[getsmart-l] Theory that Canadian agriculture would benefit from climate change - erroneous

[John O'Gorman]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070912.RFARMING12/TPStory/?query=agriculture
AGRICULTURE

Global warming a farmer's bane?
Theory that Canadian agriculture would stand to benefit is erroneous, expert says
BARRIE MCKENNA Globe and Mail

  a.. E-mail Barrie McKenna 
  b.. | Read Bio 
  c.. | Latest Columns 
September 12, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Don't count on Canada to feed the world as global warming wipes out farmers nearer the equator, warns the author of a new book that traces the impact of climate change on agriculture.

William Cline, author of Global Warming and Agriculture, acknowledged that warmer temperatures could boost farm output in Canada, Russia and other northern countries by late this century, but not nearly as much as most people think.

Limited daylight, new doubts about the benefits of extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a high Canadian dollar could temper the gains to farmers of a warmer planet, according to Mr. Cline.

"Bottom line, Canada is not likely to gain as much as you might think," Mr. Cline said in an interview. "It's not likely to be hurt, but it's by no means evident that it's going to be a big gainer."

Some other analysts have suggested that modest global warming could be a boon to agriculture, particularly in northern countries.

But Mr. Cline concluded that those benefits are likely to prove exaggerated and would be overwhelmed by the negative effects in the rest of the world.

One dilemma for Canada is that, like Russia, it also happens to be a major energy exporter, which could push up the value of the currency and make all other exports more expensive, including crops, Mr. Cline pointed out.

"So it's sort of a perverse negative relationship on the potential agricultural exports from their energy strength," said Mr. Cline, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for Global Development and a leading expert on the economics of global warming.

On the positive side, Canada's vast water resources will become an increasingly valuable commodity, particularly if it can be cheaply shipped to areas that are suffering.

The book offers two scenarios for global agricultural output in the latter part of this century - one that assumes higher CO{-2} levels will boost crop growth, and a second with no impact.

Under the second scenario, Canadian annual farm output would grow nearly 13 per cent by the 2080s, or $2.1-billion (U.S.) - fourth behind Egypt (up 28 per cent), Kazakhstan (up 28 per cent) and New Zealand (up 18 per cent) among countries in the study.

Excluding the benefits of so-called carbon fertilization, Canadian agricultural production would fall 2.2 per cent, or $364-billion.

Mr. Cline explained that recent open-air field tests have cast some doubt on the widely held assumption that more C0{-2} in the atmosphere will inevitably enhance crop growth.

"I think it would be extremely risky to assume that carbon fertilization is the solution to the problem," he said.

Meanwhile, farming on much of the planet, including most of the developed world, will be virtually wiped out, the book concluded.

Even worse off would be poorer nations near the equator, including India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Mexico, Cuba, Brazil, Venezuela, Ecuador, Afghanistan, Thailand and vast swaths of Africa and the Middle East.

Australia stands virtually alone among industrialized countries to be at high risk.

On average, developing countries will suffer an average 10- to 25-per-cent decline in agricultural output if nothing is done to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The hardest-hit countries could see declines of more than 50 per cent, including Sudan and Senegal.

"The agricultural stakes are just another reason why we need to get serious about curbing global warming," Mr. Cline argued. "The most basic resource is agricultural potential and we should not forget that things will get much worse in subsequent centuries if there is nothing done."

The lesson of the data is clearly that developing countries have a self interest in curbing carbon emissions because they stand to suffer the most, he said.

"They won't be doing it to please industrial countries who have the luxury to worry about the environment," Mr. Cline said. "They will be doing it for their own descendants."

Who benefits as the world warms?

While warmer temperatures could boost farm outputs in northern countries such as Canada, doubts about the benefits of more carbon in the air (carbon fertilization) could mean gains are modest.

     Without With  Without With 
     carbon carbon  carbon carbon 
      Country fertilization fertilization Country fertilization fertilization 
      Australia - 27% - 16% Italy - 7% 7% 
      Canada - 2% 13% Japan - 6% 8% 
      China - 7% 7% Mexico - 35% - 26% 
      Egypt 11% 28% Russia - 8% 6% 
      France - 7% 7% Scandinavia 11% 28% 
      Germany - 3% 12% Sudan - 56% - 50% 
      India - 38% - 29% Britain - 4% 11% 
      Iran - 29% - 18% United States - 6% 8% 

SOURCE: PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INT'L ECONOMICS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.web.net/archives/getsmart-l/attachments/20070912/aa94f58c/attachment.htm