Hey man, I read your posts. Until you start hitting that pathos scale off the charts, but in general, I read them.
Climate Change is not real!
- Thread starter Crni Vuk
- Start date
Of course 30% of our energy production is renewable. Everything else is being phased out by policy. Our carbon emissions are stagnating, though, and our energy prices are extremely high. Something that is not going to be better anytime soon once the last nuclear reactors are shut off. And since every kWh of renewable requires basically another kWh in either storage or on-demand power production, we'll just have to build more gas power plants (since coal is also nono) and use them in a constantly ramping mode, which is hilariously inefficient.
Also, solar power is profitable, sure. But mostly for China, because german labour and energy costs are too high to produce them here.
And yeah, guys like Quaschning might be superduper optimistic about it totally being possible, but I don't know, his study about decentralized storage for solar power looks a bit off. 20 years lifespan for batteries without any reduction in capacity? No information about other efficiency-related aspects? No wonder he finds out that it will totally work out.
If we get really good batteries and very good grid connection to Norway and its pumped-hydro storage plants, yeah, maybe. Might be a problem when there's only electric cars allowed, but I guess if we just make them so expensive that only the lucky few can afford them it's going to be fine.
Also, solar power is profitable, sure. But mostly for China, because german labour and energy costs are too high to produce them here.
And yeah, guys like Quaschning might be superduper optimistic about it totally being possible, but I don't know, his study about decentralized storage for solar power looks a bit off. 20 years lifespan for batteries without any reduction in capacity? No information about other efficiency-related aspects? No wonder he finds out that it will totally work out.
If we get really good batteries and very good grid connection to Norway and its pumped-hydro storage plants, yeah, maybe. Might be a problem when there's only electric cars allowed, but I guess if we just make them so expensive that only the lucky few can afford them it's going to be fine.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
No, you are wrong because Star Trek.
Hey guys. Why don't we totally switch over to Solar Power!? It's totally free!
To me it's like someone saying, "Why don't you girls just switch to butt fucking? You won't get pregnant."
Then her ass gets all wallered out and you have to switch to the other hole anyway.
Hey guys. Why don't we totally switch over to Solar Power!? It's totally free!
To me it's like someone saying, "Why don't you girls just switch to butt fucking? You won't get pregnant."
Then her ass gets all wallered out and you have to switch to the other hole anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not against renewables, at all. I'm against selling renewables as the only and totally obvious and totally working option, when the fabled german Energiewende does nothing but letting us fail to meet our CO2 goals.
I'm not against reducing SUVs and whatnot. I mean, I have a car, but I avoid using it. I already use public transport and my various bicycles as much as possible. I even reduce my meat consumption and go for local products as much as possible.
But here's the thing, it doesn't really do much when the state just bans all sorts of shit and makes everything more and more and more expensive and tries to control everything when the state's own retarded policies have a larger negative impact than the positive impact of all the bans. I'm against smoke and mirror garbage policies that do nothing but implement more methods of population control under the guise of climate protection.
I'm not against reducing SUVs and whatnot. I mean, I have a car, but I avoid using it. I already use public transport and my various bicycles as much as possible. I even reduce my meat consumption and go for local products as much as possible.
But here's the thing, it doesn't really do much when the state just bans all sorts of shit and makes everything more and more and more expensive and tries to control everything when the state's own retarded policies have a larger negative impact than the positive impact of all the bans. I'm against smoke and mirror garbage policies that do nothing but implement more methods of population control under the guise of climate protection.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Exactly and I am the same. Anytime you protest against total abolishment of all petroleum based products you are anti environment and that could not be further from the truth in my case. I just don't feel the need to say GO GREEN everything someone mentions climate change or deforestation.
And there are many reasons for the increase in prices which are not solely caused by renewable energies. For example industries which require a very high amount of electricity are subsidized like the chemical industry and the normal consumer is paying the price for it. This has nothing to do with renewables but the shitty lobbyism that's happening in our industries.
Besides how can it be that the so called Energiewende is responsible for the higher prices when all forms of energy, be it coal, gas or renewables are offered at the same market?
Online-Redaktion: Warum wird die EEG-Umlage im Jahr 2014 steigen?
Tobias Austrup: Aktuelle Berechnungen des Öko-Instituts im Auftrag von Greenpeace zeigen, dass die EEG-Umlage im nächsten Jahr auf etwa 6,1 Cent pro Kilowattstunde steigen wird. Aktuelle Horrormeldungen von sieben und mehr Cent sind übertrieben. Grund für die Steigerung ist aber nicht die Förderung der Erneuerbaren Energien, sondern der niedrige Börsenstrompreis sowie ausufernde Vergünstigungen für die Industrie. Ökostrom wird genau wie Kohle- und Atomstrom an der Börse verkauft. Wenn der Börsenstrompreis im Keller ist, erzielt der Ökostrom weniger Einnahmen als ursprünglich angenommen. Diese Lücke muss die EEG-Umlage schließen. Die Industrie ist zudem vielfach von der EEG-Umlage befreit, für sie muss der Privathaushalt mitbezahlen.
Tobias Austrup: Aktuelle Berechnungen des Öko-Instituts im Auftrag von Greenpeace zeigen, dass die EEG-Umlage im nächsten Jahr auf etwa 6,1 Cent pro Kilowattstunde steigen wird. Aktuelle Horrormeldungen von sieben und mehr Cent sind übertrieben. Grund für die Steigerung ist aber nicht die Förderung der Erneuerbaren Energien, sondern der niedrige Börsenstrompreis sowie ausufernde Vergünstigungen für die Industrie. Ökostrom wird genau wie Kohle- und Atomstrom an der Börse verkauft. Wenn der Börsenstrompreis im Keller ist, erzielt der Ökostrom weniger Einnahmen als ursprünglich angenommen. Diese Lücke muss die EEG-Umlage schließen. Die Industrie ist zudem vielfach von der EEG-Umlage befreit, für sie muss der Privathaushalt mitbezahlen.
If it was so damn expensive why isn't everyone else buying coal and gas instead? Besides no coal company is actually paying right now for the immense damages they cause to the environment. The so called Ewigkeitskosten. Basically the costs required for the ecological restoration of areas where coal was mined. Which are huge and will be present for several generations. Those are usually paid by the public in other words by you and me. Same as with the storage for nuclear material. Costs that go in to the billions. If those costs would have to be actually paid by the companies that cause the destruction coal and nuclear would become unprofitable. Nuclear is already not-profitable without large subsidies by the way as calculated by the DIW but strange enough I am not seeing you complaining about that:
DIW Berlin is one of the leading economic think tanks in Germany.
According to “numerous scientific studies,” none of the world’s more than 600 nuclear power stations have ever been economically viable, and the plants could only be operated for years due to government subsidies, the institute claims.
According to “numerous scientific studies,” none of the world’s more than 600 nuclear power stations have ever been economically viable, and the plants could only be operated for years due to government subsidies, the institute claims.
And I havn't even started to talk about the health related issues yet like the sharp increase in espiratory diseases and cancer near coal plants.
Washington, DC —
New analysis of data by the Environmental Protection Agency shows that those who live near coal ash dumps face elevated cancer risks. A new report, by the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice, analyzes the EPA data – buried for years by the Bush administration – finding that residents who live near coal ash waste ponds - like the one that burst in Kingston, TN in December 2008 – have as much as a 1 in 50 chance of getting cancer from drinking water contaminated by arsenic, one of the most common, and most dangerous, pollutants from coal ash.
Those are all costs which we have to pay for one way or another.
Coal is a relatively cheap source for energy solely for two reasons.
1. It is heavily subsidized and
2. Long term costs are paid by the public.
Remove that and it becomes suddenly not viable or even profitable anymore. Seriously. I consider this point as debunked right now unless you come up with some better arguments.
I am starting to repeat my self here. And it becomes tiresome and boring. Go and read/watch what Prof. Doc. Volker Quasching has to say on that subject. I wish I could say more than that, but I am not the expert. He is:
I am sure if you take your time to get trough it you can find the answers to all the questions and concerns. There are technological solutions which are already viable today.
Besides I am not saying we have to do everything trough solar energy which is not possible nor needed. There are concepts that involve also natural gas and hydrogen which can be used with already existing infrastructures. We have for example large storages for gas already in Germany.
We do not have to go 100% renewable in everything! - however even that would be technologically possible when it comes solely to our energy sector. Transportation sector is a different story and a lot more difficult to achieve.
What's your solution then?
It's always easy to criticise everything.
Which has nothing to do with renewables but the POLICIES behind it that are BLOCKING renewables as other countries are using renewables much more successfully than Germany.
And you say youre not against it but then you again and again mention how laughable "ineffcient" it is despite the fact that it is in many cases starting to become even better than coal.
Last edited:
As I said, Quaschning is extremely optimistic, overly so. Pumped hydro is great, but we don't really have the capacity for that in Germany. As for gas storage, lel. Yeah, I worked on a design for a future compressed air storage plant, it's garbage. We can do that in Germany because we have a certain type of salt cave, but this solution doesn't work for example in Austria where the rock is too porous. And, well, you need a salt cavern. Empty. We don't have that many, and the actual storage capacity is ridiculously low. Our project was about building liner-assisted cavities that could be build under cities for storage, but I don't see this happening anytime soon. After the demonstrator/testbed the AA-CAES idea will be scrapped.
Natural gas, great, the Netherlands shut down their fields so our only options are LPG from the US ferried in on ships, or pipeline from Russia.
I mentioned my solution several times. Heavy investment in Gen IV nuclear reactors, especially the types that can burn nuclear waste. Preferably smaller types with lower nuclear inventory for decentralization. Use of fission power for base power production until fusion is available, and continued to reduce existing nuclear waste.
Use of existing renewable power capacities to produce hydrogen whenever possible. Use hydrogen for conversion of gas-powered transportation fleet to hydrogen power.
Sadly, Germany in particular is too far gone to actually do this.
The british company Moltex has a particularly interesting reactor design that they will implement in Canada soon, the Stable Salt Reactor. It'd be perfect, but well, we're too green to actually do anything against carbon emissions.
Natural gas, great, the Netherlands shut down their fields so our only options are LPG from the US ferried in on ships, or pipeline from Russia.
I mentioned my solution several times. Heavy investment in Gen IV nuclear reactors, especially the types that can burn nuclear waste. Preferably smaller types with lower nuclear inventory for decentralization. Use of fission power for base power production until fusion is available, and continued to reduce existing nuclear waste.
Use of existing renewable power capacities to produce hydrogen whenever possible. Use hydrogen for conversion of gas-powered transportation fleet to hydrogen power.
Sadly, Germany in particular is too far gone to actually do this.
The british company Moltex has a particularly interesting reactor design that they will implement in Canada soon, the Stable Salt Reactor. It'd be perfect, but well, we're too green to actually do anything against carbon emissions.
I told you in the past that I see new nuclear technologies as a viable option as well.
But I was also talking about "But here's the thing, it doesn't really do much when the state just bans all sorts of shit and makes everything more and more and more expensive and tries to control everything when the state's own retarded policies have a larger negative impact than the positive impact of all the bans."
Because if we do not outright bann technologies and habits which create those issues in the first place then it doesn't matter if we plaster the world full with nuclear reactors or renewable technologies. Hence my question, what is your solution to that if the state is so bad in doing it? As apparently neither the industry nor the individual is capable of doing it either as we can see right now. - As I said in the beginning, we are fucked.
?
But I was also talking about "But here's the thing, it doesn't really do much when the state just bans all sorts of shit and makes everything more and more and more expensive and tries to control everything when the state's own retarded policies have a larger negative impact than the positive impact of all the bans."
Because if we do not outright bann technologies and habits which create those issues in the first place then it doesn't matter if we plaster the world full with nuclear reactors or renewable technologies. Hence my question, what is your solution to that if the state is so bad in doing it? As apparently neither the industry nor the individual is capable of doing it either as we can see right now. - As I said in the beginning, we are fucked.
Maybe the same way you are about nuclear reactors
?
TheGM
The voice of reason
The biggest thing hampering people taking action on Climate Change is the fact that most environmental advocates are some the of most insufferable cunts in existence, whose windbaggery and self assured smugness is only comparable to Atheists and Vegans. God Help you if you run across one that check marks off as all three. The grating personality of these people have the effect of making others who cross their path into Anti-Environmentalists who burn wood and coal out spite. Hell their attempt at banning SUVs and Trucks was countered with one of the most environmentally unfriendly things ever. . .
Trucks that fart coal.
Trucks that fart coal.
D
Deleted member 53669
Guest
Anyone who attempts to do so should qualify for a massive tax deduction I'd think.
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
The biggest thing hampering people taking action on Climate Change is the fact that most environmental advocates are some the of most insufferable cunts in existence, whose windbaggery and self assured smugness is only comparable to Atheists and Vegans. God Help you if you run across one that check marks off as all three. The grating personality of these people have the effect of making others who cross their path into Anti-Environmentalists who burn wood and coal out spite. Hell their attempt at banning SUVs and Trucks was countered with one of the most environmentally unfriendly things ever. . .
Trucks that fart coal.
Jesus man its called "rolling coal" in those might rig rockets there. Got to burn that ultra low-sulpher diesel in the least efficient way possible. Also banning SUV's and trucks sounds good, when you don't live in a vast open country where it fucking snows for 6-8 months every fucking year. Driving a car is useless about 10% of the time if you need to leave any major city. They just don't have the ground clearance. Also most people that talk about banning trucks or SUV's have obviously not worked in industries where these are not only encouraged to own, but it is essentially a requirement. I worked as an oil-field surveyor in Northern Alberta for awhile. God luck doing that job with anything less than a 1-ton 4x4 quad cab. Just the amount of gear to carry around plus 2 ATV's/snowmobiles. Yes ban trucks and SUV's.
I hope you realize that we're talking about a much much broader problem here than Just SUVs driving needlessly around in cities ...
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
Not here in Germany.
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
Uuuggghh, sure what about for the following jobs/careers/industries?
Agriculture, mining, forestry, construction, etc? Would it not be better to suggest that a conversion to electric vehicles is better for these. They are working on it for transport trucks already but there are still reasons beyond "but my truck".
Its a short sighted policy brought forth from those in a closed mindset that the only things that will work are what they say will, Germans should be really familiar with policies like that.
Yeah I constantly ask my self how people managed to survive without their precious SUVs inside the cities driving their children right in front of the school.
Earth Overshoot Day (EOD), previously known as Ecological Debt Day (EDD), is the calculated illustrative calendar date on which humanity's resource consumption for the year exceeds Earth’s capacity to regenerate those resources that year. Earth Overshoot Day is calculated by dividing the world biocapacity (the amount of natural resources generated by Earth that year), by the world ecological footprint (humanity's consumption of Earth's natural resources for that year), and multiplying by 365, the number of days in one Gregorian common calendar year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day
But you know what Gonzo. I am to tired of this whole shit at this point. Let us burn coal, oil, gas, flying around and throwing more garbage in our oceans and rivers without any limits. Who gives a fuck? Let us do it till there is nothing salvageable anymore. But I hope that you will print out what you just said and hang it on your wall so when someone comes to you and asks "Why has your generation not done more 40 years ago?" then you simply point to that quote.
We can not hope to find a replacement for everything. That is the main issue here. We are already past that point and it does not address the underlying issue. That we're wasting to much energy and resources.
Earth Overshoot Day (EOD), previously known as Ecological Debt Day (EDD), is the calculated illustrative calendar date on which humanity's resource consumption for the year exceeds Earth’s capacity to regenerate those resources that year. Earth Overshoot Day is calculated by dividing the world biocapacity (the amount of natural resources generated by Earth that year), by the world ecological footprint (humanity's consumption of Earth's natural resources for that year), and multiplying by 365, the number of days in one Gregorian common calendar year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day
But you know what Gonzo. I am to tired of this whole shit at this point. Let us burn coal, oil, gas, flying around and throwing more garbage in our oceans and rivers without any limits. Who gives a fuck? Let us do it till there is nothing salvageable anymore. But I hope that you will print out what you just said and hang it on your wall so when someone comes to you and asks "Why has your generation not done more 40 years ago?" then you simply point to that quote.
GonZo_626
Well Shit!
Jesus man, all I was saying is that blanket bans don't work. Many people rely on trucks/suvs as part of there job, hell I even offered alternatives involving electric trucks/suvs? This is the whole problem with climate change, and yes you appear to be part of the fucking problem on why we cant get this figured out. I offer alternatives that would effectively offer the same exact solution without hobbeling everybody with your idea that would never fucking work and you go off about essentially calling me a denier. People can disagree on how to get to the exact same spot. Maybe put some fucking thought into your ideas. I have of my own accord my entire adult life have paid extra fees for more environmentally friendly shit, I have participated in every idea I see actually fucking having a hope of a chance. But the environmentalist side has moved so fucking far they have left any sort of fucking realism behind.
This shit has become the same as the fucking doomsday clock (yeah this thing actually exists), which they keep trying to move closer to midnight, but when you have been telling people for 50 years that the sky is falling nobody believes you anymore chicken little.
So instead of just poo-pooing an idea please tell me how a farmer is gonna haul feed to his cattle using his fucking Prius? Oh wait I already supplied you with your closed mind the answer, an electric truck...., how are those logging guys gonna make it down the 4x4 trail to get to the trees to build your house, oh wait a 4x4 electric SUV. Please tell me with your proposed truck/suv ban how to overcome those better than I just did?
D
Deleted member 53669
Guest
The real conspiracy is that all of the technologies that fix these problems have already been invented and are working. However almost all of them are now owned and managed by the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries.
https://newatlas.com/breakthrough-p...etic-gasoline-with-no-carbon-emissions/17687/
https://newatlas.com/breakthrough-p...etic-gasoline-with-no-carbon-emissions/17687/
BigGuyCIA
Yer fond of me Lobster!
Look and I am telling you in the future this will not be a question anymore. We do not have to ban anything here. Neither SUVs nor trucks or coal or what ever. There will come a point where we will simply stop using it all together because the environment will be so damaged that we won't have a need for it anymore we will live in a world that will be very different from what we have now. Those trucks and SUVs will not be a part of any jobs anymore in an environment where people can not even live decently due to droughts, floods and pollution. How many farmers have SUVs in areas that are constantly hit by such extreme weather patterns where people are experiencing famines on a regular basis? That's the future we're looking at here for like the majority of the human population here including western Europe and the United States.
- Higher CO2 levels can affect crop yields. Some laboratory experiments suggest that elevated CO2 levels can increase plant growth. However, other factors, such as changing temperatures, ozone, and water and nutrient constraints, may counteract these potential increases in yield. For example, if temperature exceeds a crop's optimal level, if sufficient water and nutrients are not available, yield increases may be reduced or reversed. Elevated CO2 has been associated with reduced protein and nitrogen content in alfalfa and soybean plants, resulting in a loss of quality. Reduced grain and forage quality can reduce the ability of pasture and rangeland to support grazing livestock.[1]
- More extreme temperature and precipitation can prevent crops from growing. Extreme events, especially floods and droughts, can harm crops and reduce yields. For example, in 2010 and 2012, high nighttime temperatures affected corn yields across the U.S. Corn Belt, and premature budding due to a warm winter caused $220 million in losses of Michigan cherries in 2012.[1]
- Dealing with drought could become a challenge in areas where rising summer temperatures cause soils to become drier. Although increased irrigation might be possible in some places, in other places water supplies may also be reduced, leaving less water available for irrigation when more is needed.
- Many weeds, pests, and fungi thrive under warmer temperatures, wetter climates, and increased CO2 levels. Currently, U.S. farmers spend more than $11 billion per year to fight weeds, which compete with crops for light, water, and nutrients.[1] The ranges and distribution of weeds and pests are likely to increase with climate change. This could cause new problems for farmers' crops previously unexposed to these species.
- Though rising CO2 can stimulate plant growth, it also reduces the nutritional value of most food crops. Rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide reduce the concentrations of protein and essential minerals in most plant species, including wheat, soybeans, and rice. This direct effect of rising CO2 on the nutritional value of crops represents a potential threat to human health. Human health is also threatened by increased pesticide use due to increased pest pressures and reductions in the efficacy of pesticides.[3]
What a very fun future it will be!
This is not merely about replacing diesel engines with electrical cars and making everything more efficient because they still require energy as well particularly during their production. We always have this discussion about energy efficiency in the public but almost never about energy sufficiency and what it actually means. Let us say we cut pollution with cars by 50%, which would sound good and be very efficient. But if the number of cars is now tripled we actually see an increase in emissions and pollutions in other words it's not sufficient. And this is the main issue here. It's like having a limited budged to work with and it doesn't matter how efficient you use the money if you constantly make depts here as you spend more money than you actually have and your goal is a balanced budged. The underlying issue here is not if we burn coal, oil or use now renewable energies but how much of it is used in the process how much energy is spend and this is a general question which depends on our lifestyle and economy as a whole not just the individual. We have a global budged when it comes to everything be it green house gases or the mining of resources and we have to find ways to separate economic growth/wealth from our energy consumption. This is the real underlying issue here. And it also explains why it is a lot more difficult to solve the issue compared to solving the so called hole in the ozon layer which was merely about replacing chlorofluorocarbon. But now we have to think about systemic changes - besides outright banns can actually work in some cases as we've seen with Asbestos, DDT or chlorofluorocarbon and many other instances which had to do with public health. But I do agree with you just outright banning something will not be sole solution here. But in some cases we might have to do it at some point. Like here in Munich for example. No one will loose his existence if SUVs are banned inside the city. We should already do this for the fact alone that deadly car accidents due to SUVs has increased and we are not talking about people here which bought SUVs because they actually need them. There are people which drive tanks because they need it for their jobs - tank crews on a military base for example - however that doesn't mean your ordinary city dweller suddenly needs a 70 ton Abrams to drive his kid to school now does it?
I am not sure how to explain this or making it more clear. What does it mean when scientist say we reach the point of no return? The atmospheric concentration of green house gases and that we have a clear limit here. Leading scientists say if we push over this limit we will not be capable of preventing an ecological collapse. It is really that simple at this point:
International Impacts
Climate change is very likely to affect food security at the global, regional, and local level. Climate change can disrupt food availability, reduce access to food, and affect food quality.[14] For example, projected increases in temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, changes in extreme weather events, and reductions in water availability may all result in reduced agricultural productivity. Increases in the frequency and severity extreme weather events can also interrupt food delivery, and resulting spikes in food prices after extreme events are expected to be more frequent in the future. Increasing temperatures can contribute to spoilage and contamination.
Internationally, these effects of climate change on agriculture and food supply are likely to be similar to those seen in the United States. However, other stressors such as population growth may magnify the effects of climate change on food security. In developing countries, adaptation options like changes in crop-management or ranching practices, or improvements to irrigation are more limited than in the United States and other industrialized nations.
Any climate-related disturbance to food distribution and transport, internationally or domestically, may have significant impacts not only on safety and quality but also on food access. For example, the food transportation system in the United States frequently moves large volumes of grain by water. In the case of an extreme weather event affecting a waterway, there are few, if any, alternate pathways for transport. High temperatures and a shortage of rain in the summer of 2012 led to one of the most severe summer droughts the nation has seen and posed serious impacts to the Mississippi River watershed, a major transcontinental shipping route for Midwestern agriculture. This drought resulted in significant food and economic losses due to reductions in barge traffic, the volume of goods carried, and the number of Americans employed by the tugboat industry. The 2012 drought was immediately followed by flooding throughout the Mississippi in the spring of 2013, which also resulted in disruptions of barge traffic and food transport.[3] Transportation changes such as these reduce the ability of farmers to export their grains to international markets, and can affect global food prices.
Impacts to the global food supply concern the United States because food shortages can cause humanitarian crises and national security concerns. They also can increase domestic food prices.
Climate change is very likely to affect food security at the global, regional, and local level. Climate change can disrupt food availability, reduce access to food, and affect food quality.[14] For example, projected increases in temperatures, changes in precipitation patterns, changes in extreme weather events, and reductions in water availability may all result in reduced agricultural productivity. Increases in the frequency and severity extreme weather events can also interrupt food delivery, and resulting spikes in food prices after extreme events are expected to be more frequent in the future. Increasing temperatures can contribute to spoilage and contamination.
Internationally, these effects of climate change on agriculture and food supply are likely to be similar to those seen in the United States. However, other stressors such as population growth may magnify the effects of climate change on food security. In developing countries, adaptation options like changes in crop-management or ranching practices, or improvements to irrigation are more limited than in the United States and other industrialized nations.
Any climate-related disturbance to food distribution and transport, internationally or domestically, may have significant impacts not only on safety and quality but also on food access. For example, the food transportation system in the United States frequently moves large volumes of grain by water. In the case of an extreme weather event affecting a waterway, there are few, if any, alternate pathways for transport. High temperatures and a shortage of rain in the summer of 2012 led to one of the most severe summer droughts the nation has seen and posed serious impacts to the Mississippi River watershed, a major transcontinental shipping route for Midwestern agriculture. This drought resulted in significant food and economic losses due to reductions in barge traffic, the volume of goods carried, and the number of Americans employed by the tugboat industry. The 2012 drought was immediately followed by flooding throughout the Mississippi in the spring of 2013, which also resulted in disruptions of barge traffic and food transport.[3] Transportation changes such as these reduce the ability of farmers to export their grains to international markets, and can affect global food prices.
Impacts to the global food supply concern the United States because food shortages can cause humanitarian crises and national security concerns. They also can increase domestic food prices.
Last edited: