new research has suggested that global temperatures could rise by more than 7 degree Celsius this century, killing billions of people and leaving the world on the brink of total collapse.
According to a report in the Telegraph, the study, carried out in unprecedented detail, projected that without "rapid and massive action", temperatures worldwide will increase by as much as 7.
degrees C by 2100, from levels seen in 2000.
Previous estimates have concluded that the likely increase this century would probably be 2.4C (4.3F). However, the new study by scientists at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) included projected economic growth in developing countries and new information on the affect increased carbon emissions will have on biological processes, such as the capacity of the ocean to absorb greenhouse gases.
The results are based on 400 trials of the new system, each time using slightly different variations in data at the start to try and iron out errors.
Study co-author Ronald Prinn, Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry
and director of MIT's Centre for Global Climate Change, said all the results resulted in an increase in temperatures.
The projections average out at a likely Earth temperature increase of 5.2 C this century, and conclude there is a 90 per cent chance the temperature change will be between 3.5 C and 7.4 C.
"Overall, they stacked up so they caused more projected global warming. There is significantly more risk than we previously expected," said Prinn.
"This increases the urgency for significant policy action. There is no way the world can and should take these risks," he added.
According to Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Tom Picken, if the new research by MIT is accurate, the results for the planet would be catastrophic.
He called for the world to try and reduce the chance of such an increase in temperatures by committing to reduce carbon emissions at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen at the end of this year.
"The consequences of such changes would be off the known scale. They are unthinkable," he said.
"A 7.4 C rise would mean severe ecosystem collapse worldwide, with total economic collapse in many parts of the world," he added.
"The planet would face resource wars between people, and you can safely say many, many hundred of millions of people would die," he further added
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Global warming can be an insurer's nightmare
Hot extremes of temperature result in heat waves and draught; cold extremes of temperature result in frost; rainfall extremes result in flash flood or draught; and intensified mid-latitude storms and tropical cyclones result in wind storm, snow storms, hailstorm and avalanche, which affects insurance for health, life, property, vehicle, business interruption, agriculture and food stuff.
The insurance industry must face up to the growing threat of climate change or risk financial ruin. Insurers must act now to understand and actively manage risks from emerging threats such as greenhouse gases and rising sea levels. Although it's been almost two decades since the UN recognised that climate change was a catastrophic threat to earth, it is clear that the insurance industry has not taken catastrophe trends seriously enough. With recent scientific evidence suggesting that climate change is happening faster than previously thought, investment in research and a change in industry behaviour are long overdue.
Recent natural disasters have revealed the inadequacy of capital and pricing models, so catastrophe models must be updated regularly to keep pace with the latest scientific evidence. The industry must take a new approach to underwriting, looking ahead and factoring in climate change scenarios, rather than simply basing decisions on historical records. Insurers must prepare for the impact of climate change on asset values and regularly review and communicate conditions of coverage in light of the impact of climate change.
Rating agencies are retooling their models and many are worried what the new views of catastrophe risk from these concerns like global warming menace will mean for the industry.
Fitch Ratings has released a draft of its new Prism rating model and asked insurers, investors, brokers, investment bankers, regulatory bodies and other individuals and organisations to comment by July 10. Fitch hopes to complete the shift to the Prism model in early 2007.
Standard & Poor's has also issued major revisions to its insurer latest capital model, which is not dynamic as Fitch but still recognises the preparedness for scenarios like global warming.
Industry leaders need to get the message to front-line underwriters to maintain pricing discipline, but even that won't prevent inevitable soft markets or a potential competitive pricing 'bloodbath' by very insensitive nature of insurance regulation. Who cares for a ruin reserve on a slow surfacing risk like global warming?
Speaking at the Standard & Poor's Insurance Conference in New York, the chief executives Ed Kelly of Boston-based Liberty Mutual, Martin Sullivan of New York-based American International Group and Dinos Iordanou of Bermuda-based Arch Capital Group admitted in unison, "We don't seem to learn from the mistakes of the past. That's a fact. Some of us are in this business for 36 years, and candidly, we don't like good times forever. The down cycles of soft markets that have emerged are always longer than the up cycles. It's always been lack of capacity that's driven prices upward, dwindling capacity in the property market, particularly in catastrophe-prone regions, is pushing those prices up. We're seeing price changes daily. Even if there's plenty of capacity, the price of coverage is pretty steep. For example in Mexican standoff between buyers and sellers, the buyers are waiting for somebody to blink. And given that it's already a few days into hurricane season, some blinking is going to happen soon. If there's a moderate hurricane season, we are concerned that there will be a bloodbath in the fall in pricing, as perceived excess capacity may push top-line thinking to take over overnight."
This illustrates the helplessness of even global insurance leaders to tackle their own insider indiscipline.
The insurance industry must face up to the growing threat of climate change or risk financial ruin. Insurers must act now to understand and actively manage risks from emerging threats such as greenhouse gases and rising sea levels. Although it's been almost two decades since the UN recognised that climate change was a catastrophic threat to earth, it is clear that the insurance industry has not taken catastrophe trends seriously enough. With recent scientific evidence suggesting that climate change is happening faster than previously thought, investment in research and a change in industry behaviour are long overdue.
Recent natural disasters have revealed the inadequacy of capital and pricing models, so catastrophe models must be updated regularly to keep pace with the latest scientific evidence. The industry must take a new approach to underwriting, looking ahead and factoring in climate change scenarios, rather than simply basing decisions on historical records. Insurers must prepare for the impact of climate change on asset values and regularly review and communicate conditions of coverage in light of the impact of climate change.
Rating agencies are retooling their models and many are worried what the new views of catastrophe risk from these concerns like global warming menace will mean for the industry.
Fitch Ratings has released a draft of its new Prism rating model and asked insurers, investors, brokers, investment bankers, regulatory bodies and other individuals and organisations to comment by July 10. Fitch hopes to complete the shift to the Prism model in early 2007.
Standard & Poor's has also issued major revisions to its insurer latest capital model, which is not dynamic as Fitch but still recognises the preparedness for scenarios like global warming.
Industry leaders need to get the message to front-line underwriters to maintain pricing discipline, but even that won't prevent inevitable soft markets or a potential competitive pricing 'bloodbath' by very insensitive nature of insurance regulation. Who cares for a ruin reserve on a slow surfacing risk like global warming?
Speaking at the Standard & Poor's Insurance Conference in New York, the chief executives Ed Kelly of Boston-based Liberty Mutual, Martin Sullivan of New York-based American International Group and Dinos Iordanou of Bermuda-based Arch Capital Group admitted in unison, "We don't seem to learn from the mistakes of the past. That's a fact. Some of us are in this business for 36 years, and candidly, we don't like good times forever. The down cycles of soft markets that have emerged are always longer than the up cycles. It's always been lack of capacity that's driven prices upward, dwindling capacity in the property market, particularly in catastrophe-prone regions, is pushing those prices up. We're seeing price changes daily. Even if there's plenty of capacity, the price of coverage is pretty steep. For example in Mexican standoff between buyers and sellers, the buyers are waiting for somebody to blink. And given that it's already a few days into hurricane season, some blinking is going to happen soon. If there's a moderate hurricane season, we are concerned that there will be a bloodbath in the fall in pricing, as perceived excess capacity may push top-line thinking to take over overnight."
This illustrates the helplessness of even global insurance leaders to tackle their own insider indiscipline.
Hillary Rodham Clinton displayed the naïvete, economic suicide
Hillary Rodham Clinton displayed the naïvete of a 19th-century Bible Society lecturer recently when she badgered India to embrace the Gospel of Global Warming by curtailing its sinful output of carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) — commonly known as greenhouse gases.
One could almost hear the imperial strains of Sir Arthur Sullivan’s “Onward Christian soldiers” as the U.S. Secretary of State met with Indian officials in New Delhi late last month.
In essence, Mrs. Clinton told India’s leaders to put their nation’s prosperity on hold in order to drastically curtail their carbon dioxide emissions that she, her close political pal Al Gore and many scientists say are causing catastrophic climate changes.
The sum of the message was that India can accomplish this feat by slashing electricity output from coal-fired power plants.
Indian Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh listened to Secretary Clinton’s plea with extreme politeness and then told her to bug off.
With more than two-thirds of India’s estimated 1.2-billion people living in abject poverty, Mr. Ramesh bluntly informed Mrs. Clinton his country had no intention of committing economic suicide by signing a global treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
“There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have the lowest emissions level per capita, face to actually reduce emissions,” Mr. Rameesh told his startled visitor, adding, “and if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”
Despite the remarkable progress of India in the few decades since it discarded the shopworn socialist system introduced by Nehru in 1948, 800-million of its people still live on $2 a day or less.
She had marginally more luck in China where government leaders said after some delay, that they may consider setting carbon dioxide emission targets. In short, the Chinese still rejected her pleas with more nuance, but left a crack open.Whether this spoonful of sugar was intended to sweeten the bitter draught is open to interpretation. The real reason may have been a simple calculation that soothing the top diplomat from China’s best customer can do harm. China’s cumulative trade surplus with the United States runs into the trillions of dollars.
Carbon dioxide looks different in Beijing and New Delhi than in Washington or Ottawa. Anyone who has walked through the slums of Mumbai would realize th at the real pollutants are raw sewage, tainted water, chemical discharges and cow dung. The near-permanent brown clouds stretching hundreds of miles into the Indian Ocean say that millions of Indians must burn dry cow dung to warm their hovels and cook their meals.
Leaders at the controls of India’s full-throttle economic engine understand something the Obamas and Clintons of the world just don’t get; for sheer survival, it really is the economy — stupid.
The key to cleaning up the Earth’s most polluted air lies in prosperity, not in unctuous moralizing. Indians and Chinese will demand clean air when they can afford it. They see that in the United States and Canada, corporate profits and taxes pay for cleaning up the environment —and they are willing to wait until the same thing is true for them.
Cars built and sold in North America are 98 percent less polluting than they were in 1973. Industrial smokestacks no longer spew a witches’ brew of toxicity. There is fishing and swimming in rivers where oil and chemical slicks covered the water and would catch fire — as happened in Cleveland when the Cuyahoga lit up in flames.
Chinese and Indian leaders disagree with their counterparts in Washington and Ottawa. In Beijing and New Delhi, the governing class understands that gutting their countries’ economies with cap-and-trade carbon taxes, will not scrub the air clean, but could well raise the price of actually doing so far beyond what is acceptable.
That’s why Mr. Rameesh dowsed Mrs. Clinton with the cold water of reality. In my view, it would good if he would do as much for Al Gore, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, respectively the former vice president, then chairman of the Hour Energy Committee, the speaker of the House, and arguably the most vehement woman in the Senate.
The quartet would be more effective in putting carbon dioxide emissions under control, if instead of posturing, they concentrating on setting doable targets and realistic ways to reach them.
One could almost hear the imperial strains of Sir Arthur Sullivan’s “Onward Christian soldiers” as the U.S. Secretary of State met with Indian officials in New Delhi late last month.
In essence, Mrs. Clinton told India’s leaders to put their nation’s prosperity on hold in order to drastically curtail their carbon dioxide emissions that she, her close political pal Al Gore and many scientists say are causing catastrophic climate changes.
The sum of the message was that India can accomplish this feat by slashing electricity output from coal-fired power plants.
Indian Environmental Minister Jairam Ramesh listened to Secretary Clinton’s plea with extreme politeness and then told her to bug off.
With more than two-thirds of India’s estimated 1.2-billion people living in abject poverty, Mr. Ramesh bluntly informed Mrs. Clinton his country had no intention of committing economic suicide by signing a global treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
“There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have the lowest emissions level per capita, face to actually reduce emissions,” Mr. Rameesh told his startled visitor, adding, “and if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”
Despite the remarkable progress of India in the few decades since it discarded the shopworn socialist system introduced by Nehru in 1948, 800-million of its people still live on $2 a day or less.
She had marginally more luck in China where government leaders said after some delay, that they may consider setting carbon dioxide emission targets. In short, the Chinese still rejected her pleas with more nuance, but left a crack open.Whether this spoonful of sugar was intended to sweeten the bitter draught is open to interpretation. The real reason may have been a simple calculation that soothing the top diplomat from China’s best customer can do harm. China’s cumulative trade surplus with the United States runs into the trillions of dollars.
Carbon dioxide looks different in Beijing and New Delhi than in Washington or Ottawa. Anyone who has walked through the slums of Mumbai would realize th at the real pollutants are raw sewage, tainted water, chemical discharges and cow dung. The near-permanent brown clouds stretching hundreds of miles into the Indian Ocean say that millions of Indians must burn dry cow dung to warm their hovels and cook their meals.
Leaders at the controls of India’s full-throttle economic engine understand something the Obamas and Clintons of the world just don’t get; for sheer survival, it really is the economy — stupid.
The key to cleaning up the Earth’s most polluted air lies in prosperity, not in unctuous moralizing. Indians and Chinese will demand clean air when they can afford it. They see that in the United States and Canada, corporate profits and taxes pay for cleaning up the environment —and they are willing to wait until the same thing is true for them.
Cars built and sold in North America are 98 percent less polluting than they were in 1973. Industrial smokestacks no longer spew a witches’ brew of toxicity. There is fishing and swimming in rivers where oil and chemical slicks covered the water and would catch fire — as happened in Cleveland when the Cuyahoga lit up in flames.
Chinese and Indian leaders disagree with their counterparts in Washington and Ottawa. In Beijing and New Delhi, the governing class understands that gutting their countries’ economies with cap-and-trade carbon taxes, will not scrub the air clean, but could well raise the price of actually doing so far beyond what is acceptable.
That’s why Mr. Rameesh dowsed Mrs. Clinton with the cold water of reality. In my view, it would good if he would do as much for Al Gore, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, respectively the former vice president, then chairman of the Hour Energy Committee, the speaker of the House, and arguably the most vehement woman in the Senate.
The quartet would be more effective in putting carbon dioxide emissions under control, if instead of posturing, they concentrating on setting doable targets and realistic ways to reach them.
Obama to visit China mid-November
President Barack Obama will visit China in mid-November, the new United States ambassador to Beijing said on Saturday, setting a date for a big summit likely to tackle the global economy, North Korea and climate change.
Washington's new envoy to Beijing, Jon Huntsman Jr., told reporters Obama "is going to be visiting in the middle of November," but he did not give specific dates.
Until now, neither Beijing nor Washington has publicly given such a firm time for the big visit.
It means the U.S. President is likely to go to Beijing and perhaps other regional capitals after the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders' summit in Singapore on 14-15 November.
Huntsman, speaking at his residence after arriving in the Chinese capital, said relations between the two economic and political powers were improving.
"By the end of the year, we should be in better shape than ever before between the United States and China," he said, in a speech that switched between English and fluent Mandarin Chinese.
But Obama's summit with Chinese President Hu Jintao will also confront thorny differences with Beijing on trade and economic policy, North Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions, and climate change policy, with nations seeking to agree in December on a new international pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
China has chided Washington for policy failings exposed by the financial meltdown, has resisted U.S. calls to pressure Pyongyang with tougher sanctions, and said rich countries must lead the way in greenhouse gas emissions cuts.
"There has never been a more important period for the United States and China to get along," said Huntsman. "The world today more than ever before relies too much on a healthy and stable U.S.-China relationship."
With his strong personal ties to China and fluent Mandarin, Huntsman is likely to be a high-profile envoy.
Huntsman mastered Chinese as a missionary in Taiwan. He was the Republican governor of Utah before accepting the ambassadorship, and also worked as a U.S. trade official.
Huntsman's family founded chemical company Huntsman Corp, which has operations in China, including a factory in Shanghai. One of his seven children was adopted from China.
Washington's new envoy to Beijing, Jon Huntsman Jr., told reporters Obama "is going to be visiting in the middle of November," but he did not give specific dates.
Until now, neither Beijing nor Washington has publicly given such a firm time for the big visit.
It means the U.S. President is likely to go to Beijing and perhaps other regional capitals after the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders' summit in Singapore on 14-15 November.
Huntsman, speaking at his residence after arriving in the Chinese capital, said relations between the two economic and political powers were improving.
"By the end of the year, we should be in better shape than ever before between the United States and China," he said, in a speech that switched between English and fluent Mandarin Chinese.
But Obama's summit with Chinese President Hu Jintao will also confront thorny differences with Beijing on trade and economic policy, North Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions, and climate change policy, with nations seeking to agree in December on a new international pact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
China has chided Washington for policy failings exposed by the financial meltdown, has resisted U.S. calls to pressure Pyongyang with tougher sanctions, and said rich countries must lead the way in greenhouse gas emissions cuts.
"There has never been a more important period for the United States and China to get along," said Huntsman. "The world today more than ever before relies too much on a healthy and stable U.S.-China relationship."
With his strong personal ties to China and fluent Mandarin, Huntsman is likely to be a high-profile envoy.
Huntsman mastered Chinese as a missionary in Taiwan. He was the Republican governor of Utah before accepting the ambassadorship, and also worked as a U.S. trade official.
Huntsman's family founded chemical company Huntsman Corp, which has operations in China, including a factory in Shanghai. One of his seven children was adopted from China.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Global Youth United in Efforts to Stop Climate Change
CBS morning show had a piece on the youth activism around global climate change. Young people like 15-year-old Alec Loorz is taking
"his message across the country, using poles to illustrate the predicted sea level rise if nothing is done to prevent global warning."
But this generation of youth isn't new to global warming nor the activism surrounding it. The 1990's brought a nation wide effort in Canada called the Youth Alliance for the "Turnaround Decade" where young people advocated for solutions to climate change, and young people in California particularly advocated for recycling programs when environmental activists invested in a generation of young people who also convinced their parents to take action. And who can ever forget growing up with Jesse the good-hearted environmentalist on Saved by the Bell (before she became a stripper). There was even an entire episode about how "drill baby drill" on the school football field killed hundreds of the crew's beloved science pets in the school's pond.
A whole generation of youth from 35 and under grew up with saving the world from ourselves and the extenuation of "last chances" has sputtered on and on like an old diesel engine.
The fight among young people to stop global warming isn't merely a US fight, its become the common bond to unite a generation of our planet's youth. The UN's Environment Program announced Thursday it's new partnership with the Republic of Korea for increased reduction in carbon emissions.
But while UN officials met with State Leaders, 700 young people ranging from 10 to 24 attended the largest ever UN backed global youth gathering on taking action against climate change.
"They issued a declaration, entitled “Listen to Our Voices: The Future Needs Strong Vision and Leadership,” expressing their “concern and frustration that their governments are not doing enough to combat climate change,” and emphasizing that “we now need more actions and less talking.”
The week-long Tunza Children and Youth Conference on the Environment is part of the UN’s “Seal the Deal” campaign spearheaded by the Secretary-General, who has made tackling global warming one of his top priorities.
The young people’s “voices will and must be heard because they will inherit the outcomes of our actions,” Mr. Ban said."
India too has noted the importance with incorporating youth into a global climate change agenda.
"Calling for strengthening the scientific foundations of environment policies with mass participation, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said Tuesday. "We must involve more stakeholders, particularly youth, to lead the movement for environmental protection."
If only we'd listened to Saved by the Bell back in 1991, we wouldn't be drilling anymore or using styrofoam containers. Instead a quiet majority works through the process to enact meaningful social change in hopes that the threats of a last chance decade can be pushed off for another ten years.
Big benefits seen in adapting to climate change
Helping developing nations to adapt to climate change such as floods or heatwaves can give bigger economic benefits than a focus on deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, a study indicated on Friday.
A total of $10 trillion spent on adaptation, ranging from research into drought-resistant crops to measures to limit a spread of diseases such as malaria, would provide $16 trillion of economic benefits over the coming century, it said.
"We talk immensely about cutting carbon emissions, but there are many other ways to deal with climate change," said Bjorn Lomborg, Danish author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who commissioned the study by Italian researchers.
"Everyone pays lip service to adaptation but in reality we rarely talk as much about it as cutting carbon emissions," he told Reuters of the study, meant to provoke debate about a new U.N. climate treaty to be agreed in Copenhagen in December.
"The authors find that...adaptation achieves more than mitigation in terms of reducing the damage from climate change," he said. Mitigation means curbing emissions of greenhouse gases and often gets most attention at U.N. climate negotiations.
The study said that the highest economic benefits would come if adaptation went hand in hand with moderate curbs on emissions. In the best case, $9 trillion spent would give $19 trillion of benefits, it said.
"The optimal strategy to deal with climate change entails the adoption of both adaptation and mitigation measures," Carlo Carraro of the University of Venice and co-authors from the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei in Italy wrote.
MARKET FORCES
The study also said that the impacts of climate change could also be muted by adaptation, driven by market forces. In developed nations, for instance, farmers could turn to new crops to match water availability and temperatures.
"If it rains less you will adapt and you will use drip irrigation," said Lomborg, who is head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. "If it rains more you will grow more crops and you will end up being more productive."
Other low-cost measures could include insulation of older buildings, building new homes with higher steps to avoid flooding or siting new infrastructure inland to avoid storm surges from a creeping rise in sea levels.
"The problem from global warming is not going to be in the developed world, it will be in the developing world," he said.
Taking account of the natural market-driven adaptation, climate change could have a fractional net positive impact in developed nations, totalling a 0.1 percent gain in gross domestic product by 2100, the study said.
And in poor nations, such adaptation could limit overall economic losses to 2.9 percent of GDP from 5.3 percent.
A total of $10 trillion spent on adaptation, ranging from research into drought-resistant crops to measures to limit a spread of diseases such as malaria, would provide $16 trillion of economic benefits over the coming century, it said.
"We talk immensely about cutting carbon emissions, but there are many other ways to deal with climate change," said Bjorn Lomborg, Danish author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" who commissioned the study by Italian researchers.
"Everyone pays lip service to adaptation but in reality we rarely talk as much about it as cutting carbon emissions," he told Reuters of the study, meant to provoke debate about a new U.N. climate treaty to be agreed in Copenhagen in December.
"The authors find that...adaptation achieves more than mitigation in terms of reducing the damage from climate change," he said. Mitigation means curbing emissions of greenhouse gases and often gets most attention at U.N. climate negotiations.
The study said that the highest economic benefits would come if adaptation went hand in hand with moderate curbs on emissions. In the best case, $9 trillion spent would give $19 trillion of benefits, it said.
"The optimal strategy to deal with climate change entails the adoption of both adaptation and mitigation measures," Carlo Carraro of the University of Venice and co-authors from the Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei in Italy wrote.
MARKET FORCES
The study also said that the impacts of climate change could also be muted by adaptation, driven by market forces. In developed nations, for instance, farmers could turn to new crops to match water availability and temperatures.
"If it rains less you will adapt and you will use drip irrigation," said Lomborg, who is head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. "If it rains more you will grow more crops and you will end up being more productive."
Other low-cost measures could include insulation of older buildings, building new homes with higher steps to avoid flooding or siting new infrastructure inland to avoid storm surges from a creeping rise in sea levels.
"The problem from global warming is not going to be in the developed world, it will be in the developing world," he said.
Taking account of the natural market-driven adaptation, climate change could have a fractional net positive impact in developed nations, totalling a 0.1 percent gain in gross domestic product by 2100, the study said.
And in poor nations, such adaptation could limit overall economic losses to 2.9 percent of GDP from 5.3 percent.
Climate Change Could Deepen Poverty In Developing Countries, Study Finds
Urban workers could suffer most from climate change as the cost of food drives them into poverty, according to a new study that quantifies the effects of climate on the world's poor populations.A team led by Purdue University researchers examined the potential economic influence of adverse climate events, such as heat waves, drought and heavy rains, on those in 16 developing countries. Urban workers in Bangladesh, Mexico and Zambia were found to be the most at risk.
"Extreme weather affects agricultural productivity and can raise the price of staple foods, such as grains, that are important to poor households in developing countries," said Noah Diffenbaugh, the associate professor of earth and atmospheric sciences and interim director of Purdue's Climate Change Research Center who co-led the study. "Studies have shown global warming will likely increase the frequency and intensity of heat waves, drought and floods in many areas. It is important to understand which socioeconomic groups and countries could see changes in poverty rates in order to make informed policy decisions."
The team used data from the late 20th century and projections for the late 21st century to develop a framework that examined extreme climate events, comparable shocks to grain production and the impact on the number of impoverished people in each country.
Thomas Hertel, a distinguished professor of agricultural economics and co-leader of the study, said that although urban workers only contribute modestly to total poverty rates in the sample countries, they are the most vulnerable group to changes in grains production.
"Food is a major expenditure for the poor and, while those who work in agriculture would have some benefit from higher grains prices, the urban poor would only get the negative effects," said Hertel, who also is executive director of Purdue's Center for Global Trade Analysis. "This is an important finding given that the United Nations projects a continuing shift in population concentrations from rural to urban areas in virtually all of these developing countries."
With nearly 1 billion of the world's poor living on less than $1 a day, extreme events can have a devastating impact, he said.
"Bangladesh, Mexico and Zambia showed the greatest percentage of the population entering poverty in the wake of extreme drought, with an additional 1.4 percent, 1.8 percent and 4.6 percent of their populations being impoverished by future climate extremes, respectively," Hertel said. "This translates to an additional 1.8 million people impoverished per country for Bangladesh and Mexico and an additional half million people in Zambia."
A paper detailing the work will be published in Thursday's (Aug. 20) issue of Environmental Research Letters. In addition to Diffenbaugh and Hertel, Syud Amer Ahmed, a recent Purdue graduate and a member of the development research group for The World Bank, co-authored the paper. The World Bank's Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development funded the research.
The team identified the maximum rainfall, drought and heat wave for the 30-year periods of 1971-2000 and 2071-2100 and then compared the maximums for the two time periods.
The global climate model experiments developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, were used for the future projections of extreme events. The team used an IPCC scenario that has greenhouse gas emissions continuing to follow the current trend, Diffenbaugh said.
"The occurrence and magnitude of what are currently the 30-year-maximum values for wet, dry and hot extremes are projected to substantially increase for much of the world," he said. "Heat waves and drought in the Mediterranean showed a potential 2700 percent and 800 percent increase in occurrence, respectively, and extreme rainfall in Southeast Asia was projected to potentially increase by 900 percent."
In addition, Southeast Asia showed a projected 40 percent increase in the magnitude of the worst rainfall; central Africa showed a projected 1000 percent increase in the magnitude of the worst heat wave; and the Mediterranean showed a projected 60 percent increase in the worst drought.
A statistical analysis was used to determine grain productivity shocks that would correspond in magnitude to the climate extremes, and then the economic impact of the supply shock was determined. Future predicted extreme climate events were compared to historical agricultural productivity extremes in order to assess the likely impact on agricultural production, prices and wages. Because the projected changes in extreme rainfall and heat wave events were too large for the current model to accept, only the extreme drought events were incorporated into the economic projections, making the projected poverty impacts a conservative estimate, he said.
To assess the potential economic impact of a given change in wages and grains prices, the team used data from each country's household survey. The estimates of likely wage and price changes following an extreme climate event were obtained from a global trade model, called the Global Trade Analysis Project, or GTAP, which is maintained by Purdue's agricultural economics department.
Purdue's GTAP framework is supported by an international consortium of 27 national and international agencies and is used by a network of 6,500 researchers in 140 countries.
Large reductions in grains productivity due to extreme climate events are supported by historical data. In 1991 grains productivity in Malawi and Zambia declined by about 50 percent when southern Africa experienced a severe drought.
Diffenbaugh said this is an initial quantification of how poverty is tied to climate fluctuations, and the team is working to improve the modeling and analysis system in order to enable more comprehensive assessments of the link between climate volatility and poverty vulnerability.e effects of climate on the world's poor populations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)