What’s most striking in this article is the disconnect between the gravity of the situation and the ecological impact of “economically efficient” local solutions such as flying in workers from Thailand and lettuce from L.A.
Seriously, flying in 30000 heads of lettuce from half the world away to honor a contract with a supermarket? I can understand that it’s the “right” local solution (most likely the only way to avoid bankruptcy for the farmers), but from a global perspective this is utterly crazy.
European citizens are major banana consumers, making the European Union (EU) the world’s biggest importer of bananas from Latin America (nearly 70%) and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries (around 19%). The EU's own production of bananas amounts to around 11%.
Yes, and to add to that a vast majority of this 11% is grown at quite a distance from the continent:
Of the total banana volume marketed in Europe, which amounted to 6,122,898 tonnes, 11.3% is of EU origin, with the Canary Islands accounting for more than 60%, followed by the French Martinique and Guadeloupe (36%) and by the Portuguese Madeira (3%).
Bananas are picked green and have a long shelf life if stored correctly. They are transported by sea. Lettuce has to be transported by air. Importing lettuce is more harmful.
I’m well aware of what produce is grown locally; I live in France and try to purchase local, seasonal fruits and vegetables as far as possible. But that’s just my point: we’ve grown used to this type of behavior, to the point that it’s become normal to fly lettuce around the world. Just another drop in the bucket as you say, but the article makes depressingly clear the fact that the bucket is overflowing.
Funny how the freezing snap at the beginning of the year March-April was put down to “weather” and a hot spell is put down to “climate change”.
Both most plausibly have the root in the same phenomenon of oceanic cooling mucking around with the various wind systems like the gulf stream.
Time will tell if this is a blip or a trend.
Last heatwave is 1976.. 42 years. If we have a heatwave that frequently it is not really a problem is it ?
Hot June was 18th hottest of 350 records from the longest temperature record.
Lets see how hot July was against the 350 year record first. Discount more modern locations with short history or tarmacced sub standard placement ( Heathrow airport for instance )
Considering that the idea of CO2 emissions being a problem for the climate was first suggested in the 1800's, and the industrial revolution started in the 1700's with the invention of the steam engine, I think maybe you're a bit off.
Have you ever taken even a single moment to actually research your point of view?
Actually I did take a moment and within the first 39 minutes of research I discovered laziness or a lie on Obama’s part and from there I could not help but wonder what other forms of misinformation must exist.
> Funny how the freezing snap at the beginning of the year March-April was put down to “weather” and a hot spell is put down to “climate change”.
You are confusing journalism with science, journalists want to sell newspapers, ideally by telling their readers something true. What sells newspapers in March was, it is really cold, what sells newspapers now is, it is really hot! In march the editorializing was weather, because the journalist keeps up with scientific publications and calling it weather is true and does not hinder selling newspapers. Now, the journalist writes climate change, because it is true and does not keep anybody from buying newspapers.
However, the journalist is not the one who dedicated their live to understand the atmosphere, he is merely reporting on global warming.
> Last heatwave is 1976.. 42 years.
Nope, read the article. Last heatwave as extreme in Europe was in 2003, there was not a single summer as extreme as these two in Europe in the twentieth century, not even in 98, the hottest year in the last century.
> Time will tell if this is a blip or a trend.
That was a reasonable position in the 1970ies, since then it is clear enough that the climate is changing that the UN did a thing, founding the IPCC in the 80ies, politicians don't do something like that if they aren't pretty convinced that there is a real problem.
A circular argument might be worth engaging more than an argument whose central point is an equivalence between dedicated climate scientists and religion.
Hell, even an actual religion is worth more of people's time.
May was unusually hot here in Sweden, and actually broke all previous measured records. But here's the interesting part: The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) concluded that statistically a May this hot only occurs three times in a million years. [0]
But according to your reasoning I guess we're just really lucky?
You need to cut them down to sequester them and also to make room for new trees. The carbon remains sequestered as long as you do not burn it or let it decay.
Yes, growing and composting is part of the natural CO2 cycle. The problem is not CO2 in it self, but all the extra we humans add to the natural cycle.
I like to think of it as having a glass with a hole in the bottom, as long as the stream in is the same as the stream out the level stay the same. Adding to the stream in or making the hole smaller will change the level and in the end overfill and spill
What parts of Colorado? If you look at a picture of Boulder from 1900 and one from today, the difference is striking. True tallgrass and shortgrass prairies are among the most endangered ecosystems on the planet.
It's the Front Range that's badly affected, winters aren't as cold as they used to be, and as a result the Montain Pine Beetle is expanding its range. The weakened pine forests are a fire hazard.
Yes. We can realistically capture and store permanently many Gigatonnes of CO2 per year. It involves capture of CO2 from concentrated point sources (power plants, chemical plants, metal and cement factories etc) and transport to permanent geological storage. We have all the tech and know how to scale up. The only problem is that it's pure cost, no short-term benefit, so no company will do it voluntarily.
To actually reverse climate change (as opposed to simply slowing or stopping its further progress), we'd need to go back to pre-industrial CO2 levels. That's not physically impossible, but it is (almost certainly) politically and economically impossible, at least with current technology and politics.
Cheap solar and coming to our senses about nuclear power (i.e. promoting it) could make a big dent. So it's not hopeless. But it's sure not going to be easy.
Ah, wow, pre-industrial? So there's no leeway at all? You mean we'd have to go back to pre-industrial emissions levels, or actually sequester all the carbon we emitted all these decades?
Luckily, cheap solar seems to be coming, and electric cars are hopefully becoming more widespread as well. Nuclear is a different story, unfortunately that one doesn't seem to be very palatable to the average person, even though it sounds like a silver bullet.
Pretty much. It's a matter of degree. The more CO2, the warmer.
So, if we could wave a wand and get to 310 ppm, that would be great! But 280 would be even better. Realistically we've got some warming baked in from feedback effects (less snow, etc) so lowering to industrial levels wouldn't get us back to preindustrial temperatures immediately.
If we magically stopped emitting immediately, we'd still see warming because of lag in the effects, feedback, etc, and we'd find it uncomfortable. With more emissions it will be worse.
So, sequestering emissions is a very worthy goal, and why stopped remains important even though we're past a point where damage begins. Damage can still get worse and we should try to avoid that.
Figuring out some way to actually reverse them is the holy grail though. We would need nuclear or solar for that, most likely.
A bit of nuclear waste in the ground is better than carbon waste in the air.
"We just need to figure out how to make money while avoiding it" is just other words for "To achieve X, we need to figure out (and implement) an incentive structure so that people would benefit from doing stuff that facilitates X, which is pretty much the only way to get them to do it".
After talking to many people over many years - its getting increasing clear that we cannot afford to stop our economic systems.
Even meager impacts of these systems result in huge shocks to the political systems which result in politicians getting un-elected.
This means that the people talking about actual change will never get the floor - the requirements are too high- profit margins will take too much of a hit, GDP growth will become anemic and wage growth will be stunted.
The things we need, are too expensive, and its FAR too cheap to just abuse the commons, than to let people know the actual full price of the cheap and convenient goods we use.
Think about it this way: how you make somebody to do something? There's only two sure ways to achieve it - make them afraid not to do it or make them rewarded for doing it. What would you prefer - people getting executed for going over their carbon quota or somebody making money from carbon sequestration? What you would prefer to happen to you? I think I prefer the money solution over the fear solution.
Proven to do what? Stuff the pockets of some well-connected people? Sure. Finance a variety of pet projects that end up in nothing but money exchanging pockets? You betcha. Suppress the economic growth? Of course.
Solving anything related to what they purport to solve? Nope.
> Sure. Finance a variety of pet projects that end up in nothing but money exchanging pockets? You betcha. Suppress the economic growth? Of course.
All those same arguments were said about the Montreal protocol, but the sky didn't fall.
> US does not have carbon tax. Many European countries do. You tell me how that happens.
According to your own source European emissions dropped 1.5% from 206 to 2016 while the US dropped 1.2%. Even this isn't a fair comparison as Europeans emit much less already, there is less fat to cut.
Additionally you seem to think we can reward people for sequestering carbon, where do you propose this reward comes from?
You are trying to confuse two things - suppression of economic growth and total collapse of the economics, and claiming since the latter didn't happen it proves no claim of the former could be ever true. It doesn't work that way.
> Additionally you seem to think we can reward people for sequestering carbon, where do you propose this reward comes from?
If you think it's important to do it, and many people like you do so, you could all chip in. We have some very wealthy people, billionaires, and more than one, that support doing something about this. Surely paying some money is the easiest way for them of doing something one could ever imagine.
The problem is that carbon sequestration costs more now. Although it would arguably reduce future costs, there doesn't seem to be a workable economic mechanism for linking that to the present. I'm certainly no economist, but the current situation seems clear enough.
Is there anywhere on earth where the weather can be considered normal or not changing much from the norm? Just curious where the best or last habitable areas would be? Perhaps New Zealand?
Yeah, I've read that too. So maybe the US Southwest will go total desert. And maybe even the Amazon. But the Sahara could become tropical forest again. I don't recall mechanistic details. Something about atmospheric standing waves, I think.
cool story incoming: I'm new here, and i was wondering if there would be climate change denier accounts here, just like the shitty news aggregation\commenting site that i left behind. sure enough they are here! commenting as they will on how the Titanic is doing 'just fine' and insisting we 'wait and see' how it turns out.
i suppose I'm not surprised, but i had hoped things would be different.
And as someone commented on a previous thread here, their presence with trolling arguments causes the thread to become 'contentious' so the HN algorithm knocks it off the front page. I've no doubt that for some of the trolls that is the objective.
It's a pity because this is probably the most important issue of our time and it's going to take an engineering/scientific approach to solve it - so I think it's highly relevant to HN. There are some sharp minds on here. It should be hotly debated and the ranking algorithm should be able to take the heat.
It didn't used to be that way. The change happened 2-3 years ago. I think a lot of this ultimately comes down to poliitical polarization - people feel that if they don't agree entirely with progressive policies, then they must be conservative, and the climate change denial follows. I think there has been an effort to "de-Bay Area" hn for better or worse (there was a time when general SF news was somewhat germane and topical here, but no longer)
I'm surprised that today I read at least 3 comments and some articles about "denialism". Is it the new frontier of the "fascists against anti-fascists" war?
I do believe that there is a lot of things coming from mainstream media we have to dismiss, and it seems some of these things are now been publicly defended against public discredit. The same way the mass media lie to us today, their ancestors lied to ours. It is natural and healthy to pursuit lies of the past, it is a shame that some people are trying to put it as a negative behavior.
It's a public forum; people of all points of view are free to comment, but everyone else is free to downvote and flag comments that degrade the thread, which has happened with the comments you've complained about here.
In the last 12 months we've had tropical storms, siberian-like snowstorms and now a long hot summer. It's certainly been more interesting than our usual grey wet summers and grey wet winters.
And over here in Greece, we get sudden rains every day, whereas we used to not get a drop for three or four months. The change is really striking, and it does not bode well at all.
Yes, increasingly chaotic weather is expected with GCC. There's more water vapor in the troposphere, and so more energy is available from condensation.
If you want an amusing (and yet depressing) perspective, I recommend Peter Watts' Echopraxia. One of the background themes is how much energy they need to pump sulfates into the stratosphere, in order to prevent catastrophic GCC-driven wildfires. Given the current heatwave around the northern hemisphere, it seems that reality is catching up.
This seems as good a place as any to tell HN about my business:
We provide systems to banks to help them include activities which mitigate climate risk into credit agreements, and evidence of compliance into credit scores. It provides a nudge for bank clients to adopt practices which both mitigate climate change and build resilience to climate-related weather shock.
We're a fintech biz built on the fundamental insight that environmental damage, including climate change, is hardwired into the design of the credit system, because issue of credit is blind to resource overuse/abuse, creating a systemic perverse incentive for environmental degradation.
If you're interested in finance, tech and concerned about climate change, I'd love to hear from you in the comments below.
2 further points:
1. HN was the community that gave me the confidence to launch this business.
2. Through our learning experience, we have discovered that banks are already reducing exposure to agricultural lending due to concerns about weather shock. Where farmers can't get access to credit, their production can drop 75%. Although we are only in the foothills of climate change, our financial system will amplify its impact. There may be technological fixes for high value cash crops grown in controlled environments. Not so sure about staples.
> There may be technological fixes for high value cash crops grown in controlled environments.
Can you expand on this? I have felt the same way, and have a good understanding of the tech problem to be solved, but I'm having trouble selling the idea to any buyer. Would you attempt to anticipate crop price spikes and plant ahead of time?
By technological fixes in agriculture, I simply mean greenhouses and fertigation systems. Control the environment in which plants grow more closely and thereby mitigate risks associated with weather shock. Works great for things like capsicum, high value lettuce etc. I don't see how this can be replicated for things like wheat and maize, although admittedly GM crops potentially offer some route to solving this problem.
For wheat and maize it can't and it doesn't have to. Both are stable after picking and can be transported. Lettuce cannot be transported as well after being picked. Maybe shipping containers with live lettuce?
Re wheat and maize, it's what happens before they're picked that is the concern. Where banks project high rates of loss, they simply withdraw from the sector - understandably.
Re lettuce, I think what we will see is 2 things: firstly highly capitalised vertical farms close to where the lettuce will be consumed. Secondly, smallscale contract farming again close to point of consumption. Imagine a small greenhouse in your back garden. You pay for the infrastructure and have Uber like aggregator linking you directly to buyers. Oh god - I can see the pitch now: it's like Uber for Romain lettuce...
The problem with Uber for romaine is that it takes at least a month to fill the demand for romaine. Anyone with a car could, potentially, sign up and fill a ride request. In practice, this might not be a big problem if the shortage is longer than the time it takes to grow romaine.
This is where my mind was going with this but it would require people to have equipment sitting idle or be growing romaine lettuce anyways and sell it when the price is high enough.
I think you're right, insurance and banks are both looking at a similar problem. In our approach, which is agri-specific, we work with banks to include requirements for climate smart agriculture into loan agreements. Farmers must do x, y and z if they want a loan. From an insurance perspective, this is the equivalent of requiring drivers to wear a seatbelt. We use a remote-sensing system to verify that farmers are in compliance with the system, and if they are we pass a score back to the bank for inclusion in their credit scoring algorithm. Compliant farmers have an improved risk profile and should be able to access credit on improved terms to reflect the improved risk.
How are banks responding to your services? In insurance, we’re having a very soft market due to all the capital sloshing around the system. I imagine it can be challenging for lenders to impose significant risk controls when there’s alternative financing so cheaply available.
My wife works on climate change advocacy on the nonprofit side. Are you working with any advocacy organizations? Presumably they’re an important part of your approach.
TBH - climate silos and finance silos are difficult to merge. Different language, KPIs, incentives and concerns. We're trying though to reconcile the two! That said, banks are increasingly paying attention. The two drivers for this are: (1) Ratings agencies including climate factors in their ratings, and (2) G20 Financial Stability Board, Bloomberg Committee calling for voluntary disclosure of climate risk and mitigation steps by company boards.
Do you know what the effects of this "on the ground" are? Is it getting farmers to change what they grow to better adapt to the new local conditions? What affect does it have on agri-business as opposed to family farms, where the former might simply move or have the capital sufficient for large scale change in practices that the latter does not? Also are there any effects on corporations further along the supply chain - for example reducing food waste might have a greater impact on the volume of food needed which in itself would reduce environment damage?
Korea is experiencing the hottest summer ever in recorded history, but Korean summers have always been hot, humid and uncomfortable, so while it's definitely more uncomfortable than usual, it isn't causing too much turmoil.
For parts of the world like Europe where such extreme temperatures have been relatively rare, it will be extremely interesting - not to mention super unfortunate - to see how long it will take for individuals and societies to adjust to what very well may be a new normal and/or how it may impact migration (both in and out) patterns.
How is the hot summer in Europe indicative of a long-term climate change more than Donald Trump saying "see, it's snowing outside! I told you there's no climate change!"
You have a point, I could have qualified my post with an 'if these hot temperatures continue in Europe' to hedge since the effects of climate change don't necessarily appear as super-linear phenomenon - there is scope for significant variation.
The extent of the heatwaves is the difference. I saw a map showing that basically the whole world has above average temperatures this summer - past heat waves tended to be local. Much like a local record snowfall.
103 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 164 ms ] threadSeriously, flying in 30000 heads of lettuce from half the world away to honor a contract with a supermarket? I can understand that it’s the “right” local solution (most likely the only way to avoid bankruptcy for the farmers), but from a global perspective this is utterly crazy.
/s
Compared to all the stuff flown around, one extra shipment is a drop in the bucket.
Iceland used to produce bananas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_production_in_Iceland
European citizens are major banana consumers, making the European Union (EU) the world’s biggest importer of bananas from Latin America (nearly 70%) and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries (around 19%). The EU's own production of bananas amounts to around 11%.
Of the total banana volume marketed in Europe, which amounted to 6,122,898 tonnes, 11.3% is of EU origin, with the Canary Islands accounting for more than 60%, followed by the French Martinique and Guadeloupe (36%) and by the Portuguese Madeira (3%).
Both most plausibly have the root in the same phenomenon of oceanic cooling mucking around with the various wind systems like the gulf stream.
Time will tell if this is a blip or a trend.
Last heatwave is 1976.. 42 years. If we have a heatwave that frequently it is not really a problem is it ?
Hot June was 18th hottest of 350 records from the longest temperature record.
Lets see how hot July was against the 350 year record first. Discount more modern locations with short history or tarmacced sub standard placement ( Heathrow airport for instance )
Which (measureable) criterion needs to be fulfilled so that you would acknowledge this as a trend?
As mentioned June ( very hot ) was 18th out of 350.
There were 17 other hotter Junes in 350 years... many pre industrial revolution and therefore immune from CO2 considerations.
I assume this means you concede? Or is the graph doctored?
What about the very many hot summers that are recorded in 350 years of records that pre date the industrial revolution and therefore CO2 emmissions.
The hottest June on record is 1846...
Have you ever taken even a single moment to actually research your point of view?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_scie...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
You are confusing journalism with science, journalists want to sell newspapers, ideally by telling their readers something true. What sells newspapers in March was, it is really cold, what sells newspapers now is, it is really hot! In march the editorializing was weather, because the journalist keeps up with scientific publications and calling it weather is true and does not hinder selling newspapers. Now, the journalist writes climate change, because it is true and does not keep anybody from buying newspapers.
However, the journalist is not the one who dedicated their live to understand the atmosphere, he is merely reporting on global warming.
> Last heatwave is 1976.. 42 years.
Nope, read the article. Last heatwave as extreme in Europe was in 2003, there was not a single summer as extreme as these two in Europe in the twentieth century, not even in 98, the hottest year in the last century.
> Time will tell if this is a blip or a trend.
That was a reasonable position in the 1970ies, since then it is clear enough that the climate is changing that the UN did a thing, founding the IPCC in the 80ies, politicians don't do something like that if they aren't pretty convinced that there is a real problem.
circular argument... the various religions did a thing and founded priesthoods... does that offer proof of their various gods ?
they even did a thing and founded their priesthoods before the IPCC... does that make them correct ?
Hell, even an actual religion is worth more of people's time.
[1] http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201801250019.html
[2] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/23/asia/japan-heatwave-deadl...
Cold extremes are becoming colder, hot extremes are becoming hotter.
commenting on climate change is risky.
But according to your reasoning I guess we're just really lucky?
https://www.smhi.se/forskning/forskningsnyheter/varmebolja-i...
thats how we got in this mess in the first place.
with a hot summer we are at least talking about something concrete and measurable
I like to think of it as having a glass with a hole in the bottom, as long as the stream in is the same as the stream out the level stay the same. Adding to the stream in or making the hole smaller will change the level and in the end overfill and spill
I know why we won't, at least...
Cheap solar and coming to our senses about nuclear power (i.e. promoting it) could make a big dent. So it's not hopeless. But it's sure not going to be easy.
Luckily, cheap solar seems to be coming, and electric cars are hopefully becoming more widespread as well. Nuclear is a different story, unfortunately that one doesn't seem to be very palatable to the average person, even though it sounds like a silver bullet.
So, if we could wave a wand and get to 310 ppm, that would be great! But 280 would be even better. Realistically we've got some warming baked in from feedback effects (less snow, etc) so lowering to industrial levels wouldn't get us back to preindustrial temperatures immediately.
If we magically stopped emitting immediately, we'd still see warming because of lag in the effects, feedback, etc, and we'd find it uncomfortable. With more emissions it will be worse.
So, sequestering emissions is a very worthy goal, and why stopped remains important even though we're past a point where damage begins. Damage can still get worse and we should try to avoid that.
Figuring out some way to actually reverse them is the holy grail though. We would need nuclear or solar for that, most likely.
A bit of nuclear waste in the ground is better than carbon waste in the air.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/20...
"We just need to figure out how to make money while avoiding it"
Which pretty much sums up why we are here.
After talking to many people over many years - its getting increasing clear that we cannot afford to stop our economic systems.
Even meager impacts of these systems result in huge shocks to the political systems which result in politicians getting un-elected.
This means that the people talking about actual change will never get the floor - the requirements are too high- profit margins will take too much of a hit, GDP growth will become anemic and wage growth will be stunted.
The things we need, are too expensive, and its FAR too cheap to just abuse the commons, than to let people know the actual full price of the cheap and convenient goods we use.
A carbon tax/ETS is also a money driven solution, a proven one at that. No need to execute anyone.
Solving anything related to what they purport to solve? Nope.
Check this out: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-08/co2-emissions-hit-...
US does not have carbon tax. Many European countries do. You tell me how that happens.
Proven to reduce emissions, just like the Montreal protocol did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol.
> Sure. Finance a variety of pet projects that end up in nothing but money exchanging pockets? You betcha. Suppress the economic growth? Of course.
All those same arguments were said about the Montreal protocol, but the sky didn't fall.
> US does not have carbon tax. Many European countries do. You tell me how that happens.
According to your own source European emissions dropped 1.5% from 206 to 2016 while the US dropped 1.2%. Even this isn't a fair comparison as Europeans emit much less already, there is less fat to cut.
Additionally you seem to think we can reward people for sequestering carbon, where do you propose this reward comes from?
You are trying to confuse two things - suppression of economic growth and total collapse of the economics, and claiming since the latter didn't happen it proves no claim of the former could be ever true. It doesn't work that way.
> Additionally you seem to think we can reward people for sequestering carbon, where do you propose this reward comes from?
If you think it's important to do it, and many people like you do so, you could all chip in. We have some very wealthy people, billionaires, and more than one, that support doing something about this. Surely paying some money is the easiest way for them of doing something one could ever imagine.
EDIT: Spoke too soon:
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/videos/sno...
Anywhere with mountains should be OK since temperature drops x degrees for every y meters above sea level.
i suppose I'm not surprised, but i had hoped things would be different.
It's a pity because this is probably the most important issue of our time and it's going to take an engineering/scientific approach to solve it - so I think it's highly relevant to HN. There are some sharp minds on here. It should be hotly debated and the ranking algorithm should be able to take the heat.
We need to change the culture to make the necessary sacrifices to get things done but, as you can see, human nature is hard to change.
I do believe that there is a lot of things coming from mainstream media we have to dismiss, and it seems some of these things are now been publicly defended against public discredit. The same way the mass media lie to us today, their ancestors lied to ours. It is natural and healthy to pursuit lies of the past, it is a shame that some people are trying to put it as a negative behavior.
Is that an undocumented option?
But yes, I ought to have said "global-climate-change-driven". Rather a mouthful, though.
We provide systems to banks to help them include activities which mitigate climate risk into credit agreements, and evidence of compliance into credit scores. It provides a nudge for bank clients to adopt practices which both mitigate climate change and build resilience to climate-related weather shock.
We're a fintech biz built on the fundamental insight that environmental damage, including climate change, is hardwired into the design of the credit system, because issue of credit is blind to resource overuse/abuse, creating a systemic perverse incentive for environmental degradation.
If you're interested in finance, tech and concerned about climate change, I'd love to hear from you in the comments below.
2 further points:
1. HN was the community that gave me the confidence to launch this business.
2. Through our learning experience, we have discovered that banks are already reducing exposure to agricultural lending due to concerns about weather shock. Where farmers can't get access to credit, their production can drop 75%. Although we are only in the foothills of climate change, our financial system will amplify its impact. There may be technological fixes for high value cash crops grown in controlled environments. Not so sure about staples.
Can you expand on this? I have felt the same way, and have a good understanding of the tech problem to be solved, but I'm having trouble selling the idea to any buyer. Would you attempt to anticipate crop price spikes and plant ahead of time?
Re lettuce, I think what we will see is 2 things: firstly highly capitalised vertical farms close to where the lettuce will be consumed. Secondly, smallscale contract farming again close to point of consumption. Imagine a small greenhouse in your back garden. You pay for the infrastructure and have Uber like aggregator linking you directly to buyers. Oh god - I can see the pitch now: it's like Uber for Romain lettuce...
How are banks responding to your services? In insurance, we’re having a very soft market due to all the capital sloshing around the system. I imagine it can be challenging for lenders to impose significant risk controls when there’s alternative financing so cheaply available.
My wife works on climate change advocacy on the nonprofit side. Are you working with any advocacy organizations? Presumably they’re an important part of your approach.
For parts of the world like Europe where such extreme temperatures have been relatively rare, it will be extremely interesting - not to mention super unfortunate - to see how long it will take for individuals and societies to adjust to what very well may be a new normal and/or how it may impact migration (both in and out) patterns.