how do we know this?
It's not another issue, it's the same issue. We're in this mess in the first place because nobody cares to price in the costs of the equation over time. We all want to eat for like a century, right? So why make price estimates that only work for ~10-20 years of unsustainable-climate-change-driving industry and then collapse when the climate changes and farming has to change too?
Pricing the costs into the equation from the start makes your "very simple" point become still, "quite complex".
The environment changing is a key fact in the pricing of things, and ignore-the-environment-in-first-estimates trope is a major flaw in how we think about problems.
Inflation is not caused by the creation of money itself. If it were, the USD would be resembling the Zimbabwean dollar after all the 'Quantitative Easing'.
For inflation to occur you have to put the fresh currency into the hands of those that are actually going to spend it on unmet needs for which there is an inelastic offering, meaning you can not or choose not just produce more to meet the demand.
Giving free new money to Mss. Rich will not suddenly inflate the bread price, as her demand for breads was met long ago. It might drive up the stockmarket as she is dumping cash on speculation or buying shares back in her own companies, or drive up prices of real-estate for speculation etc.
Feeding 11 billion people where everybody can spend $100/day on food? Very simple. If necessary (and it's not), we could build vast quantities of greenhouses and get orders of magnitude improvements in calories per acre.
The environmental consequences of such high-intensity farming is another issue, of course.