via nypost:
Activist organizations like Worldwatch argue that higher temperatures will make more people hungry, so drastic carbon cuts are needed. But a comprehensive new study published in Nature Climate Change led by researchers from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis has found that strong global climate action would cause far more hunger and food insecurity than climate change itself.
The scientists used eight global-agricultural models to analyze various scenarios between now and 2050. These models suggest, on average, that climate change could put an extra 24 million people at risk of hunger. But a global carbon tax would increase food prices and push 78 million more people into risk of hunger. The areas expected to be most vulnerable are sub-Saharan Africa and India.
Trying to help 24 million people by imperiling 78 million people’s lives is a very poor policy.
It’s great statism though.
I have known for 20 years the AGW cultists don’t give a damn about poor people. The whole scam as been geared to transfer wealth from the US to developing nations and China, with skimming of said wealth by the biofuel, wind power, and solar power suppliers along the way.
Commercial greenhouses boost the CO2 to increase growth and yield. Some go as high as 1,500 ppm as opposed to the atmospheric average of 400 ppm. CO2 is NOT a pollutant, and the efforts to deem it so have done far more harm than good.
h/t SG