• elucubra@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 days ago

      Yeah, it’s been, with the coming water wars, one of the main concerns for the last few decades.

    • HubertManne@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 days ago

      yeah its funny when things are like. no one who is unable to do anything about it is doing anything about it.

  • dotslashme@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    10 days ago

    For me, this is one of the most terrifying tipping points we rarely talk about. Once food gets scarce for real, we are so fucked.

    • hitmyspot@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 days ago

      Or water. My hope is that renewables and water reclamation, like desalination start to cancel out. Then we survive as a species. Otherwise, mass deaths. We just don’t know where yet.

  • django@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    “We’re losing 120 calories per person, per day, for every degree of global warming.”

    That is just 0,006% of 2000kcal per degree? Doesn’t sound like that much tbh.

    Edit: the publication in nature contains different information:

    We estimate that global production declines 5.5 × 1014 kcal annually per 1 °C global mean surface temperature (GMST) rise (120 kcal per person per day or 4.4% of recommended consumption per 1 °C; P < 0.001).

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09085-w

    • fake_meows@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 days ago

      I believe you shifted the decimal place. You should have 6%, not 0.006%

      6% per degree of warming, and it could be 3 or 4 degrees or whatever…I believe they used 3.5° and a total damage of ~20% as one of the projections for the end of the century.

      They also call for significant losses to production by 2050.

      • Kairos@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 days ago

        They were actually right. Whoever transcribed that quote didn’t get the correct Calorie. Not to blame them.

        • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Hey asshole, people live within the context of their own lives, not yours. I have no fucking pet project, I’m an American, this is an American publication, someone in the comments got the math wrong because they were using SI calorie for the colloquial American term for kilocalorie (or at least, that would explain a three digit shift easily).

          Don’t insult me just because you didn’t understand. Get clarification, you fuck.

        • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          Yeah, legally. But not colloquially. This is a colloquial publication (Forbes). They used calorie knowing Americans would know it as a Calorie or kcal

  • fake_meows@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    Nature paper is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09085-w

    We estimate that global production declines 5.5 × 1014 kcal annually per 1 °C global mean surface temperature (GMST) rise (120 kcal per person per day or 4.4% of recommended consumption per 1 °C; P < 0.001).

    It’s a pretty weird and interesting paper. The big idea is that we will have to majorly revamp the agriculture practices to adapt to climate and weather. The climate and the weather would have extreme amounts of damage taken against how we produce food right now. What this paper argues is that we can mitigate some of these losses in many places, and that by shifting what we grow and where we grow it, we can still make farming work to a lesser extent than today…the paper attempts to model what the net future potential would be for a more resilient state.

    Anyhow, there will be less food produced even after we adapt.

    • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      What this paper argues is that we can mitigate some of these losses in many places, and that by shifting what we grow and where we grow it, we can still make farming work to a lesser extent than today

      I think this is why Trump wants Canada and Greenland, btw.

      • breecher@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 days ago

        That would imply Trump gives a shit about food security or anybody else. He wants those because he would like to be known for adding to homeland territory like all his favourite dictators.

    • eleitl@lemmy.zipOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Without fossil fuels natural bioproductivity of the planet allows for 500 million individuals sustainably, probably a bit less. So some 95% of the population will succumb to excess deaths. The only question is, how soon.

    • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      Just want to point out: So, exactly how many things in the last 30 year involving a major revamping of anything that also didn’t ridiculously profit the financial elite actually get enacted?

      None you say?

      Hmmm… what makes you think this will be any different?

      No one in power cares what the scientists or economists say anymore