Climate crisis could wipe out half of U.S. crops by 2100, scientists warn
A major new study published in Nature examines how rising temperatures will impact global food systems, and the results offer a dire warning for wealthy countries.
As the planet warms, the environments that grow the most-consumed crops around the globe are changing, but there's been a lot of disagreement about what those changes will look like. Counter to some more optimistic previous findings, the new study finds that every degree Celsius that the planet warms could result in 120 calories worth of food production lost per person, per day.
The new analysis is the result of almost a decade of work by the Climate Impact Lab, a consortium of climate, agriculture and policy experts. The research brings together data from more than 12,000 regions in 55 countries, with a focus on wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, barley and cassava – the core crops that account for two-thirds of calories consumed globally.
'When global production falls, consumers are hurt because prices go up and it gets harder to access food and feed our families,' Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability Professor Solomon Hsiang, a senior author on the study, said in an announcement paired with the new paper. 'If the climate warms by 3 degrees, that's basically like everyone on the planet giving up breakfast.'
Adaptation won't offset farming losses
Some previous research has hinted that global food production could actually go up in a warming planet by lengthening growing seasons and widening the viable regions where some crops can grow. In Western American states like Washington and California, growing seasons are already substantially longer than they once were, adding an average of 2.2 days per decade since 1895.
The new study criticizes previous research for failing to realistically estimate how farmers will adapt to a changing climate. While prior studies rely on an all-or-nothing model for agricultural climate adaptation where farmers either adapted flawlessly or didn't adapt at all, the new paper in Nature 'systematically measure[s] how much farmers adjust to changing conditions,' a first according to the research group.
That analysis found that farmers who do adapt by switching to new crops or changing long-standing planting and harvesting practices could lessen a third of climate-caused losses in crop yields by 2100. But even in a best-case scenario of climate adaptation, food production is on track to take a major hit.
'Any level of warming, even when accounting for adaptation, results in global output losses from agriculture,' lead author and University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Assistant Professor of agricultural and consumer economics Andrew Hultgren said.
While wealthy countries are insulated from some of the deadliest ravages of the climate crisis, the new analysis reveals a U.S. food supply that is particularly vulnerable. Researchers found that the 'modern breadbaskets' that haven't yet explored climate adaptations will fare worse than parts of the world where extreme heat and changing weather has already forced farmers to adapt.
'Places in the Midwest that are really well suited for present day corn and soybean production just get hammered under a high warming future,' Hultgren said. 'You do start to wonder if the Corn Belt is going to be the Corn Belt in the future.'
In a high-emissions model of the future where humans fail to meaningfully slow the march of global warming, corn production would dive by 40% in the U.S. grain belt, with soybeans suffering an even worse 50% decline. Wheat production would decline 30 to 40% in the same scenario.
'Because such a large fraction of agricultural production is concentrated in these wealthy-but-low-adaption regions, they dominate projections of global calorie production, generating much of the global food security risk we document,' the authors wrote, adding that farming in the U.S. is 'optimized for high average yields' in current climate conditions but is not robust enough to withstand a changing climate.
'This is basically like sending our agricultural profits overseas. We will be sending benefits to producers in Canada, Russia, China. Those are the winners, and we in the U.S. are the losers,' Hsiang said. 'The longer we wait to reduce emissions, the more money we lose.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
5 hours ago
- USA Today
Climate change threatens world food supply. How bad could it be in the U.S.?
It's especially worrisome in the United States, where top crop production could drop by as much as 50% by 2100. The planet's food system faces growing risks from climate change, a new study says. It's especially worrisome in the United States, where top crop production could drop by as much as 50% by 2100. The study, published June 18, assessed six staple crops – maize (corn), soybeans, rice, wheat, cassava and sorghum – and found that only rice might avoid substantial losses from rising temperatures. 'If the climate warms by 3 degrees, that's basically like everyone on the planet giving up breakfast," study co-author Solomon Hsiang of Stanford University said in a statement. Will there still be a Corn Belt? The projected losses for U.S. agriculture are especially steep, according to the study. 'Places in the Midwest that are really well suited for present-day corn and soybean production just get hammered under a high warming future,' said lead study author Andrew Hultgren of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. 'You do start to wonder if the Corn Belt is going to be the Corn Belt in the future.' Scientists estimated that for every 1.8-degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature above pre-industrial levels, production will decline by 120 calories per person per day, the equivalent of 4.4% of today's daily consumption. That will push up prices and make it harder for people to access food, Hsiang told CNN. Wheat, soy and corn most affected Wheat and corn will be among the crops most at risk, the study found. The study suggested that under a high-emissions scenario, by the end of the century, maize production could decline by up to 40% in the United States, Eastern China, Central Asia, Southern Africa and the Middle East. Wheat loses could range from 15% to 25% in Europe, Africa and South America and 30% to 40% in China, Russia, the United States and Canada. 'This is basically like sending our agricultural profits overseas," Hsiang said in a statement from Stanford. "We will be sending benefits to producers in Canada, Russia, China. Those are the winners, and we in the U.S. are the losers. The longer we wait to reduce emissions, the more money we lose.' Data center: Hot, hotter, hottest: How much will climate change warm your county? Steepest losses at the extremes The steepest losses occur at the extremes of the agricultural economy, according to a statement from Stanford University. That includes modern breadbaskets that now enjoy some of the world's best growing conditions, such as the United States, and subsistence farming communities that rely on small harvests of cassava. In terms of food production capacity from staple crops, the analysis found yield losses may average 41% in the wealthiest regions and 28% in the lowest-income regions by 2100. In the study, scientists concluded further adaptation and the expansion of cropland may be needed to ensure food security and limit the effects of climate change. A favorable climate, Hsiang said, is a big part of what keeps farmland productive across generations. 'Farmers know how to maintain the soil, invest in infrastructure, repair the barn,' Hsiang said. 'But if you're letting the climate depreciate, the rest of it is a waste. The land you leave to your kids will be good for something, but not for farming.' The study was published in the peer-reviewed British journal Nature.
Boston Globe
7 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Harvard has collected 3 million biological samples over decades. Now researchers may not have the money to preserve them.
The samples are kept at temperatures as low as minus-170 degrees Celsius (or minus-274 degrees Fahrenheit), in a network of liquid nitrogen freezers at the Chan School as well as at Brigham and Women's Hospital, according to 'If we really don't have any funding, we would lose the samples,' said Dr. Walter Willett, a Harvard professor and a principal investigator for the studies, in an interview. 'We're doing everything possible to not let that happen.' Advertisement The two programs affected are among the most comprehensive and long-running public health studies in the country. The Nurses' Health Study is A similar project, the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, tracks lifestyle and nutrition factors for men. Advertisement The two projects have yielded a number of landmark findings, including the link between alcohol consumption and breast cancer and the effects of trans fats on heart disease. The dataset generated from the massive project has informed countless additional studies by other researchers. Related : As part of the projects, researchers collected biological samples from roughly 350,000 individuals, monitoring various components, including nutrients, contaminants, and hormone levels. That research has been crucial to the growing understanding of factors that contribute to breast cancer, heart disease, and dementia, Willett said. 'Looking at what's going on inside the body a few decades before the disease occurs, that's what we can do [with the samples],' he said. 'That's really critical, because we know for many cancers, it's not what's in the blood or in the urine at the time of diagnosis, it's what was going on decades before that's probably most important. And we can go back to the samples and look at that today.' The collection of samples is among the most comprehensive in the world, Willett said. Its scientific potential — which will only increase as new research technologies are developed — is something that 'no amount of money can buy,' he added. Related : Both projects were funded in large part by two grants issued by the National Institute of Health's National Cancer Institute. Those grants were terminated on May 6, according to an affidavit filed by Willett June 2. Now, researchers are scrambling to keep the freezers running. Advertisement 'We have probably a couple of months worth of resources for paying our nitrogen bills,' Willett said. 'But the nitrogen company is very efficient in cutting off supply if we don't pay.' Though it's not clear exactly when the funding will run out, Willett said the research team may soon have to decide which samples are kept and which will be allowed to spoil. But because the sweeping nature of the study relies on having multiple samples from hundreds of thousands of people over a multi-year period, it's difficult to say which will be more useful for research purposes. 'We don't yet know who's going to get breast cancer,' Willett said. 'Which makes it impossible to predict exactly which samples will be the most valuable.' Nicole Romero examines samples on the campus of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health on June 11, 2025. Kent Dayton/Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Camilo Fonseca can be reached at
Axios
8 hours ago
- Axios
Climate poses big threat to crop production, new study says
Adaptation can't outrun climate change, and rich farming nations — including the U.S. — face jeopardy despite their resources, according to a major new paper on global warming and crop production. Why it matters: It's the first look at climate effects on staple crops to weigh farmers' "real-world adaptation measures" and fold them into projections of future damage, a summary states. The Nature paper projects losses for all staples analyzed except rice, though there's lots of regional variation. The big picture: The paper estimates that for every 1°C of temperature rise, global food production capacity falls by 120 calories per day per person. "If the climate warms by 3 degrees, that's basically like everyone on the planet giving up breakfast," said co-author Solomon Hsiang, a Stanford environmental policy professor, in a statement. Hot and relatively low-income regions are showing more adaptation to date than wealthier breadbaskets in more moderate climates. That's one reason future risks are so high. State of play: The authors analyze over 12,600 regions in 54 countries, looking at six staple crops — corn, soybeans, rice, wheat, cassava and sorghum. It's "one of the most comprehensive samples of subnational crop yields ever assembled," the study states. It sees future gains in some areas, but declines on a global basis for most crops. Threat level: One reason for the conclusions? Realism. A clear-eyed look at how farming evolves is needed, the paper states, comparing its work to prior models that assume optimal responses. In reality, financial constraints, market failures, human error and more influence farming. What they found: Under a moderate emissions growth case, central estimates in 2100 — with adaptation and income growth — are -12% for corn, -13.5% for wheat, and -22.4% for soybeans, to name three. But the uncertainty bands are quite big because they're looking well into the future. What's next: Adaptation and higher wealth alleviate 6% of global losses in 2050 and 12% in 2100 in that moderate emissions scenario. That's RCP 4.5 for you wonks out there, which still sees enough emissions to warm the world beyond Paris Agreement targets. The paper also explores a runaway emissions case (RCP 8.5), though many scientists no longer consider this CO2 growth likely. Zoom in: Check out the country-level projections for various crops. The paper estimates that even with adaptation, parts of the U.S. could see corn and wheat declines in the 25% range in the moderate emissions case. Here's the same map under runaway emissions. summary notes.
