this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
206 points (97.7% liked)

World News

32327 readers
476 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Rumblestiltskin@lemmy.ml
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
jackmarxist@lemmy.ml
zephyreks@lemmy.ml
OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
206
Climate change has ravaged India’s rice stock. Now its export ban could deepen a global food crisis (www.cnn.com)
submitted 1 year ago by deconstruct@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Newly planted rice saplings have been underwater since July after torrential rain battered northern India, with landslides and flash floods sweeping through the region.

Last month, India, which is the world’s largest exporter of rice, announced a ban on exporting non-basmati white rice in a bid to calm rising prices at home and ensure food security. India then followed with more restrictions on its rice exports, including a 20% duty on exports of parboiled rice.

The move has triggered fears of global food inflation, hurt the livelihoods of some farmers and prompted several rice-dependent countries to seek urgent exemptions from the ban.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ExLisper@linux.community -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That said, I’m seriously considering moving up north away north as far away from the equator as possible, and to an area with fresh water and farmland.

Just move to a civilized, developed country. The places best prepared to deal with climate disasters are the countries that can throw money at it. Desalination plants, hydroponics, border security, police, army - this is what will let you survive, not fresh water and a gun. This crisis will put pressure on every country. Countries up north have to import a lot of food and also have issues with drought (look at UK), disappearing permafrost (Russia, Sweden) and immigration (UK again).

The only good news is that young conservatives believe in and want to do something about climate change,

No. Almost no one, except maybe the most progressive young people, wants actually do anything about it. To actually stop climate change we would have to seriously lower average standard of living in a developed countries. We would basically have to shrink the entire economy, put most people on some sort of UBI, and make sure they have basic necessities and not much more. No one is ready for this. Most people are not even willing to switch to electric cars because it will take them a bit longer to drive 800km when they go on holiday twice a year. Nothing will be done.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are spreading disinformation.

Climate change can be significantly reduced or prevented entirely while maintaining or improving the quality of life for everyone except perhaps for the elite.

  1. A rapid transition to 100% renewable electricity, which is considered to be very achievable with current technology.
  2. Transition to electric-powered systems for heating, most likely ground or air source heat pumps, and investment in insulating buildings.
  3. Rapid substitution of private cars for cheap, clean, comfortable, electric-powered public transport, wherever possible.
  4. The transition of the majority of over-land shipping to using electric rail rather than road.
  5. The transition to cleaner fuels or electricity for oversea shipping.
  6. Globally transitioning to a diet which is almost entirely plant-based.

None of these steps is particularly hard or expensive. Around a trillion (1,000,000,000,000) dollars are invested in fossil fuels annually which is money that could be put to better use right at the outset.

If the economic, political or societal structures we have makes the execution of these changes difficult or impossible, then it falls to us to bring about a change in those structures.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think you're a bit delusional. All those things take years if not decades. Where I lived they struggled to get rid of carbon furnaces because:

  • lobbying from manufacturers
  • a lot of people that use those live in social housing so it's city's responsibility and city didn't have money for it
  • even with subsidies changing a furnace is a big cost so people were avoiding it
  • people were uncertain about the new regulations and future prices (what do you install? electric? gas? pellet? which one will be cheaper in 5 year time?)

It's not enough to theoretically have money for something. To actually implement it you have to overcome a lot of opposition and people will strongly oppose to :

  • electric cars - just look at comments anywhere. "What? I will have to charge my car for 30 minutes instead of 10? Unacceptable." (I do have an electric car)
  • heat pumps - same, people complain that they might not work ideally when it gets very cold once a year. (I do have an heat pump)
  • plant based diet - people do like their meat

Everything else will require lots of money and time. Those are huge project and implementing them will take decades. What will happen to truck drivers? How long will it take to replace current ships fleet? Where will you get all the lithium from? People are protesting new mining projects in Europe and USA. People are even complaining that the entire country side is being covered by solar panels.

Yes, we have money to do it all but the change will be slow and we've run out of time already.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I was once told that anyone who claims that they agree with your idea, but they think it isn’t feasible because “average people wouldn’t accept it” is either astroturfing or ignorant. From the head spinning levels of disinformation in the original post, it’s pretty clear which side you fall on.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 0 points 1 year ago

Well, if someone told you this than it must be true. Hard to argue with such a great argument.