A new British Government study of the economic effects of global warming estimates that global warming, if unchecked, will cause economic damage amounting to 5% to 20% of world GDP and create 200 million refugees. [£3.68 trillion: The price of failing to act on climate change]
In contrast, it estimates that global warming could be addressed by spending 1% of GDP, “roughly the same amount as is spent worldwide on advertising, and half what the World Bank estimates a full-blown flu pandemic would cost”
The review by Sir Nicholas Stern, commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and published tomorrow, marks a crucial point in the debate by underlining how failure to act would trigger a catastrophic global recession. Unchecked climate change would turn 200 million people into refugees, the largest migration in modern history, as their homes succumbed to drought or flood.
Stern also warns that a successor to the Kyoto agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions should be signed next year, not by 2010/11 as planned. He forecasts that the world needs to spend 1 per cent of global GDP - equivalent to about £184bn - dealing with climate change now, or face a bill between five and 20 times higher for damage caused by letting it continue. Unchecked climate change could thus cost as much as £566 for every man, woman and child now on the planet - roughly 6.5 billion people.
The 700-page report argues that an international framework on climate change covering the globe will be necessary, and that different countries may opt to reduce emissions differently. Options range from many more green taxes to carbon trading.
This article doesn’t discuss what assumptions are made bout the magnitude of global warming and its effects. But it seems that it used rather optimistic assumptions. Others argue that the type of reforms discussed here are just the tip of the iceberg of what’s needed. But, at least it would be a start, which is a lot better than where we are now.
[UPDATE:Here is a link to the full report. Also available there are a Press Release, a presentation, etc.]
The Independent has yet another article on the fate befaling the world if global warming isn’t stopped, like, right now. A team of British scientists predicts that drought will likely sweep much of the earth:
The study, by Eleanor Burke and two Hadley Centre colleagues, models how a measure of drought known as the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) is likely to increase globally during the coming century with predicted changes in rainfall and heat around the world because of climate change. It shows the PDSI figure for moderate drought, currently at 25 per cent of the Earth’s surface, rising to 50 per cent by 2100, the figure for severe drought, currently at about 8 per cent, rising to 40 cent, and the figure for extreme drought, currently 3 per cent, rising to 30 per cent.
Like good scientists, the study authors do warn of limitations in their study:
Senior Met Office scientists are sensitive about the study, funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, stressing it contains uncertainties: there is only one climate model involved, one future scenario for emissions of greenhouse gases (a moderate-to-high one) and one drought index. Nevertheless, the result is “significant”, according to Vicky Pope, the head of the Hadley Centre’s climate programme. Further work would now be taking place to try to assess the potential risk of different levels of drought in different places, she said.
What does this mean for the world’s people?
“We’re talking about 30 per cent of the world’s land surface becoming essentially uninhabitable in terms of agricultural production in the space of a few decades,” Mark Lynas, the author of High Tide, the first major account of the visible effects of global warming around the world, said. “These are parts of the world where hundreds of millions of people will no longer be able to feed themselves.”
Mr Pendleton said: “This means you’re talking about any form of development going straight out of the window. The vast majority of poor people in the developing world are small-scale farmers who… rely on rain.”
The poorest areas of world, especially Africa, will be the hardest hit.
Though the article doesn’t discuss effects on the developed world, one can only wonder what would happen to the world if the US midwest and/or California became desert.
This study is yet another piece of evidence suggesting the world had better act now or else prepare for the loss of tens of millions, or more, people. It sounds strident, but I believe that we may be experiencing the last century of human civilization as we know it.
I wish I knew how to bring about change, but the tendency toward denial and delay is extraordinarily powerful. My fellow psychoanalysts and psychologists should help address this issue, and some do. But all too many among them are themselves absorbed by the pull of the immediate. It doesn’t appear that psychoanalysis helps people to be forward looking. Too bad.
Thanks to Daily Kos, which reprts that Bush is going to make a major speech on global warming [in Washington DC, no doubt], and day now. Get prepared to laugh and to cry.
”Paul Epstein, associate director of Harvard Medical School’s Center for Health and the Global Environment, said the Atlantic is warming faster than scientists projected even a decade ago, and he expects such storms as the one seen this week from Virginia to New York to become common.
“Scientists and climatologists are looking at one another and we’re just stunned because no one, even in the 1990s, projected the magnitude of the storms and degree of warming in the Arctic that we are seeing,” he said.
Epstein sees a clear pattern: rain has increased in the United States by 7 percent in three decades; heavy rain events of more than 2 inches a day are up 14 percent and storms dumping more than 4 inches a day rose 20 percent.”
Some, however, believe natural cycles are to blame:
””The climate is warming,” said Bernie Rayno, senior meteorologist at Accuweather.com. “The real question is: ‘Are humans causing it or is it occurring because of natural cycles?’ We believe that we are in a natural cycle like we were back in the 1930s, 40s and 50s. And that was a time of big climate swings.””
If it is global warming, those of us in Boston have a hot future in store:
”At current projections, Epstein said, a typical day in Boston could feel like present-day Richmond, Virginia, in 100 years under one model of the atmosphere and oceans produced by the federally funded New England Regional Assessment of 2001.
Epstein, who contributed to that study, said another model that sees Boston resembling Atlanta, Georgia with a 10-degree Fahrenheit (5.6-degree C) rise in temperature over a century could be conservative.
“What we are seeing is really the pace and magnitude of these changes are much greater than we had imagined, so in fact the models each year become underestimates,” he said.”
The Wall Street Journal reports that melting of glaciers will increase earthquake and seismic activity. [How Melting Glaciers Alter Earth's Surface, Spur Quakes, Volcanoes] The idea is that melting glaciers changes the weight distribution on the earth’s surface and that the earth rebounds:
The reason is that one cubic meter of ice weighs just over a ton, and glaciers can be hundreds of meters thick. When they melt and the water runs off, it is literally a weight off Earth’s crust. The crust and mantle therefore bounce back, immediately as well as over thousands of years. That “isostatic rebound,” according to studies of prehistoric and recent earthquakes and volcanoes, can make the planet’s seismic plates slip catastrophically, and cause magma chambers that feed volcanoes to act like bottles of shaken seltzer.
The main evidence is from prior geologic history:
That link has reared its ugly head in the past, especially during periods of rapid climate change such as the end of ice ages. When ice sheets retreated 10,000 years ago, for instance, Iceland experienced a surge in volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes in the Mediterranean, Antarctica and eastern California also seem to have been awakened by retreating ice.
When he analyzed 800,000 years of activity from about 50 volcanoes in eastern California (the age of rocks formed from volcanic ash can be determined by radioactive dating), Prof. Glazner found that “the peaks of volcanic activity occurred when ice was retreating globally. At first I thought it was crazy, but other scientists also found evidence that climate affects volcanism.” The likely mechanism: glacial retreat lifts pressure that had kept the magma conduit closed.
The following is circulating on the Internet. Source unkown [to me anyway]:
Calling the White House: A Not so funny JOKE
“Thank you for calling the White House switchboard. Our new voice activated system will help direct you to the proper office.”
“If you are calling to complain about the mishandling of the war in Iraq, press one.”
“If you are calling to complain about the abuse of prisoners and the White House’s endorsement of torture, press two, and then say the name of the torture site that you wish to complain about (and please note for the sake of the voice mail system that it is pronounced Abu GRABE, not Abu grahb).”
“If you are calling to complain about illegal spying on American citizens and the abuse of FISA laws, press 3, but do know that these calls will be recorded.”
“If you are calling to complain about the disastrous mismanagement of the hurricane Katrina recovery, please press 4, and your c all will be directed to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If you wait for more than 48 hours without anyone picking up the phone, hang-up and send a letter. We have been assured that all letters will receive a prompt reply within one year.”
“If you are calling regarding the administration’s unwillingness to enforce immigration law, press cinco, por favor, or direct any thanks to your local chamber of commerce office, which can explain why we like cheap labor that can’t vote and where you may be able to find willing illegal day laborers in your local area.”
“If you are Jack Abramoff or any Saudi prince, please call the private line ? it is always open.”
“If you are calling about the Medicare prescription debacle, please press 6. If you are having a medical emergency, you should proceed directly to your local emergency room, although please understand that your health coverage may not pay for the visit and you can no longer get out from under the bill by declaring bankruptcy.”
“If you are calling about the ballooning federal deficit or the recent hike in the debt ceiling to $3 trillion, please press 7, unless you are Bill Clinton calling to brag about the surpluses under your administration, in which case we don’t want to hear about it.”
“If you are calling to complain about the White House’s efforts to block stem cell research, please press 8, and then say the disease that you are most concerned about that may ultimately be cured through scientific research. If you are a scientist calling with new research findings or important clinical data, please hang up, we don’t want to hear from you.”
“If you are calling to express concern about global warming and our efforts to roll back environmental laws, please press 9, unless you are a government scientist, in which case you are forbidden to talk without first clearing it with the oil lobbyist we hired to screen and edit your research. He can be reached at Exxon 4-2611.”
“If you are calling to complain about the President’s efforts to “privatize” social security, please press 1 and then the pound key, and your call will be redirected to representatives at Merrill Lynch, who will explain the virtues of putting all your savings in the stock market.”
“If you are calling about the need for more prayer in public schools or any other faith-based initiatives, please press 10 and Reverend Falwell will be with you shortly.”
“If you are calling to lobby for more Supreme Court Justices who will block a woman’s right to choose, please stay on the line and the President will be with you immediately.”
“If you are calling about all the tax breaks for the wealthy, press *1 if you have ideas for more loopholes and are making more than a million dollars per year; if you are earning less than a million per year but have ideas for how you may help the wealthy, press *2; if you are earning less than a million per year and just want to complain that all the burden is now falling on you, please call back in a couple of years.”
“Press zero at any time if you would like to hear these options again. Thank you for calling the White House. It is our pleasure to serve you.
Vanity Fair devoted its recent issue to global warming. Thanks to Guerilla News Network, the lead article While Washington Slept [subtitle: The Queen of England is afraid. International C.E.O.'s are nervous. And the scientific establishment is loud and clear.] is now available online. While ending on a fairly positive note regarding the ability of American capitalism to confront this mammoth problem, the article is an excellent summary of the issues, and of the massive organized campaign of global warming denial that has helped condemn us all to having to live with major global warming, if the world starts to act very soon. Of course, if the world doesn’t start to act, many of us, even in the United States, won’t live.
Here are a few excerpts:
Since roughly half the world’s 6.5 billion people live near coastlines, a three-foot sea-level rise would be even more punishing overseas. Amsterdam, Venice, Cairo, Shanghai, Manila, and Calcutta are some of the cities most threatened. In many places the people and governments are too poor to erect adequate barriers—think of low-lying Bangladesh, where an estimated 18 million people are at risk—so experts fear that they will migrate to neighboring lands, raising the prospect of armed conflict. A Pentagon-commissioned study warned in 2003 that climate change could bring mega-droughts, mass starvation, and even nuclear war as countries such as China, India, and Pakistan battle over scarce food and water.
The worst scenarios of global warming might still be avoided, scientists say, if humanity reduces its greenhouse-gas emissions dramatically, and very soon. The I.P.C.C. has estimated that emissions must fall to 60 percent below 1990 levels before 2050, over a period when global population is expected to increase by 37 percent and per-capita energy consumption will surely rise as billions of people in Asia, Africa, and South America strive to ascend from poverty.
Yet even if such a reduction were achieved, a significant rise in sea levels may be unavoidable. “It’s getting harder and harder to say we’ll avoid a three-foot sea-level rise, though it won’t necessarily happen in this century,” says Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton….
The upshot is that it has become too late to prevent climate change; we can only adapt to it. This unhappy fact is not well understood by the general public; advocates downplay it, perhaps for fear of fostering a paralyzing despair. But there is no getting around it: because humanity waited so long to take decisive action, we are now stuck with a certain amount of global warming and the climate changes it will bring—rising seas, fiercer heat, deeper droughts, stronger storms. The World Health Organization estimates that climate change is already helping to kill 150,000 people a year, mainly in Africa and Asia. That number is bound to rise as global warming intensifies in the years ahead.
The goal is to stop global warming before it crosses tipping points and attains unstoppable momentum from “positive feedbacks.” For example, should the Greenland ice sheet melt, white ice—which reflects sunlight back into space—would be replaced by dark water, which absorbs sunlight and drives further warming.
Positive feedbacks can trigger the kind of abrupt, irreversible climate changes that scientists call “nonlinear.” Once again, Hurricane Katrina provides a sobering preview of what that means. “Hurricanes are the mother of all nonlinear events, because small changes in initial conditions can lead to enormous changes in outcomes,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the former chief environmental adviser to the German government. “A few percent increase in a hurricane’s wind speed can double its destructiveness under certain circumstances.”
Although scientists apply the neutral term “climate change” to all of these phenomena, “climate chaos” better conveys the abrupt, interconnected, wide-ranging consequences that lie in store. “It’s a very appropriate term for the layperson,” says Schellnhuber, a physicist who specializes in chaos theory. “I keep telling politicians that I’m not so concerned about a gradual climate change that may force farmers in Great Britain to plant different crops. I’m worried about triggering positive feedbacks that, in the worst case, could kick off some type of runaway greenhouse dynamics.”
Perhaps most importantly, the article lays out the similarities between the global warming deniers an the health risks of smoking deniers. They use the same tactics, and are even sometimes the same people. Perhaps the arch-villain is Frederick Seitz, a scientist, and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, who made hundreds of thousands conducting “research” for the tobacco companies in order to cast doubt upon the role of tobacco in causing lung cancer. In the 1990’s Seitz branched out and started shilling for the energy companies, denying that anthopogenic [human-caused] global warming was a serious problem. The goals wasn’t to convince, but to sow confusion and doubt: “If even the scientists can’t agree, then obviously we don’t need to worry about it.”
ExxonMobil—long the most recalcitrant corporation on global warming—is still spending millions of dollars a year funding an array of organizations that downplay the problem, including the George C. Marshall Institute, where Seitz is chairman emeritus. John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA, calls the denial campaign “one of the great crimes of our era.” Passacantando is “quite confident” that class-action lawsuits will eventually be filed against corporations who denied global warming’s dangers. Five years ago, he told executives from one company, “You’re going to wish you were the tobacco companies once this stuff hits and people realize you were the ones who blocked [action].”
The public discussion about climate change in the U.S. is years behind that in Britain and the rest of Europe, and the deniers are a big reason why. “In the United States, the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers are deeply skeptical of climate-change science and the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions,” says Fiona Harvey, the environment correspondent for the Financial Times. “In Britain, the equivalent body, the Confederation of British Industry, is absolutely behind the science and agrees on the need to cut emissions. The only differences are over how to do that….”
And the media do their share to sow confusion and doubt:
Charles Alexander, the former environmental editor at Time, complains that, while coverage has improved recently, media executives continue to regard climate change as just another environmental issue, rather than as the overriding challenge of the 21st century.
“Americans are hearing more about reducing greenhouse emissions from BP ads than from news stories in Time, The New York Times, or any other U.S. media outlet,” Alexander says. “This will go down as the greatest act of mass denial in history.”
In 2002, Alexander went to see Andrew Heyward, then the president of CBS News, after running into him at a Harvard reunion. “I talked to him about climate change and other global environmental threats, and made the case that they were more dangerous than terrorism and CBS should be doing much more coverage of them,” Alexander recalls. “He didn’t dispute any of my factual points, but he did say the reason CBS didn’t do more of that coverage was that ‘people don’t want to hear all that gloom and doom’—in other words, the environment wasn’t a ratings winner. He seemed to think CBS News’s job was to tell people what they wanted to hear, not what they need to know, and I think that attitude is increasingly true for the news business in general.”
The damage they’ve done is immeasurable and will be paid by hundreds of millions of people, or more, as it is now likely too late to avoid major consequences from global warming, even if the world started to act right now. Read the full article, and start pressuring everyone to act now. If we don’t, we might as well kiss our children goodnight.