Far more countries face critical food insecurity if world heats up by 2C, analysis shows. Exclusive: Food systems of low-income nations projected to deteriorate seven times as fast as those of wealthy ones

 

The IIED analysis shows the climate crisis will disproportionately affect food systems in poorer countries such as Afghanistan. Photograph: Samiullah Popal/EPA

by  Carmen Aguilar García

 

The number of countries falling into critical food insecurity could almost triple to 24 if global temperatures increase by 2C, research has shown.

Analysis by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) shows the climate crisis will disproportionately affect food systems in poorer nations, widening the gap between the most and least vulnerable countries.

Although global heating will increase the risk of food insecurity worldwide, food systems in low-income countries are projected to deteriorate seven times as fast as those in wealthy nations.

Ritu Bharadwaj, a researcher for the IIED and author of the study, said: “Countries already facing poverty, fragility and limited safety nets are projected to see the fastest deterioration in food systems, despite having contributed the least to global emissions.

 

“Today, nearly 59% of the world’s population already lives in countries with below average food security, and our projections show that climate change is likely to widen this gap.”

This can be prevented, Bharadwaj said, by “strengthening social protection systems that can respond quickly to climate shocks, investing in climate resilient agriculture and improving water and soil management”.

She added: “Food systems today are deeply interconnected. Climate shocks in one major producing region can ripple through global supply chains and trigger price volatility elsewhere. Even if high-income countries remain relatively food secure, they will not be insulated from the impacts of climate instability on global food markets.”

The IIED developed a Food Security Index for 162 countries. It measures the systematic vulnerability of a country’s entire food system and estimates how climate breakdown could affect it under three scenarios: if global temperatures increase by 1.5C, 2C and 4C above preindustrial levels.

The index also assesses the impact of climate crisis on four “pillars” of food systems – availability, accessibility, utilisation and sustainability – and shows the risk is not evenly distributed across the four.

Sustainability and utilisation are the most climate-sensitive pillars, which means early signs of climate damage will appear first in water, sanitation and health systems, making people malnourished even if food is physically present. An increase in climate risk will be also associated with a reduction in access to food, with prices rising and market disruption.

Residents wading through floodwater to cross a road near Maputo, Mozambique, in January. Photograph: Emidio Jozine/AFP/Getty Images

Among the worst-affected countries are countries such as Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan, Haiti and Mozambique. Under a 2C heating scenario, the analysis projects that food insecurity will increase by more than 30% in these countries, leading to acute crises and famine, while in high-income countries it would increase by 3% on average.

Across low-income countries, food insecurity is projected to increase by 22% on average, under the 2C scenario. Low-income countries are responsible for 1% of global emissions while high- and upper-middle-income nations contribute to more than 80%.

“High-income countries will experience massive agricultural shocks, but they have the wealth to buy their way out of a domestic crop failure on the global market,” Bharadwaj said.

She also referenced a report by British intelligence chiefs about threats to the country’s national security from the climate crisis, saying: “If fragile and conflict-affected states face a systemic collapse, the result is massive global instability, state collapse, and forced migration. That is the national security threat the defence chiefs have warned about.”

 

 

EUA e Japão anunciam projeto de energia nuclear de US$ 40 bilhões

Usina nuclear na Pensilvânia, nos EUA              

 

Washington | AFP

Os Estados Unidos e o Japão anunciaram nesta quinta-feira (19) um projeto de US$ 40 bilhões (R$ 210 bilhões) para construir reatores nucleares nos estados de Tennessee e Alabama, após uma reunião dos líderes dos dois países na Casa Branca.

Os diálogos entre o presidente americano, Donald Trump, e a primeira-ministra japonesa, Sanae Takaichi, ocorrem depois que Tóquio aceitou, no ano passado, investir US$ 550 bilhões como parte de um novo acordo comercial com Washington.

Na declaração conjunta desta quinta-feira (19) sobre os chamados pequenos reatores modulares (SMR, sigla em inglês) também foi anunciado um investimento de US$ 33 bilhões (R$ 173,5 bilhões) em instalações de geração de energia e gás natural na Pensilvânia e no Texas.

Em fevereiro, os dois países anunciaram a primeira parte de projetos por conta do novo fundo de investimentos, com compromissos de US$ 36 bilhões em três projetos de infraestrutura.

A declaração desta quinta-feira assinala que os projetos garantiriam a segurança, ao "acelerarem o crescimento econômico de ambos os países, abrindo, assim, caminho para uma Nova Idade do Ouro da sempre crescente Aliança Japão-Estados Unidos". Os SMR serão construídos pela empresa nipo-americana GE Vernova Hitachi.

 Estados Unidos e Japão também divulgaram hoje um plano de ação sobre o desenvolvimento de cadeias de suprimento de minerais críticos, em meio à preocupação com o papel dominante da China nesse setor.

Também foi revelado investimento de US$ 33 bilhões em geração de energia e gás natural nos EUA

Em 2025, o país asiático se comprometeu a investir US$ 550 bilhões nos Estados Unidos em acordo comercial

UK must stockpile food in readiness for climate shocks or war, expert warns. Prof Tim Lang says country produces far less food than it needs to feed population and is particularly vulnerable

 

The UK is one of the least food self-sufficient countries in Europe. Photograph: Major Gilbert/Alamy

by  Helena Horton Environment reporter

 

The British government should be stockpiling food, according to a leading expert on food policy, as it is not prepared for climate shocks or wars that could cause the population to starve.

Prof Tim Lang of City St George’s, University of London said the UK produced far less food than it needed to feed itself, and as a small island that relied on a few large companies to feed its giant population, it was particularly vulnerable to shocks.

The first UK Food Security Report in December 2021 found the country was 54% food self-sufficient. Other rich countries such as the US, France and Australia are all food self-sufficient, meaning they grow enough food to feed their populations without imports if required.

The UK is one of the least food self-sufficient countries in Europe. The Netherlands, for example, which is densely populated, is at 80%, and Spain is at 75%.

“We’re not thinking about this adequately. We’re ducking it,” Lang said, speaking at the National Farmers’ Union conference in Birmingham.

“The default position that others can feed us is hardwired into the British state system, and indeed into the nature of how agrifood capitalism works in Britain. Others are wiser. Other countries are stockpiling,” he said. “Other countries have much more flexibility in their systems than we do. What we glorify as efficiency is now vulnerability.”

Other countries have emergency stockpiles in case of war, food contamination or climate shocks. Switzerland still has a stockpile sufficient to feed its entire population for three months and is increasing it to a year. The UK government’s advice to households is to have three days’ worth of food in their cupboards.

The government has no plans to improve the UK’s self-sufficiency, and will not set a target for food production. The environment secretary, Emma Reynolds, said: “I am not going to come up with a percentage. I would like us to boost food production at home, particularly in horticulture and in poultry where I think that there are real growth opportunities. But I’m not going to give you a figure.”

Self-sufficiency is likely to be falling; production of wheat, beef, poultry meat and vegetables are all down in the past year.

A small gap in food supplies could have drastic consequences. Experts recently warned that one shock could spark social unrest and even food riots in the UK, because chronic issues had left the food system a “tinderbox”.

Lang’s report for the National Preparedness Commission, published last year, found that the UK’s food system is extremely vulnerable to attack due to its concentration with a few large companies.

It found that the 12,284 supermarkets around the UK are “fed” by just 131 distribution centres.

These were a “sitting duck” for drone or cyber-attacks by malign states, he said: “The nine big retailers account for 94.5% of all retail food. That’s nine companies, using just 131 distribution centres. In drone war, that’s a sitting duck.”

According to his report, Tesco, which provides nearly a third of UK retail food, operates via only 20 distribution centres. He said: “When four of the 10 big retailers account for three-quarters of retail food, if one or two of these megafirms was hit in some way, or their tight system of distribution centres was disrupted, the impact on the public would be considerable.”

Lang’s report also said UK civil defence, which involves the preparedness of the population for shocks caused by war, received in 2021-22 the equivalent of 0.0026% of total defence expenditure. He added: “The reality is that there are no binding UK laws specifying duties on either central or local government to ensure people are fed.”

Brexit has also made the UK more vulnerable to shocks, by reducing the subsidies farmers receive to produce food and making it more difficult to import food from our largest trading partner.

 

In the three years from January 2021, agrifood imports from the EU fell by a three-year average of 8.71% a year, compared with the previous three-year pre-Brexit period, according to a University of Sussex analysis.

As climate breakdown makes it harder to grow fruit and vegetables in southern Europe and north Africa, due to extreme weather, countries such as the UK which rely heavily on imports for fresh produce will suffer.

According to the UK Health Security Agency, if the UK continues on current land use, climate and agrifood trends, “by 2050, 52% of legumes and 47% of fruit would be imported from climate-vulnerable countries and supply of vegetables, fruit and legumes is projected to fall short of what would be needed to meet UK dietary recommendations”.

This was already experienced in 2023 when bad weather in Spain and north Africa caused a salad and fresh vegetable shortage across the UK. More than 80% of the UK’s fruit and more than half of its vegetables are imported.

Lang said: “Climate change, the floods and droughts, these are part of vulnerabilities to the just-in-time logistics system of the food system. The key finding of my report was that we created a food system in the name of efficiency, which is now inappropriate for where we are, a concentration of big companies dominating, being the choke points. This creates vulnerability. Drone warfare and software dependence make it doubly vulnerable.”

The professor has called for legislation from the government to ensure the food system is made more secure and able to withstand shocks.

“I’d like it to be a food security and resilience act, something that’s clear about the fundamental purpose of food systems,” he said. The food system needed flexibility rather than being a lean, just-in-time system focused on profits alone, he added. “The purpose of food systems is to feed people. How, what, in what circumstances, if you’re a big commodity producer, is it really feeding people? Is it going to survive when there are shocks?”

Lang also said the UK needed to boost food security and produce more food at home. “We’ve got to build up more production here, not out of petty nationalism, but out of we’ve got good land, good people, good resources, good infrastructure. It’s a crazy misuse of land not to do that. We’re not getting the leadership we need from central government,” he said.

Global sea levels have been underestimated due to poor modelling, research suggests. Analysis shows average levels are 30cm higher than thought, and up to 150cm in south-east Asia and Indo-Pacific

 

The island of Toruar in eastern Papua New Guinea is threatened by rising sea levels. Photograph: Kalolaine Fainu/The Guardian

by  Tara Russell

Sea levels around the world have been underestimated due to inaccurate modelling, with research suggesting ocean levels are far higher than previously understood.

The finding could significantly affect assessments of the future impacts of global heating and the effects on coastal settlements.

Globally, the research found ocean levels are an average of 30cm higher than previously believed, but in some areas of the global south, including south-east Asia and the Indo-Pacific, they may be 100-150cm higher than previously thought.

Rising sea levels are a major threat to coastal communities across the world, and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that by 2100 levels may rise by 28-100cm.

 The latest research, published in Nature, combined the analysis of 385 pieces of peer-reviewed scientific literature released between 2009 and 2025 with calculations of the difference between the commonly assumed and actual measured coastal sea levels.

 

Authors Dr Philip Minderhoud of Wageningen University in the Netherlands and PhD researcher Katharina Seeger discovered that more than 90% of these studies did not use local, direct measurements of sea levels but instead used land elevation measurements referenced against global geoid models.

Geoid models provide an estimate of global sea levels based on the Earth’s gravity and rotation.

As a consequence, sea levels were undervalued by an average of 24-27cm, depending on the geoid model used, with some discrepancies as much as 550-760cm.

Minderhoud said: “In reality, sea level is influenced by additional factors such as winds, ocean currents, seawater temperature and salinity.”

 

The new calculations reveal that following a relative sea level rise of 1 metre, it is estimated that 37% more coastal areas will fall below sea level, affecting up to 132 million individuals.

“If sea level is higher for your particular island or coastal city than was previously assumed, the impacts from sea level rise will happen sooner than projected before,” said Minderhoud.

Describing the discrepancy as an “interdisciplinary blind spot”, the scientists are concerned that a large proportion of the studies analysed in their research, which they believe are inaccurate, are referenced in the most recent climate change reports published by the IPCC.

The study contains ready-to-use coastal elevation data for across the world integrated with the latest sea level measurements and calls for the re-evaluation of existing coastal hazard studies methodology to ensure climate change policies are accurately informed.