Climate: a million deaths a year by 2030: study

Dec 03, 2010 by Richard Ingham
This photo taken on November 2010 shows smoke emitted from chimneys at a coal mine in Huo Lin Guo Le, China's north Inner Mongolia region. By 2030, climate change will indirectly cause nearly one million deaths a year and inflict 157 billion dollars in damage in terms of today's economy, according to estimates presented at UN talks on Friday.

By 2030, climate change will indirectly cause nearly one million deaths a year and inflict 157 billion dollars in damage in terms of today's economy, according to estimates presented at UN talks on Friday.

The biggest misery will be heaped on more than 50 of the world's poorest countries, but the United States will pay the highest economic bill, it said.

"In less than 20 years, almost all countries in the world will realise high vulnerability to as the planet heats up," the report warned.

The study, compiled by a humanitarian research organisation and climate-vulnerable countries, assessed how 184 nations will be affected in four areas: health, weather disasters, the loss of human habitat through desertification and rising seas, and economic stress.

Those facing "acute" exposure are 54 poor or very poor countries, including India. They will suffer disproportionately to others, although they are least to blame for the man-made that drive , it said.

"Without corrective actions" a press release accompanying the study said, the world is "headed for nearly one million deaths every single year by 2030."

More than half of the 157 billion dollars in economic losses will take place in industrialised countries, led by the United States, Japan and Germany.

But the cost to their GDP will proportionately be far lower than for poor countries.

The peer-reviewed report was issued by DARA, a Madrid-based NGO, and by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a coalition of island nations and other that are most exposed to climate change.

Saleemul Huq, a researcher at a London-based thinktank, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), said the findings spelled out the need to start shoring up defenses against climate change now, rather than later.

"We are now entering into a highly vulnerable phase of our planet's existence and humanity's existence," Huq told a press conference.

"No amount of (greenhouse-gas) mitigation will prevent at least another 0.7 degree (Celsius, 1.26 degrees Fahrenheit) of temperature rise over the next two decades," he said.

"In the last century we have already seen a 0.7 degree (1.26 F) rise. So we are headed for 1.4 (2.5 F) almost certainly.

"If emissions carry on their current pathway then we may in the longer term be headed for three or four degrees (5.4-7.2 F), which is practically impossible for everybody to adapt to.

"But at the lower level, we can do a lot by adapting to the impacts of climate change, to prepare for them."

The November 29-December 10 talks in Cancun gather the 194 parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), tasked with crafting a deal to roll back global warming and its impacts after 2010.

Among the long list of problems they face is how to muster funds to tackle climate change -- and decide how much of the money should be allocated for adaptating to the threat, and how much to reduce carbon emissions.

So far, adaptation has been given far less priority than emissions migitation, say campaigners.

Explore further: New York state bans fracking

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Combating climate change by helping poorer countries

Nov 12, 2010

The effects of global climate change could be minimised by transferring ‘best available’ low carbon technologies from the rich to the poor nations, say researchers at the University of Bath.

Denmark urges agreement on climate change funds

Oct 23, 2009

(AP) -- Denmark urged the European Union, the United States and other rich countries to commit to financing for a new climate change deal, saying Friday that billions of dollars are needed.

UN: Climate funds shouldn't divert poverty aid

Sep 02, 2010

(AP) -- The U.N.'s climate chief says poor countries are right to expect that any funding they receive to combat global warming be kept separate from development aid or poverty relief.

EU sticks to 20-percent carbon cuts

Oct 29, 2010

The European Union on Friday gave notice it was not prepared to go beyond a planned 20-percent cut in greenhouse-gas emissions ahead of next month's UN climate talks in Cancun, Mexico.

UN panel: New taxes needed for a climate fund

Aug 05, 2010

(AP) -- British economist Nicholas Stern says a U.N. economic panel is discussing carbon taxes, add-ons to international air fares and a levy on cross-border money transfers as ways to raise $100 billion a year to fight ...

Recommended for you

New York state bans fracking

11 hours ago

Governor Andrew Cuomo said Wednesday he would ban hydraulic fracking in New York State, citing health concerns about the controversial oil and gas drilling technique.

User comments : 12

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

bbd
3 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2010
Classic fearmongering.
telos
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2010
Classic fearmongering.

At least they did some research. You can dismiss it, but I doubt you have any evidence that disputes their findings.
bbd
3 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2010
At least they did some research. You can dismiss it, but I doubt you have any evidence that disputes their findings.

Agreed, but when it comes to the use of communication media to influence the masses, results are what count and evidence is secondary.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2010
Classic fearmongering.

At least they did some research. You can dismiss it, but I doubt you have any evidence that disputes their findings.

I wouldn't say disputes their findings, as their findings are full of unreconcilable noise. A one degree increase would also be preventing as many deaths due to cold weather events. I'd have to concur that this is fear mongering.

Those disproportionately affected "poor" countries share a commonality, lax or non-existant building codes. You can compare the two major earthquakes suffered by Haiti and Chile and see the disparity that enforced building codes can have on major events. This would be proportional within weather events as well. In short, although the AGCC issue is of interest to me, scare tactics are not. This is a scare tactic.
Skepticus_Rex
4 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2010
Yep, more fear-mongering and hype...

All the glaciers will be gone in 2035!!!

Oops! Wait...that was Himalayan glaciers will be gone in 2350.

Polar Bears are going extinct because of global warming!!!

Oops! Wait...they have been moving to other areas and got miscounted. And, then there is that pesky problem of how it was that they survived so many tens of thousands of years ago when there was less Arctic ice than at present.

Melting of the glaciers in the Arctic is unprecedented!!!

Oops! Wait...the same thing was said in 1922 when numerous glaciers disappeared and evidence from the 1920s-1930s seems to show the same level and degree of melting in Greenland then as now, in spite of the differences in CO2.

All the amphibians are going to die because of global warming!!!

Oops! Wait...ummmm...scientists accidentally tracked fungi and bacteria on their shoes into other habitats and these are what are killing the amphibians in other regions....

Will we never learn?
omatumr
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2010
Prof Judith Curry has a new blog on education versus indoctrination.

Unfortunately indoctrination has become the goal of government-funded science, despite the warning from former President Eisenhower about this danger to the basic principles of our free society on 17 Jan 1961:

http://www.youtub...ld5PR4ts

GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2010
I'm with Skeptic Heretic on this one, though I prefer the terms alarmism or sensationalism. It's meant to get headlines and generate discussions like this one. They want you to start talking about what they said because they know most people are inclined to believe bad news and most people don't understand the world around them well enough to think clearly about anything ouside their day to day lives. The average person will say to themselves "there must be some truth to what they are saying" and presto, an opinion is formed.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2010
P.S.

Too many colons: The headline monster stikes again: Physorg Reader.

:)
Skepticus_Rex
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 06, 2010
Unfortunately for those who trod the alarmist path, some of us are too well read and conversant with past history to fall for it.

When I see some hard science that cannot be falsified and cannot be explained by something else, I am likely to fall into line. I have yet to see it on both sides of the equation. And it only makes matter worse for the alarmists when they have to munge numbers and use fudge-factor coding to make it look worse than it is or to hide data, such as with Mann, et al. 2009. Mann inserted the Finland data upside down and fudge-factored three Southern Hemispheric proxies to hide the MWP. I am positive he was hoping somebody would not have been looking or that none of the scientists whose data he used would not speak up when he did what he did.

But, stuff like the above is obviously hype. For all the public knows, one of the original sources used the year 2300 rather than 2030, much like happened with the UN and IPCC "glaciergate" report recently.
omatumr
3 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2010
Misuse of science as a tool of government propaganda is now widespread. It is not restricted to climate issues, although that is where "scientists" were caught manipulating data.

I observed the same thing in space sciences and mistakenly assumed for years that the problem was in NASA. www.youtube.com/w...e_Qk-q7M

The mayor of a small town in Oklahoma recently published a review of similar actions by the EPA.

See: "Time to Stand" by Jerry Clinton Oliver (Available inexpensively from e-book or paper back).

It is amazing that President Eisenhower looked ahead and warned of dangers from a government-funded scientific technological elite in 1961:
www.youtube.com/w...ld5PR4ts

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Justsayin
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2010
This is an article about what could happen in 2030 indirectly! Weather is not even predicted well a week in advance much less the whole climate in 20 years or so and then to say how it effects our lives indirectly!! Statistically this I think the probability of this happening would be an outlier to put it kindly.
omatumr
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2010
In my opinion, it is no mere coincidence that the collapse of constitutional government has been accompanied by the growth of unintelligible, bombastic, gobbledygook science.

Official jargon, and irrational, nonsensical science are made by the "scientific-technological elite" and repeated by those who wish to appear knowledgeable about Anthropologic Global Warming (AGW), Quarks, Gluons, God Particles, Axions, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, multi-Universes, etc., ad infinitum.

This brief video introduces decades of distortions of experimental data on the Sun's: a.) Origin; b.) Composition; and c.) Source of energy

http://www.youtub...e_Qk-q7M

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.