Climate-related challenges are already beginning to affect China's ability to grow enough food.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/Stevie Mann
DUJIADUN, China -- Liu Changxiong has been farming in this southwestern Chinese village for more than a decade, but his years of experience aren't of much use these days.
Last year, his corn seedlings withered at a time Liu expected would be rich in rain. It took twice as many days for his green onions to grow than Liu's estimates. But the 43-year-old farmer isn't the one to be blamed. Instead, experts say, his farming routine is being messed up by climate change.
Similar phenomena are happening across the nation. In north China, where wheat fields have dominated the landscape for centuries, the crop is becoming increasingly difficult to grow as the land gets drier and warmer. In southern China, droughts in recent years have replaced rainy seasons, drying up rice paddies on a large scale.
Experts are scrambling to understand the problems and to predict how serious they might become. Although forecasts for crop output vary, most agree that the future climate won't be as favorable to agriculture. While China's hunt for adaptation measures is on, little progress has been made so far.
That raises the question of whether 1.34 billion Chinese -- accounting for almost one-fifth of the world's population -- would be able to feed themselves. Currently, China produces slightly less grains than its people consume. Crop losses caused by extreme weather events, insect attacks and other problems associated with climate change are rocking the already delicate balance.
In 2011 alone, droughts claimed grains that could have been sufficient for nearly 60 million Chinese to eat for a whole year, official statistics show.
There is also the issue of rising crop production costs being driven higher by climate change. For one, as temperatures rise, many insects that used to be killed off by the cool of winter now live longer, forcing farmers to spray more pesticides. That increases food prices, and adds pressure on the lives of the poor.
Genetic engineering becomes less helpful
Worse yet, China is losing its ability to produce more. During the past decades, farmers here have enjoyed an explosion of productivity, thanks partly to genetically manipulated crops that are higher-yielding and resistant to pests and diseases. But today, that help is starting to fade away, as it is falling victim to climate change.
"In the 1970s, when we used genetic engineering technology to breed regionally adopted crops, we could enjoy its high yield for years; now that period is much shorter," said Pan Genxing, director of Agriculture and Climate Change Center at Nanjing Agriculture University.
What is defeating the technology, according to Pan, is that the environment in which the crops grow keeps changing due to climate change, making regionally adopted crops no longer a fit for the region they were designed to.
To be sure, not all the effects of climate change are an agricultural curse. For instance, the higher temperatures allow crops to grow in areas which were previously too cold, and lengthen the growing season and, for some crops, the number of times per year they can be harvested. But whether China can take advantage of those changes is another troubling question.
Along north China's Haihe River Basin, where crops can now grow twice a year thanks to warmer climate, local farmers still plant only once, for lack of water, says Mo Xingguo. He researches climate change and agricultural water use at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Experts say that other parts of northern China, which were to enjoy greater numbers of harvests per year as the climate gets warmer, confront the same obstacle. Irrigation there largely relies on groundwater, and to grow more crops would require pumping more water out of wells, an unlikely prospect in a land whose groundwater level in recent years has already dropped dangerously.
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add Comment@PokerPlayer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do you accuse Cocco Liu, the author of this article, of being a liar without a hint of evidence? You make broad and vast accusations and yet feel no compunction in presenting peer reviewed empirically based evidence for your accusations. In short, what I want to know is why are you acting like a scumbag?
The irony here is that you are guilty of what you accuse the authors of being guilty of. The models have done OK.
Here take a look at some of the latest peer reviewed research:
Global Temperature Evolution 1979–2010:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Abstract:
"The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010."
Funny how you and the science do not seem to agree, eh?
And you are not presenting any analysis but making unsupported declarations and calling them "analysis". No, Pokerplayer, the Laws of Thermodynamics have not been suspended contrary to your ignorant assertions.
As I understand, the Dustbowl in the U.S. Midwest during the 1930s was the result of rather mild drought conditions aggravated by years of poor farming methods, not any global climate change. Congress finally acted to correct farming methods when dust from "Oklahoma" reached Washington, D.C.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, China has been similarly practicing very poor farming methods in an effort to maximize short term production, resulting in dust storm conditions quite similar to the U.S. in the 1930s. I suspect that the primary cause of China's agricultural problems is the result of poor field rotation and plowing methods rather than any climate change or perhaps even normal variation in rainfall.
Then maybe you should do as Trent suggests and either site your sources; or just admit you're wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Jtdwyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you read the article? I ask because I am wondering why you would blame poor farming practices on such phenomena as the increased range of insects because of increased temperatures. From the article:
"Such insects are a natural part of the life in cornfields, but they had never bred more than once a year until nowadays, Ma said. Chilly springs in this major corn-growing region used to hold back the hatching of Asian corn borer. Today, that hold is loosening due to the temperature rise.
In addition to lengthening the period that invasive insects can live, scientists say temperature rise has caused outbreaks of insect attacks to happen more extensively. For instance, wheat aphids -- insects that feed on the juice of wheat -- have chewed their way into a larger scope of areas in northern regions than ever recorded."
So how are poor farming practices responsible. Details with empirical data please. Vague speculation is not welcome.
Poker Player Says: I pointed out two areas where Coco Liu's article was nothing more than spreading propaganda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Says: No, all you did was make bald faced assertions, nothing more. When will you learn that your word is worthless?
And yes, pointing out that empirical research shows no halt in warming gives lie to your assertions about the physics of global warming being in error.
I have a crazy! Let us look at the experts in agronomy have to say about crop yield:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.pnas.org/content/101/27/9971.long
Rice Yields Decline with Higher Night Temperature
from Global Warming:
"Direct studies on the effects of observed climate change on crop growth and yield could provide more accurate information for assessing the impact of climate change on crop production. We analyzed weather data at the International Rice Research Institute Farm from
1979 to 2003 to examine temperature trends and the relationship between rice yield and temperature by using data from irrigated field experiments conducted at the International Rice ResearchInstitute Farm from 1992 to 2003. Here we report that annual mean maximum and minimum temperatures have increased by 0.35°C
and 1.13°C, respectively, for the period 1979–2003 and a close linkage between rice grain yield and mean minimum temperature during the dry cropping season (January to April). Grain yield
declined by 10% for each 1°C increase in growing-season minimum temperature in the dry season, whereas the effect of maximum temperature on crop yield was insignificant. This report provides a direct evidence of decreased rice yields from increased nighttime temperature associated with global warming."
I do hope everyone here realizes that one of the earliest predictions, first made in 1896, derived from the physics of increasing CO2 levels was that nights would warm faster than days.
And here is another:
Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6042/616.abstract
Abstract:
"Efforts to anticipate how climate change will affect future food availability can benefit from understanding the impacts of changes to date. We found that in the cropping regions and growing seasons of most countries, with the important exception of the United States, temperature trends from 1980 to 2008 exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability. Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8 and 5.5%, respectively, relative to a counterfactual without climate trends. For soybeans and rice, winners and losers largely balanced out. Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors."
Funny how once again the research says exactly the opposite of what Pokerplayer claims.
Of course, if you simply assume that there is no such thing as climate change, any article that discusses the effects of climate change must be false. Under the same assumption any scientist that bases their research on the scientific evidence of climate change is being unscientific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I don't understand is why people who believe that Scientific American is unscientific continue to read it. Do they really think they can convince those of us who think SA does a good job of reporting science that we should either stop reading SA or read it knowing that it is a bunch of lies.
Trent- Trent says "I have a crazy! Let us look at the experts in agronomy have to say about crop yield:"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you mean to say "I am a crazy!"?
And why are you looking at those experts? Sounds kind of rude.
Always good for a laugh!
I backpacked through the entirety of China for 6 years, and after witnessing literally thousands of trestlte bridges built over dusty gullies that were once mighty tributaries and dried mud cake where 30 meter deep lakes once stood, I came to the conclusion that scientists should get out more often.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I hang around to read the silly comments and watch guys like Carlyle, pokerplyer, Geo and others make them look even sillier. We also like to occasionally post links to good science sites for each other, and for the casual reader, who might enjoy reading the truth about the climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow I'll sit back and relax for a while. Good night!
"That raises the question of whether 1.34 billion Chinese -- accounting for almost one-fifth of the world's population -- would be able to feed themselves. Currently, China produces slightly less grains than its people consume."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a half-truth. China is the biggest producer of rice accounting for one-third of world production but its population is only one-fifth of world population. Not only they can feed themselves, they also feed other countries. China is one of only five countries that export rice.
China sometimes imports rice because as income grew they prefer to eat more rice than other agricultural products and farmers are feeding their lower quality rice to livestock. By weight, there are more pigs and sheeps in China than Chinese. The animals eat more grains than the people. If they slaughter all the animals, they could double the grains supply for human consumption plus a lot of meat.
China maximises its economic growth, so, that investment in agriculture more than compensates for warming climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich is sensible response, unlike keeping people poor so they don't produce climate gases.
"China maximises its economic growth, so, that investment in agriculture more than compensates for warming climate."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGot any evidence to back that up? Care to explain how you know China screws up its environment EXACTLY enough to maximize economic gain and not be taken down by externalities? Can you produce an accounting of which environmental factors you included and which ones you left off the ledger? And do you even have a first order estimate of climate change damages? If not, you CANNOT say that China maximizes its economic growth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome people read SciAm to chuckle.
Like people like films "Borat" and "Iron Sky" for the outrageous humor, which sort of lampoons real world. The same is with SciAm, which sort of lampoons science.
When you read a story which, basically, says that people in Third World should be happy to be poor and undernourished, and worry instead about the small chance that global warming might harm them 50 years in future? Don't you see this is weird, over the top, darkly humorous and completely unrealistic to happen?
To say something serious:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChinese have sensible strategy - climate adaptation. That is, they plan to adapt to whatever future climate but don't reduce the economic growth.
Bottom line is, that Britain and European Union with their policy to burden the economy and hope that climate stays unchanged are in lose-lose situation. Climate will likely change, from natural reasons or other countries' emissions, but Britain and EU will not have resources and background knowledge to adapt.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report on Extremes, released March 28, 2012 reads, “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in property losses have not been attributed to anthropogenic climate change.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd be interested in reading more about that.
But I'd have to go to Drudge.
One thing that concerns me is that famine is one of the great reasons that nations go to war. This article indicates to me that China, with their very high population, is poised to experience severe food shortages within the next decade. All I see here is the same stupid battle between the global warming suporters and deniers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reality of global warming that does not depend on whether it was caused by man or not. Arguing about who is to blame is childish and just detracts from efforts to try to react to the changes. One of the very obvious consequences of climate change is in the political arena as nations start to experience food and water shortages. Fighting over those things has happened so often in the past that we should consider it as a given behavior in future relations between nations that are suffering the most. And they will be looking to the nations that still have resources to supply their needs. Whether through trade or war is what we should be concerned about.
Apparently Pokerplayer can not back up his false accusations. Worse, Pokerplayer can not read his own non-peer reviewed links. From the link that was provided:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"On land, one species, Homo sapiens, commands about 40% of the total terrestrial NPP. This has probably never occurred before in earth's history. Human "carrying capacity" on earth is hard to estimate, because it depends upon affluence of a population and the technology supporting that population. But at present levels of affluence and technology, a population 50 to 100% larger than we have today would push our use of terrestrial NPP to well over 50% of the available production, and the attending degradation of ecosystems on earth (e.g., air and water pollution) would be of major concern."
And then rises the question where does it address climate change in China? It does not. Matter of fact, it does not address climate change at all. Yet, Porkiplayer thinks that the link he provided is a rebuttal to ongoing climate change problems being experience in China.
So dear reader the question arises. Is Pokerplayer incompetent or an incompetent propagandist?
Now I want everyone to notice that said interlocutor still has provided no substantiation for his charges of lying by Coco Liu
@Pokerplayer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only lies being told here are those you write. I just pointed out to you a peer reviewed study that shows a net DRAG by climate change happening now. That you are unable to distinguish between a total increased production and factors that are inhibiting growth can be laid at the feet of your intellectual shortcomings.
PokerPlayer Says: The article claimed that food production in China would be damaged due to human caused climate change.
Trent Says: You did not read the article. It did not just make a prediction is said it was happening NOW in the northern provinces. Damages caused by increased range of pest because of a warming climate. That is a fact.
That you think you can ignore the facts on the ground as they are at just very moment speaks to a deep stupidity.
I am going to put up that paper again:
Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6042/616.abstract
Abstract:
"Efforts to anticipate how climate change will affect future food availability can benefit from understanding the impacts of changes to date. We found that in the cropping regions and growing seasons of most countries, with the important exception of the United States, temperature trends from 1980 to 2008 exceeded one standard deviation of historic year-to-year variability. Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8 and 5.5%, respectively, relative to a counterfactual without climate trends. For soybeans and rice, winners and losers largely balanced out. Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors."
That is peer reviewed science. That you chosen to ignore it is testament to the flawed character that calls itself Pokerplayer.
Population is the biggest hindrance to any nation on this planet. Accepting refugees from overpopulated nations who believe they have an imaginary god given right to breed, creates a problem for democratic western nations free of population problems. Secular Israelis will soon be overwhelmed by fast breeding religious zealots. Denmark seems to have woken up to the problem, but what will they do?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCatholicism has been on the rise in the USA with the rapid rise of Hispanic populations, educated free thinking rational US citizens have already started moving to countries like Australia. But just like in Hitler's Germany some will delay departure till it is too late.
Crush militant religion before it crushes your freedom. Democracy does not have to tolerate the intolerant who use democratic principles to establish religious states by overwhelming the rest of the populations by out breeding them.
"This article indicates to me that China, with their very high population, is poised to experience severe food shortages within the next decade"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt isn't high population that led to famine. On the contrary, 40 million Chinese died of famine during the reign of Mao Zedong when China's population was only 550 million. Now its population is 1.3 billion and they have surplus food production and exporting rice.
Agricultural productivity is the key. China's food production has been growing faster than its population since the 1980s. It is the largest producer of wheat and can still increase its production by 40% without adding new farms.