After my last two diaries I get the impression that the tight link between climate disruption (climate change) and agriculture is not clearly understood by many. Let's look at this more closely. Climate change and agriculture
Climate change and agriculture are interrelated processes, both of which take place on a global scale. Climate change affects agriculture in a number of ways, including through changes in average temperatures, rainfall, and climate extremes (e.g., heat waves); changes in pests and diseases; changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and ground-level ozone concentrations; changes in the nutritional quality of some foods; and changes in sea level.
Climate change is already affecting agriculture, with effects unevenly distributed across the world. Future climate change will likely negatively affect crop production in low latitude countries, while effects in northern latitudes may be positive or negative.Climate change will probably increase the risk of food insecurity for some vulnerable groups, such as the poor.
As in all complex systems this is a set of connections and loops not a one way street.
Agriculture contributes to climate change by (1) anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and (2) by the conversion of non-agricultural land (e.g., forests) into agricultural land. Agriculture, forestry and land-use change contributed around 20 to 25% to global annual emissions in 2010.
There are range of policies that can reduce the risk of negative climate change impacts on agriculture,and to reduce GHG emissions from the agriculture sector
Read on below and we will explore this further.
Our prsent mode of industrial farming has been called into question for many reasons. I briefly touch on a few of them here:
What is wrong with industrial agriculture?
Is Monsanto a bigger threat than global warming?
Clearly not everyone agrees about these matters, especially when it comes to the role of specific agents such as Monsanto. I would remind you that we are talking about very complex systems here and no one has all the answers even about how many answers we do or do not have? On the other hand the situation is clearly worsening as time goes on and the rate of acceleration is predicted to be nonlinear by many who are studying our plight.
Part of the difficulty in discussions about these matters is the framing of the issues. Lakoff has written much about how framing issues triggers knee jerk responses and that certainly is the case here. My approach has often been misunderstood because I use systems thinking and complex systems theory both of which are not elicited by any frames most readers have acquired. Hernce when I speak about the fact that a comment misses the point it creates hostility at times. Nevertheless the fact remains that what I write about is difficult to understand. My writing skills are not the whole reason. Language has a quality in the context of framing that is very difficult to overcome. Words are not available to flag new concepts and new ways of looking at the world. The words that are available carry the hidden meanings of the old frames and this makes explanation very difficult.
Even writers like Robert Reich in his ‘Supercapitalism’ writes about the systems nature of our economic system without acknowledging the broader context into which his ideas fit. One case in particular is his analysis of the role of specific agents in the system, such as Walmart. He correctly states (but not in these words) that the role this agent plays in the system is the filling of a niche. He posits that Walmart could disappear tomorrow and its niche would quickly be filled by one or more other agents.
The same is the case with agents like Monsanto. All of the things Monsanto is hated for are things that go on in the system without needing Monsanto to focus them. GMOs, chemical agents, etc would all be there if there were no Monsanto.
This makes the discussion hard. The 'system" is hard to pin down. Monsanto is an easy target. Much of the necessary discussion of all of this gets sidetracked because of this. This is not unlike most of our political discussion at this point in time.
People who are advocating changing the way we do things often focus on the harmful effects and ignore the bigger picture. We need a new approach to these discussions as we do in all our political discussions. Focusing on the old frames only triggers the old ideas.
I'd like to suggest that there is change coming. The time scale is debateable. However there is certainly no time to waste. What will change is already in motion, sometimes visible, sometimes invisible. We are changing the way we deal with energy much faster than the way we are dealing with agriculture and this is very troubling. Given the effort it took and the need for the natural consequences of our abusive use of fossil fuels to begin to be too visible to ignore or deny any longer, we can not afford the same waste of precious time with agriculture.
I think a case has to be made that a change in attitude toward the way we produce food has to happen quickly and it has to lead to a quick implementation of new sustainable methods as soon as we can get there. It has to also be seen as part of a larger system that includes energy and economy.
Fights are going on on these and other fronts. They are all part of the same struggle. When this is realized we will have made real progress and things will happen.