of water, but rather the privatization of water as well as wasteful and polluting industrial practices have made it into a "scarce" commodity.
Peak food is truly a Malthusian hoax. There's enough food to feed everyone on the planet but not at profit that makes Wall Street happy. We don't have a food supply problem we have a food distribution problem. See the work of Raj Patel ("Stuffed and Starved").
"Peak democracy" I don't know what that means. We are more like in the deepest part of a valley. If we are at a peak in democracy then the human race is truly doomed.
Who are the thieves? The capitalist ruling class. In all of Gwynne Dyer's dire predictions, he never challenges the economic system that got us here. He assumes that we'll continue on the same path - that, truly is dire.
Ah, Malthusian. That's what I was trying to get at. Thanks.
Global warming and food shortages have always existed but never before has it been this bad. One would expect us to be prepared to solve those problems with modern technology but so far, we have more disputes than agreements.
First off, yes, top soil CAN be created, over time, but it takes farming (and grazing) practices very different from what industrial agriculture does. (See the movie "Dirt" or read Michael Pollan's stuff on VA farmer Joel Salatin - or read Joel's stuff directly - for more info.)
Second, we need to be clear that industrial agriculture - the now global system of using petrochemicals to grow large monocrops of commodity grains (wheat, corn, soybeans) that then get channeled into an international market place - is the major problem here. (Industrial agriculture is also one of the major causes of greenhouse gas emissions, so this is a classic example of climate change coming home to roost.) Industrial agriculture makes ADM, Cargill, Monsanto and other corporations rich, but leads to food insecurity around the world. (Just like health insurance companies get rich while denying coverage, or the Wall St. banks get rich while taking down the economy.)
The UN's International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development states definitively that locally, ecologically organic agriculture produces more food and better food at lower cost than either chemical agriculture or GMOs. This is why the local food movement is so important. It's much easier to regain some control over our food supply than to make some other desperately needed changes in our threatened and unsustainable systems, and we're headed this way whether we like it or not.
Better to embrace it and get on with it!
Gordon Clark
Montgomery Victory Gardens
"So food production will be heading down as demand continues to increase, and something has to give."
Right. Something has to give. For example, this author could give up clinging to the dead end globalization paradigm and instead embrace the localism paradigm of the future. The paradigm of local self-sufficiency. Why would the author resist the paradigm shift? Could it be that the author's publishers have a special fetish for the status quo?
Localism usually works depending on the location. Up north, it's limited so I end up buying in a supermarket where it all comes from out of state.
Bingo.
Never before in the existence of human beings has there been a population so divorced from and ignorant about their food supply as present day Americans are. The commentary on food and farming threads always brings that into painful view.
"Soil? What's that?"
"So what about global warming? We can grow stuff better farther north! If it is warmer there will be more soil and we won't have to import food!"
"I know how to solve the problem of starving people! Get rid of them! There are already too many."
"Let's irrigate all of the deserts!"
"I know! We can all start our own gardens!"
...
No "alternative choice" entrepreneurial food model will work.
No individualized personal choice food ideas will solve what is a public problem.
Nothing will take the place of a robust public agricultural infrastructure and public programs.
All food production must be in the public domain.
Wall Street plays no legitimate role in the food distribution system.
The Unsettling of America by Wendell berry should be a mandatory
read. I've been an avid gardener and organic farm worker for decades
and I couldn't agree more with your post.
I used to be much more compassionate and patient with the ignorance but after seeing NO new faces on the bike trails before , during or since the BP Gulf Gusher
I hope we get what we deserve. It's just way bad that we're gonna take the bears and elk and all the rest with our grotesque asses.
As long as your "Commodities Market" is allowed to speculate on everything, from pork bellies to grains, this bullshit
will continue.
The "Markets" are a criminal casino... If you're "in", you're a criminal responsible for death of humans and squandering resources world wide, while "Your Money Works for YOU".
Face up to this truth about your pathetic life.
I wonder if the Kremlin's English-language media mouthpiece, Russia Today (www.rt.com), will continue with their global warming denial plank in light of this fiasco?
Judging from is emanating from their anchors, not likely.
And this isn't even accounting for what's going to happen when the countries that only spend 10% of their incomes on food start bidding up the price of land and agricultural products for fuel. This isn't merely a consequence of supply and demand. We have an ethanol mandate in this country. It's a law. And if you're a large land owner in a starving country, and people with no money need your corn, and people with a lot of money need your corn, guess which group you're going to sell to?
The free market, baby. It solves every problem. It keeps prices low and quality high. We need to start more wars to get every last acre of earth privatized, because that's what makes everyone equal, rich, and free. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Socialists want to kill your grandma.