Yet he's not entirely blind to politics, noting "under climate change, Canada, Russia and Siberia will emerge as the world's grain superpowers by the end of the present century. Scientists have calculated that by 2080 Russia/Siberia could gain an extra 40-70 percent of new farming land, while North America ya gain 20-50 percent. Such increases would in theory go a long way towards counterbalancing heavy losses in food production in the tropics and subtropics - but unless the food produced iin the North is somehow transported and affordably distributed in the deficit regions, the risk of large-scale local famines triggered by climate impacts will be acute. In all of history to date, the existence of vast food surplus in the North has failed to prevent starvation in the South". (And he rather doubts that the 1.3 billion people who now depend on the great rivers of the Indian subcontinent, in large part fed by Himalayan glaciers, will be given the chance to resettled in water-rich regions.)
And he does see the need to at least make some of the profiteers pay something back. He says food manufacturers and supermarkets "should volunteer, ot be required" to fund agricultural science and communication of the results. "Just as mining companies are now asked to clean up the sites they mine and repair their environmental damage, so should the food industry be required to repair the environmental damage it causes through its pricing policies." And he's clear that privatised research, with the results used for further profit-generation, is not the way to proceed - all research results should be available to all.