Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumClimate Change Already Damaging Global Economy
and contributing to 400,000 deaths every year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy?newsfeed=true
Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study.
The impacts are being felt most keenly in developing countries, according to the research, where damage to agricultural production from extreme weather linked to climate change is contributing to deaths from malnutrition, poverty and their associated diseases.
---snip---
The 331-page study, entitled Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of A Hot Planet and published on Wednesday, was carried out by the DARA group, a non-governmental organisation based in Europe, and the Climate Vulnerable Forum. It was written by more than 50 scientists, economists and policy experts, and commissioned by 20 governments.
Seems like only yesterday when somebody posted that at some future date climate change might cause 100,000 more deaths per year. Guess we've already passed that landmark and shown once more that the future is now.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)If it isn't one thing, it's another with the people who think mankind as-a-hole can alter the climate.
"If only we could turn back the hands of time" .
Then you have those who realize that the SIHTF and think a bigger fan is the answer.
Meanwhile a subsistence farmer is watching the tide roll in higher and higher every year. Pretty soon the salt water will take his field and he'll be left to wade through the millions who live a few feet higher than him as he seeks another small patch to feed his family.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)....and are willing to take a stand and do whatever they can, when they can.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You have a plan to fix it? One that doesn't involve a bigger fan? Or balloons?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Here's a version:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=298
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It's been 8 years since P&S published their wedge stabilization plan. Here's what SkepticalScience says about it:
PS04 used the concept of a "stabilization wedge", in which "a wedge represents an activity that reduces emissions to the atmosphere that starts at zero today and increases linearly until it accounts for 1 GtC/year of reduced carbon emissions in 50 years." Implementing seven such wedges would achieve sufficient GHG emissions reductions to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide at 500 ppm by 2050, and emissions would have to decrease linearly during the second half of the 21st century.
Aside from the fact that nothing whatsoever has been done to implement wedges in the last eight years, it's now accepted that the target has to be below 350 ppm, not 500. After all, we're seeing damage from climate change today at (barely) under 400 ppm. Achieving 500 ppm required a heroic effort starting 8 years ago, and since then we've added another 15 GtC to the atmosphere - over and above the 7 GtC/year they allowed (which was already far too much). We are falling further and further behind the curve.
Then there's the little matter that their (and Joe Romm's) wedges include nuclear power (700 GW plus 10 Yucca mountains...), either doubling vehicle fleet efficiency or cutting driving by 50% - world-wide, 2 million big wind turbines, coal with CCS, turning all global croplands into no-till...
Pacala and Socolow created an interesting paper exercise, but not something that was feasible. To try and sell this as a "solution" was naive in the extreme - even eight years ago when we were all gullible children who hadn't seen climate negotiations fall flat on their faces over and over and over.
Don't get me wrong, a lot of these suggestions make perfect sense - so long as we bound our expectations with global political realities. Some mitigation may be possible. We may manage to keep CO2 under 500 ppm rather than have it rise to 700 by the end of the century - but reversing the climate change that has already begun is not in the cards, at least not while keeping global industrial civilization in its present form.
There is one thing that will stop climate change from getting worse though, and over the long run would even reverse it. It's the only thing that has so far been proven to reduce CO2 emissions - a permanent global economic depression. That would do it, and it's probably even going to happen, but most people will likely think it's even worse than a carbon tax...
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)We're technically still in a depressed state, and Big Energy's profits are still booming like never before. So that hasn't done a darn thing to help us, either, I'm afraid.
On the other hand, it is indeed true that we do have to take geopolitical realities into consideration when we think about climate change, and sometimes it truly isn't always as fully considered as it should be; look at China for example. They may have boomed these past 30 years but that bubble is going to burst, and soon. And when it does, maybe as soon as 2017-18, if not 2020 or so, it will be messy. And not just a civil war, either, it'll do serious harm to the global economy, maybe even crash ours all over again if a Romney or Rand Paul type figure is in charge. And that, I feel, ought to be remedied.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:06 AM - Edit history (1)
The 2009-2010 "recovery" allowed emissions to get back on track.
The sort of depression I'm talking about would be a 30% to 50% reduction in global economic activity, with no subsequent growth - ever.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)We will need to adapt. But even for that we will need coordinated action if we want to adapt in a proactive way.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)However, I can admit that in some cases, it may be a case of us starting the process, but that Nature may have to do the rest.....I can see this being especially true with the ice caps; TBH, we may not see a total recovery in our lifetimes even if drastic measures start this next decade.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Like what? What drastic measures, in your own mind, can you get started to get back what has been lost?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Hopefully it shows up. In any case, there's sadly nothing we can do about the numerous species that have been lost to eternity, at least not in the vast majority of cases(maybe some have left DNA behind, like the mammoths did so there may be a little hope for some!), and possibly not much we can do to salvage some of the coral reefs that have been damaged.....so we'll have to deal with that.
But there are things that we can do. For one example, A Geek Named Bob came up with a potentially very helpful & cheap system involving balloons......this guy really knows his stuff, too. If some well-off person with a love for this planet's environment could be convinced to fund an endeavor such as this, it might just be a bigger step in the right direction that even I would have realized......
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Why don't you have anything? No passion? No love for this planet's environment? All you have is a link?
Your 'lack' is a sign of WHY we are where we are. Just as I have seen in so many others for decades now.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Sorry.
I really don't think you understand the depth of the hole we're in.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)He said so. 
hatrack
(64,863 posts)
I read that as "Do you know how hard it is to get a wino off of a computer display?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I do, in fact, realize just how deep down we are in the proverbial hole. But that doesn't mean that solutions can't continue to be found and worked on; although to be perfectly fair, I can admit that, those few things alone, while helpful in both the short and long terms, aren't going to be the end all, be all by any means.
Climate change will continue, and it will get worse. That, unfortunately, is certain; what is also inevitable is that many, many, millions more lives will be adversely affected by this disaster in the coming decades. Water shortages will continue, and wars will continue to be fought over that and other resources, which will contribute to the death toll. Dictatorships may arise in various places, including quite possibly some parts of Europe, should the far right be particularly successful there. And there is even the possibility of terrorists using WMDs against various countries, including perhaps the U.S. & Canada! How our future will develop over this next century, on the other hand, will largely rely on what actions are taken then.
But even if some of us may have given up hope, there are many more who haven't. Do keep in mind that Rachel Carson didn't throw in the towel when things looked bleak. Neither did the people who supported CFC banning and the Clean Air Act. It's because of perseverance that we have made progress over these past 50 years, and it's been significant. If anything at all, the latest problems tell us that action is needed more than ever, and that there are many who are willing to rise up to the challenge in whatever manner possible, large-scale or personal.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It could be that you and I mean different things when we say the word. I tend to use it in the sense of "complete resolution" - when the solution is applied, the problem ceases to exist.
The other thought I had as I read your reply is that nobody ever gives up all hope. People do give up hoping for particular things, or shift from hoping for one thing to hoping for something else instead. There is no rule that says there is one right thing we should all hope for - not even the continuation of our own lives.
I may have given up hope for reversing climate change, or even given up hope that global industrial civilization will stay intact, but that has released a lot of my energy to hope for other things I think are important.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)In the case of global warming, there are those like myself whom define a solution as something that may not necessarily solve the entire problem in of and by itself but can contribute to the mitigation of the problem at hand, whether it's a small action such as trying to stick to organic foods whenever possible, or a large one, like the push for CFC elimination in the '80s and '90s.
At the very least, from what I've seen over these past weeks, you seem to be one of those people whom, even though you've given up hope for things to get better, you still strive to be as environmentally conscious & as clean as possible, and I think that counts for something. 
CRH
(1,553 posts)for reversing climate change, or even given up hope that global industrial civilization will stay intact, but that has released a lot of my energy to hope for other things I think are important.
. mismo tambien
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)just as we lurch out over the edge.
Hang on tight. These are now the good old days.
ETA: This is a good, up-to-date article, written by people who are clued in. The mention of the new arctic ice record and the link to the US drought, cold weather in Europe and the problems with the Indian monsoon is especially welcome.
NickB79
(20,346 posts)That we should hug our children while we still can, I didn't think I'd be taking him literally. But here I am, watching my toddler play and laugh and smile at me, and damn if I can't stop thinking about those words 