Blog

Effects of Climate Change

Matt Ridley has an interesting piece in the Spectator on the effects of climate change.  He makes the rather unremarkable observation that we should count the benefits, not just the costs of climate change.  Unremarkable except that people almost exclusively focus on the costs.  

What are these benefits?  He writes: 

The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity.

and  

The greatest benefit from climate change comes not from temperature change but from carbon dioxide itself. It is not pollution, but the raw material from which plants make carbohydrates and thence proteins and fats.

Ridley reads the scientific research to suggest that the benefits will exceed the costs unless temperature rises too high - or until about 2080 - according to some projections.  He writes: 

You can choose not to believe the studies Prof Tol has collated. Or you can say the net benefit is small (which it is), you can argue that the benefits have accrued more to rich countries than poor countries (which is true) or you can emphasise that after 2080 climate change would probably do net harm to the world (which may also be true). You can even say you do not trust the models involved (though they have proved more reliable than the temperature models). But what you cannot do is deny that this is the current consensus. If you wish to accept the consensus on temperature models, then you should accept the consensus on economic benefit.
Overall, Prof Tol finds that climate change in the past century improved human welfare. By how much? He calculates by 1.4 per cent of global economic output, rising to 1.5 per cent by 2025. For some people, this means the difference between survival and starvation.
It will still be 1.2 per cent around 2050 and will not turn negative until around 2080. In short, my children will be very old before global warming stops benefiting the world. Note that if the world continues to grow at 3 per cent a year, then the average person will be about nine times as rich in 2080 as she is today. So low-lying Bangladesh will be able to afford the same kind of flood defences that the Dutch have today.

 

Public Opinion about Food Stamps

In October's release of the monthly Food Demand Survey (FooDS), I mentioned that we asked a few questions about preferences for changes in the food stamp program being batted around in ongoing debates about the farm bill.

I discuss the results in detail in a post over at farmdocdaily: http://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2013/10/public-opinion-about-food-stamp-program.html

Here is what I had to say there:

Uncertainties surrounding the future of farm policy remain
but these results provide some insights into which policies are likely to be
most popular in public opinion. Although
there is little support for large cuts in benefits, moderate cuts are more
palatable. Moreover, there are issues
such as adding work requirements, reducing the length of participation, and
maintaining eligibility rules that have budgetary implications and that are
popular in public opinion. While the
House decision to decouple farm programs from SNAP may ultimately cause a break
down in the urban-rural political collation that has held together the farm
bill for decades, it is a move that the vast majority of
Americans support.
As I mentioned there, it is important to recognize that public opinion does not necessarily equate with economically efficient policies, nevertheless, it is important to know what the public thinks.

Here are the main results from the survey.

snap.JPG

Food Demand Survey (FooDS) - October 2013

The latest results from my Food Demand Survey (FooDS) are now out. 

We've been doing the survey for six months now, and this is the first month we've noted big changes in several key variables.  Changes are likely driven by consumer uncertainty regarding the government shutdown and by a widely publicized Salmonella outbreak that occurred just prior to the survey release.  

There were significant drops in consumer willingness-to-pay for most meats (and non-meats) and a large increase in how much people said they heard about Salmonella. Although awareness of Salmonella increased markedly, stated concern for Salmonella only increased slightly.  It was also interesting to note that 3.37% of participants reported having food poisoning in October, a 27.65% increase from September; a change that might be explained by people attributing prior illnesses to the outbreak in light of the news stories.  

We kept a question added last month on awareness and knowledge of Zilmax (about 85% still hadn't heard of it) and we added a couple new questions on opinions about changes to the food stamp program that are being proposed in ongoing farm bill debates.  I plan to comment on those result in a separate post. 

awarenessoctober.jpg

Wendell Berry - a Prophet?

Wendell Berry was recently featured on Bill Moyer's public television show.  Berry, for those who don't know, is a farmer and a long time critic of modern production agriculture.  He is something of a hero in the "food movement."  Indeed, Moyer's show is titled "Wendell Berry: Poet & Prophet".

There is much that could be said about Berry's views (the show is embedded below).  Berry seems like a nice grandfatherly sort of guy who would be fun to hang out with.  But, I think some of his views and prescriptions for the future are misplaced.  I'll pick just two examples.

First, Berry wants us - as a nation - to get back to the farm and to "resettle" America.  Here are a few back-and forths:

BILL MOYERS: When you and I were born in 1934 there were almost seven million family farms in this country. There are now roughly around two million family farms and most of us are further away from the foundations of nature than we’ve ever been.
WENDELL BERRY: Well, there’s another tough problem. And so you have to look ahead a little bit. I don't like to talk about the future very much because it doesn’t exist, and we don’t know anything about it. But one thing we know right now is that people want to be healthy and to be healthy you have to have a diverse diet and diverse agriculture employs a lot more people than monoculture. So you imagine people moving out into the landscape because it will pay them to do it. It’ll be what we now vulgarly call job creation.
. . .
BILL MOYERS: Resettling of America means….?
WENDELL BERRY: It means putting people on the land enough people on the land to take proper care of it and pay them decently for doing it. The fact that we and our families know the history of people having to leave the country because they couldn’t make a living there, is the history of rural America. But that they left because they couldn’t make a living is an indictment of our land policies. The idea that you have to go somewhere else, that you have to leave a fertile country in order to make a living is preposterous and it’s a result of the wrong idea of what we mean by making a living in the first place. To make a living is not to make a killing, it’s to have enough.

So, people left the countryside because of bad "land policies", and we should now "resettle" America and somehow pay people to do the resettling??

Putting aside the fact that most of the productive farm land in the US is already privately owned (the US government owns huge swaths of land in the West that it leases for grazing) by someone (most of them family farms if you look at the USDA data), and that farmers have been relatively profitable in the past decade, I think this take is a bad reading on history.  

People left the countryside because they found more profitable opportunities in town, and this transition is largely a positive development.  Technological development, to be sure, played a big role in the reduction of labor in agriculture, but so too did new opportunities off the farm.

The Harvard economics professor, Edward Glaeser, has written a book about the benefits of cities, cultural, economic, environmental, and otherwise, and he argues that the government has actually unduly subsidized rural (or suburban) living relative to city living.  

Take a look at a country like China.  As that country develops, hordes of citizens are trying to get out of the countryside and find factory jobs in town.  One of the biggest problems for the Chinese government's restrictive migration policies is keeping those people on the farms (or in trying to "manage" the transition).    

So, it can't be "our" land policies - because the rural to urban migration has happened in virtually every developed country, and it is unclear to me why or how we'd want to pay people to move back out to rural America.  

All this is coming from a guy who grew up in a town of 300 people, and who had to drive 15-20 miles to get to a grocery store.  There are some joys of small-town rural living, but I hardly think it is something many (perhaps most) Americans would enjoy.  By all means, if people want to move out and run farm, go for it!  But, why should taxpayers subsidize this activity?

A second, smaller observataion. 

Berry makes a big deal about "monoculture" and the value of diversity of diet:

WENDELL BERRY: But one thing we know right now is that people want to be healthy and to be healthy you have to have a diverse diet and diverse agriculture employs a lot more people than monoculture. 

But, there has never been a time in world history when citizens have had access to a more diverse diet than we do now.  Here is how I put it in the Food Police:

A person who restricts their diet to only those things grown locally is one restricting diversity in their diet – especially in the winter.  Walk in almost any supermarket in almost any town in America almost any time of year, and the diversity and abundance of fruits and vegetables is absolutely astounding.  Vidalia onions from Georgia, oranges from Florida, Californian lettuce, sweet corn from Iowa, mangos, bananas, and jalapenos from south of the border.   If you live in the right location, you might have access to such a cornucopia a few weeks or months out of the year but Wal-Mart offers it to us every day.  Fifty to a hundred years ago, the available transportation and storage technologies required people to eat a lot more local food.  Yet, despite weighting a bit less, people weren’t healthier then.  One reason, among many, is that our great grandparents lacked the diversity of diets that we enjoy by eating food from places that come from beyond our backyard.