A 2000-megawatt coal-fired power station in Yorkshire, Britain. Credit: Wikimedia/Stephen Richards
LONDON: More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, according to a report commissioned by 20 governments.
As global average temperatures rise due to greenhouse gas emissions, the effects on the planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods, said the report conducted by humanitarian organisation DARA.
It calculated that five million deaths occur each year from air pollution, hunger and disease as a result of climate change and carbon-intensive economies, and that toll would likely rise to six million a year by 2030 if current patterns of fossil fuel use continue.
90% of deaths in developing countries
More than 90% of those deaths will occur in developing countries, said the report that calculated the human and economic impact of climate change on 184 countries in 2010 and 2030. It was commissioned by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a partnership of 20 developing countries threatened by climate change.
“A combined climate-carbon crisis is estimated to claim 100 million lives between now and the end of the next decade,” the report said.
It said the effects of climate change had lowered global output by 1.6% of world GDP, or by about $1.2 trillion a year, and losses could double to 3.2% of global GDP by 2030 if global temperatures are allowed to rise, surpassing 10% before 2100.
It estimated the cost of moving the world to a low-carbon economy at about 0.5% of GDP this decade.
Temperatures 0.8°C above pre-industrial times
British economist Nicholas Stern said earlier this year investment equivalent to 2% of global GDP was needed to limit, prevent and adapt to climate change. His report on the economics of climate change in 2006 said an average global temperature rise of 2–3 degrees Celsius in the next 50 years could reduce global consumption per head by up to 2%.
Temperatures have already risen by about 0.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times. Almost 200 nations agreed in 2010 to limit the global average temperature rise to below 2°C (3.6 Fahrenheit) to avoid dangerous impacts from climate change.
But climate scientists have warned that the chance of limiting the rise to below 2°C is getting smaller as global greenhouse gas emissions rise due to burning fossil fuels.
U.S., China could see GDP shrink 2.1%
The world’s poorest nations are the most vulnerable as they face increased risk of drought, water shortages, crop failure, poverty and disease. On average, they could see an 11% loss in GDP by 2030 due to climate change, DARA said.
“One degree Celsius rise in temperature is associated with 10% productivity loss in farming. For us, it means losing about 4 million metric tonnes of food grain, amounting to about $2.5 billion. That is about 2% of our GDP,” Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said in response to the report.
“Adding up the damages to property and other losses, we are faced with a total loss of about 3–4 percent of GDP.”
Even the biggest and most rapidly developing economies will not escape unscathed. The United States and China could see a 2.1% reduction in their respective GDPs by 2030, according to the report, while India could experience a more than 5 percent loss.
DARA
Please leave a comment
Please comply with our Community rules.
It just a consparecie by the sientists to get moor munny!
I think your spelling says it all, really.
So which of us is being the most ironic?
Climate change or not, continual pollution is bad for health. I live in London so I think I have some idea (maybe). Central London is much nicer now the cars go around it. Streatham Hill gave me Asthma.
As to warming, Is it really worth the gamble or shall we just have an argument for the next 20 years?
People happily accept scientists work and findings in an area like health – we all take medicines developed by scientists without question, but why the continued doubting of work they do on climate change? The people who call themselves sceptics are not true sceptics because they do not look at the research, peer evaluation, the debate scientists have amongst themselves over new works published etc. They are just people who choose not to believe for whatever reason and as such add nothing to the acceptance and willingness to help solve the problem, but throw up misinformed opinion in newspapers and T.V programs which confuses and impedes people’s desire to face facts. It’s happening folks, regardless of all the nay-sayers who unfortunately won’t be the first to suffer.
Asimov
It’s so easy to obscure emerging facts in such areas. It’s the nature of our limited level of knowledge that makes the interpretation of the data subject to honest scientific disagreement.
I am not referring to the kind of “analysis” produced by such NGOs as DARA – they’re really nothing more than speculation. The REAL data of value is that of direct observation and measurement accomplished under competent oversight by qualified, disciplined scientists.
But no, it won’t take 20 years to see a unmistakable trend form. But even after the evidence is indisputable, there will still be those with vested interests who will try to hold onto their ways by all means possible.. Of course, by that time, the trend will be unstoppable. As you say – it’s a gamble and a big one.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to require real accountability of those making claims of absolute knowledge (on either side)? Sort of like the personal liability a professional engineer assumes when he certifies that a building will stand or a dam will hold. Assume the role of expert – assume the liability for the consequences. Personally.
I am not referring to the kind of “analysis” produced by such NGOs as DARA – they’re really nothing more than speculation. The REAL data of value is that of direct observation and measurement accomplished under competent oversight by qualified, disciplined scientists.
But no, it won’t take 20 years to see a unmistakable trend form. But even after the evidence is indisputable, there will still be those with vested interests who will try to hold onto their ways by all means possible.. Of course, by that time, the trend will be unstoppable. As you say – it’s a gamble and a big one.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to require real accountability of those making claims of absolute knowledge (on either side)? Sort of like the personal liability a professional engineer assumes when he certifies that a building will stand or a dam will hold. Assume the role of expert – assume the liability for the consequences. Personally.
I believe that the current pattern of climate change is part of a natural global warming event that has been going on for a long period of time but has been exacerbated by human activity largely population explosion. The more people we have populating the planet the greater the use of fossil fuels. We were warned about this in the 1950′s and a move to limit world population was formed with the catch phrase Zero Population Growth. We ignored this warning and now we are about to pay the price. It is now necessary to implement means of adapting to the changed wrought by climate change. GPJ
” Very succinct and WISE Comment ! “
Excellent comment-we could have a heated agreement!!
Leave a Reply