Introduction
The problem of global warming is one of humanity’s highest priorities, threatening millions worldwide. Climate change, caused, among other things, by global warming, may lead to several problems, including increased natural disasters, flooding of some coastal areas around the planet, and global migration and food crisis. The sun’s rays reflected from the Earth cannot wholly leave the atmosphere due to the greenhouse effect of increased carbon dioxide in the air.
Beginning with industrialization, man began to actively use combustible minerals in his industry, which led to such processes. As a result, the world’s oceans will rise so high that several major megacities will be submerged in the foreseeable future, causing an unprecedented migration disaster. Moreover, rising water levels and several other effects of climate change could affect the fertility of soils over vast areas of the Earth, reducing the amount of arable land and land oriented to pasture, which will cause a global food crisis.
Misrepresentation of Global Warming and Climate Change as One Process
The concept of global warming is part of the processes that cause climate change. Climate change involves several natural dynamic processes affecting Earth’s climate (Lorens, 1). People often confuse the two because they are directly related, and one is a consequence of the other. In addition, people mix up these concepts because global warming has recently become the leading cause of global climate change, and these concepts are used together when describing environmental problems. Nevertheless, proper classification of these terms is essential when communicating messages about combating these processes.
Global warming refers to the increase in Earth’s average temperature since industrialization. Scientists worldwide have begun to observe changes in the Earth’s average temperature, which is already causing several global climate changes (Lorens, 1). It is essential to understand that climate change itself is a constant process for the Earth, associated with changes in the Sun relative to the Earth, tectonic processes, volcanic activity, and several other factors that affect the planet’s climate in one way or another. Global warming, on the other hand, has been a new factor influencing climate change over the past centuries. The critical difference between these processes lies in their degree of influence on the state of the planet, as well as the time over which this influence has been exerted.
The semantic and logical proximity of the two terms has led to several errors in determining the significance of the processes and has often led to a debate that global warming is just a cyclical stage of change that has occurred on Earth over thousands of years. A massive layer of people deny the significance of human influence on the state of the Earth, arguing for permanent changes in the planet’s climate and citing the Ice Age or other eras as examples. In the context of this topic, the influence of natural processes on the environmental problems humanity is already facing must be negligible compared to the pace and scale of the impact of human activity on them (Letcher, 2). The activity of volcanoes, the movement of tectonic plates, or other cyclical processes on Earth has a long-term and weak impact on climate change. In contrast, the results of human activity have begun to emerge after only hundreds of years of industrial development.
Scientists’ Predictions About Changes in the Average Temperature of the Earth
There is a leading assumption in the scientific community that an increase in the Earth’s average temperature by at least two degrees Celsius will already lead to several irreversible processes, which will cause several global catastrophes. This reasoning is relatively recent since it was believed that increasing this indicator within two degrees would not be so critical for humanity. However, more recent research indicates that several unambiguous changes would occur under this scenario. For example, Lindsey wrote that the reduction in the range of the number of animals and plants, a reduction in snow cover, and seasonal and localized changes in weather patterns are all consequences that are to be expected unambiguously from reaching the 2-degree Celsius mark in the Earth’s average temperature (3). It is essential to understand that these changes are unequivocal and undeniable.
However, there are several other processes whose probability of occurrence is still being discussed in the scientific community. Masson-Delmotte and several other scientists have investigated several scenarios in which the average temperature of the Earth would rise by 1, 1.5, and 2 degrees Celsius, suggesting that due to a large number of variables, it is difficult to predict the exact consequences of reaching one or another mark, but the chance of these changes occurring increases significantly at each successive mark (4). Nevertheless, no matter how positive or negative the forecasts are, they all have in common the fact that they promise enormous damage to the ecological state of the planet, in one way or another, affecting people’s lives.
When discussing whether or not to believe scientists’ predictions, it is essential to understand that the effects of global warming are already visible today. Despite the existence of a considerable number of stakeholders who could somehow influence the anti-utopian world lobby in the absence of meaningful changes in production around the world, about six thousand independent studies are confirming the critical importance of global warming in determining the future shape of the planet (Masson-Delmotte, 4).
I am inclined to trust these predictions, especially the similar conclusions in all these works. Virtually all studies agree that global warming will only widen the gap between rich and developing countries, hitting the populations of developing countries hard (Al-Ghussain, 5). Dependent on food, financial, and humanitarian aid, countries will be the hardest hit under the new conditions, no matter how harsh these conditions would not be.
Impacts of Climate Change on Food Security in Developing Countries
Rising Earth temperatures are leading to a decrease in areas suitable for agriculture due to coastal flooding areas and changes in weather patterns, frequent droughts, and other problems. All these problems will affect world food sources, but those already undernourished will suffer the most. An example of how the global food crisis affects developing and developed countries can already be seen today by watching the impact of the war in Ukraine or the coronavirus pandemic on the global food market.
First, a decrease in the amount of food leads to inflation, which means an increase in the cost of food. While food costs make up a small part of citizens’ expenditures in developed countries, they can account for more than half of all household expenditures in developing countries (Concern, 6). Higher food costs will significantly affect the purchasing power of the poorest people in rich countries and deal a severe blow to the financial situation of several people in developing countries.
Second, many of the world’s hungry countries are predominantly agrarian, and their people eat what they produce. Families in such countries feed mainly on their crops, and the frequent occurrence of droughts or other causes of low yields will mean less food for families to consume (Concern, 6). The underdeveloped infrastructure of such places also negates the possibility of storing produce for long periods to accumulate for famine years.
Finally, climate change reduces the nutritional quality of food. Scheelbeek proves in his study that climate change leads to higher carbon dioxide levels in plants, leading to lower protein and iron content (7). In wealthier countries, this will be offset by various pharmaceuticals and vitamins containing beneficial elements or by more food consumption. In less developed countries, people are limited in their ability to increase their food intake or find alternative ways to obtain valuable micronutrients.
Effectiveness of Financial Support for Food Assistance to Developing Countries
When discussing the problem of the lack of long-term results of financial investments in food security in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and South America, it is worth understanding the complexity of the topic under discussion. On the one hand, the highly politicized nature of the topic does not allow for a more detailed and unbiased assessment. On the other hand, the large number of stakeholders makes the problem even more challenging to study. Currently, the main proof of the ineffectiveness of the measures taken is the current status quo of countries that are recipients of financial aid.
To examine the problem in more detail, it is worth recognizing that developing African countries or other recipient countries are often undemocratic and highly corrupt regimes. Despite this, there is no conclusive evidence that funds channeled as financial aid to developing countries are misused by their leaders. Except for isolated incidents, there is insufficient data on corruption in humanitarian aid. Furthermore, Mary’s research proves a correlation between the decrease in civil conflicts and the food and humanitarian support given to developing countries (8). It means that existing support programs for developing countries contribute to positive changes in recipient countries.
Nevertheless, short-term aid policies provided by developed countries are ineffective in solving the problem of hunger. Sandstrom writes that the “drought narrative,” which is the main hunger problem in developing countries, is greatly exaggerated and does not correspond to reality (9). In contrast, the main reason for the status quo is the political vulnerability of regimes with repeated armed conflicts, corruption scandals, and inequity in the distribution of funds.
I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories that famine in developing countries could benefit anyone. I believe that establishing a fair system capable of rationally and honestly using the resources received under military dictatorships and autocracies is impossible, even with the participation of many controllers. The problem requires a more systematic and comprehensive approach, but sovereignty, its value, and the right to domestic intervention are raised. For the moment, cutting off support to developing countries is more harmful than helpful since even minimal contributions are significant.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the programs currently in place to enhance food security in developing countries are not sufficiently compelling. Climate change caused by global warming will hit such countries hard since the food expenses of families living there are the main item of their expenses. Suppose the current status quo regarding increased global warming persists. In that case, we can expect mass starvation in developing countries very shortly, caused in part by the fact that developed countries will not be able to supply food and humanitarian aid to the same extent due to their economic difficulties. In addition to the struggle to reduce humanity’s hydrocarbon footprint, it is also necessary to develop a set of measures to ensure long-term food security in the regions most in need. Otherwise, the number of starving people in the world will steadily increase.
Sources
Lorens Ama. 2020. The difference between global warming and climate change. Web.
Letcher Trevor. 2019. Why do we have global warming? P. 8. Web.
Lindsey Rebecca. 2022. Climate Change: Global Temperature. Web.
Masson-Delmotte. 2018. Global warming of 1.5 C. p.25. Web.
Al‐Ghussain Loily. 2018. Global warming: Review on driving forces and mitigation. p. 20. Web.
Concern. 2022. How climate change increases hunger — and why we’re all at risk. Web.
Scheelbeek Pauline. 2018. Effect of environmental changes on vegetable and legume yields and nutritional quality. P. 6806. Web.
Mary Sebastien. 2020. Humanitarian food aid and civil conflict. p. 10. Web.
Sandstrom Sofie. 2017. Continue to blame it on the rain? Conceptualization of drought and failure of food systems in the Greater Horn of Africa. pp. 71-91. Web.