Dr Keith Dawson on COP26: Food will never go out of 'fashion'

A reminder that #farmingneverstops and the need for constant attention to crop progress and markets. I cannot remember a time in the last four decades when there has been as much turbulence in the pricing of both outputs and inputs. There is no doubt this will have significant ongoing effects, not least on food poverty and security.

In one of the businesses I am involved in, in South America, we have been looking at an opportunity to acquire new land, as I have many times before. But it is the first time I can recall the physical availability of fertiliser being a factor in a decision.

All growers globally are focusing on how to minimise fertiliser costs, there are worries that this will lead to bad short-term decisions being made. 'Mining' of P and K from soils, or cutting the key driver of N to damage yield performance is not the way forward.

Drops in global production will damage and kill the poorest by pushing up prices and cutting supply. This is caused not by climate, but energy prices and security. Cheaper energy reduces poverty, higher cost energy deepens it.

There are a number of products and dubious analyses and even major system changes coming out of the woodwork, claiming to massively cut N inputs and stimulate soil N mineralization based on very flimsy or no evidence. Buyer Beware!

If something sounds too good to be true, it likely is! Never has there been a year when careful buying of inputs early and selling output late has made such a difference to farm profitability.

Meanwhile, tight supply and demand situation with wheat, despite a record global grain harvest, is increasing food price inflation and food poverty. This is notable in Egypt, the second largest global wheat importer, after Indonesia, and the most populous country in the Middle East.

Many will recall the 2011 Arab Spring, driven by rocketing bread prices in Egypt after drought in Ukraine and Russia. Nearly 90% of Egyptians are registered in their government's subsidy scheme which reduced bread prices by 90%.

Egypt only produces 50% of it's requirement domestically and the word for bread in Egypt is 'aish', meaning life, so it is fundamental. Gene editing to produce more drought resistant cultivars would give a big boost.

Increasing wheat prices are due to increasing international demand in line with population, a Russian export tax and the odd normal local weather effect, rather than climate change as some will no doubt claim. Another new record global grain harvest this year and from less land, is evidence of that fact.

Current UN forecasts for wheat harvest for 21/22 are slightly down on this year, mostly due to fertiliser prices and Russian taxes cutting plantings. The problem is not supply, but demand driven.

In my opinion, prices will remain on the high side due to increased demand and Russian taxes. Low potato prices in the UK are an anomaly, with continental and Ukrainian prices much higher. This is mainly due to restricted trade from the continent into UK, I wonder why that is?

Meanwhile, carcases are exported from UK to be butchered before being reimported with rising transport costs ... 'Brexit the gift that keeps on taking'.

The world's eyes have been on Glasgow this fortnight at COP26. How many of us know that COP stands for the slightly Orwellian Conference of the Parties? So how much was it Blue, Blue, Blue, or Blå, Blå, Blå in Swedish?

Certainly, COP's own carbon footprint was massively greater than previous summits. If you can't manage your own, how can you manage the world's?

It has been an interesting two weeks to say the least, with world leaders making bold, uncosted commitments domestically and a major redistribution of global wealth being promised from the global North to the global South.

There has been conflation and confusion with non climate issues such as plastic pollution, political refugees, gender equality and even Covid damage on tourism onto the climate change bankwagon.

All this to get their slice of the promised massive reparation and transition 'cake.' Should we foot the bill for local deforestation for fuel causing drought in Madagascar? All without a public debate, discourse or mandate on a national level.

The climate is changing, it always has, but there was too much alarmism at COP which does not fit the underlying facts and data, in my opinion.

A third feature was the torrent of green-washing that was evident, with huge numbers of companies wearing their green suits, whether warranted or otherwise. Phallic Rocketman Bezos's hypocrisy stood out in this respect – self awareness not being his strength, arriving by Gulf Stream private jet.

Transparency is still a major issue, with many nations under reporting their emissions. Even with the bold uncosted commitments to net zero made in Glasgow, Climate ActionTracker (CAT) said COP26 has a massive credibility and commitment gap.

Their modelling shows that we are still on course for 2.4°C in 2100, with emissions double in 2030 that required to hit 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. If we stick to Paris commitments, it will be 2.7°C by 2100, based on their modelled futures – not necessarily what will happen.

It's important to note that these are modelled futures, not facts. There is little evidence that up to 2°C there is significant damage. More people die from cold than heat and up to at least 2°C the effects are positive in saving lives.

CAT claim that we need to go into 'emergency mode' and double commitments yet again as current COP26 NDCs (National Determined Contributions) are not enough. What this would mean for a post-Covid global North is difficult to ascertain, as there are again zero costings for this net zero scenario.

With the independent UK OBR predicting Brexit effects being double that of Covid for the UK, it is not a rosy picture for these isles. China, India and Russia look at our costly renewable energy experiment and say 'Nein danke' ... just yet.

You will have noticed that there is little criticism of the number one emitter, China, by the developing nations. China has bought this silence by the massive infrastructure investment they have made in these nations over the last decades.

Whilst methane agreements are a step forward in many countries, it's important to note leaky gas and fracking facilities are the main global culprit not farming. The UK had already addressed this, so livestock farming will be hit harder here. China, Brazil and Russia did not sign up to the methane, or coal agreements and our eyes are also on the EU/Belarus border and gas pipelines this week.

On one of my visits to COP, I was delighted to attend the excellent TB Macaulay lecture, run by the Macaulay Trust and James Hutton Institute. This is the longest running and largest UK public lecture.

The main speakers were Christiana Figueres, leader of the Paris COP and our own First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. In addition, three young climate activists who work with Greta Thunberg, joined the panel.

It was announced by Nicola that Scotland would be the first nation in the world to agree to commit to pay reparation costs. Domestic taxpayers' money – for no government has its own money – to pay reparation, loss and damage costs for climate damage to developing countries.

This is an interesting concept and worthy of much greater debate. One can argue that Scotland over the centuries provided much of good to the world as a whole – this is inarguable – whereas our net input to climate damge is still debatable.

There are many problems we need to address and in my opinion plastic pollution is a greater threat than climate change. Food and fuel poverty are also major and increasing problems, in part driven by these very climate policies.

Biofuel drives up food prices, whilst renewables currently drive up energy costs. Gender equality, education and empowerment of women are key issues in alleviating poverty.

There is no doubt the Law of Unintended Consequences will play large as these climate commitments play out. My own concern is that simplistic, ill-thought-out policies and investment in reduction of CO2 emissions based on models will detract from solving more immediate and real problems.

I speak as an environmental scientist and adviser, with both published pioneering research work on GGE emissions 40 years ago and more recently pioneered renewable energy in Cuba and food security elsewhere.

A good example is rising fertiliser prices, where our lack of investment in gas storage and infrastructure, and over reliance on Russian gas as a result of our investment in higher cost renewable energy has had dramatic effects. This might be seen by some as a farmer problem, but also affects the bread queue in Cairo and Cowdenbeath.

We are moving to an 'Up conifer, down cow', or "Up sitka, down sheep' policy that's driven by immoral carbon payments driving marginal land prices upwards. This will have major effects on rural landscapes, communities, new entrants and job prospects.

You may question my use of the word 'immoral', but it's a choice between carbon payments being pumped into land values, versus education, health and social care for us all.

Grass and sitka have wildly different annual growth cycles and rates. It is several decades before a tree, especially a more welcome broadleaved tree, will become carbon neutral, let alone have a positive effect.

Much carbon is released ploughing up established grassland, but grass is a carbon sink almost immediately. Trees and carbon offsetting are pricing out new entrants and removing productive land for generations.

It's sad that, despite Figueres highlighting the importance of farming, there was no such emphasis in COP. A real COP out.

Farming is a key part of the solution, not the problem. SSCR and JHI have been proclaiming the importance of soil health for decades, it's welcome that others are now realising that simple fact.

The decades of lack of investment in soil scientists and soil research is now coming back to haunt us. Nicola Sturgeon was uncomfortable that we are not doing enough, but was even more uncomfortable when quizzed on the proposed Cambo oilfield.

As well taxpayer cash promises of $100bn per annum, both Mark Carney and Rishi Sunak made great play of private commercial funds being made available of $130 trillion for investment. Eye watering sums.

Again, this funding is from private taxpayer and other stakeholders funds via pensions and personal investments. It's important that a realistic view is taken on the risk and return on such investments.

At CPG, we have taken such an approach to a zero waste and circular economy. This will provide good returns from the adoption of new technology to meet environmental outcomes such as zero waste, biodegradable packaging and plant proteins.

Many 'green' investments offer a more risky reward, eg the number of failed wind energy companies and power outages caused by intermittency. Has the debate on the riskier strategies for our state and personal investments/pensions taken place yet?

The UK commitment to net zero has been made, but not costed by government. Conservative estimates suggest the UK cost to be in excess of £1 trillion. In the US, Biden's net-zero will cost more than $11,300 per person per year by 205, which is almost 500-times more expensive than what a majority of Americans said they were willing to pay.

Even if achieved, it will reduce temps in 2100 by just 0.16°C using IPCC models. If the whole of the EU went net zero tomorrow, it would only make 0.014°C difference by 2030.

All this in a UK already under the highest tax burden in living memory and record energy costs. In a UK survey, 90% wanted to solve climate issues but only 40% wanted to pay extra taxes. Independent studies estimated the cost to the UK alone of net zero to be more than £3 trillion.

As usual, PM Johnson fell back onto misplaced flowery oratory on football and Ian Fleming analogies, although we all know to our cost that his word is never his Bond. That said, we should not be too hard on him.

He famously said "f#@k business" and it appears he is indeed keeping that promise, with farmers and fishermen to start with between exports and sewage discharges. I wonder how much underhand lobbying Paterson did when a Defra minister?

Quite ironic to see Johnson throw his dodgy Brexit pals, Cox and Paterson, under a U-turning bus to deflect from his own litany of unforced errors. Johnson has failed in his COP26 charm offensive, even having to make an embarrassing and very public proclamation to the world that the UK is 'not corrupt'. How far have we fallen?

There were other inconvenient truths that you will not have heard, because they didn't fit into the COP26 media narrative. The science is anything but settled in my view.

Whilst 90% of emissions in the models come from fossil CO2, 10% comes from estimates of 'land use changes'. New satellite data has meant a massive revision downwards by modellers in this emissions source this month.

The new figure almost halves the estimate of net emissions from land-use change over the past two years and by an average of 25% over the past decade. This means that, in the last decade, CO2 emissions are almost flat statistically.

Fossil fuel saved the global whale population, who were being slaughtered for light generating oil. Polar bear populations are growing and green plants have evolved to have an optimum photosynthesis rate at four times current atmospheric levels.

The latest Australian Government report shows significant regrowth in corals on the Great Barrier Reef and a period of recovery since the last report two years ago. Growth, not decline, with 'most reefs surveyed showing moderate, or high coral cover'. This was put down to a period of reduced heat stress.

Recent peer reviewed research had shown that in a major satellite study of 30 Pacific and Indian atolls, with more than 700 islands, none had decreased in land area above sea level in the last three decades. Real life data, not models.

The area of wildfires in 2021 was half that in 1900. The IPCC, in its latest report, also admitted there was little evidence of an increase in the frequency of extreme weather events. Climate deaths are currently at a record low in human history, due to our ability to adapt and mitigate.

Inconvenient truths, but truths none the less. Why are these positives not being reported alongside the problems? This would help the young's mental health and encourage us all.

None of this means we should not develop new strategies, reduce energy and waste and plastic and air pollution, address gender inequalities, vaccine and health inequalities, reduce fuel and food poverty and conserve and steward our world for future generations.

As a scientist who has worked on six continents and a grandfather to three wonderful grand-daughters, I am personally convinced of the crucial importance of this. There is, though, a fundamental need for careful costed steady investment in all these areas not a coercive, cultish alarmist knee-jerk narrative which is wasteful and actually detracts from progress in my view. Hysteria is not the solution.

Let's be clear, global carbon pricing, eliminating fuel subsidies, net zero and climate reparation mean not only inflation in Scottish hill land prices, but inflation on food, fuel, travel and all of the goods we consume. This will drive food and fuel poverty for the poorest, not just in the UK, but globally.

Those least able to afford it will be hit the hardest. This unintended consequence will be massive redistribution of weath globally and nationally, but not always for the good. India alone demands a £1 trillion reparation from the global North, before any action on coal.

No one denies that the climate changes, the debate is about the rate and measures required. We can all agree that many problems need to be addressed, from plastics to poverty. We need to invest in fusion research and other clean cheaper energy sources – and we all need to do our share.

With undue, uncosted haste in climate policies, but appalling delays in farming policies, there's a real danger that Scottish farming and hence the consumer will be caught in a policy crossfire. Time will tell whether Johnson's COP is a Flop.

How much has Blå, Blå, Blå, been watered down? The signs are not good, just diluted aspiration after all that perspiration and emission.

One thing is clear, food will not go out of fashion and our efforts will always be needed.