Skip to main content

Resilience to global food supply catastrophes

An Erratum to this article was published on 02 August 2015

Abstract

Many global catastrophic risks threaten major disruption to global food supplies, including nuclear wars, volcanic eruptions, asteroid and comet impacts, and plant disease outbreaks. This paper discusses options for increasing the resilience of food supplies to these risks. In contrast to local catastrophes, global food supply catastrophes cannot be addressed via food aid from external locations. Three options for food supply resilience are identified: food stockpiles, agriculture, and foods produced from alternative (non-sunlight) energy sources including biomass and fossil fuels. Each of these three options has certain advantages and disadvantages. Stockpiles are versatile but expensive. Agriculture is efficient but less viable in certain catastrophe scenarios. Alternative foods are inexpensive pre-catastrophe but need to be scaled up post-catastrophe and may face issues of social acceptability. The optimal portfolio of food options will typically include some of each and will additionally vary by location as regions vary in population and access to food input resources. Furthermore, if the catastrophe shuts down transportation, then resilience requires local self-sufficiency in food. Food supply resilience requires not just the food itself, but also the accompanying systems of food production and distribution. Overall, increasing food supply resilience can play an important role in global catastrophic risk reduction. However, it is unwise to attempt maximizing food supply resilience, because doing so comes at the expense of other important objectives, including catastrophe prevention. Taking all these issues into account, the paper proposes a research agenda for analysis of specific food supply resilience decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. The literature on these risks sometimes uses other terminology besides “global catastrophic risks,” such as existential risks, extinction risks, or simply catastrophic risks. The distinction between these terms is not crucial for this paper. What matters is that these are all major risks to the viability of human civilization.

  2. Stratospheric geoengineering is a procedure in which aerosols, typically sulfates, are injected into the stratosphere in order to block incoming sunlight, thereby cooling the surface. The effect is similar to the cooling from volcano eruptions, asteroid or comet impacts, or nuclear wars, except that with geoengineering the aerosol injection is controlled to optimize the cooling. However, if aerosol injection ceases for whatever reason, then temperatures rapidly rise to where they would have been without any geoengineering.

  3. Such risks are not completely unknown. For example, we know that they threaten global catastrophe. But such risks are relatively unknown compared to the risks named here.

  4. In other contexts, fossil fuels are considered a primary energy source, and solar energy is an “alternative” energy. However, for agriculture, sunlight is by far the primary energy source, and fossil fuels are an alternative.

  5. The resilience definition of global catastrophe to human systems is adapted from the theory of catastrophe to ecological systems contained in the recently proposed concept of planetary boundaries (Rockström et al. 2009a, b).

  6. Helfand (2013) documents prior food crises resulting in disease outbreaks. Diamond (2005) and Butzer (2012) chronicle the collapse of civilizations due to food security disruptions, disease outbreaks, and other stressors.

  7. Inadvertent nuclear war as defined by Barrett et al. (2013) occurs when one side misinterprets a false alarm as a real attack and launches nuclear weapons in what it believes is a counterattack, but is in fact a first strike.

  8. Similar issues of social acceptability can be found for many technological solutions to societal risks (e.g., Flynn et al. 1992; Otway and Von Winterfeldt 1982).

  9. Indeed, this assumption often does not hold under normal times, as food transfers often result in some food loss.

  10. Bostrom (2002) uses the term existential risk instead of global catastrophic risk but the underlying concept is essentially the same.

  11. An argument can actually be made that society at present should prioritize the minimization of global catastrophic risk above all other objectives, given the massive harms of global catastrophes to future generations (see for example Bostrom 2002; Beckstead 2013). But there is no universal consensus on this matter, and so, other objectives may be worth pursuing.

  12. The use of “boundary” here is in the spirit of planetary boundaries research (Rockström et al. 2009a, b; Baum and Handoh 2014), in which boundaries are normative policy parameters set a safe distance away from dangerous system thresholds. Here, achieving F S ≥ F B ensures a sufficiently small probability that food security thresholds will be crossed—a sufficiently small probability that humanity’s resilience to food catastrophes will be exceeded.

References

  • Adler MD, Posner EA (2006) New foundations of cost-benefit analysis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambrose SH (1998) Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans. J Hum Evol 34(6):623–651

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aven T (2011) On some recent definitions and analysis frameworks for risk, vulnerability, and resilience. Risk Anal 31(4):515–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett AM, Baum SD, Hostetler KR (2013) Analyzing and reducing the risks of inadvertent nuclear war between the United States and Russia. Sci Global Secur 21(2):106–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum SD, Handoh IC (2014) Integrating the planetary boundaries and global catastrophic risk paradigms. Ecol Econ 107:13–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum SD, Maher TM Jr, Haqq-Misra J (2013) Double catastrophe: intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal collapse. Environ Syst Decis 33(1):168–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckstead N (2013) On the overwhelming importance of shaping the far future. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University

  • Bostrom N (2002) Existential risks: analyzing human extinction scenarios and related hazards. J Evol Technol 9. http://www.jetpress.org/volume9/risks.html

  • Bostrom N, Ćirković M (2008) Global Catastrophic Risks. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Butzer KW (2012) Collapse, environment, and society. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(10):3632–3639

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassidy ES, West PC, Gerber JS, Foley JA (2013) Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environ Res Lett 8(3):034015. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denkenberger D, Pearce J (2014) Feeding everyone no matter what: managing food security after global catastrophe. Academic Press, Waltham

    Google Scholar 

  • Denkenberger DC, Pearce JM (2015). Feeding everyone: addressing the food crisis in the event of global catastrophe. Futures (forthcoming). doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.008

  • Diamond J (2005) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Do T, Anderson K, Brorsen BW (2010) The world’s wheat supply. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Stillwater, OK

  • Dreze J, Sen A, Hussain A (1995) The political economy of hunger: selected essays. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudley JP, Woodford MH (2002) Bioweapons, biodiversity, and ecocide: potential effects of biological weapons on biological diversity. Bioscience 52(7):583–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J, Kasperson R, Kunreuther H, Slovic P (1992) Time to rethink nuclear waste storage. Issues Sci Technol 8(4):42–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Haimes YY (2009) On the definition of resilience in systems. Risk Anal 29(4):498–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin G (1974) Lifeboat ethics. Psychology

  • Harsanyi JC (1975) Can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality? A critique of John Rawls’s theory. Am Polit Sci Rev 69(2):594–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam M, Petraglia M (2010) Comment on “Environmental impact of the 73 ka Toba super-eruption in south Asia” by MAJ Williams, SH Ambrose, S. van der Kaars, C. Ruehlemann, U. Chattopadhyaya, J. Pal and PR Chauhan [Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 284 (2009) 295–314]. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol 296(1–2):199–203

  • Helfand I (2013) Nuclear Famine: two billion people at risk. International physicians for the prevention of nuclear war physicians for social responsibility. http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/two-billion-at-risk.pdf

  • Hellman M (2008) Risk analysis of nuclear deterrence. The Bent of Tau Beta Pi, Spring, pp 14–22

  • Ho M (2012) Teredo navalis. Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan. http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Teredo_navalis.html

  • Jones JW, Hoogenboom G, Porter CH, Boote KJ, Batchelor WD, Hunt LA et al (2003) The DSSAT cropping system model. Eur J Agron 18(3–4):235–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman F (2012) How to fight a food crisis. Los Angeles Times, 21 September

  • Lane CS, Chorn BT, Johnson TC (2013) Ash from the Toba supereruption in Lake Malawi shows no volcanic winter in East Africa at 75 ka. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(20):8025–8029

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lenton TM, Held H, Kriegler E, Hall JW, Lucht W, Rahmstorf S, Schellnhuber HJ (2008) Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(6):1786–1793

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuthold RH, Triet H, Schildger B (2004) Husbandry and breeding of African giant termites (Macrotermes jeanneli) at Berne Animal Park. Zoologische Garten 72(1):26–37

  • Linkov I, Fox-Lent C, Keisler J, Della Sala S, Sieweke J (2014) Risk and resilience lessons from Venice. Environment Systems and Decisions 34:378–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowder SK, Skoet J, Singh S (2014) What do we really know about the number and distribution of farms and family farms worldwide? ESA working paper no. 14-02. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Agricultural Development Economics Division

  • Maher TM Jr, Baum SD (2013) Adaptation to and recovery from global catastrophe. Sustainability 5(4):1461–1479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann CC (1999) Genetic engineers aim to soup up crop photosynthesis. Science 283(5400):314–316

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason B, Pyle DM, Oppenheimer C (2004) The size and frequency of the largest explosive eruptions on Earth. Bull Volcanol 66(8):735–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews HD, Caldeira K (2007) Transient climate–carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(24):9949–9954

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills MJ, Toon OB, Lee-Taylor J, Robock A (2014) Multi-decadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict. Earth’s Future 2(4):161–176

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAS (National Academy of Sciences) (2012) Disaster resilience: a national imperative. Washington. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13457

  • Ng Y-K (1991) Should we be very cautious or extremely cautious on measures that may involve our destruction? Soc Choice Welf 8:79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otway HJ, Von Winterfeldt D (1982) Beyond acceptable risk: on the social acceptability of technologies. Pol Sci 14(3):247–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özdoğan M, Robock A, Kucharik CJ (2013) Impacts of a nuclear war in South Asia on soybean and maize production in the Midwest United States. Clim Change 116(2):373–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park J, Seager TP, Rao PSC, Convertino M, Linkov I (2013) Integrating risk and resilience approaches to catastrophe management in engineering systems. Risk Anal 33(3):356–367

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parrett CM (2012) LDS preparedness manual, version 8.0 (1 June). Book 2: Temporal Preparedness, General Membership Edition

  • Petraglia M, Korisettar R, Boivin N, Clarkson C, Ditchfield P, Jones S et al (2007) Middle Paleolithic assemblages from the Indian subcontinent before and after the Toba super-eruption. Science 317(5834):114–116

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rampino MR (2002) Supereruptions as a threat to civilizations on Earth-like planets. Icarus 156(2):562–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robock A (2014) Reply to comment on “The latest on volcanic eruptions and climate”. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 95(39):353. doi:10.1002/2014eo390009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robock A, Oman L, Stenchikov GL (2007a) Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: still catastrophic consequences. J Geophys Res Atmos 112(D13). doi:10.1029/2006JD008235

  • Robock A, Oman L, Stenchikov GL, Toon OB, Bardeen C, Turco RP (2007b) Climatic consequences of regional nuclear conflicts. Atmos Chem Phys 7(8):2003–2012

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robock A, Ammann CM, Oman L, Shindell D, Levis S, Stenchikov G (2009) Did the Toba volcanic eruption of ~74 ka BP produce widespread glaciation? J Geophys Res Atmos 114(D10). doi:10.1029/2008jd011652

  • Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin E et al (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FS III, Lambin E, et al (2009a) Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol Soc 14(2):32. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32

  • Sagan C (1983) Nuclear war and climatic catastrophe: some policy implications. Foreign Aff 62:257–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saigo H (2000) Agricultural biotechnology and the negotiation of the biosafety protocol. Georget Int Environ Law Rev 12(3):779–816

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider S (1976) The genesis strategy: climate and global survival. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sparks S, Pyle D, Oppenheimer C, Rymer H, Grattan J (2005) Super-eruptions: global effects and future threats. Geological Society of London, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmreck C, Graf HF, Lorenz SJ, Niemeier U, Zanchettin D, Matei D, et al (2010) Aerosol size confines climate response to volcanic super-eruptions. Geophys Res Lett 37(24). doi:10.1029/2010gl045464

  • Toon OB, Robock A, Turco RP (2008) Environmental consequences of nuclear war. Phys Today 61(12):37–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unibio (2014) What Is Uniprotein®? http://www.unibio.dk/?page_id=47

  • Valdes P (2011) Built for stability. Nat Geosci 4(7):414–416

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Food Programme (2014) Hunger statistics. http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

  • Xia L, Robock A (2013) Impacts of a nuclear war in south Asia on rice production in mainland China. Clim Change 116(2):357–372

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia L, Robock A, Cole J, Curry CL, Ji D, Jones A et al (2014) Solar radiation management impacts on agriculture in China: a case study in the geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP). J Geophys Res Atmos 119(14):8695–8711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia L, Robock A, Mills M, Stenke A, Helfand I (2015) Global famine after a regional nuclear war. Earth’s Future 3(2):37–48

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Tony Barrett and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper, and Melissa Thomas-Baum for assistance in preparing the graphics. Any remaining errors or other shortcomings are the authors’ alone. Alan Robock is supported by US National Science Foundation Grants AGS-1157525, GEO-1240507, and AGS-1430051.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seth D. Baum.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baum, S.D., Denkenberger, D.C., Pearce, J.M. et al. Resilience to global food supply catastrophes. Environ Syst Decis 35, 301–313 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-015-9549-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-015-9549-2

Keywords

  • Global catastrophic risk
  • Food security
  • Resilience
  • Alternative foods
  • Nuclear winter
  • Volcanic winter