100 million will die by 2030 if world fails to act on climate: report

LONDON Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:01pm EDT

Related Topics

LONDON (Reuters) - More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday.

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 organization 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.

More than 90 percent 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 percent of world GDP, or by about $1.2 trillion a year, and losses could double to 3.2 percent of global GDP by 2030 if global temperatures are allowed to rise, surpassing 10 percent before 2100.

It estimated the cost of moving the world to a low-carbon economy at about 0.5 percent of GDP this decade.

COUNTING THE COST

British economist Nicholas Stern told Reuters earlier this year investment equivalent to 2 percent 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 20 percent.

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 2C (3.6 Fahrenheit) to avoid dangerous impacts from climate change.

But climate scientists have warned that the chance of limiting the rise to below 2C is getting smaller as global greenhouse gas emissions rise due to burning fossil fuels.

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 percent loss in GDP by 2030 due to climate change, DARA said.

"One degree Celsius rise in temperature is associated with 10 percent 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 percent 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 percent reduction in their respective GDPs by 2030, while India could experience a more than 5 percent loss.

The full report is available at: daraint.org/

(Editing by Janet Lawrence)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
DavidSG wrote:
It’s all just a conspacacy by the sientists to get moor munny

Sep 26, 2012 2:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
bccnp1 wrote:
Nature is screaming at us humans.
Even right-wing hunters see the damage beetles are doing to pine trees out west.
The military is telling us climate change is a national security problem.
Insurance companies are trying to figure out how to handle all the damages from drought, fire and storms.
What do Fox News and conservative radio say to all this? A hoax!

No wonder I love nature so much it is brutally honest and blunt while be awesome.
Let me go to my backyard and my little deer and listen some more to what Nature is trying to tell us all about climate change.

Sep 26, 2012 9:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
edmh wrote:
Can Mankind control Climate by reducing a small part of its CO2 emissions?

The Western world is continually being pressured by propaganda and has widely enacted legislation about “Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption”. These definitions mean that any adverse weather event can be ascribed to “Climate Change” and thus be blamed on the destructive actions of mankind. The Catastrophic Climate Change Alarmists back every horse whichever way it runs.
Nonetheless all Alarmist policy recommendations are only ever intended to control excessive Global Overheating by the reduction of Man-made CO2 emissions. It is not clear how reducing CO2 emissions would help save the world from a climate change towards cooling climate nor how it could ameliorate severe weather events.
This is the Blinding Paradox of Catastrophic Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption Alarmism.
This paradox has been bought into, acted upon, legislated on or ignored by the minority of Western Nations including the EU, the UK, Australia and New Zealand, who are trying to reduce their CO2 emissions and thus influence climate.
That has to raise some real questions. What if:
CO2 is a harmless but essential trace gas in the atmosphere, without which life on earth could not exist?
CO2, whether the major part naturally created within the biosphere or Man-made, is not a true pollutant ?
any extra atmospheric CO2 fertilises plant growth and makes plants more drought resistant?
all mankind’s small additional CO2 emissions cannot affect the worlds’ climate in any significant way?
CO2’s effect on temperature has already radically diminished with increasing concentrations and only ~12% of its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas now remains?
any current warming since 1850 is mainly a natural occurrence recovering from the Little Ice Age?
the whole Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming cause / quasi religion is a politically and emotionally driven misconception and noble cause corruption. It is negated by serious science ?

If any of the above is true:
are the massive efforts and extreme costs already being expended and being planned by a limited number Western Nations representing a small proportion of world CO2 emissions reasonable?
is it reasonable for a few Western Nations to deliberately commit themselves to the immense economic risks of damaged energy security and loss of worldwide competitiveness for a questionable theory ?
is a partial and comparatively minor reduction of Man-made CO2 emissions, from a few nations (only amounting to 13% of world emissions in 2011) with doubtful effects on world temperature justifiable at all?
do the participating governments realise that the CO2 emissions from developing world, (China, the other developing nations and India), are increasing so rapidly that they make all efforts at CO2 reduction in the West irrelevant?
are partial limits on CO2 emissions a rational way to save the World?
what precisely is the World being saved from?
A warmer world with higher levels of CO2 is probably a rather better, more agriculturally productive world, with longer growing seasons and with less violent weather. This was certainly the case in the earlier Medieval and Roman warm periods and throughout the earlier Holocene. Alarmist predictions of catastrophe from runaway warming are speculative.
As the remedies proposed and already in effect are so vast and so onerous:
where is or rather was the open-minded, even-handed due diligence: both the IPCC reports after Climategate and the Stern review are questionable?
where are the full comparative cost benefit analyses ?
do those participating Western governments understand:
that with reducing sunspot activity, the world is entering a period of natural cooling and that the world appears to be moving towards Little Ice Age weather patterns ?
that a cooling, rather than a warming, world will lead both a reduction in agricultural productivity leading to huge deprivation for much of mankind worldwide and to more extreme weather events.
have the participating Western governments robust contingency plans for when their lights go out?

Instead it is not likely that any current global warming is within normal limits, is probably beneficial to mankind, or sadly may be not now even be occurring at all.
With CO2 emissions still growing rapidly but with stabilisation of world temperatures, the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any event could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind, especially when actioned only by a small minority of Nations.

That prospect should be welcomed with universal and unmitigated joy.

In that case:
decarbonisation of Western economies is a pointless ambition.
all concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
all CO2 reduction targets become irrelevant and wasteful.
all renewable energy alternatives, except hydropower, are unnecessary and expensive for consumers.
carbon capture and storage (CCS), if achievable, would be an expensive and wasteful mechanism to throw away small amounts of useful plant food.
any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility of all plant life on the planet.
it is not necessary to damage the economies of Western world to no purpose.
a warmer climate within natural variation would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has frequently been proven in the past. It would benefit the third world.
if warming were happening it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for mankind.
The sooner this is realised, in spite of the media propaganda, public relations efforts, lost academic credibility and the huge business and government monetary capital already invested, the sooner the Western world can be released from its self-imposed, economically destructive straightjacket.

Nonetheless it remains absolutely clear that our planet is vastly damaged by many human activities such as:
toxic environmental pollution.
over fishing.
forest clearance.
industrial monoculture farming.
farming for bio-fuels .
and other habitat destruction.
The world should indeed be strenuously finding ways to improve these situations. There are many more investments that should be prioritised for the benefit of mankind, particularly in the third world including:
controlling malaria.
clean water.
stopping deforestation.
AIDS prevention, etc.
But the unwarranted concentration on reducing CO2 emissions is deflecting even well-meaning green activists in the Western world from these more immediate and more worthwhile objectives.

At the same time, this is absolutely not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy and conserving its energy use. There may be a need to wean the world off the continued expenditure of fossil fuels on the grounds of:
security of supply, including making investments into new forms of nuclear electricity generation.
their apparent scarcity: although with increasing fossil fuel prices amazing quantities of further long term reserves continue to be discovered.
using fossil fuels as the future feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.

“Global Cooling” and the concern that it engendered was an agenda item at the Bilderberg meeting in September 2010. It seems that the global elite is well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming, but so far is unwilling to admit the fact except behind closed doors.
As global temperatures have already been cooling over the last ten years or more, the World should fear the real and detrimental effects of global cooling rather than being hysterical about limited or non-existent warming.

Dr Patrick Moore founder and former director of Greenpeace in his recent book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace dropout: the making of a sensible environmentalist”, explained succinctly why the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory or perhaps more correctly the religion even now retains still so much influence and such traction. He said:
“Fear of climate change results in a convergence of interests among activists seeking funding, scientists applying for grants, the media selling advertising, businesses promoting themselves as green, and politicians looking for votes. It may not be a conspiracy, but it is a very powerful alignment that is mutually reinforcing.”

Sep 26, 2012 10:39am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Photo

California's historic drought

With reservoirs at record lows, California is in the midst of the worst drought in decades.  Slideshow