Drought, Conflict, and Inflation: The Perfect Storm for Global Food Prices

The world’s food supply is facing a dangerous combination of threats: war, inflation, and increasingly, drought. Across continents, dry conditions are pushing up prices on everything from coffee to beef.

In Brazil, severe drought has damaged coffee crops and driven global prices higher. The Midwestern United States has experienced years of poor rainfall, forcing ranchers to reduce cattle herds and causing beef prices to reach record levels. In China’s Yellow River Basin, which is one of its key wheat-producing regions, hot and dry weather is threatening harvests. Even Europe is feeling the strain, as drought threatens agriculture in Southern Europe and puts additional pressure on the Mediterranean diet.

The increasing concentration of food production adds to the vulnerability. Brazil and Vietnam supply most of the world’s coffee. Although wheat production is more widely distributed, major producers like Russia and Ukraine are both facing drought while also dealing with war. This combination is tightening global wheat supplies.

Climate change is intensifying drought patterns, leading to more frequent and severe disruptions in agriculture. Since much of the world’s calories come from just three staple grains—rice, wheat, and corn—any regional weather shocks can have global consequences.

As Somini Sengupta reports, drought is no longer a local problem. It has become a global risk to food security. Building resilience in food systems through diversified sourcing, sustainable water management, and stronger climate adaptation efforts is becoming increasingly urgent.

NYTimes

Impacts of climate change on global agriculture accounting for adaptation

Climate change threatens global food production, but there’s uncertainty about how much adaptation can mitigate these impacts. Even in well-studied systems like U.S. agriculture, some analyses suggest that adaptation will be widespread and minimize damages, while others predict limited adaptation and significant losses. Global scenario models indicate adaptation could meaningfully affect productivity, but empirical data on the extent of real-world adaptation at a global scale have been lacking.

This study uses longitudinal data on six major staple crops across 12,658 regions—covering about two-thirds of global crop calories—to empirically estimate adaptation effects. We find that global production declines by approximately 5.5 × 10¹⁴ kcal per year for each 1°C increase in global mean surface temperature (equivalent to 120 kcal per person per day, or 4.4% of recommended daily intake; P < 0.001).

Projections suggest that adaptation combined with income growth could offset 23% of potential losses by 2050 and 34% by 2100 under a moderate emissions pathway, though substantial losses persist for most crops aside from rice. Interestingly, while many studies emphasize disproportionate harm to low-income regions, our results indicate that significant impacts will also occur in current major production zones—‘breadbaskets’ with relatively favorable climates that have not yet required extensive adaptation. Low-income regions still face significant losses as well. The findings highlight the scale of innovation, land-use change, or additional adaptation measures that may be necessary to secure global food supplies under climate change.

Citation

Hultgren, A., Carleton, T., Delgado, M., Gergel, D. R., Greenstone, M., Houser, T., Hsiang, S., Jina, A., Kopp, R. E., Malevich, S. B., McCusker, K. E., Mayer, T., Nath, I., Rising, J., Rode, A., & Yuan, J. (2025). Impacts of climate change on global agriculture accounting for adaptation. Nature, 642, 644–652. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09085-w:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Summary: Climate change, hurricanes, and sovereign debt in the Caribbean basin

Climate change, hurricanes, and sovereign debt in the Caribbean basin

Eduardo Cavallo, Santiago Gomez, Ilan Noy & Eric Strobl (07 Mar 2025): Climate change, hurricanes, and sovereign debt in the Caribbean basin, Climate and Development, DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2025.2475148

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2025.2475148 (open access)

This research explores the relationship between climate change, hurricanes, and government debt in the Caribbean region. Caribbean countries frequently experience severe hurricanes, which scientists expect will worsen due to human-caused climate change. Because these nations already face high levels of debt, understanding the economic impact of these disasters is crucial.

The study analyzed data from hurricanes occurring between 1970 and 2020, assessing their effect on public debt. Researchers found that hurricanes significantly increase debt levels, as governments must borrow more to fund recovery and reconstruction efforts. Specifically, after the ten most intense hurricanes, countries' debt increased nearly 10% more than it would have without the storm. Three years after such hurricanes, debt levels were almost 18% higher compared to predicted debt without the hurricane.

Scientists attribute part of these impacts to human-caused climate change, particularly through increased rainfall intensity during hurricanes. Current climate change has likely led to at least a 10% increase in rainfall during these storms. This additional rainfall linked to climate change translates to about a 3.8% rise in debt levels following major hurricanes.

These findings underline the financial vulnerability of Caribbean countries to climate change, highlighting the need for international policies and financial support mechanisms to assist these nations in managing climate-related disasters.

Building for a Hotter Future: Smart Design Solutions to Cut Building Energy Use, Particularly in the Global South

Buildings in hot climate zones face unique challenges in reducing energy use and CO₂ emissions, especially as urbanization and population growth drive new construction. This study examines how different design choices and technologies can help make buildings more energy-efficient while keeping them comfortable in high temperatures. Using computer simulations, the researchers tested five building types—ranging from homes to offices—across five hot climate regions. They explored a mix of passive design strategies (like better windows, reflective roofs, and solar shading), active cooling systems, and renewable energy options to see which solutions had the greatest impact.

The results show that simple changes, such as improving windows and adding shading, can significantly reduce cooling needs. More advanced systems, like hybrid ventilation and decentralized cooling units, further improve efficiency, while solar energy solutions help offset electricity use. The study also found that climate change will increase cooling demand in the future, making energy-efficient design even more critical. Notably, residential buildings had the greatest potential for achieving low-carbon or even zero-carbon status, while offices and hotels posed greater challenges due to their higher energy use.

To turn these insights into action, the study highlights the need for stronger policies and building codes, particularly in the Global South, where energy-efficient design is less widely implemented. The findings provide a roadmap for decision-makers to develop strategies that balance affordability with sustainability. By combining modern technology with lessons from traditional architecture, buildings in hot climates can become more efficient, reducing emissions while improving comfort and resilience in a warming world.

Overview of building types showing floorplans and basic renderings.

Citation

Österreicher, D., & Seerig, A. (2024). Buildings in hot climate zones—Quantification of energy and CO₂ reduction potential for different architecture and building services measures. Sustainability, 16(22), 9812. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16229812

How Saving Peat Swamps and Mangroves Can Help Fight Climate Change

Summary of Half of land use carbon emissions in Southeast Asia can be mitigated through peat swamp forest and mangrove conservation and restoration

Southeast Asia is losing huge amounts of peat swamp forests and mangroves, which store massive amounts of carbon and help fight climate change. When these ecosystems are cut down, burned, or drained, they release nearly half of the region’s land-use carbon emissions, making climate change worse. Scientists found that protecting and restoring these forests could cut emissions in half while also preserving wildlife, preventing floods, and supporting local communities. This makes them one of the most effective and natural solutions for reducing pollution and slowing global warming.

Big Idea:

Scientists found that almost half of the land-use carbon pollution in Southeast Asia comes from destroying peat swamp forests (PSFs) and mangroves. Protecting and restoring these ecosystems could cut emissions in half, helping the fight against climate change.

What’s Happening?

• Southeast Asia releases a lot of carbon pollution (about one-third of the world's land-use carbon emissions).
• Much of this pollution comes from cutting down or damaging peat swamp forests and mangroves.
• These forests store huge amounts of carbon, but when they are destroyed, they release that carbon into the air.

Fig. 1: Distribution of land uses replacing peat swamp forests (PSFs) and mangroves across Southeast Asia by 2022. See document for more details.

Where Is This Happening?

• The biggest polluters from land-use change are:
  • Indonesia (73%)
  • Malaysia (14%)
  • Myanmar (7%)
  • Vietnam (2%)

How Much Land Is Being Lost?

• Peat swamp forests are disappearing at a rate of about 240,000 football fields per year.
• Mangroves are disappearing at a rate of 16,600 football fields per year.
• This destruction is mostly caused by:
• Cutting down trees for plantations (like palm oil farms).
• Fires (some natural, some caused by humans).
• Draining land to make space for farms and fish ponds.

Mangroves. Photo by Muhammadh Saamy on Unsplash

Why Does This Matter?

• Peatlands and mangroves act like giant sponges for carbon. They soak up carbon from the air and keep it trapped in the soil.
• When they are burned, cut down, or drained, they release that carbon back into the atmosphere, which heats up the planet.
• Peat swamps store way more carbon than regular forests, so destroying them does more damage to the climate.

What Can Be Done?

• Stopping deforestation (cutting down trees) could cut emissions in half.
• Restoring peatlands and mangroves could remove nearly 100 million tons of CO₂ from the air each year.
• The best way to help? Rewet the land (stop draining the water) and let forests regrow naturally.

Why This Is Important for the Future

• If Southeast Asian countries protect and restore these forests, they could meet their climate goals under the Paris Agreement.
• This could also protect wildlife, prevent floods, and support local communities.

The Bottom Line:

Saving peat swamps and mangroves is a simple and powerful way to slow down climate change. By stopping destruction and helping forests grow back, Southeast Asia could cut nearly half of its land-based carbon pollution, helping both people and the planet.

Sasmito, S.D., Taillardat, P., Adinugroho, W.C. et al. Half of land use carbon emissions in Southeast Asia can be mitigated through peat swamp forest and mangrove conservation and restoration. Nat Commun 16, 740 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-55892-0 (open access)

The Climate Crisis and Human Health

Summary of: The climate crisis and human health: identifying grand challenges through participatory research 

What’s the Issue?

• Climate change is a major health threat—it’s making people sick in new ways and making existing health problems worse.
• Extreme weather like heatwaves, floods, and storms can lead to new diseases, mental health struggles, and food shortages.
• Poorer countries and small islands suffer the most, even though they contribute the least to climate change.
  

Why Is This a Problem?

• We’re focusing on reducing pollution (which is important), but we haven’t done enough to prepare for the health risks of climate change.
• People in high-risk areas need better healthcare and support to deal with the changes happening now and in the future.

What’s Being Done?

A group of organizations, including Grand Challenges Canada and Science for Africa, are working together to find solutions by listening to people on the front lines.

How Are They Doing This?

1. Global Climate & Health Survey

   • They’re asking doctors, nurses, and community health workers what climate-related health problems they see and what barriers exist.

2. Online Discussion Event (Teach to Reach 11)

   • Health workers from around the world will share their experiences and ideas in a virtual meeting.

3. Expert Review Panel

   • A team of climate and health experts will look at the results and create a list of the biggest challenges.

4. Sharing the Results

   • The list will be made public so that governments, researchers, and funders can use it to make real changes.
   • It will also help guide funding and new programs to improve health in climate-vulnerable areas.

Why This Matters?

• Climate change is already hurting people’s health—we need to act now.
• By listening to local health workers, we can find practical solutions that actually help communities.
• The goal is to get funding, policies, and innovations that protect people’s health from climate risks.

The climate crisis and human health: identifying grand challenges through participatory research

Sanchez, J JohannaBerry, Peter et al.

The Lancet Global Health, Volume 13, Issue 2, e199 - e200

Building Climate Resilience: Understanding Awareness and Adaptation in Flood-Prone Communities

This study looks at how people in flood-prone areas of Nueva Ecija, the Philippines, understand and respond to climate change. It explores their awareness, attitudes, risks, and actions to adapt to and reduce the effects of climate change. The study also examines how education, income, and location affect the way people prepare for climate risks (Çıplak, 2022, paywall). Around the world, climate-related disasters are increasing, and poorer areas are often hit the hardest (Fawzy et al., 2020, open access).

To gather information, researchers used surveys, informal interviews, and observations with 900 households. The results show that most people have a moderate understanding of climate change. However, families in rural areas take more action to adapt and protect themselves because they feel more at risk. Based on these findings, the study suggests Project LEARN, a program to teach communities more about climate change and help them become stronger against its effects. This research helps local communities understand climate change better and provides ideas to improve how they adapt and reduce risks in areas most affected by it (Fawzy et al., 2020, open access).

Mangansat, N. J. M. (2025). Project LEARN: Climate change risk management and adaptive strategies for flood-prone communities. Risk Governance and Control: Financial Markets & Institutions, 15(1), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.22495/rgcv15i1p9, open access

Why are rural communities are more likely to take action on climate than are urban ones?

The article explains that rural communities are more likely to take action on climate change adaptation and mitigation than urban ones due to several key factors:

1. Greater Perceived Risk and Vulnerability

   • Rural households perceive themselves as more vulnerable to climate risks, particularly regarding health, access to goods and services, and overall well-being.
   • They rely more on natural resources and are more exposed to climate-induced disasters like floods, making them feel a stronger need to adapt.

2. Stronger Engagement in Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies

   • Because of their heightened sense of risk, rural respondents reported more frequent adaptation and mitigation behaviors than urban respondents.
   • Actions such as building flood defenses, conserving energy, and improving household emergency plans were more common in rural areas.

3. Limited Access to Services and Resources

   • Unlike urban populations, who may have more government or institutional support, rural communities often have fewer safety nets and thus take proactive measures to protect themselves.
   • This self-reliance drives them to implement climate adaptation strategies more consistently.

4. Economic and Occupational Differences

   • Rural communities depend more on agriculture, which is highly sensitive to climate variability (e.g., floods, droughts, erratic weather).
   • The direct impact on their livelihoods makes them more aware of climate risks and more motivated to take action compared to urban dwellers, whose jobs may be less affected.

5. Household and Socio-Demographic Influences

   • Larger households in rural areas tend to engage more frequently in climate adaptation and mitigation efforts.
   • Education and income levels also play a role—households with lower income and education often perceive higher risks and act accordingly.

In short, rural communities take more climate action because they feel more vulnerable, have fewer external resources, and depend on climate-sensitive livelihoods like farming. Their higher perceived risks and direct exposure to climate change impacts drive more frequent adaptation and mitigation responses compared to urban communities.

Is education level is a negative indicator for taking climate action?

Education level is not a negative indicator for taking climate action, but its relationship with climate adaptation and mitigation is complex. The article suggests that higher education is correlated with greater climate awareness, but not necessarily with higher adaptation and mitigation action. Here’s why:

Key Findings on Education and Climate Action:

1. Education Increases Awareness but Doesn't Always Lead to Action

   • The study found that higher educational attainment strongly influences climate change perceptions—people with more education tend to have a better understanding of climate change concepts (e.g., causes, impacts, and risks).
   • However, this doesn’t always translate into more frequent adaptation or mitigation behaviors.

2. Rural Communities with Lower Education Take More Climate Action

   • Rural respondents, who generally have lower education levels, tend to perceive higher climate risks and engage more actively in adaptation and mitigation.
   • This is likely because they experience more direct climate impacts (e.g., crop losses, floods, health risks) and have fewer external safety nets, making adaptation a necessity rather than a choice.

3. Urban Communities with Higher Education Show Less Urgency in Adaptation

   • Urban respondents, who generally have higher levels of education, perceive lower risks and engage less frequently in adaptation and mitigation strategies.
   • This could be because they rely more on government support, infrastructure, or services, reducing the perceived need for individual action.

4. Income Plays a Role Alongside Education

   • Higher-income individuals (who often have more education) may have more resources but may not feel as vulnerable, leading to lower adaptation effort compared to lower-income households that must take action to survive.
   • Economic stability allows for passive adaptation (e.g., moving to safer areas, relying on technology), while lower-income households must actively adapt (e.g., building flood barriers, altering agricultural practices).

Overall, education helps people understand climate change, but does not always lead to more climate action—especially if they do not perceive immediate risks. Rural communities with lower education levels take more action because they feel more exposed and lack alternative support systems. However, this doesn’t mean education is a negative factor—rather, it highlights that perceived vulnerability is a stronger driver of climate action than education alone.