Abstract
“Changes must happen in both human eating habits and food cultivation if the human race is to survive”. Using sources drawn from the DATA database the paper supports a slghtily modified version of this assertion. The thesis of this essay is that human behavior change, including in diet and food production, must be undertaken to minimize climate change, and resulting misery.
Few scholars were found through DATA’s archive of sources to oppose the notion that climate change is actually occuring. A very few current scientific sources deny that human activity is the main contributor to climate change. Political commentators are more aggressive in suggestingthat environmentalists are alarmist.
They attribute to them the goal of restricting personal freedom. The evidence, however, convinces me that behavior change is needed to offset climate change trends that have been exacerbated by the increased prefernce for high protein, resource instensive foods by an increasing population.
Sustain for Survival
Scientists, activists, and policy-makers have for several decades now been drawing
attention to several striking phenomena. Ice cores sampled in the Antarctic, among other evidence, suggest that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is higher now than in millenia (Link, 2005).
The world’s rapidly growing population has been developing a taste for foods and possibly unhealthy ways of eating that use an increasing amount of energy, land, water, and release increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the air. Most scientists believe increased greenhouse gases contribute to rapid changes in climate patterns.
This change could make survival, at least with any degree of dignity, very difficult for the human race (Angus, 2013). Among many behavioral modifications needed to avert a greenhouse gas catastrophe are changes to the way that humans produce food, and the foods humans choose to produce.
These changes are also necesssary toavoid running out of agricultural space, water, and soil health. Admittedly in geologic time, the human race could evolve to a more petite size, or the population size could plummet, in response to the challenging circumstances.
The foreseeable future, however, is likely to feature increasing discomfort and misery. To survive with any degree of comfort over the long run, humanity must find alternative, innovative, flexible, and collaborative approaches to feeding its burgeoning population; approachesthat generate less greenhouse gas.
Recent research in the Antarctic studying the gas content of ice core samples demonstrate that “current carbon levels in the atmosphere are the highest they have been for650,000 years.” (Link, 2005). Carbon dioxide, like the glass windows of a greenhouse, traps heat, and thereby changes weather patterns.
Scientists believe that the timing of this increase in the carbon in the atmosphere is not coincidental. It coincides with human development. Humans cut down trees and build fires. Humans engage in agriculture and animal husbandry. Humans engage in various industries, including the processing of food. All of the above produce greenhouse gases.
Furthermore, there are more and more humans to do so. Human population is at an estimated 6.8 billion to 7 billion and projections suggest that this figure will rise to 9 to 12 billion within the next several decades (Macleod, 2013).
This is an unprecedented number of human beings alive at once, considering that our total stood at roughly 1 billion in the 1800s (Macleod, 2013). The growth is not evenly distributed, however. The developing world’s population, for the most part, is growing at a faster rate than the developed world (Macleod, 2013) (Hetrick, 2013).
This is continuing in spite of what is knownas the demographic transition. This is a phenomenon observed as populations become industrialized; families tend to get smaller. However, this is not happening in the developing world fast enough to stabilize population growth for decades to come (Macleod, 2013).
Controlling population growth is both difficult and disliked, as demonstrated by the unpopular Chinese policy of one-child-one-family. Its effectiveness has come under question, and possible negative economic impacts have been attributed to it (Beech, 2013).
Unfortunately, uncontrolled population growth contributes to the climate change problem,because every additional person adds something to carbon output, depending on dietary, transportation and other habits.
The rapid economic growth also occurring in the developing world may appear desirable, buthas potentially negative consequences. Industrializing populations are concurrently developing an appetite for the perceived advantages and privileges of the ‘first’ world.
These are often associated with more processed foods, and a diet higher in proteins, which often means higher amounts of meat and dairy products (Wyness, Weichselbaum, O’Connor, Benelam, Riley, & Stanley, 2011).These increased numbers of humans, eating more items higher up the food chain, willinevitably increase the carbon footprint of the human race. (The Government Office for Science, 2011) (Buttriss, 2011).
This is because all food is grown by converting inputs such as sunlight, water, soil minerals, and even the energy for the machines and calories for the farmer, into nutrients for humans (Webber, 2012). No food captures more than ten percent of the energy input into it.
Animal products are even less efficient than vegetables because the livestock must eat the vegetable matter to produce meat and milk (Webber, 2012)Industrial-style farming creates additional problems.
It separates crop growing from animal husbandry, and its unutilized wastes (manure) release greenhouse gases. Thus, industrialized farming further increases the climate change impact of the world’s diet (Buttriss, 2011) (Webber, 2012).
What happens if people make no changes? Predictions suggest that ocean levels will rise, eliminating some land once available for food production. Agricultural pests may increase due to temperature increases and changes in rainfall patterns. Pollinator species such as bees, bats, and birds may be adversely affected by weather changes.
Disease vectors such as mosquitoes may increase due to the same factors. Plant species, and food animals, including marine species, may experience disruption in their reproductiveand migratory from climate changes. The developing world is likely to feel the worst brunt of all of these problems (Nelson, et al., 2009) (Link, 2005).
In the very long run, it is possible to imagine that humanity could somehow survive in much smaller numbers. Humankind’s population could shrink due to diseases exacerbated by malnutrition, as I have observed in India. People could die in huge numbers arising from conflicts over access to food. Sheer starvation could also wipe out much of the population directly.
In the very, very long run, the human species could be selected by food scarcity for smaller size, thereby reversing the historic trend over time towards greater human body size. The effects of chronic malnutrition are visible even today, in the smaller stature of North Koreans (whose government has exploited food scarcity to increase their level of social control), versus the stature of South Koreans (Park, 2013).
Either of these outcomes would reduce humanity’s demands on the earth’s resources, and keep it in better balance with reduced available food and space, perhaps indefinitely. However, the misery would be enormous. Building space colonies and colonizing other planets are imaginable as solutions to living with climate change, but these remain infeasible thus far.
Some technological fixes may help to feed the growing numbers, with reduced carbon releases, at least in the short run.Innovations, such as laser, GPS, and computer guidance for planting, irrigation, harvesting, and wider manure use could increase yields, and offset some adverse climate conditions (Nelson, et al., 2009).
Genetic engineering holds additional promise, but there is powerful resistance to this strategy (The Government Office for Science, 2011).
On the other hand, even with these remedies, agriculturally appropriate land and safe water are finite. Additionally, conversion of land to food production depletes soils, eliminates wildlife habitat, and can increase carbon release. (The Government Office for Science, 2011) (Hetrick, 2013).
However, all these horrific problems could be delayed or mitigated to some extent by human behavior change. For example, basing dietary choices on efficiency rather than tradition, status, or mere taste, could reduce pressure on food production.
This could mean fewer Big Macs, and more beans. It could also mean abandoning some traditions, such as meaty barbecues. It could also mean, perhaps, in the long term, greater openness to eating algae, insects, and other decidedly non-traditional parts of the biomass.
Innovation is needed in every area of food production and consumption. Finally, the 40% waste, across the food system, is ripe for reduction(Buttriss, 2011) (Webber, 2012).Grocery store trash bins reveal masses of stale-dated discards. Webber recommends innovative technology, such as sensitive labelling,to better identify food spoilage (Webber, 2012).
College cafeteria trash binssimilarlydisplay a sorry waste of perfectly edible fresh food. Personal and corporate behavior change, for example, in controlling portionsize, and encouraging what are euphemistically called doggie bags, could help cut waste.
The food production system would have a smaller carbon footprint if it could use cellulosic waste (from corn, soy, or other major crops), to generate biofuel, as a constructive alternative to using the food itself.Gases generated by manure also have greater potential for fuel than is currently being exploited (Webber, 2012).
These are both areas where innovative technology is needed to make widely available waste products a positive resource. Changing diet and food production choices in these and other ways could substantially reduce humanity’s contribution to climate change and thereby help humankind to survive under the least disastrous conditions.
However, there are a few scientists – a very few – who disbelieve that humans are responsible for climate change in the first place. Many of those termed ‘climate deniers’ appear to be associated with strong political positions, for example, the John Birch Society (Newman, 2013).
Others seem to represent industrial interests (Angus, 2013). These sources assert that environmental alarmism is aimed at removing personal freedoms (Newman, 2013). Truly scholarly sources are fewthat deny the association of human activity with climate change.
A rare example who takes the very, very long view is University of Pennsylvania geologist Robert Giegengack. Giegengack, as quoted in a review in the journal Holoceneof a book of essays titled Climate Crises in Human History, believes that humans have weathered climate upsets for millennia.
However, healso notes that some cultures have died out as a result (Endfield, 2012). (‘Climate deniers’ have also accused scientific periodicals of excluding their viewpoint, but this is a debate beyond the scope of this project (“Time to end heated debate on climate change?”, 2013).)
Objections of climate deniers may be irrelevant to the advisability of behavior change over the coming years. Whether occurring due to human activity or resulting from long natural weather cycles (Angus, 2013), disrupted weather conditions challenge human communities.
Evenrecent modest weather events noticeably raised the cost of groceries.It seems nearly inevitable from the scientific literature that the combination of 9 billion people, with a new taste for sirloin,will speed the climate change process, and generate increased deprivation.
Behavior change, which starts with a simple switch to growing and eating more grains and beans, and includes consideration of all potential food sources, can perhaps reduce the onrush of climate change and postpone some human misery.
Reference List
Angus, I. (2013). The myth of environmental catastrophism. Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine , 65(4), 15-28.
Beech, H. (2013). China loosens its one-child policy: The shift may be too late to offset the damage already done to China’s economy and society. Time. Web.
Buttriss, J. L. (2011). Feeding the planet: An unprecedented confluence of pressures anticipated. Nutrition Bulletin , 36(2), 235-241. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-3010.2011.01894.x
Endfield, G. (2012). Review: ‘Climate crises in human history’. Holocene , 22(1), 127-128.
Hetrick, K. (2013). A Madding Crowd’s Ignoble Strife: Growing Human Populations May Drive More Animal Species toward Extinction. The Futurist , 4 (6), 12.
Link, T. (2005). One planet, one family, one future. Electronic Green Journal 1(22), 1-4. Web.
Macleod, M. (2013). Population paradox: Why richer people have fewer kids. New Scientist (2940). Retrieved from newscientist.com.
Nelson, G. C., Rosegrant, M. W., Koo, J., Robertson, R., Sulser, T., Zhu, T., et al. (2009). Climate change: Impact on agriculture and costs of adaptation. Web.
Newman, A. (2013). Climate alarmism and the corruption of science. The New American. Web.
Park, R. (2013). The forgotten genocide: North Korea’s Prison State. World Affairs. Web.
The Government Office for Science. (2011). Foresight: The future of food and farming (2011). Web.
Time to end heated debate on climate change? Your Say (2013). USA Today. Web.
Webber, M. E. (2012). More food, less energy. Scientific American , 306(1), 74-79.
Wyness, L., Weichselbaum, E., O’Connor, E. B., Benelam, H., Riley, S., & Stanley, H. (2011). Red meat in the diet: An update. Nutrition Bulletin 36I(1), 34-77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-3010.2010.01871.x