Is the world being destroyed?

While the direct and indirect impacts of the climate crisis on human health have long been documented, unsurprisingly, the last ~18 months have seen increased interest in the role of climate change in the spread of pathogens. Focus has been placed on the spread of insect (for example, ref. 1) or mammalian vector populations 2 under recent or future climate changes, but more bizarre stories have also been reported in the media. The concept of ‘zombie-like pathogens’ that could re-emerge from deep-cold slumbers was itself reawakened in the popular consciousness in 2016 when a 12-year-old boy died of anthrax (Bacillus anthracis). The presumed cause: a heatwave that thawed frozen Siberian soil, and with it, an infected reindeer carcass.

Often somewhat peripheral to these discussions lies the fact that pathogens are not only a detriment to human health through direct infection, but that they also exist as a major threat to global food supply. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that plant diseases cost the global economy around US$220 billion per year, with 20–40% of crop production lost to pests 3. Unsurprisingly, there is already evidence that changing climate plays a role in the spread and management of plant pathogens and pests.

Wheat blast disease, caused by the fungus Magnaporthe oryzae Triticum, represents a severe threat to wheat production. Originally identified in Brazil, the disease was first reported in Bangladesh in 2016 and subsequently spread to neighbouring India, the world’s second largest producer of wheat. Although the pathogen itself was likely transported into the region by anthropogenic activity, the 2016 outbreak was believed to be facilitated by an abnormally warm and humid pre-harvest season, linked to climate change 4.

More broadly, a 2020 study in Nature Climate Change demonstrated that warming increases the abundance of soil-borne potential fungal plant pathogens 5, while a 2013 study of 600 crop pests and pathogens 6 showed that poleward movement of just under 3 km per year has been underway since 1960. In this month’s issue, Chaloner and colleagues project the impact of future climates on both the productivity of 12 crop species and the temperature-dependent infection risk from 80 fungal and oomycete (fungus-like) plant pathogens. While the researchers find support for average global increases in yield for most crop species — driven primarily by productivity boosts at high latitude — they also reveal expected increases in infection risks that will track these changes. See also the Saunders N&Vs for further discussion.

Of additional concern is that these changes will also see marked shifts in the assemblages of pathogens at certain locations. In a similar vein, the 2013 work found differences in movement between broader taxonomic groups, and a recent study 7 showed that many plant-eating insect pest species have mixed responses (both increasing and decreasing) to change. Overall, these convoluted responses complicate costly management methods, which may be pest- or pathogen-specific.

Adding further to this complexity is the fact that plant pathogen changes will not be the only challenges facing crop production. Hotter, drier events, including prolonged droughts, will require further adaptation to ensure food security. Examples featured in this issue include a research article by Fischer and colleagues, which estimates that the probability of ‘record-shattering’ heat events — week-long heat extremes that break records by three or more standard deviations — will be up to 21 times more likely in the years 2051–2080 than during the last three decades. A Snapshot discusses some of the droughts that have impacted most continents throughout the first half of 2021. Southern Madagascar, for example, has experienced consecutive harvest failures and is in an extended and severe ‘lean season’ (the period between harvests), and this region will experience increased drought severity with warming. Importantly, droughts rarely occur in isolation, and the risk of simultaneous breadbasket failure has increased historically 8.

Threats to food security represent a global issue, and, like many climate change impacts, have disproportionate effects on already disadvantaged groups. Beyond local impacts, agricultural disruptions caused by extreme weather events can have far-reaching carry-over economic repercussions, such as the 2010 droughts in Russia and eastern Europe that caused food shortages and price surges. Peersman and colleagues find that such disruptions cause economic impacts that are stronger for higher-income than lower-income countries, despite lower shares of food in household expenditures in the former.

The impacts of climate change on crop productivity and food security can be diverse and disastrous. While adaptation is needed in both the short and long term to mitigate the damage, it’s clear that additional preventative strategies to buffer the shock of future change — such as the recently discussed diversification of food supply chains 9 — should also be planned.

[...]
The science is unequivocal; a global increase of 1·5°C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse.2, 3
[...]
Global heating is also contributing to the decline in global yield potential for major crops, falling by 1·8–5·6% since 1981; this, together with the effects of extreme weather and soil depletion, is hampering efforts to reduce undernutrition.4 Thriving ecosystems are essential to human health, and the widespread destruction of nature, including habitats and species, is eroding water and food security and increasing the chance of pandemics.3, 7, 8
[...]
Rises above 1·5°C increase the chance of reaching tipping points in natural systems that could lock the world into an acutely unstable state. This would critically impair our ability to mitigate harms and to prevent catastrophic, runaway environmental change.9, 10
... ... ...

Health is already being harmed by global temperature increases and the destruction of the natural world, a state of affairs health professionals have been bringing attention to for decades.
(...)
Global heating is also contributing to the decline in global yield potential for major crops, falling by 1·8–5·6% since 1981; this, together with the effects of extreme weather and soil depletion, is hampering efforts to reduce undernutrition.
(...)
Rises above 1·5°C increase the chance of reaching tipping points in natural systems that could lock the world into an acutely unstable state.
(...)
Targets are easy to set and hard to achieve. They are yet to be matched with credible short-term and longer-term plans to accelerate cleaner technologies and transform societies. Emissions reduction plans do not adequately incorporate health considerations.12 Concern is growing that temperature rises above 1·5°C are beginning to be seen as inevitable, or even acceptable, to powerful members of the global community.13 Relatedly, current strategies for reducing emissions to net zero by the middle of the 21st century implausibly assume that the world will acquire great capabilities to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.14 , 15 This insufficient action means that temperature increases are likely to be well in excess of 2°C,16 a catastrophic outcome for health and environmental stability. Crucially, the destruction of nature does not have parity of esteem with the climate element of the crisis, and every single global target to restore biodiversity loss by 2020 was missed.17 This is an overall environmental crisis.18

Let's talk scientific literacy, which is the ability to read and understand scientific articles in an objective way.

The fall quite a bit short from the world being destroyed.

1) This is a thread that is called "Is the world being destroyed?"

You didn't start this thread, you seem to be claiming ownership.

2) You have railed against "industrialism" , you have stated that food prices are too low, you have ranted about animal rights, you have criticized economic growth and you have preached against "greedy" corporations.

It doesn't make sense, you are worried about BPA in plastic (a chemical that may increase the risk of cancer a couple of percent). You are oblivious to the fact that raising food costs means that some people go without food.

Without what Hightor calls "industrial" corporations, there would be internet and no covid vaccine.

The simplistic political narrative doesn't hold up when you start to push back.

I am here to push back.

1. Pushing conspiracy theories that are not back by science or scientific institutions, and then pulling science articles out of context to claim that they are "scientific".

2. Denying science that is backed by science and science institutions is valid when it doesn't match your political bias.

When you do that, it almost guarantees that I will respond.

Economic models of climate change may have substantially underestimated the costs of continued warming, according to a new study involving UCL researchers.

Published today in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the work by an international team of scientists found that the economic damage could be six times higher by the end of this century than previously estimated.

Projections like this help governments around the world calculate the relative costs and benefits of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. However, prior analysis has shown that the models used may ignore important risks and therefore underestimate the costs.

Currently, most models focus on short-term damage, assuming that climate change has no lasting effect on economic growth, despite growing evidence to the contrary. Extreme events like droughts, fires, heatwaves and storms are likely to cause long-term economic harm because of their impact on health, savings and labor productivity.

The study authors first updated one of the three climate-economy models used to set the price of carbon for national policy decisions, then used it to explore the impact of year-to-year climate variations and the rates of economic recovery after climate events.

The study shows that by 2100, global GDP could be 37% lower than it would be without the impacts of warming, when taking the effects of climate change on economic growth into account. Without accounting for lasting damages—excluded from most estimates—GDP would be around 6% lower, meaning the impacts on growth may increase the economic costs of climate change by a factor of six.

Yet, there is still considerable uncertainty about how much climate damages continue to affect long-term growth and how far societies can adapt to reduce these damages; depending on how much growth is affected, the economic costs of warming this century could be up to 51% of global GDP.

Study co-author Dr. Chris Brierley (UCL Geography) says that "we don't yet know exactly how much effect climate change will have on long-term economic growth—but it's unlikely to be zero, as most economic models have assumed."

"Climate change makes detrimental events like the recent heatwave in North America and the floods in Europe much more likely. If we stop assuming that economies recover from such events within months, the costs of warming look much higher than usually stated. We still need a better understanding of how climate alters economic growth, but even in the presence of small long-term effects, cutting emissions becomes much more urgent."

The researchers also updated the model to take advances in climate science over the past decade into account, as well as the effect of climate change on the variability of annual average temperatures—both of which increased the projected cost of climate change.

The authors calculated the effect of these changes on the 'social cost of carbon' (SCCO2), a crucial indicator of the level of urgency for taking climate action that calculates the economic cost of greenhouse gas emissions to society. Expressed in US dollars per ton of carbon dioxide, estimates currently vary greatly between $10 to $1,000. However, when taking more robust climate science and updated models into account, this new study suggests that the economic damage could in fact be over $3,000 per ton of CO2.

"Burning CO2 has a cost to society, even if it is not directly to our wallets. Each person's emissions could quite well result in a cost to humanity of over $1,300 per year, rising to over $15,000 once the impacts of climate change on economic growth are included," Dr. Brierley said.

While the findings show large uncertainties, the central values were found to be much higher than policymakers currently assume; the US government, for example, currently uses a social cost of carbon of around $51 per ton to judge the costs and benefits of projects linked with greenhouse gas emissions, whilst the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, which covers power, manufacturing and aviation, recently exceeded €61 for the first time.

Study co-author Paul Waidelich (ETH Zürich) says that "the findings confirm that it is cheaper to reduce greenhouse gas emissions than it is to deal with climate change impacts, and the economic damages from continued warming would greatly outweigh most costs that could be involved in preventing emissions now. The risk of costs being even higher than previously assumed reaffirms the urgency for fast and strong mitigation. It shows that choosing to not reduce greenhouse gas emissions is an extremely risky economic strategy."

Former UCL MSc student and study lead author, Jarmo Kikstra (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Imperial College London), says that "it is very difficult to calculate the overall costs of climate change, but increased scientific evidence has improved economic estimates. Climate science on this has improved a lot over the past decade, and the improvements we made with the science do not change the order of magnitude of cost-benefit estimates."

"However, we are much more uncertain when it comes to how the economy will respond to future climate impacts. We reveal that if we look more closely at the lasting impact the climate can have on economies, we find that the costs might increase many times, depending on how much climate action we take."

But still, when the choice is between the life of a non-human primate, and the risk of injury or death to a human child... the needs of the child come first every time.

Funny...someone on this thread said there was less for human beings to be uncertain about than ever before.

You are missing the point.

Your modern life is actually pretty good if you would just step back and appreciate it.