> our lineage of argumentation is non-conclusive as 30% change doesn't equate 2 billion death World's population is expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050. We g

> our lineage of argumentation is non-conclusive as 30% change doesn't equate 2 billion death World's population is expected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050. We grow enough food for 10 billion. Climate models say there will be 30% less food, so only enough to feed 7 billion. These numbers are common knowledge, none of them are disputed. [1] Put 2 and 2 together. What will happen to the 3 billion people that have nothing to eat? The people is the impoverished global south can feed extra 1 billion by getting rid of animals, but then what? Are the other 2 billion going to learn photosynthesis? Is the developed world going to give up food? Put forward an actual counter argument, provide numbers, back them up with expert opinions. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/adapting-to-4c-of-global-warming https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/adapting-to-4c-of-glo...