By the way, click on the images and they will open in a new window at full size so that you can actually see them.
It is human nature to be fixated on the present. It’s the problem we have with politicians who are always looking to the next election cycle to guide their decision making instead of the future impacts of those decisions; it’s was the problem with Wall Street whose goal of short term, immediate profits helped to create our current economic mess, it’s been and will probably continue to be the problem with US foreign policy, that looks to action in the present with disregard for the long term consequences of those actions. And it’s the problem with our global attitude towards climate change, even among those who are well intentioned.
Specifically to this debate, on whether the world’s top priority should be the global poverty or stopping (or at least mitigating as much as possible), global warming and its subsequent effects, this discord between the short term and the long term is central. The present realities of world poverty are a harsh indictment of our global priorities, and the greed that has driven western economic development. We have a responsibility to all those whose human rights are not met—Austin and I are certainly in agreement on this. But to advocate that the third world pursue economic development in the same manner as the West is illogical and wrong.
Such pursuit of economic development at the cost of status quo (and more realistically, increased) emissions will backfire massively on the very people Austin is trying to protect from the vastly negative consequences of climate change. He seems to take a slightly defeatist attitude, acknowledging that even if all emissions were to cease today, the world would still experience warming and the subsequent consequences. However, as the recently released Stern Review, commissioned by the British government, reports, “The consequences of climate change will become disproportionately more damaging with increased warming.” (see figure to the left for the relationship between warming and its various consequences...most are exponential, and the ones that offer brief benefits to certain latitudes quickly become negatively exponential) While we are committed to a certain degree of warming, we still have a choice as to how much more we will cause. The consequences of further warming are, as I have stated, exponential with every degree increase in temperature, and will also be disproportionate in their effect on the world’s poor.
I’m going to assume that nobody reading this is a global warming denier (if you are, I’ll be happy to drown you in a deluge of irrefutable logic, facts, and paleoclimatology history). So I’m going to skip all the basics about how global warming is caused, and the proofs, and just go straight to the impacts, and what various scenarios mean for us all.
Where We Are Now
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified various scenarios for world growth and development, both economic and population. The general consensus is that if we remain at the status quo, we could be facing a global average warming of 3º C by mid century. This is bad enough on its own, but the possibility of positive feedbacks (the release of CO2 from soil and methane from permafrost due to increased temperatures) could cause additional degrees of warming. The scenario we should be aiming for is B1 (the green line). Interestingly enough, this scenario is not one at odds with world economic growth, which suggests that we may be able to have our cake and have the third world eat it too, but we will get to that later.
So what does a warming of 3º mean? Unfortunately, it means bad things, but keep in mind that each additional degree of warming will mean exponentially greater damages.
Water
Global warming will both decrease and increase different populations’ access to water, but unfortunately it won’t do so in a helpful manner. Water shortages will be compounded, and wet regions of the world will be at increased risk of large scale flooding. In Africa, the Middle East, Southern Europe, and parts of Central and South America, water will become scarcer for 1-4 billion people, exacerbating current problems and hampering growth and development in the largely agriculture based economies of the third world. In South and East Asia, 1-5 billion people will receive more water, but it will come during the rainy season, which means more serious flooding.
Glacial melt currently provides water to seven of Asia’s largest rivers, and supports the needs of hundreds of millions of people. For these inhabitants of China, the Indian subcontinent, and the Andes region, glacial melt and loss of mountain snow holds severe consequences. Glacial melts will increase flooding during the wet season, and during the dry season when the glaciers have completely melted, access to water will be limited.
Food
Let’s start with the (semi) positive. Slight warming may lengthen the growing season in high latitude regions (the US, Europe, Siberia, Australia, parts of China), leading to slightly increased agricultural output. However, it will be outweighed by the disruption to agriculture in the rest of the world, and at any rate, increased output in these regions does nothing to help the world’s poor, who will be the most affected by disruptions to farming. Models for temperature increases of 2º and 4º C show decreases in worldwide cereals production of 5% and 10% respectively. Models for temperature increases of over 5º are sketchier, but weather phenomenon, (more frequent and stronger storms), increased droughts, and societal upheavals caused by coastal flooding and displacement of peoples due to sea level rise are sure to effect world food production negatively. The acidification of oceans has the potential to disrupt marine ecosystems that are critical to sustaining the populations of fish that provide livelihood and sustenance to hundreds of millions of the world’s inhabitants.
The Stern review reports that at 3º of warming, an additional 150-500 million people worldwide will go hungry and suffer from malnutrition. Of course these won’t be the wealthy or the middle class (who will be able to cope with higher food prices), they will be the poor. I like logic, so I’m going to have a little logical aside regarding seafood: as the world’s oceans are overfished (that’s for another post), and disrupted by climate change, certain species of seafood will undoubtedly become rarer, thus increasing the economic incentive to capture and export them to wealthy markets in North America and Europe. This could lead to competition with local fishers off the coasts of third world countries—competitions those local fishers are bound to lose.
The Garnaut Climate Change Review submitted to the Australian government in February of 2008 notes that by 2040 warming will have reduced by 30% the available land for rice and grain production in China—at a time when that nation will need to boost its food production by 40% to meet the needs of its population. How can China accomplish such a feat with 1/3 less production capacity? The result will inevitably be much higher prices for basic foodstuffs. Forget the failed ethanol experiment…this is where the real danger lies. This is where the real food riots will come from.
Health
The combined effects of restricted access to water (especially clean water) and food will have bad enough effects on world health, but add to that an increased incidence of vector (think mosquito) borne diseases, and the impact starts to be very significant. And we aren’t even considering natural disaster related deaths. As parts of the world become warmer and wetter, mosquitoes and the diseases they carry will become more prevalent. This means that tens of millions more will be exposed to malaria in Africa, and dengue fever exposure will increase worldwide.
Land
Rising sea levels is one of the easiest effects of climate change to latch on to. It’s something tangible, measurable, and very, very, real. Just days ago, Oxfam warned that 75 million people living on Pacific Islands will have to relocate by 2050 due to projected sea level rise. These people will become the first international climate change refugees, and will pose enormous questions in terms of the logistics, space, and cost to be relocated in other nations. Worldwide more than 200 million people and $1 trillion in assets inhabit coasts under 1 meter above sea level. It will require large expenditures to erect flood barriers and levees to protect these areas, and the Stern Review concludes that “between 7 – 70 million and 20 – 300 million additional people will be flooded each year by 3º to 4ºC of warming causing 20 – 80 cm of sea level rise.” In addition to island nations, the report identifies South and East Asia and Africa as at particular risk.
Environment
To me, the environment stands alone as a consequence of global warming. Our obligation is not only to ourselves, but to the numerous other species and wildlife that share our planet. A 3ºC warming will put 20-50% of all land species at risk of extinction, and will likewise devastate oceanic life and reefs, as well as destroy a sizeable portion of the world’s valuable wetlands. The Native Americans had a philosophy that the Earth does not belong to humans, but that humans belong to the Earth. However (and I’ll admit, I’m assuming now), I don’t know if this is a valid argument to Austin, and if not, then it’s a debate for another time. So how about the cost to human society of this further environmental damage?
It’s enormous. 50 million people (including indigenous populations) live in the world’s high growth forests or rely directly on them for their livelihood. Unfortunately for them, warming will result in decreased rainfall over the Amazon, and massive dieback due to the drying. So good luck indigenous peoples (by the way, a carbon market would allow these groups to be compensated for the care they take in preserving their forests—yet another way in which action to curb emissions can economically help the developing world). The Garnaut Review estimates that global warming at current trends will cost Australia $1.3 Trillion AUD (as of today, that equals $1.09 Trillion USD) in ecosystem services. As Tim Wirth, former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs in the Clinton Administration famously stated, the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.
Economic and Social Consequences
The future cost to economies (especially developing economies) of the aforementioned events will be tragically high. The Stern Review estimates that by 2100 the consequences of global warming could cost India and Southeast Asia 9-13% of GDP. Current warming trends will cost developing countries 5% of their GDP annually in the future. John Houghton, in his authoritative textbook, Global Warming: The Third Briefing, notes several studies which conclude that a 2.5ºC temperature rise will cost 2% of GWP (gross world product) annually, and a rise of 6ºC, 7% of GWP.
In verbal discussions, Austin has argued that because we will experience irreversible effects of global warming in the future even if we cut emissions now, the correct policy should be for developing nations to further develop their economies, even through dirty energy, so that they can face the impending economic consequences. But keep in mind that global warming becomes exponentially worse with each degree rise in temperature. That’s why what Austin is advocating won’t work, because it will inevitably result in increased emissions and further increases in warming, and will just make the developing world WORSE OFF in the future.
Some degree of climate change is irreversible, but the speed and severity of that climate change is yet to be determined, and it will also determine the ability of the developing world to respond to its threats. The developing world recognizes this. The island nation of Tuvalu is already experiencing the effects of global warming, and it knows that its very survival as a nation depends on the future speed and severity of sea level rise. Call this tiny island nation the canary in the coal mine if you will; a canary that has pledged to go entirely carbon neutral, even at the cost of $20 million dollars (a significant sum for a nation of only 11,000 citizens).
Drought and the decreasing availability of water in Africa will push hundreds of millions more into poverty, as they attempt to cope with rising food prices, and the loss of their livelihoods. Again, economic development in the present will be meaningless in the future when ever-increasing shares of income and GDP will have to be spent on basic necessities and on responses to natural disasters and other consequences of the severe climate change it will cause.
These economic consequences, and the need for relocation of hundreds of millions of refugees will probably lead to more conflicts and resource wars. The scarcity of water could lead to conflict among the ten countries that share the Nile in Africa, and the 17 countries that share transboundary watercourses in West Africa. Furthermore, anyone who expects increased international cooperation among times of higher tensions over resources is a fool. Nations will do what is necessary to secure the land and natural resources needed to sustain their economies and standard of living. Expect the west to become more heavily fortified against immigrants and climate refugees, and expect the developed world to win those resource wars (most likely at the expense of the poor).
Mitigation
Obviously the developed world has much higher per capita emissions than the developing world (although when you look at total emissions, it’s about equal between the US, EU, UK, Japan, China and India). However, developing nations will account for 75% of the projected increase in emissions from now until 2030, with China alone being 30% of that figure. So while the greatest cuts in emissions will obviously be expected to come form developed western nations, any progress made there will be negated if developing nations continue on current emissions growth trends.
So now take a quick break and scroll back up to the beginnings of this post briefly, to the IPCC growth and emissions graph. That graph is for the following scenarios (A1F1, A2, B1, B2). Take a good look at that graph, then come and rejoin me down here at the chart that details the preceding scenarios.
As you saw, scenario B1 is the one with the lowest future emissions—the scenario we should be aiming for. Scenario B1 is also the scenario with the second highest rate of growth for world GDP, and one of the closest convergences between the GDP and standard of living in rich and poor countries. In short, scenario B1, world growth based on environmental sustainability (which I argue is also economic sustainability), mitigates global warming and its future consequences, while bringing the world closer to economic equality. Yes it is surpassed slightly by scenario A1F1 in terms of economic growth and degree of convergence, but A1F1 will take us to the dangerous levels of global warming that will result in human and economic catastrophe in the future. So when you take a long term focus, much of the additional economic growth of scenario A1F1 will be spent dealing with the destruction caused by natural disasters, increased prices for food and resources, relocating refugees, and resource wars and conflicts.
It is far, far less expensive to act now to deal with climate change than to continue to wait and act later, when the consequences and costs are far greater. The Stern review concludes that the cost of transitioning the world’s economy and stabilizing emissions at today’s levels would be from 1-2% of GWP. Yes that’s significant, but if we do nothing, or act too late, that same one time expenditure will be demanded of the world annually in the future. And that’s at a very conservative estimate for temperature rise. If emissions continue to grow, the 6ºC temperature rise with its corresponding future cost to the world’s economy of 7% of GWP annually becomes even more likely.
Transitioning the world to an environmentally sustainable energy policy will cost money, yes, but it offers its own opportunities for economic growth. Already the tiny market for renewable energy generation products alone is valued at $38 billion, and employs 1.7 million people. And that is without any truly significant world effort or expenditure. In 2005, this sector grew by 25%, and renewable energy only accounts for only 7% of world energy production. Consider also, that world energy needs will continue to grow rapidly in the future, so growth opportunities for renewable energy is greater than just the 93% of the market available today.
Much talk has been made in the United States about “green jobs” to inject new life into our economy; jobs lost in the steel and auto manufacturing industries will be regained by new jobs manufacturing wind turbines and solar plants. Weatherizing homes, and building and installing alternative energy facilities will create new jobs. Again in verbal debate, Austin claimed that while he has heard all this talk, he has not seen any evidence of actual job creation. I’m sorry to be blunt, but that’s utterly ludicrous. The 1.7 million people employed by the alternative energy industry directly would certainly disagree, as would the millions more whose employment is affected indirectly. However if Austin means why hasn’t the entire laid off manufacturing base of the United States been put to work building and installing new wind turbines and solar panels, then I agree…they should be, and that’s why we need to start acting and spending money to make that happen NOW.
The energy generation facilities being built today will continue to function well into the next thirty years, which makes it even more imperative that we begin acting now to reduce emissions and make sure these new jobs will be at clean energy generating facilities. Furthermore, alternative energy offers the additional benefit to the third world of being independent from western control of oil. Many of the world’s leading solar manufacturers are from developing economies, and draw foreign investment (and will continue to do so) to those countries. Significant world spending on curbing emissions will necessarily involve the developing world, which means massive foreign investment in their nations (which happen to mostly be located in the best places for solar installations on earth).
Conclusion
We have a choice, and we are running out of time, fast. We are already past the 350 ppm threshold for CO2 (at 390 ppm currently), and so far the biggest uncertainty that has shown up in scientists projections is that they have been too conservative—we have blown past them. People are notoriously short sighted, and resistant to change, even when it is in their best interests. But we have a duty to ourselves, and to future generations, who count just as much as do the currently living, to act now with a long-term focus. It is foolish, irresponsible, and immoral to recklessly consume our natural resources (ALL of the world’s high growth forests will be gone by 2100 at current rates) and continue to wreck the fragile ecosystems that sustain us.
It’s sad that the West is at fault for centuries of abuse of the Earth’s resources (and peoples). The developed world sinned terribly against the rest of the world to get where it is, and it should share a significant portion of the costs of averting climate change. The developed world should engage in technology transfers and subsidization of the third world…but we can’t fixate on this and let small details become the focus in what needs to be a larger climate change agenda. As sad as it is, the world will have many chances to address global poverty. The world has only one chance to address global warming, and time is running out.
This has been a pretty long post, and I still had to cut myself short on a number of things I wanted to mention. So I will wait for Austin’s reply, and then delve a little deeper into the mitigation aspect—what needs to be done and how to do it in the least harmful way to the developing world while still fully accomplishing the ultimate goal—next time.
Resources to check out for more information
The Stern Review It is super in-depth, and something I highly recommend reading for your further edification. recommend it. *The graphics and carts all came from the Stern Review.
Garnaut Climate Change Review
Houghton, John. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing, Third Edition. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
