Assume that climate change is happening – as it is and always has. Good. So, what food you can grow where depends upon the weather and the climate, right? Sure, we can breed more resistant strains of everything and all that but we are still dependent upon both weather and climate. We’re not going to grow barley in the Congo and we’re not going to produce pineapples in Perth. Not the Scottish one at least.
OK, so what’s our useful reaction to the idea that climate is going to change more then? Getting our food from lots of different places presumably. Because that varies the risk, right?
The UK is increasingly reliant on fruit and vegetables imported from countries most vulnerable to the effects of the climate crisis, which could lead to supply problems, experts say.
Well, if we only ate stuff grown in the UK we’d be even more vulnerable, right?
In 1987, 21 crops accounted for 80% of all fruit and vegetables supplied to the UK. The figure rose to 27 crops in 2000 and 34 in 2013, according to the study.
Cool, that’s what we are doing, Diversifying the species we eat, the places they’re produced in, we’re doing the right things. Except, the experts here say we’re not:
“The implications of vulnerability of our trade strategy cuts across traditional policy silos such as diets, health, agriculture, economy and the environment,” Scheelbeek said. “We need to rethink our trade strategy to reduce dependency on climate vulnerable countries, import responsibly and look into possibilities to enhance consumption of sustainably grown fruit and vegetables, including those produced in the UK.”
Yes, quite so, the idiots are proposing that we concentrate risk here into our domestic fields. They’re insane.
No, that is not too harsh a word, insane. For upon reading the actual paper itself we get:
The diversity of fruit and vegetable supply has increased.
We’re already doing the right thing, the right thing these fools would see reversed. Now, where’s that piano wire gone?