Two scenarios of our climate future

This study integrated two sets of data for future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, each outlining a pathway or scenario outlined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and hazard data (drought, wildfire, heat) from Climate Engine.

The business-as-usual scenario is actually the worst case consistent with the Representative Consistent Pathway (RCP) 8.5, an approximate outcome based on historical GHG emissions and current global climate policies.³ It assumes emissions continue to increase, adoption of conservation practices stagnates, fossil fuels remain the dominant energy source for decades, and human diets generally stay the same.

The moderate-emission model follows RCP 4.5, which assumes some efforts are made to curb emissions, resulting in widespread conservation practices, increased investments in research and development, a tendency to favor organic agriculture and climate-friendly production, and dietary changes, including reduced meat and dairy consumption.

Droughts and wildfires will have an increasingly negative impact

Droughts and wildfires are poised to affect U.S. agriculture with increasing frequency and intensity. Both severe drought and large-scale wildfires can wipe out a business's entire production, while milder drought events can still reduce yields and push up prices.

By 2050, based on a status quo scenario, U.S. agricultural losses resulting from wildfires are projected to reach around $796 million a year and drought is estimated to cause a staggering $11 billion a year in losses. Four states may see the most intense effects:

• Texas is estimated to lose $890 million a year to drought, most of it from livestock farming.

• California may lose as much as $430 million a year to wildfires and more than $460 million a year to drought, with fruit-growing operations particularly at risk.

• North Dakota could lose $770 million a year to drought, mainly the result of a potentially hard-hit grain growing industry.

• Similarly, Illinois may lose $620 million a year to drought mostly stemming from its grain farming.

Unsurprisingly, California is projected to continue to be the state most affected by wildfires, with some counties facing more than $70 million a year in losses by 2050, mostly in fruit and vegetable production, under the business-as-usual scenario. Drought is projected to hit hard, with a single Oklahoma county facing losses of around $110 million a year, nearly $100 million of that in livestock.

Wildfires can devastate producers, often destroying physical assets, infrastructure, crops, and livestock. Their effects extend beyond the path of the flames. Smoke-tainted Napa grapes can result in wines worth only $5 per gallon;⁴ smoke cover reduces the amount of sunlight that reaches crops, which can affect yields.⁵ Smoke-filled air is harmful to workers' health, while smoke and wildfire evacuations are linked to illness, reduced milk yields, and reduced conception in livestock.⁶

The impact of extreme heat will be negative overall, but is projected to bring gains in some places

Extreme heat will have mixed effects on U.S. agriculture, with counterintuitive financial gains for some geographies and crops. Under the business-as-usual scenario, vegetable crops in Arizona's Gila River Valley region could see losses of around $10 million a year by 2050, with livestock losses of $40 to $50 million. In contrast, some fruit crops in California's Central Valley could see gains reaching toward $100 million a year.

Ultimately, extreme heat will present more significant challenges because of its potentially devastating impact on human health and well-being. Hotter temperatures can compromise workers’ health. In fact, agricultural workers are more than 30 times more likely than other workers to die of heat stress.⁷

In addition, watermelon farmers in southern Florida and Georgia can already harvest earlier than historical norms. This change brings the harvest season into competition with Mexico's late winter crop, leading to labor shortages, as Mexican workers need to complete their home harvest before traveling north.⁸

Furthermore, adapting to increased heat can be costly for both farmers and their suppliers. Agricultural machinery is generally specific to certain crops—or even a single crop. For example, combine harvesters are vital for most grains but irrelevant to fruit and vegetables. Farmers usually resell machinery within their local area. If all local farms are switching production due to climate change, reselling machinery becomes a much more complex and costly endeavor.