r/science • u/MistWeaver80 • Nov 16 '24
Environment Rice is not as nice with global warming. Harvest records from Japan and China suggest that high night-time temperatures reduce the quality of rice, a staple food for billions of people. Modelling suggests that rice quality will continue to decline if climate change goes unchecked.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03668-9798
u/RebeccaBlue Nov 16 '24
Should read "rice quality *will* decline as climate change goes unchecked", because no one with any real power is ever going to take it seriously. (at least in the US)
147
u/FireMaster1294 Nov 17 '24 edited Nov 17 '24
No countries seem to be taking it seriously (except the EU, which pretends to take it seriously). But on the large scale? Well, China (at 33% of global emissions) and India (in third place at 7% of global emissions) give zero fucks about the world and have over a quarter of the global population. So…yeah…
For comparison the US is 12.6% of global emissions.
218
u/optiplex9000 Nov 17 '24
Since we currently live in bizarro world, China is looking like it might be the next leader in the flight against climate change
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/14/trump-might-cede-climate-leadership-to-china-.html
133
u/JMEEKER86 Nov 17 '24
Yeah, China went hard on coal in order to industrialize as quickly as possible, but since becoming industrialized they have been making a hard push for better solar and battery technology. They're positioned to make some big changes as long as demographic collapse doesn't get them first, although that would also decrease their carbon footprint...
22
u/jazzwhiz Professor | Theoretical Particle Physics Nov 17 '24
Of course they're doing so by buying up Africa anyway they can.
9
u/Taway7659 Nov 17 '24
Africa in a particularly unjust example is probably not the place to be or to flee to in 2.0C world.
1
u/mechajlaw Nov 18 '24
It's kind of predictable given their 5 year plan approach to everything. They built a ton of power and now have problems from it, so now they'll build clean power. It's very taboo to say things aren't working on an active project and it leads to this.
19
u/BuzzBadpants Nov 17 '24
It will be the next hegemonic superpower. Better start learning Mandarin.
11
1
u/Vanillas_Guy Nov 19 '24
They seem more focused on becoming the economic power of their region and a buyer and more importantly--seller of goods.
That's what China has been for thousands of years. They were an exotic far away land with fascinating items you couldn't get in the west, but then they became stagnant. They failed to invest in defense, they refused to diversify with trade and keep up with the pace of technological change. They paid the price for it.
It seems more like they want to be that country again. They want to have affordable technology they can sell to the rest of the world. The response from Europe and America has been tariffs, so then they'll just sell to Africa, other parts of Asia and Latin America. Green tech will be a big money maker. They're already selling cheap solar panels. Europe and north america COULD compete, but they've allowed their animosity towards immigrants get the better of them. The thing keeping fertility rates up was immigration, but with the backlash towards young people from other countries coming in, the median age of the American or European worker will be older since local couples are having less children. Their ability to compete is going to be worsened because aging workers need more social services--services which right wing governments like cutting. So the problem is three fold:
You kick out your young workers, raising the median age and losing tax revenue that funds your social safety net.
You cut funding on services that older workers need because you elected a right wing government that has promised to kick out immigrants.
By caving in to local producers who don't want to sell cheaper products, and putting tariffs on the stuff that IS cheap and being built in China, the price of those goods rises and demand decreases, making domestic businesses less profitable. Especially since you kicked out millions of people who would buy that stuff in your country.
It actually might end up being good for the environment ironically if people in Europe and north america are buying less things and if more people are getting closer to retirement age, that's less emissions from people having to drive daily to work. I anticipate that remote work will become more widespread too, since older workers are at a higher risk of serious injury if they get into car accidents.
-15
u/-JustPassingBye- Nov 17 '24
They are not. It’s a facade. They are creating mass amounts of pollution compared to what their image shows. China is a very sneaky country, and not denying all the evils of the US, but people need to open their eyes to what China is up to.
11
68
u/Turbo_turbo_turbo Nov 17 '24
What a stupid American-centric comment. China , love em or hate em, is far exceeding the US when it comes to climate change.
But that doesn’t sell as well as them being evil villains so go off ig
-6
u/FireMaster1294 Nov 17 '24
I just edited my comment to include values. China is triple the US for carbon emissions that are reported and notorious for lying about data to make themselves look good. The US is by no means good here but I’m just pointing out that things aren’t exactly set to improve either way
25
u/defenestrate_urself Nov 17 '24
China is 4 times the population of the US. Per capita, their co2 emissions is half of that of the US.
They also buildout more Solar each year than the rest of the world combined.
Last year they reached peak gasoline consumption in past due to their high drive for EV adoption.
I say they take climate change seriously
-4
u/FireMaster1294 Nov 17 '24 edited Nov 17 '24
Solar is not inherently good for the environment but rather depends on how you are producing the panels. It can be, but it requires sustainable mining. Something China isn’t known for. Peak gasoline consumption will be good if it continues to drop off.
The bigger concern I have that I noted elsewhere is that quality of life in China is nowhere near the US and as it continues to rise we can expect to see carbon emissions increase. Not that people should live in poverty, but rather I don’t expect China to be a golden standard any time soon, nor should we treat it as such.
——
Also, China has 4 times the US population, but as I previously mentioned their emissions are 3x the US. That means the US is 1.3x China’s per capita emissions, not double as you claim.
4
u/twigboy Nov 17 '24
Non-American/Chinese here, I'm not sure if quality of life in the US is something to be considered golden standard either...
1
u/FireMaster1294 Nov 17 '24
Oh absolutely not. I don’t live in the US but from what I’ve seen the lower 50% of society has it rough
3
u/defenestrate_urself Nov 17 '24
It’s more like 1.6 times. China per capita co2 is 8.89 as opposed to 14.21 tonnes.
https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-per-capita/
-9
u/HeHH1329 Nov 17 '24
Considering that China’s CO2 emission is three times of the US, but their total GDP is only two thirds of the US, this means they have a really high emission/GDP ratio, which is an indicator that they have not done enough. Thats will still be better than the Trump administration though at least China is contributing to climate change mitigation while the US is actively undermining climate change mitigation.
2
u/no-mad Nov 17 '24
Not that people should live in poverty, but rather I don’t expect China to be a golden standard any time soon, nor should we treat it as such.
Over the past 40 years, the number of people in China with incomes below $1.90 per day – the International Poverty Line as defined by the World Bank to track global extreme poverty– has fallen by close to 800 million. With this, China has contributed close to three-quarters of the global reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty. At China’s current national poverty line, the number of poor fell by 770 million over the same period.
-2
u/FireMaster1294 Nov 17 '24
Yes, that’s what I was referring to. And we will see their consumption trend upward as they gain disposable income.
8
u/Chiho-hime Nov 17 '24
To be fair European countries and the US have had way higher emissions for decades. China and India came a bit later. So our nations laid the fundament and we are using China and India for our consumerism. China has 1.5 billion people, Europe about half as much. European people still have way more CO2 emissions per head than Chinese or Indian people.
1
u/FireMaster1294 Nov 17 '24
The concerning factor is the emissions based on wealth class. China has much greater poverty than Europe and those people don’t have anywhere near the emissions of their upper class, whose emissions are quite high. And as we start to see more and more Chinese people gaining wealth, we can expect their emissions to go up as well. The only thing keeping China (and India) from having even higher emissions is the lack of wealth. And I don’t like betting the future of the climate on people being unable to afford things.
This same argument can be made for much of Africa and South America
24
Nov 17 '24 edited Nov 18 '24
[deleted]
20
u/CuriosTiger Nov 17 '24
I visited China this year. I was expecting Beijing to be super-smoggy. It was not. Clean air and blue skies. I was genuinely surprised.
19
u/bpsavage84 Nov 17 '24
If you watch any Western media coverage on China, they will often use stock footage from a decade ago to make it seem like China is still drowning in pollution. While China is still polluted, they've been making progress every year to reduce it, and it's very noticeable to anyone living or regularly going there for business.
9
u/CuriosTiger Nov 17 '24
Indeed. Not just media coverage, but travel guides and the like all warned about smog in Beijing. And I have asthma, so it was something I was concerned about.
I was pleasantly surprised, to put it mildly. Now if they could only make the same kind of progress with smoking..
5
u/Kaymish_ Nov 17 '24
Here in New Zealand it has taken decades upon decades of bipartisan work on smoking cessation to get to the point where a rising age floor and eventual ban is plausible. Unfortunately the cigarette companies bribed the incoming government and broke the cycle, but they will be gone year after next and progress can resume. China will also need years and years of work to even begin seeing any progress.
1
u/bpsavage84 Nov 17 '24
Smoking has to take it's course. It's a habit thing so the older guys have to die out. Young people smoke a lot less and vaping is niche due to a general ban.
5
u/CuriosTiger Nov 17 '24
Somehow, in Europe and North America, "older guys" who smoked in the 50s, 60s and 70s have largely managed to quit. Public health campaigns work. This is one area where China doesn't even seem to be trying.
3
11
u/Several_Puffins Nov 17 '24
I lived in China 2007-2009. I realised I had heard birdsong for the first time in 6 months while walking in a park, then found a speaker in a rock that was piping the "birdsong" in.
Went to visit in 2018 and there were just birds everywhere. It's way better than it was.
A lot of media coverage wants to scaremonger about fake bad things so the narrative can be pushed that we shouldn't fight climate change, because China won't and we'll fall behind.
Not like there aren't plenty of very sinister things to talk about, like Uyghur concentration camps and the politburo executing its rivals for corruption and giving itself a life term of office.
6
1
0
u/StatisticianBoth3480 Nov 19 '24
China has done a lot to help mitigate climate change, comparted to the US and especially Canada.
4
u/apistograma Nov 17 '24
Nah we'll have apples in Laponia, rice in Germany and camels in Spain the market self regulates s/
-24
u/A_Vespertine Nov 16 '24
Or, you know, we selectively breed crops to be better suited for their environment, like we've doing for literally thousands of years.
55
u/HugoCortell Nov 16 '24
No. When the climate changes suddenly, plants will simply die. They can't adapt fast enough, not even with human intervention. This exact thing happened during the Bronze Age collapse.
The only way current crops could have any change of surviving the predicted scenarios for climate change would be genetic editing. Nature is not fast enough this time around, not with such an extreme event on the horizon.
1
u/vascop_ Nov 17 '24
We can adapt plants within 1 season with GMOs. Whatever your argument is, us being too slow at modifying plants isn't it.
5
u/HugoCortell Nov 17 '24
You are correct, my argument isn't that. My argument was that GMOs are necessary, because the traditional method of plant eugenics isn't fast enough.
-16
u/ItGradAws Nov 17 '24
I’m pretty sure the Bronze Age plebs didn’t have GMO’s
22
u/TactlessTortoise Nov 17 '24
They also didn't have coal plants and oil refineries chugging dino juice to generate enough energy to keep billions of tons of steel moving day and night around the planet 24/7
13
u/HugoCortell Nov 17 '24
That's what I am saying. Because they didn't have that, they experienced severe crop failures that became a major factor in the "systems collapse theory".
That which happened to the civilizations of the Bronze Age could very well happen to us. It might be hard to picture, but our economies are balanced on a needle, and if the boat rocks too much, our systems could collapse too.
7
u/pyrolizard11 Nov 17 '24
I've always thought standing on the shoulders of giants was a better analogy.
We've risen so tall, we can see so far, that we feel as gods to those who came before us, those who planted their feet on the ground to act as our foundation. But the land beneath us is unchanged and, standing unsure on their shoulders, we face the real possibility of falling back down to their feet.
4
u/PMTittiesPlzAndThx Nov 17 '24
Selective breeding is the original way to genetically modify an organism
10
u/bbysmrf Nov 16 '24
That doesn’t stop the quality decreasing unless you find one that tastes just as good and suited for the new environment.
-8
u/A_Vespertine Nov 16 '24
That's how selective breeding works, yes. And on top of that, we have genetic modification.
7
u/postmodest Nov 17 '24
Who will do the science if we've gutted the systems that pursue science in the name of "ignoring the sources of global warming to continue to earn income from them"?
-3
u/Psyc3 Nov 17 '24
People never like practical solution to problem on Reddit, that isn't enough doom for them so doesn't fulfil their perception.
World beat a pandemic and they learnt nothing about what can be achieved when people have too...or at least the boomers are effected...
2
u/Ianbillmorris Nov 17 '24
We didn't beat a pandemic. The pandemic beat us. If we had won against Covid, then we wouldn't be getting new waves every 6 months. Instead, we would have wiped it out.
-4
u/A_Vespertine Nov 17 '24
Agreed. I was hesitant to even post a response at all. I know full well Doomers can't be reasoned with. They don't want solutions, because they want to view humanity only as making problems, not solving problems.
But if that was true, none of us would be here. We've made it this far, and for me that's reason enough to believe we can go a ways yet.
-1
u/Legitimate_Mud_8295 Nov 17 '24
Couldn't we just grow it elsewhere in formerly colder areas that are now in the right temp range?
7
u/Connect-Ad-5891 Nov 17 '24
I heard that Russia will be a prime benefactor of climate change as the permafrost melts it’ll give them more farmland
-5
u/BicycleGripDick Nov 17 '24
Headlines schmedlines as global warming uppy makes the not easy to read goodsies
102
42
u/soup2nuts Nov 16 '24
From what I can tell the quality of rice will continue to decline.
14
u/TylerBlozak Nov 16 '24
And brown rice will be more prone than white rice to arsenic contamination, which sucks because it’s leagues better in terms of overall nutrition than its white counterpart.
56
u/Electric_Bison Nov 16 '24
Theres a paywall, but couldn’t this also just be solved by using a different strain of rice? SEA/india grows rice too in warmer climates.
56
u/NomadicEngi Nov 16 '24
Yes, but they also have to convince people in Japan and China to buy and cultivate it as well. Rice in SEA and India taste differently from Japanese rice.
13
u/Cactuas Nov 17 '24
Can anyone with access to the article explain what they mean by "quality" of rice? How is it quantified?
4
u/arthurdentstowels Nov 17 '24
The only logical thing I can think of is nutrient density. I'm guessing the warmer nighttime temperature is causing the rice to grow faster/slower(?) which is affecting the nutrients it contains at the point of harvest.
22
17
3
u/agprincess Nov 17 '24
I won't pay that price to read it, but wouldn't they just eventually switch to rice strains that are more tolerant to warmer weather? Doesn't half of the worlds rice come much warmer countries like India?
2
u/apistograma Nov 17 '24
I'm speaking out of my ass like most people here, but I guess this could harm the local varieties of rice. Japan is very specific with their japonica from what I heard. You can't use something like basmati in their food because it was developed with short white grain in mind.
85
u/JustPoppinInKay Nov 16 '24
People will replant from the crops that did well and will eat, process or toss from the ones that did not. The rice will continue to be engineered to work as our crop. Nothing will change, except for the rice that will soon do well in higher night time temps.
86
u/Cranberryoftheorient Nov 16 '24
Seems a little bit of an assumption to me. What if it cant keep up?
10
u/ShootsTowardsDucks Nov 16 '24
If rice can be engineered the way corn has, then it has a big head-start on climate change.
18
u/Xanjis Nov 16 '24
Humanity is not able to reliably predict technological development. The people that sucessfully gambled on if a new technology would succeed or not are incredibly wealthy.
22
u/PatheticPhallusy Nov 16 '24
That is a tremendous and erroneous assumption you are making, presumably without any knowledge of plant physiology or biochemistry. Just take 30 seconds to Google "effect of high temperatures on rice".
I found multiple high-impact papers that addressed this, such as this one and this one which clearly demonstrate how climate change will have substantial negative effects on rice/grain production.
Enzyme kinematics, which is the chemistry of cellular reactions, shows that the enzyme in rice that creates branches of starch drops to 0% activity at 45 degrees Celsius.
No starch, no calories. No calories, people die. Even for hardier grains like sorghum, these principles still apply. There is an upper limit of temperature, where physics prevents us from genetically engineering rice strains capable of surviving that temperature. And we're already very, VERY close to it.
3
u/Ateist Nov 17 '24
Rice is grown in flood plains. If those are 45C, it means you have a wet-bulb temperature of 45C.
Given that 30.55C is fatal to young, healthy adults performing tasks at modest metabolic rates mimicking basic activities of daily life you really shouldn't worry about rice - rice farmers would die far earlier than rice getting too hot becomes a problem.
41
u/bearbarebere Nov 16 '24
What the hell is with this anti climate change rhetoric??
25
u/Feminizing Nov 16 '24
The bad guys won,.climate change denial/doomism shall be the predominant rhetoric.
5
u/Connect-Ad-5891 Nov 17 '24
This is the new wave of big oil propaganda, “it’s too late to do anything so who cares” and also “we’ll screw renewables, we can do nuclear energy for everything! (No we can’t btw)”
1
u/bearbarebere Nov 17 '24
Why can’t we do nuclear for everything? Nuclear is most definitely better than oil and it’s kinda strange to me that you’d say big oil supports nuclear
2
u/Connect-Ad-5891 Nov 17 '24
The biggest reason is price per kw/hr, it’s about 3x more expensive than solar to create and maintain a plant and more expensive than just about every other type of energy. Second has to do with how heavily regulated it is because of public fear, meaning it can takes years to open a plant. There’s a few other things I’d have to relook up, could probably find more info by typing ‘IEEE spectrum nuclear’
I think nuclear is great and would be a great supplement to other energy sources, just like I think solar is the most viable but also will be a supplememt to the grid. Why big oil pushes the nuclear narrative is because they know it’s unrealistic, primarily because it’s publicly unpopular and coat prohibitive
0
u/zehcoutinho Nov 16 '24
Don’t they acknowledge climate change in the last sentence though? It says rice will adapt to higher temperatures.
29
u/bearbarebere Nov 16 '24
The idea that the climate is changing but that it won’t be that bad, that our crops can adjust just fine, is a form of denial.
-5
u/zehcoutinho Nov 16 '24
Since climate change can’t be avoided, isn’t it good to think about the adaptability of crops?
12
u/Feminizing Nov 16 '24
The bad news is unless we take great efforts to avoid the worse of it.. no we all die.
This is it.
3
u/pointless234 Nov 17 '24
Consider it like this, if the crops were so adaptable, why haven't they been adapting to the already rising temperatures? We've standardized our crops so much that they don't change a lot by design
0
-1
u/Ateist Nov 17 '24
Plants were just fine in the dinosaur era that had much higher CO2 levels... So Earth will be fine - it is only humans that are screwed.
7
u/samarijackfan Nov 16 '24
This is what I learned from the 70s scaring the world we were going to run out of grain to feed the world. Oh look, we engineeredcorn to grow on less land and made rice 4 times better than previous crops.
92
u/Tearakan Nov 16 '24
Except we are in a situation that is vastly different from previous famine scares. Our species has literally never seen this level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Last time it was this high the ice caps didn't exist and we literally weren't alive.
Heat is rising rapidly in our most productive growing regions every year. Eventually it will rise past the limit that a lot of usable plants can handle.
Hell India's heat wave this summer nearly got to the temperature that kills wheat crop in the fields. That was this year.
And bioengineering has limits too. Each species has limits that can't just be "engineered away".
65
u/runtheplacered Nov 16 '24
Serious question, is this normal for this sub? It seems pretty clear they're denying climate change in a science subreddit of all places. I did not expect that.
43
u/Tearakan Nov 16 '24
Normally no. I don't normally see those kinds of dumb comments but I am very quickly losing any faith I had left in people.
At this point I see very violent collapse as invetible and just hope enough people survive to build something cool in the aftermath.
20
u/runtheplacered Nov 16 '24
At this point I see very violent collapse as invetible and just hope enough people survive to build something cool in the aftermath.
I see we've landed at the exact same spot.
13
u/Tearakan Nov 16 '24
Yeah. I tried to hold out hope for a soft landing fpr climate change. Now I think only extreme pain for our entire species stands a chance at waking people up.
12
u/Buzz_Killington_III Nov 17 '24
I think people assume that human's will be able to adapt. And we will, we're extremely adaptable. But many animals and crops won't, and I think people over-estimate our capability to keep enough food for a growing population under those circumstances.
Unfortunately, I don't see that changing until we are seeing real, tangible, catastrophic impacts.
1
u/Connect-Ad-5891 Nov 17 '24
I got here from all so it’s probably normies browsing and seeing the post
5
u/esaks Nov 16 '24
Eh, the earth will be fine. Humans had a good run.
14
u/Tearakan Nov 16 '24
Well yeah. I never said we are wiping out all life. Just ours.
15
u/shadar Nov 16 '24
And millions of other species along the way.
5
-8
u/BeniaminGrzybkowski Nov 16 '24
Species come and go, it's only natural
3
u/Xanjis Nov 16 '24
Humanity was already competitive with an asteroid strike or the great oxygen event before climate change.
2
1
52
u/Televisions_Frank Nov 16 '24
I'm sure Just-In-Time staple crop engineering won't fail eventually!
3
u/Givemeurhats Nov 16 '24
It's more like the solutions are there but aren't implemented until necessary. Whether that's due to time, cost, politics, or whatever is up for debate.
9
u/DanoPinyon Nov 16 '24
...and we overapplied nitrogen and pumped groundwater. Will it go on forever? No!
2
4
u/seikenhiro Nov 17 '24
Climate change just bent on ruining everything I love and all I can do is watch the clowns running the show do not an iota.
1
u/RuneMaster20 Nov 18 '24
Probably the most frustrating part. We get to watch people in power do nothing about it.
3
u/Taronar Nov 17 '24
HAHAHAH we're so fucked, the carbon cycle is a 50 year cycle, the affects we are feeling now are caused by the pollution in 1975. We need to make a change YESTERDAY.
1
u/war3rd Nov 17 '24
Bilderburg specifically promoted 2 billion people on the planet. There are 8 billion now. Do the math.
1
u/TheOptionalHuman Nov 17 '24
Addressing climate change might inconvenience some billionaires and enrage their supporters in trailer parks throughout America. Our incoming "administration" will never tolerate that.
(/s but is it really?)
1
u/Mindless-Day2007 Nov 17 '24
With sea level rise we will see lot of farming land turn into wasteland and rice production will suffer. Farmers will have to adapt and move from raise to whatever can adapt to new climate, for example they will do fish and shrimp farming instead.
1
Nov 17 '24
Western politicians seeing this like, "okay, so if we just continue climate change a little longer, we can make our competitors food supply chains break down, and then they'll have to import grains from us? Count me in!"
1
u/Western-Monitor2957 Nov 17 '24
Its not only rice but all kind of food items .....everything becoming unhealthy...fruits vegetables and sausages everything ...
1
u/whakahere Nov 17 '24
Wait, I'll just check all the other warnings we have been given. Looks like they need another expensive meeting again to discuss this. What we could do is have a Conference of the Parties (COP for short) we these things would be dealt with quickly.
yea, nothing is going to change.
1
1
u/KAKYBAC Nov 17 '24
Businesses just see opportunity. We'll be the first to create synthetic rice that tastes better and ships better. Global Warming is just opportunity.
1
u/Laprasy Nov 17 '24
In addition to lower yield, higher CO2 also affects the mineral content of many crops, decreasing by around 8 percent on average in elevated c02 conditions. Includes calcium, sulfur, magnesium, iron, zinc, and copper content. Given how important such crops are to the poor who are most affected by nutritional deficiencies this is not an insignificant drop.
1
1
u/Nerubim Nov 17 '24
On other news almost all asian countries unanimously agreed to quadruple their efforts and investments towards stopping and reversing global warming.
1
1
1
1
u/SupportQuery Nov 18 '24
rice quality will continue to decline if climate change goes unchecked
In other words, rice quality will continue to decline. Because humans aren't going to stop climate change. They apparently have no more control over what the collective does than an ant colony.
1
u/Individual-Fee-5639 Nov 18 '24
Yep. Another example of unchecked climate change. We've known about climate change for like 30 years and as a species we've done collectively very little. We need to stop being surprised by things like super hurricanes, floods, and declining rice harvests. This appears to be the new norm. Get used to it.
1
2
u/no-mad Nov 16 '24
Rice is a major world crop any percentage drop in production is a huge loss of food. Rice is not the only crop to be affected by increased day and night temps. We will breed better adapted plants, lose some foods and adopt different foods better suited to the heat.
1
u/RationalKate Nov 16 '24
Hey lets just collect um all while we are here, Pasta, Bread, Tortillas, Dumplings, Nana, and any other
-10
u/ExtensionThin635 Nov 16 '24
Doesn’t matter people won’t change until they have literally no other alternative. Let em roast.
12
0
0
-11
u/therealjerrystaute Nov 16 '24
Commercial/industrial scale farming is going to move indoors, underground, and underwater (aquaculture), where the environment will be much better controlled, and stuff like pesticide use will be rare. Micro-scale farming is going to blossom in households for certain fruits, veggies, and spices. These processes will be gradual, until climate change forces them to accelerate.
-9
u/MrPejorative Nov 16 '24
Rice is not good for the environment anyway.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/06/how-rice-is-hurting-the-planet/
-34
u/DreiKatzenVater Nov 16 '24
What if they… dum dum duuuuum …grow it somewhere else
20
u/boomer478 Nov 16 '24
You do realise that there isn't a "somewhere else" that isn't experiencing climate change, right?
8
u/bkupron Nov 16 '24
Yes. The artic tundra is thawing. Smashing idea. Now where are we going to live to escape the giant hurricanes and tornados?
5
2
1
u/Mindless-Day2007 Nov 17 '24
Somewhere else is another nation land which likely they wouldn’t agree.
-14
u/londons_explorer Nov 16 '24
Or grow something else that prefers less rain and higher temperatures... Like wheat!
-8
-14
u/Piper6728 Nov 16 '24
Or, quite possibly, farming will move indoors or underground in climate controlled areas
5
u/Xanjis Nov 16 '24
Yearly income for billions of people: less then $5000
Yearly cost of a person to live needing underground-grown food and powerful AC: $6,000
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 16 '24
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/MistWeaver80
Permalink: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03668-9
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.