# ESSAY: 81% Odds, 49 Million at Risk: El Niño Is Not a Final Toll


- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Essay
- Published: 2026-08-10
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/essay-81-odds-49-million-at-risk-el-nino-is-not-a-final-toll

## Key takeaways

- The WFP scenario, reported by Reuters, says a powerful El Niño could push nearly 49 million additional people into acute food insecurity by the end of 2027.
- The WFP puts the probability of a very strong El Niño at 81 percent, and Pacific sea-surface temperatures are described as their warmest since at least 1982.
- Projected increases are about 83 percent for Central America and nearly 75 percent for Southern Africa, while Southern Africa, South America and the Caribbean could each see more than 12 million additional people affected.
- Nicolas Jaquier of Ninety One argues that higher energy prices, fertilizer constraints and weather-related food inflation can overlap.
- The UK Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit estimates dry conditions could cut British cereal and oilseed output by up to 2.5 million tonnes, with possible farm costs of up to 390 million pounds, based on partial yield data.

## Introduction

### A warning measured in people

On 6 August 2026, the World Food Programme issued a scenario, not a completed tally. **6 August 2026**, **nearly 49 million**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. Reuters reported the WFP warning that a powerful El Niño could push nearly 49 million additional people into acute food insecurity by the end of 2027. preparation for a major conditional risk *A projection can demand action without pretending the future has already happened.*

The record behind **A warning measured in people** adds **end of 2027** and **acute food insecurity** to the public account. The date and the modal verb matter: the number describes people who could be exposed under a projected climate sequence, not people already counted in a new global ledger. That distinction keeps **Introduction** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### The number belongs to the future

**The number belongs to the future** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **6 August 2026**. The assigned material does not provide a direct WFP report, a named list of affected households, or a completed 2027 food-security count. The wording stays tied to the material available on **The number belongs to the future**. The public record stops where **The number belongs to the future** stops.

For **Introduction**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: Reuters reported the WFP warning that a powerful El Niño could push nearly 49 million additional people into acute food insecurity by the end of 2027. The evidence supports **preparation for a major conditional risk**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

## An 81% probability still leaves a test

### A high likelihood is not certainty

The WFP puts the probability of a very strong El Niño at 81 percent. **81 percent**, **very strong El Niño**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. That is an unusually forceful warning, but probability is not a promise that every regional effect will unfold on a fixed schedule. a high-probability scenario rather than a guaranteed outcome *Eighty-one percent is serious. It is not a completed verdict.*

The record behind **A high likelihood is not certainty** adds **climate probability** and **food planning** to the public account. The figure explains why food systems should prepare; it does not allow an article to write a local disaster into existence before evidence arrives. That distinction keeps **An 81% probability still leaves a test** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### The percentage is a planning signal

**The percentage is a planning signal** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **81 percent**. No monthly rainfall calendar, country-by-country impact table, or final event declaration appears in the assigned block. The wording stays tied to the material available on **The percentage is a planning signal**. The public record stops where **The percentage is a planning signal** stops.

For **An 81% probability still leaves a test**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: That is an unusually forceful warning, but probability is not a promise that every regional effect will unfold on a fixed schedule. The evidence supports **a high-probability scenario rather than a guaranteed outcome**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

## The Pacific signal comes before the food bill

### Warm water is an early warning

Pacific sea-surface temperatures are described as their warmest since at least 1982. **since at least 1982**, **since 1950**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. Reuters reported that this comparison could place the episode among the strongest since 1950, which gives the WFP warning its climate backdrop. a global warning signal with local outcomes still unresolved *The Pacific can warn the world before any field tells its final story.*

The record behind **Warm water is an early warning** adds **Pacific sea-surface temperatures** and **climate signal** to the public account. An ocean signal can precede pressure on crops and prices without proving the exact timing or severity of every local effect. That distinction keeps **The Pacific signal comes before the food bill** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### A comparison is not a local forecast

**A comparison is not a local forecast** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **since at least 1982**. The fact block gives no temperature reading, no local precipitation forecast, and no crop-by-crop model. The wording stays tied to the material available on **A comparison is not a local forecast**. The public record stops where **A comparison is not a local forecast** stops.

For **The Pacific signal comes before the food bill**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: Reuters reported that this comparison could place the episode among the strongest since 1950, which gives the WFP warning its climate backdrop. The evidence supports **a global warning signal with local outcomes still unresolved**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

## The deadline is the end of 2027

### A horizon prevents a false present tense

The WFP scenario points to the end of 2027, not to the day the warning was issued. **end of 2027**, **future horizon**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. That horizon separates an anticipated food-security shock from a verified current count of people experiencing the projected additional hardship. a future-facing alert with conditions attached *A future date forbids a false present-tense disaster.*

The record behind **A horizon prevents a false present tense** adds **WFP scenario** and **projected exposure** to the public account. It also makes the warning operational: institutions have time to prepare, but not permission to dismiss the risk as distant. That distinction keeps **The deadline is the end of 2027** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### Time is part of the evidence

**Time is part of the evidence** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **end of 2027**. No present-day register in the material converts the projected 49 million into named or already verified cases. The wording stays tied to the material available on **Time is part of the evidence**. The public record stops where **Time is part of the evidence** stops.

For **The deadline is the end of 2027**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: That horizon separates an anticipated food-security shock from a verified current count of people experiencing the projected additional hardship. The evidence supports **a future-facing alert with conditions attached**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

## Central America faces an 83% projected rise

### A regional figure needs its condition

For Central America, the WFP projects an 83 percent increase in food insecurity in the stated scenario. **Central America**, **83 percent**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. The number describes a projected regional change, not a ranking of countries, crops, households, or government responses. a strong regional warning without a country-by-country ledger *Eighty-three percent is an alarm, not a map.*

The record behind **A regional figure needs its condition** adds **regional projection** and **food insecurity** to the public account. Its consequence is a clear warning of concentrated vulnerability across the region, even though the available material does not distribute the burden further. That distinction keeps **Central America faces an 83% projected rise** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### No country list comes with the percentage

**No country list comes with the percentage** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **Central America**. The assigned source does not break the 83 percent estimate down by country or identify a final number for each territory. The wording stays tied to the material available on **No country list comes with the percentage**. The public record stops where **No country list comes with the percentage** stops.

For **Central America faces an 83% projected rise**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: The number describes a projected regional change, not a ranking of countries, crops, households, or government responses. The evidence supports **a strong regional warning without a country-by-country ledger**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

## Southern Africa carries a separate 75% warning

### Two regions are not interchangeable

The WFP also anticipates an increase of nearly 75 percent in Southern Africa. **Southern Africa**, **nearly 75 percent**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. Its proximity to the Central American figure does not make the regions identical; it marks another exposure in the same climate-risk scenario. a distinct regional exposure within one global scenario *A similar percentage does not create the same reality.*

The record behind **Two regions are not interchangeable** adds **regional exposure** and **acute food insecurity** to the public account. The policy consequence is breadth: food planning cannot treat the threat as confined to one corridor of the world. That distinction keeps **Southern Africa carries a separate 75% warning** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### The comparison does not erase geography

**The comparison does not erase geography** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **Southern Africa**. The material provides no local price series, rainfall record, or country-level allocation for the Southern African estimate. The wording stays tied to the material available on **The comparison does not erase geography**. The public record stops where **The comparison does not erase geography** stops.

For **Southern Africa carries a separate 75% warning**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: Its proximity to the Central American figure does not make the regions identical; it marks another exposure in the same climate-risk scenario. The evidence supports **a distinct regional exposure within one global scenario**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

## Three regions could each cross 12 million

### The word each changes the scale

The WFP estimates that Southern Africa, South America, and the Caribbean could each see more than 12 million additional people in acute food insecurity. **more than 12 million each**, **South America**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. Each is the decisive word: this is not a single twelve-million total split between three regions. three separate large projected exposures *Twelve million each is not twelve million shared.*

The record behind **The word each changes the scale** adds **the Caribbean** and **regional totals** to the public account. The projection enlarges the potential scale while preserving uncertainty about how any number would be distributed within each region. That distinction keeps **Three regions could each cross 12 million** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### The internal distribution remains unknown

**The internal distribution remains unknown** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **more than 12 million each**. The source does not identify the countries or populations that would make up those regional totals. The wording stays tied to the material available on **The internal distribution remains unknown**. The public record stops where **The internal distribution remains unknown** stops.

For **Three regions could each cross 12 million**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: Each is the decisive word: this is not a single twelve-million total split between three regions. The evidence supports **three separate large projected exposures**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

## The shocks do not arrive one at a time

### Nicolas Jaquier names the overlap

Nicolas Jaquier of Ninety One warned in Reuters that higher energy prices, fertilizer constraints, and weather-related food inflation can overlap. **Nicolas Jaquier**, **Ninety One**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. His point is a mechanism: food stress can widen when production conditions collide with the costs of growing, moving, and buying food. an overlapping-pressure mechanism rather than a finished balance sheet *Food pressure compounds. It does not wait its turn.*

The record behind **Nicolas Jaquier names the overlap** adds **higher energy prices** and **fertilizer constraints** to the public account. That is why a climate signal cannot be reduced to a weather headline. That distinction keeps **The shocks do not arrive one at a time** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### A market reading is not a WFP count

**A market reading is not a WFP count** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **Nicolas Jaquier**. Jaquier’s statement is an attributed market analysis, not an official WFP projection of a new number of affected people. The wording stays tied to the material available on **A market reading is not a WFP count**. The public record stops where **A market reading is not a WFP count** stops.

For **The shocks do not arrive one at a time**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: His point is a mechanism: food stress can widen when production conditions collide with the costs of growing, moving, and buying food. The evidence supports **an overlapping-pressure mechanism rather than a finished balance sheet**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

## Energy and fertilizer costs reach the plate

### The mechanism is broader than rainfall

The cited analysis links weather-related food inflation to energy prices and fertilizer constraints. **food inflation**, **energy prices**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. That chain matters because harvest conditions operate inside systems that also depend on inputs and costs. a documented mechanism without a quantified price forecast *The mechanism is real. The missing price chart is still missing.*

The record behind **The mechanism is broader than rainfall** adds **fertilizer constraints** and **input costs** to the public account. It clarifies a possible route from climate disruption to food insecurity without claiming a precise price increase that the evidence does not provide. That distinction keeps **Energy and fertilizer costs reach the plate** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### No price index is supplied

**No price index is supplied** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **food inflation**. The assigned block contains no commodity price chart, inflation rate, or country-specific household-cost calculation. The wording stays tied to the material available on **No price index is supplied**. The public record stops where **No price index is supplied** stops.

For **Energy and fertilizer costs reach the plate**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: That chain matters because harvest conditions operate inside systems that also depend on inputs and costs. The evidence supports **a documented mechanism without a quantified price forecast**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

## Britain offers a separate crop estimate

### Dry conditions are not a final harvest

The UK Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit said dry conditions could cut British cereal and oilseed output by up to 2.5 million metric tonnes from earlier expectations. **United Kingdom**, **2.5 million metric tonnes**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. That estimate gives the global discussion a concrete agricultural case, but it remains an estimate based on partial yield data. a provisional British crop estimate *A forecasted shortfall is not yet a harvested fact.*

The record behind **Dry conditions are not a final harvest** adds **cereals and oilseeds** and **partial yield data** to the public account. The consequence is a possible production gap, not a certified final harvest result. That distinction keeps **Britain offers a separate crop estimate** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### Partial yield data set the limit

**Partial yield data set the limit** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **United Kingdom**. No final national harvest balance appears in the source, and the estimate should not be treated as a completed production record. The wording stays tied to the material available on **Partial yield data set the limit**. The public record stops where **Partial yield data set the limit** stops.

For **Britain offers a separate crop estimate**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: That estimate gives the global discussion a concrete agricultural case, but it remains an estimate based on partial yield data. The evidence supports **a provisional British crop estimate**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

## £390 million is a projected farm cost

### Money does not turn an estimate into a result

The same unit estimated potential costs to British farmers of up to 390 million pounds, or 524 million dollars. **390 million pounds**, **524 million dollars**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. The number puts a possible income consequence beside the crop estimate, yet neither sum is described as money already lost or paid. a prospective income impact for British farmers *A price tag can still be conditional.*

The record behind **Money does not turn an estimate into a result** adds **British farmers** and **estimated costs** to the public account. It shows why a dry spell can become a farm-income problem without closing the accounting before the harvest is final. That distinction keeps **£390 million is a projected farm cost** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### The dollar figure travels with the caveat

**The dollar figure travels with the caveat** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **390 million pounds**. The cost estimate rests on partial yield information and is not a final audited account of losses. The wording stays tied to the material available on **The dollar figure travels with the caveat**. The public record stops where **The dollar figure travels with the caveat** stops.

For **£390 million is a projected farm cost**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: The number puts a possible income consequence beside the crop estimate, yet neither sum is described as money already lost or paid. The evidence supports **a prospective income impact for British farmers**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

## The 1984 comparison is a warning benchmark

### A historic worst case remains conditional

The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit said the British crop could become the worst comparable harvest since 1984. **since 1984**, **worst comparable harvest**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. That historical comparison sharpens the potential severity of the estimate, while the wording could become keeps the conclusion open. a prospective historical comparison *A record forecast is not a record declared.*

The record behind **A historic worst case remains conditional** adds **Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit** and **historic comparison** to the public account. A benchmark helps readers judge stakes; it cannot substitute for the harvest result itself. That distinction keeps **The 1984 comparison is a warning benchmark** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### Methods are not fully detailed here

**Methods are not fully detailed here** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **since 1984**. The provided material does not include the full historic yield series or the organisation’s complete comparison methodology. The wording stays tied to the material available on **Methods are not fully detailed here**. The public record stops where **Methods are not fully detailed here** stops.

For **The 1984 comparison is a warning benchmark**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: That historical comparison sharpens the potential severity of the estimate, while the wording could become keeps the conclusion open. The evidence supports **a prospective historical comparison**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

## Reuters carries the WFP warning to the public

### The source chain must remain visible

Reuters is the supplied link for the WFP analysis and for the associated climate and food-security figures. **Reuters**, **World Food Programme**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. That means the warning should be attributed to the WFP as reported by Reuters, rather than presented as if the underlying report had been directly reviewed here. an attributed Reuters account of a WFP scenario *A source chain is part of the evidence.*

The record behind **The source chain must remain visible** adds **assigned source link** and **reported analysis** to the public account. This is not a reason to discard the warning. It is a reason to state the route the information took. That distinction keeps **Reuters carries the WFP warning to the public** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### An absent primary report narrows the claim

**An absent primary report narrows the claim** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **Reuters**. The official WFP report was not directly located in the assigned research material. The wording stays tied to the material available on **An absent primary report narrows the claim**. The public record stops where **An absent primary report narrows the claim** stops.

For **Reuters carries the WFP warning to the public**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: That means the warning should be attributed to the WFP as reported by Reuters, rather than presented as if the underlying report had been directly reviewed here. The evidence supports **an attributed Reuters account of a WFP scenario**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

## The warning speaks of vulnerable regions, not a ranked world

### Vulnerability is named without a country league table

The WFP warning concerns some of the world’s most vulnerable regions, a phrase that signals exposure without assigning a fixed order of suffering. **vulnerable regions**, **World Food Programme**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. That framing keeps attention on food insecurity while resisting a false hierarchy of countries or communities that the assigned material never provides. a global warning centred on vulnerability rather than rankings *Vulnerability is not a leaderboard.*

The record behind **Vulnerability is named without a country league table** adds **global scenario** and **food insecurity** to the public account. Its consequence is ethical as well as analytical: a broad warning should not be narrowed into a contest for whose risk counts most. That distinction keeps **The warning speaks of vulnerable regions, not a ranked world** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### The scenario does not identify every household

**The scenario does not identify every household** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **vulnerable regions**. The fact block does not list every vulnerable country, household, crop, or local response within the scenario. The wording stays tied to the material available on **The scenario does not identify every household**. The public record stops where **The scenario does not identify every household** stops.

For **The warning speaks of vulnerable regions, not a ranked world**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: That framing keeps attention on food insecurity while resisting a false hierarchy of countries or communities that the assigned material never provides. The evidence supports **a global warning centred on vulnerability rather than rankings**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

## Conclusion

### Preparation is the only honest response

The available account combines an 81 percent probability, nearly 49 million people at potential risk, and an end-of-2027 horizon. **81 percent**, **nearly 49 million**, and **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** define the record being discussed. It also shows projected regional increases, overlapping price pressures, and a British estimate based on partial yield data. serious preparation without counterfeit certainty *The warning is strong enough. It does not need embellishment.*

The record behind **Preparation is the only honest response** adds **end of 2027** and **conditional scenario** to the public account. Taken together, those facts make complacency indefensible while keeping every forecast in its proper grammatical tense. That distinction keeps **Conclusion** tied to the established status of the evidence rather than an invented outcome.

### Neither denial nor certainty fits the record

**Neither denial nor certainty fits the record** turns on **Reuters — World Food Programme warning on El Niño — 6 August 2026** and the status of **81 percent**. No figure in the assigned material turns the scenario into a completed global count or the British estimate into a final harvest ledger. The wording stays tied to the material available on **Neither denial nor certainty fits the record**. The public record stops where **Neither denial nor certainty fits the record** stops.

For **Conclusion**, the usable conclusion is narrower than a slogan: It also shows projected regional increases, overlapping price pressures, and a British estimate based on partial yield data. The evidence supports **serious preparation without counterfeit certainty**; it does not support details outside the cited account. Precision is the point.

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

### Secondary sources

- [Reuters — WFP warning and probability — 6 August 2026](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/strong-el-nino-rising-food-insecurity-2026-08-06/)

- [Reuters — regional food-security projections — 6 August 2026](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/strong-el-nino-rising-food-insecurity-2026-08-06/)

- [Reuters — Nicolas Jaquier on overlapping shocks — 6 August 2026](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/strong-el-nino-rising-food-insecurity-2026-08-06/)

- [Reuters — UK crop estimate cited — 6 August 2026](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/strong-el-nino-rising-food-insecurity-2026-08-06/)

- [Reuters — Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit estimate — 6 August 2026](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/strong-el-nino-rising-food-insecurity-2026-08-06/)

- [Reuters — assigned source article — 6 August 2026](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/strong-el-nino-rising-food-insecurity-2026-08-06/)

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/essay-81-odds-49-million-at-risk-el-nino-is-not-a-final-toll