Like, are we really immune from some mega drought occuring somewhere that mostly depends on rainfall? Or is that just extremely unlikely to happen, especially at a large scale?
For the West specifically, wealthier nations can kind of just export the shortage by paying more for supplies that would go elsewhere.
The West also feeds most of its crops to animals, so that is an area for relatively easy reduction in an emergency. 67% of what is grown in the USA is animal food. But that proportion is dramatically lower in places like India.
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel...
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/pMsnCieusmYqGW26W/...
However, the papers which predict such scenarios have been criticized as being too pessimistic:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jnDibtfvWNHLucf4D/actually-a...
If the 1930s American dustbowl had happened to a densely populated non-industrial society, it would probably have been one of the worst famines in history. Agricultural yields fell by like 50% for several years in the affected region. But they just brought in food from California and Saskatchewan. It was still a disaster, of course.
The Russian famine of 1921 was one of the first times industrial societies really mobilized in that way. At the peak grain grown in the USA and donated to the USSR was feeding about 1 in 10 Russians during the famine. One of the largest logistics operations in history up to that point. It's why Herbert Hoover was nominated for the Nobel peace prize five times.
A very accessible book for all. I recommend it. It’s not perfect but it’s a good, easy read compared to other books touching on the same subjects.