You're right to be concerned. The WFP has put out figures suggesting that 45 million people might be added to the severe food insecurity issues, raising the total to 363 million. Climate change and economic shocks in economically vulnerable nations are still dwarfed by wars and disruptions to supply chains arising from conflict as the main cause of global hunger, malnutrition and starvation.
Currently, international aid passes through an incredibly inefficient bureaucracy. A dollar given by a Western government goes to the UN, which takes an administrative cut, passes it to an international NGO, which takes a cut, before it finally reaches local operators. Most of the estimates of this process grossly overestimate the actual amount of aid that gets through at the ground level. Funding needs to to local African community groups, agricultural cooperatives, and logistics companies.
The best fix is direct-to-Local cash transfers. The US state department and the Europeans need to step up. The Europeans might blanche at the prospect. This sort of approach has been shown to be far more effective than the standard UN approach, usually in the realms of at least twice as effective per dollar. It might validate the Trump admin's position on aid.
The figures are more modest until one considers the multiplier effect. Giving directly actually improves the local economy, adding resilience, in addition to solving immediate hunger needs. Traditional aid programs have 1.67 multiplier effect. Giving directly raises this to 2.59. It doesn't lower the immediate costs. The West should be generous with genuine humanitarian aid. However, this type of approach does ameliorate the need to step-in in future, lowering the cost of reasonable humanitarian aid over the long-term by a substantial margin. More economically resilient communities tend to develop contingencies for difficult times. It's one of their first priorities as they develop.
One reason the effect is tempered is that China has elected to reduced its imports and draw down its enormous reserves; Possibly to help its ecomic neighbors and gain quiet soft power.
Or that they are concerned with near term spikes in prices to consumers and want to mute the effects of expensive oil. "Analysts" believe that Beijing will start replenishing inventories "later" this year.
I have not found anywhere where Beijing has given a reason. They could have more than one.
Reduced crop yields in modern North America are not as likely to have as devastating impact on food production as in the medieval period or in marginal countries where agriculture is principally for growing food. Much of what is grown in the Midwest gets fed to cows, fed to motor vehicles or exported. And it was going to be a bad year, anyway, since up until about three days ago, we were in a near-record drought over a wide area and there was near-record low snow in the Rockies to feed the rivers used for irrigation.
The problem is not for Americans, but for countries that import much of their food. Such as those in the Persian gulf area. It's an interesting circular dependence: fertilizers produced from natural gas go out (or not) through the Straits of Hormuz, while food grown elsewhere (with productivity depending on fertilizers) comes in the opposite way.
This was the start of the Little Ice Age. It left the whole population of Europe too weak to resist the Black Death that came a few years later. One-third to half of Europe died. This was an even bigger shock.
For me, this should a wake up call for the ancient ones to start focusing on nuclear electrification, inshoring industry, and others. Sone companies catch some fishes in the North Sea and then to airlift the catch to Thailand to cut them up and to pack them before shipping them back to England, just to save a couple of cents. That is the height of insanity. Having to pay more for the fuel can only force them to really rethink the entire system. If we do that, then the war will be a blessing in disguise.
A halving of economic growth is still very significant and is surely only part of the story as some economies will feel the effects greater than others.
"Well, OECD called it “major slowdown,” but if Hormuz is not opened, in 2027 it forecasts that global economic growth will be 1.8% (about half of 3.4% in 2025)."
At least 25% of traded oil comes through the Strait. Economic growth is closely correlated with oil supply. Once strategic reserves are drained and oil supply falls, it's hard to see how economic growth will not go into reverse.
Economists and politicians generally fail to see, or will not admit, the crucial importance of depleting fossil fuels, especially oil, and other energy sources to maintaining current economies and population levels.
There was another shock in the 1780s, due to the Laki eruption in 1784, which produced food shortages in France among other places. Some historians link the bread seizures that led to the Revolution to that.
What about the SPR? It's at its lowest levels since the 80s, and although there is some global growth in supply I wouldn't be at all surprised if oil prices hit $106-115 by the end of summer. I think you're largely right about food. However, there are several other commodities which bear watching. The helium issue is less critical- chip demand has a couple of buffers, but copper is also likely to be hit due to the interruption of sulfuric acid through the Strait of Hormuz.
I largely agree with your take. Permabear instincts have been amplified by a loathing of Trump amongst the highly educated, but equally I think some are overly optimistic. We're in for a rocky ride, with recessions in many advanced economies, and potential economic shocks in vulnerable developing nations.
The copper issue is the most pressing concern. Governments should be hitting pause on high speed rail, experimental hydrogen splitting electrolyser plants, and large-scale civic architectural projects, new government office complexes, and ornamental public spaces. At the same time they should be prioritising high-velocity bottlenecks, particularly upgrading existing energy grids for resiliency.
The reason everybody is so optimistic is that people who will starve in the upcoming crisis live in places nobody cares about.
You're right to be concerned. The WFP has put out figures suggesting that 45 million people might be added to the severe food insecurity issues, raising the total to 363 million. Climate change and economic shocks in economically vulnerable nations are still dwarfed by wars and disruptions to supply chains arising from conflict as the main cause of global hunger, malnutrition and starvation.
Currently, international aid passes through an incredibly inefficient bureaucracy. A dollar given by a Western government goes to the UN, which takes an administrative cut, passes it to an international NGO, which takes a cut, before it finally reaches local operators. Most of the estimates of this process grossly overestimate the actual amount of aid that gets through at the ground level. Funding needs to to local African community groups, agricultural cooperatives, and logistics companies.
The best fix is direct-to-Local cash transfers. The US state department and the Europeans need to step up. The Europeans might blanche at the prospect. This sort of approach has been shown to be far more effective than the standard UN approach, usually in the realms of at least twice as effective per dollar. It might validate the Trump admin's position on aid.
The figures are more modest until one considers the multiplier effect. Giving directly actually improves the local economy, adding resilience, in addition to solving immediate hunger needs. Traditional aid programs have 1.67 multiplier effect. Giving directly raises this to 2.59. It doesn't lower the immediate costs. The West should be generous with genuine humanitarian aid. However, this type of approach does ameliorate the need to step-in in future, lowering the cost of reasonable humanitarian aid over the long-term by a substantial margin. More economically resilient communities tend to develop contingencies for difficult times. It's one of their first priorities as they develop.
https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers
One reason the effect is tempered is that China has elected to reduced its imports and draw down its enormous reserves; Possibly to help its ecomic neighbors and gain quiet soft power.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-seen-tapping-deeper-into-oil-stockpiles-imports-hit-decade-low-2026-06-02/
Presumably this means that they are not worried about the supplies in the long run.
Or that they are concerned with near term spikes in prices to consumers and want to mute the effects of expensive oil. "Analysts" believe that Beijing will start replenishing inventories "later" this year.
I have not found anywhere where Beijing has given a reason. They could have more than one.
Reduced crop yields in modern North America are not as likely to have as devastating impact on food production as in the medieval period or in marginal countries where agriculture is principally for growing food. Much of what is grown in the Midwest gets fed to cows, fed to motor vehicles or exported. And it was going to be a bad year, anyway, since up until about three days ago, we were in a near-record drought over a wide area and there was near-record low snow in the Rockies to feed the rivers used for irrigation.
The problem is not for Americans, but for countries that import much of their food. Such as those in the Persian gulf area. It's an interesting circular dependence: fertilizers produced from natural gas go out (or not) through the Straits of Hormuz, while food grown elsewhere (with productivity depending on fertilizers) comes in the opposite way.
This was the start of the Little Ice Age. It left the whole population of Europe too weak to resist the Black Death that came a few years later. One-third to half of Europe died. This was an even bigger shock.
For me, this should a wake up call for the ancient ones to start focusing on nuclear electrification, inshoring industry, and others. Sone companies catch some fishes in the North Sea and then to airlift the catch to Thailand to cut them up and to pack them before shipping them back to England, just to save a couple of cents. That is the height of insanity. Having to pay more for the fuel can only force them to really rethink the entire system. If we do that, then the war will be a blessing in disguise.
A halving of economic growth is still very significant and is surely only part of the story as some economies will feel the effects greater than others.
Shutting off the Strait is the energy equivalent of nuclear war. I wrote a bit on this topic https://sparkstarter.substack.com/p/nega-watt-weapons
"Well, OECD called it “major slowdown,” but if Hormuz is not opened, in 2027 it forecasts that global economic growth will be 1.8% (about half of 3.4% in 2025)."
At least 25% of traded oil comes through the Strait. Economic growth is closely correlated with oil supply. Once strategic reserves are drained and oil supply falls, it's hard to see how economic growth will not go into reverse.
Economists and politicians generally fail to see, or will not admit, the crucial importance of depleting fossil fuels, especially oil, and other energy sources to maintaining current economies and population levels.
There was another shock in the 1780s, due to the Laki eruption in 1784, which produced food shortages in France among other places. Some historians link the bread seizures that led to the Revolution to that.
What about the SPR? It's at its lowest levels since the 80s, and although there is some global growth in supply I wouldn't be at all surprised if oil prices hit $106-115 by the end of summer. I think you're largely right about food. However, there are several other commodities which bear watching. The helium issue is less critical- chip demand has a couple of buffers, but copper is also likely to be hit due to the interruption of sulfuric acid through the Strait of Hormuz.
I largely agree with your take. Permabear instincts have been amplified by a loathing of Trump amongst the highly educated, but equally I think some are overly optimistic. We're in for a rocky ride, with recessions in many advanced economies, and potential economic shocks in vulnerable developing nations.
The copper issue is the most pressing concern. Governments should be hitting pause on high speed rail, experimental hydrogen splitting electrolyser plants, and large-scale civic architectural projects, new government office complexes, and ornamental public spaces. At the same time they should be prioritising high-velocity bottlenecks, particularly upgrading existing energy grids for resiliency.