Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse' [View all]Nederland
(9,979 posts)72. How many times do you have to make the same mistake?
Despite the general perception that agriculture in temperate latitudes will benefit from increased seasonal heat and supply food to deficit areas, even mid-latitude crops will likely suffer at very high temperatures in the absence of adaptation.
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people make the same stupid assumption when it comes to almost any form of change. A person looks at what impact the given change will have, assumes that people will continue to behave exactly as they do today, and then writes up conclusions about how horrible it will be.
The problem is people don't behave that way.
They never have, they never will. When change occurs, people's behavior changes in response. The assumption that a farmer who is growing wheat will continue to grow wheat long after growing conditions have made growing wheat unproductive is idiotic. People are not stupid. If something stops working they do something different. That's why the papers that I linked to, which attempt to determine the impacts of climate change given the assumption that farmers will switch to whatever crop makes the most sense in the new conditions, give a better idea of what will happen as a result of climate change.
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people make the same stupid assumption when it comes to almost any form of change. A person looks at what impact the given change will have, assumes that people will continue to behave exactly as they do today, and then writes up conclusions about how horrible it will be.
The problem is people don't behave that way.
They never have, they never will. When change occurs, people's behavior changes in response. The assumption that a farmer who is growing wheat will continue to grow wheat long after growing conditions have made growing wheat unproductive is idiotic. People are not stupid. If something stops working they do something different. That's why the papers that I linked to, which attempt to determine the impacts of climate change given the assumption that farmers will switch to whatever crop makes the most sense in the new conditions, give a better idea of what will happen as a result of climate change.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
95 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Nicholas Stern: 'I got it wrong on climate change – it's far, far worse' [View all]
xchrom
Jan 2013
OP
Market forces will replace the Laurentian Shield with 24-36" of rich, loamy topsoil . . .
hatrack
Jan 2013
#45
The issue is the productivity and utility of the plants that might be substituted.
GliderGuider
Jan 2013
#81
"create an enormous incentive to"...feed the people with the wealth to pay for the resource
NoOneMan
Jan 2013
#41
The nation of "let them die" as a healthcare platform (still) will feed its poor?
NoOneMan
Jan 2013
#53
So when studies suggest that 3 billion face famine, or entire countries will be underwater
NoOneMan
Jan 2013
#91
"The earth is an organism, and that organism has a skin; that skin has diseases...
alterfurz
Jan 2013
#12