Scare stories have been an integral part of the global warming narrative for a long time. Back in 1997, Al Gore told us that global warming was making the El Nino winds stronger and more severe. That has not happened. Greenpeace and many others have told us for years that we will see more violent hurricanes. In fact, over the last six years, global hurricane energy has dropped to its lowest level since the 1970s , while the United States has had the longest absence of severe hurricanes ever (Sandy was a superstorm, not a hurricane, when it hit the vulnerable East Coast in October). But the scares do not stop there. The World Wildlife Fund declared in 2004 that polar bears would go extinct by the end of the century, and that the calamity would start in Hudson Bay, where they would stop reproducing by 2012. The bears are still reproducing. And stories abound of global warming bringing malaria to Europe or Vermont. But here, too, the evidence contradicts such fears; in fact, malaria deaths have dropped more than 25 percent over the last 10 years.
It is understandable that pundits, who are worried about global warming and frustrated with the near-absence of political interest or solutions, see exaggeration as an easy way to garner attention. The problem is that when these scare stories are later shown to be wrong, people become less willing to listen even to the reasonable arguments about global warming. Indeed, public skepticism about global warming has gone up, not down, as the false alarms have become increasingly high-pitched.
Moreover, by casting every problem as being mainly caused by global warming, the solution almost automatically becomes cutting carbon-dioxide emissions, though this often is the slowest and costliest way to achieve the least good.
Consider the newest global-warming exaggeration: an article from the online magazine Newsweek shrilly claiming that rising temperatures are heralding “The End of Pasta.” All of the major grains – rice, corn and wheat – are already suffering from global warming, the article explains, but wheat is the most vulnerable to high temperatures. So, as global warming increases, we presumably will see “shockingly high prices” for pasta and bread. The central message of the article is straightforward: “If humans want to keep eating pasta, we will have to take much more aggressive action against global warming.”
The argument is almost entirely wrong. Yields of all major crops have been rising dramatically in recent decades, and this owing to higher-yielding crop varieties and the greater use of fertilizer, pesticides, and irrigation by farmers. Moreover, carbon-dioxide acts as a fertilizer, and its increase has probably raised global yields by more than 3 percent over the past 30 years.
But increasing temperatures will harm some crops while benefiting others. Because most crops are already grown where they do best, it is not surprising that climate models show that temperature increases will reduce yields if farmers change little or nothing. In fact, farmers will adapt, especially over the course of a century. They will plant earlier, grow more heat-loving varieties, or change their crop entirely. And, as growing wheat and grains becomes possible higher north in places such as Canada and Russia, even more opportunities will open up to them.
The largest study, conducted by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, includes temperature impacts, carbon-dioxide fertilization, and adaptation, and projects a 40.7-percent increase in grain production by the year 2050. Without global warming, production might have been half a percentage point higher. With global warming, prices will most likely be slightly lower. Our supplies of linguine appear to be safe.
Of course, this does not mean that global warming has no impact on crops. Production will move to new varieties and away from the tropics, implying even higher yields for developed countries, but slower growth in yields for developing countries. For wheat, it is even likely that parts of Africa simply will be unable to sustain production.
But cutting back on carbon-dioxide is a particularly ineffective way to help the world’s poor and hungry. Even if we managed – at a very high cost – a significant reduction, we would achieve only a slightly slower rise in global temperatures. Meanwhile, by embracing biofuels, for example, we are essentially burning food in our cars, which only drives up food prices and exacerbates hunger.
We could do much more good if we focused on allowing poor countries to use the benefits of extra carbon-dioxide fertilization while adapting to the problems caused by higher temperatures. That means making greater investment in crop research to produce more robust and higher-yielding varieties, as well as ensuring that more irrigation, pesticides and fertilizer are made available.
Furthermore, even the poorest parts of the developing world will be much richer by mid-century; most people will live in cities and earn their incomes outside agriculture. As in today’s developed countries, their consumption of wheat will not depend on whether it is produced in their own country, but on global food prices and local income.
This underscores the importance of striving for free trade, thereby enabling cheaper agricultural production while increasing wages in nonagricultural sectors. Global-warming scare stories merely shift our focus to the least effective ways to help.
Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, founded and directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Project Syndicate © (www.project-syndicate.org).