New report: Climate change will destroy the economy of most of the countries in the world

Posted by christian - 2 October 2009 at 3:49pm - 12 Comments

A new report on the costs of adapting to climate change is a wake-up call to the rich world

There's a curious irony at the heart of climate change. We, that is, the rich countries, have largely caused the problem. But we aren't the one who are going to suffer the most because of it.

In fact, one of the main reasons we are as rich as we are is because we have burnt the most fossil fuels. Britain, for example, was the home of the largely-coal-powered Industrial revolution, and because we got an early lead on burning coal, we are not only relatively well off, we also lead the world in historical emissions. In total, throughout history, the British have emitted more carbon per head of population than anyone else.

We're also relatively well protected from the worst impacts of climate change. We're rich enough to pay for the changes to our society that are going to be necessary in the short-to medium term, and for the most part we're in areas of the world less vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, which will fall most heavily on poorer counties.

According to the World Bank, 80% of the economic costs of a changing climate will hit the poorer parts of the world. For example, as the climate changes Central America will become harder hit by more frequent tropical storms, China and Peru face threatened water supplies as glaciers melt away, and island states like the Maldives will be swamped by sea level rise and storm surges. Those countries know what they need to do to adapt, but why should they bear the economic burden for a problem they didn't create? And what about the countries that just can't afford large-scale adaptation?

That's why there's broad, (if vague) agreement that we rich countries should pay the poorer countries to, amongst other things, help them 'adapt' to the effects of climate change on them - maybe improving flood defences, or installing more air conditioning, or building new irrigation systems. Trouble is there's little or no agreement over how much we should stump up, and severe reluctance from the rich countries to part with serious amounts of cash.

But now a new report from a coalition of insurers, banks and consultancies has calculated a startling fact - that climate change could reduce the GDP of less developed countries by up to 19%, by 2030. In other words, climate change could wipe out roughly a fifth of the economies of less developed countries within 20 years.

That's pretty startling. Behind the stats it's clear that having 20% of your economy wiped out means massive hardships for the nations concerned.

It's a good frame for the Copenhagen negotiations over 'climate financing' between rich and poor - either we come up with some serious cash, or we're basically saying "We think it's acceptable that we got rich by creating a problem which is going to destroy the fabric of your society, and we're not going to help you out."

Greenpeace, along with many other organizations from a diverse political spectrum - from Oxfam and Christian Aid to the World Bank via Nicholas Stern - say that at least $140bn a year needs to flow from the rich countries to the rest of the world to help them insulate their societies against the worst impacts of climate change, and to enable them to make the same choices about clean renewable energy that we are able to make.

Personally, I don't see anything less as morally defensible. In fact, I'd hope that we might collectively get it together to manage a bit more.

Article tagged as: adaptation, climate change, copenhagen, economics, world bank
  • share
Comments Commenting is now closed

Much of the rhetoric I hear about climate change reminds me of the scare of a population explosion in the early 70's. I remember thinking after I read that book that if I didn't do something tomorrow, there would not be enough food to save the world. The author even discussed a future time (just a few years away) when it would be too late to reverse the problem. Every so often there is a scare that will end life as we know it. How arrogant we humans can be. casino online

By Ben Cunningham - 7 October 2009 at 3:48pm

Would that book be The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich? There has been a population explosion (4bn people in 1970, nearly 7bn today - thanks, World Population Clock) and even though the global famines Ehrlich predicted may not have come to pass but even so, over a billion people are not getting enough food. Here's what he's thinking today.

And history is littered with civilisations which collapsed and fell into ruin when they outstripped their resources and degraded their environment. Why should ours be any different? The difference this time round is that we know exactly what we're doing and we can change our ways before it's too late.

web editor
gpuk

By jamie - 7 October 2009 at 4:23pm

Ben (Cunningham) I fully agree with what you say. There is mention in the previous comment that QUOTE: over a billion people are not getting enough food UNQUOTE but there is enough food wasted by the developed countries to feed that billion. Even the developing countries are guilty of such waste. According to the UN there is enough arable land in Africa to feed the entire population but because of lack of infrastructure much goes to waste in the field.

The lead comment that QUOTE: at least $140bn a year needs to flow from the rich countries to the rest of the world UNQUOTE perfectly states the UN’s motive for pushing its propaganda about our use of fossil fuels causing significant and potentially catastrophic climate change. The reports referenced in the header are NOT reports by climate scientists but by economists and other finance industry professionals who have merely accepted without question the claimed scientific consensus about The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis.

In the 2007 scientific report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR4 WG1 report) the word “uncertain” or derivatives is used over 1300 times, illustrating the poor scientific understanding of climate processes and drivers. In contrast, the referenced World Bank report, which refers to “climate” 42 times uses the word “uncertain” only once, all of the scientific uncertainties being ignored. This is typical of the factual distortions issued by organisations that are desirous of propagating The Hypothesis.

The referenced McKinsey report, a much more substantial document, acknowledges the enormous degree of uncertainty surrounding climate projections QUOTE: uncertainty in climate projections is a widely experienced challenge. As one major study acknowledges:
“Assessment of impacts is hampered because of uncertainty in climate change projections at the local level (for example, in rainfall, rate of sea level rise and extreme weather events)... Other uncertainties stem from an incomplete knowledge of natural and human system dynamics, and limited knowledge of adaptive capacity, constraints and options.” UNQUOTE. Despite the significance of that final sentence the report still makes the assumption that human emissions of carbon dioxide are responsible for significant global climate change. There is no sound scientific evidence in support of this assumption.

Although the redistribution of wealth from the developed to the developing economies is one major motive for the UN’s propaganda in support of The Hypothese, there are others, including world dominance (otherwise known as Global Governance, but that’s for another debate.

Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

By Pete Ridley - 10 October 2009 at 8:36pm

“CO2 emissions make… no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” --Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos

“.One of the things the scientific community is pretty agreed on is those things will have virtually no impact on climate no matter what the models say. So the question is do you spend trillions of dollars to have no impact? And that seems like a nobrainer.”-- Richard Lindzen, Alfed P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT; UN IPCC

By sdcougar - 12 October 2009 at 5:36am

I've removed a couple of trolling comments from this thread. Disagreement is fine and welcome, (just see the many comments on the site that disagree with us over nukes,) and it's a pleasure to debate with you all. But overly long rants just shut down debate, and will be unpublished.

Keep it short, on-topic and within our house rules, and your comments will stand in perpetuity!

Christian

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/help/house-rules

By christian - 16 November 2009 at 10:35am

Governments just refuse to deal the climate change problem seriously top online poker rooms

By greenook - 9 May 2010 at 4:36am

Much of the rhetoric I hear about climate change reminds me of the scare of a population explosion in the early 70's. I remember thinking after I read that book that if I didn't do something tomorrow, there would not be enough food to save the world. The author even discussed a future time (just a few years away) when it would be too late to reverse the problem. Every so often there is a scare that will end life as we know it. How arrogant we humans can be. casino online

By Ben Cunningham - 7 October 2009 at 3:48pm

Would that book be The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich? There has been a population explosion (4bn people in 1970, nearly 7bn today - thanks, World Population Clock) and even though the global famines Ehrlich predicted may not have come to pass but even so, over a billion people are not getting enough food. Here's what he's thinking today. And history is littered with civilisations which collapsed and fell into ruin when they outstripped their resources and degraded their environment. Why should ours be any different? The difference this time round is that we know exactly what we're doing and we can change our ways before it's too late. web editor gpuk

By jamie - 7 October 2009 at 4:23pm

Ben (Cunningham) I fully agree with what you say. There is mention in the previous comment that QUOTE: over a billion people are not getting enough food UNQUOTE but there is enough food wasted by the developed countries to feed that billion. Even the developing countries are guilty of such waste. According to the UN there is enough arable land in Africa to feed the entire population but because of lack of infrastructure much goes to waste in the field. The lead comment that QUOTE: at least $140bn a year needs to flow from the rich countries to the rest of the world UNQUOTE perfectly states the UN’s motive for pushing its propaganda about our use of fossil fuels causing significant and potentially catastrophic climate change. The reports referenced in the header are NOT reports by climate scientists but by economists and other finance industry professionals who have merely accepted without question the claimed scientific consensus about The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. In the 2007 scientific report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR4 WG1 report) the word “uncertain” or derivatives is used over 1300 times, illustrating the poor scientific understanding of climate processes and drivers. In contrast, the referenced World Bank report, which refers to “climate” 42 times uses the word “uncertain” only once, all of the scientific uncertainties being ignored. This is typical of the factual distortions issued by organisations that are desirous of propagating The Hypothesis. The referenced McKinsey report, a much more substantial document, acknowledges the enormous degree of uncertainty surrounding climate projections QUOTE: uncertainty in climate projections is a widely experienced challenge. As one major study acknowledges: “Assessment of impacts is hampered because of uncertainty in climate change projections at the local level (for example, in rainfall, rate of sea level rise and extreme weather events)... Other uncertainties stem from an incomplete knowledge of natural and human system dynamics, and limited knowledge of adaptive capacity, constraints and options.” UNQUOTE. Despite the significance of that final sentence the report still makes the assumption that human emissions of carbon dioxide are responsible for significant global climate change. There is no sound scientific evidence in support of this assumption. Although the redistribution of wealth from the developed to the developing economies is one major motive for the UN’s propaganda in support of The Hypothese, there are others, including world dominance (otherwise known as Global Governance, but that’s for another debate. Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnostic

By Pete Ridley - 10 October 2009 at 8:36pm

“CO2 emissions make… no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” --Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos “.One of the things the scientific community is pretty agreed on is those things will have virtually no impact on climate no matter what the models say. So the question is do you spend trillions of dollars to have no impact? And that seems like a nobrainer.”-- Richard Lindzen, Alfed P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, MIT; UN IPCC

By sdcougar - 12 October 2009 at 5:36am

I've removed a couple of trolling comments from this thread. Disagreement is fine and welcome, (just see the many comments on the site that disagree with us over nukes,) and it's a pleasure to debate with you all. But overly long rants just shut down debate, and will be unpublished. Keep it short, on-topic and within our house rules, and your comments will stand in perpetuity! Christian http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/help/house-rules

By christian - 16 November 2009 at 10:35am

Governments just refuse to deal the climate change problem seriously top online poker rooms

By greenook - 9 May 2010 at 4:36am

GP online