Jaidee Mishra, ET Bureau
THERE’S much talk of action to counter climate change, or so it seems. While the UN climate change jamboree, in Poznan, Poland, ended last week in a flurry of declarations and announcements, the domestic policy process to cope and negate the effects of climate change seems to be longdrawn and elaborate when it comes to pious intentions and objectives, but woefully short on specifics and timelines. The National Action Plan on Climate Change does call for chalking out concrete policy proposals for the various sub-missions, by December 31. But India’s stated principle of “common but differential responsibility” in coping with the effects of green-house gas emissions and consequent global warming may well stultify policy revamp. Instead, what’s required is proactive climate-change policy to innovatively remove poverty when it comes to everyday energy usage, and rev up efficiency of energy systems right across the board. The subsequent payoffs would be huge indeed. In parallel, what’s needed is initiative to summarily improve the methods and data available for policy analysis in the domain of the environment and apparent climate change in the offing. Let us set up a premier body such as a National Centre for Environmental Economics–complete with a vigorous programme of publishing working papers, for better informed policy design. In tandem, widespread energy poverty and poor efficiency levels in energy supply and logistics need to be addressed. Imperative is forward-looking policy to better diffuse alternate, sustainable energy resources such as solar and wind power. Such a policy stance would concurrently reduce emissions of green house gases (GHGs), with the relative decline is the usage of fossil fuels , the main source of additional GHGs in the atmosphere. The latest UN meet does call upon member governments to diffuse ‘green,’ environmentally-friendly technology and to “promptly initiate and expeditiously facilitate the preparation of projects for approval and implementation...” too. If only things were so simple! When it comes to actual policy implementation and follow through, far from being sanguine, there would be a host of rigidities on the ground. So instead of hoping for “manna from heaven” and green technology easily available off the shelve, what’s required is a suitably conducive policy environment to step up investments for requisite diffusion and development of hardware, skills and knowledge in the domestic tariff area, preferably with heightened FDI flows. The UN communiqué does also–in a somewhat grandiose manner–mention the Special Climate Change Fund, and besides “welcoming the outcome of pledging meeting of potential donors” to the corpus, goes on to note that $60 million “have been pledged” for the purpose. For what is supposed to be a global fund, it’s much too small and inconsequential. In the midst of a severe global economic slowdown, there are of course a panoply of other, more pressing concerns for governments. But the point remains that resource mobilisation for climate change would need to be largely and perhaps overwhelmingly domestic, especially for a large, turnaround economy like India. Hence the need for appropriate policy design. However, it does not necessarily follow that the monies for climate change would need to be budgeted from scratch. The fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of crores are already spent each year on open-ended energy subsidies, with the questionable objective of boosting usage of fossil fuels. So what’s needed is vision to prioritise expenditure and policy induce sustainable, less fossil-fuel intensive energy. Specifically, what’s needed is a scheme to diffuse such alternative energy aides as solar lamps and well-designed cookers, and pay for it by limiting and withdrawing subventions on account of kerosene, cooking gas and agricultural power. As various pilot studies show, such a policy substitution would quickly pay for itself and so effectively bring down energy subsidy levels. It would also hand-in-hand do much to remove energy poverty and stepup fuel usage as well. There remains the need to increase thermal efficiency in our power plants, which would be more capital-intensive than the change over required for domestic sustainable energy resources. Power plants emissions are the single largest source of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent GHG. But here again, the prospect of generating up to a third more power from practically the same amount of coal ought to be attractive enough for corrective action. And suitable changes in power policy can better coagulate funds for high-efficiency, super-critical boilers and the like. The point is that the environment is the basis of all activities, be they ecological, economic or social, and it would make policy sense to strive for less degradation even as we boost newer energy resources. The future after all begins now!
Showing posts with label Climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate change. Show all posts
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Climate change: feed it and weep or lead and reap
Jeffrey Sachs
Australia will reap important benefits from the carbon pollution reduction scheme. Properly, the Government has left itself considerable flexibility on several points, which will depend heavily on what other countries do. But the value of the scheme lies not in the details but in three more basic considerations. Australia can now lead economically, technologically and diplomatically in the global effort that lies ahead.
A global climate control regime is on its way. It will almost surely not be a global emissions trading system, but a regime in which participating countries commit to national targets implemented through national means. The Government's proposals can work whether or not global trading comes to pass.
Until now Australia, like the United States, has absented itself from a carbon policy. Some may have viewed this as clever "free riding" on the exertions of others, but that view was short-sighted and wearing thin. A global system will come, and the laggards will face sharper economic dislocations than those who have taken a running start.
In the US, for example, the financial sector has basically stopped financing conventional coal-fired powerplants. Nuclear power is also a huge question mark for market financing, given public worries and the lack of an agreed national strategy. The automotive industry, long betting on cheap oil and a lack of public interest in climate change, is flat on its back. Australia will spare itself the risks of backing into a stalemate on energy technology and infrastructure investment by charting a course consistent with long-term climate change mitigation.
Emissions trading can support the transition to sustainable energy in Australia but will surely not be enough, a fact acknowledged by the Government's initiation of complementary programs such as the Climate Change Action Fund, to spur the adoption of innovative energy technologies.
Transformative technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration at coal-fired power plants, large-scale solar power, plug-in hybrids, green buildings and perhaps nuclear power, are even more important in achieving a low-cost transformation.
Australia stands to benefit enormously by speedier action on technological development and demonstration. As the world's largest coal exporter, and as a continent with vast solar potential, Australia could find itself a sustainable energy technology leader in just a few years. I think the same could be true about nuclear power in Australia, despite the obvious grounds for public reservations.
One of the greatest benefits from the Government's new initiative will be geopolitical. Australia needs to be at the global negotiating table, not only to defend its national interests but also to help broker the global grand bargain. There is probably no world leader better placed than Kevin Rudd to help intermediate the complex pas de deux that will begin between China and the US next year. Only a solid agreement between the two largest emitters can underpin global actions beyond mere gestures.
China will have to understand that it can no longer hang back and call on rich countries to lead first. China is already rich enough, and emitting enough, to bear major global responsibilities. In any event, the US Senate will not ratify an agreement that puts US industry at a competitive disadvantage. At the same time, China will not move unless it sees a way to combine its continued rapid economic growth with emissions restraint.
Since Australia and China are close neighbours and major trading partners, and share such basic challenges as coal-based power sectors, increasing water stress and solar potential, Australia is especially well placed to help identify global principles and a technological pathway that can accommodate the concerns of China, the US and Europe.
I don't subscribe to every detail of the green paper. I would have leaned more heavily on upstream carbon taxes than downstream carbon permits as the way to put a market price on carbon with least administrative difficulty and most long-term predictability. I am more sympathetic to nuclear power. But Australia has taken a huge step forward to protect its economy, its fragile climate-stressed ecology, its long-term technological leadership and its geopolitical role.
Jeffrey Sachs is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and a special adviser to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, on the Millennium Development Goals. He is author of Common Wealth: Economics For A Crowded Planet.
Australia will reap important benefits from the carbon pollution reduction scheme. Properly, the Government has left itself considerable flexibility on several points, which will depend heavily on what other countries do. But the value of the scheme lies not in the details but in three more basic considerations. Australia can now lead economically, technologically and diplomatically in the global effort that lies ahead.
A global climate control regime is on its way. It will almost surely not be a global emissions trading system, but a regime in which participating countries commit to national targets implemented through national means. The Government's proposals can work whether or not global trading comes to pass.
Until now Australia, like the United States, has absented itself from a carbon policy. Some may have viewed this as clever "free riding" on the exertions of others, but that view was short-sighted and wearing thin. A global system will come, and the laggards will face sharper economic dislocations than those who have taken a running start.
In the US, for example, the financial sector has basically stopped financing conventional coal-fired powerplants. Nuclear power is also a huge question mark for market financing, given public worries and the lack of an agreed national strategy. The automotive industry, long betting on cheap oil and a lack of public interest in climate change, is flat on its back. Australia will spare itself the risks of backing into a stalemate on energy technology and infrastructure investment by charting a course consistent with long-term climate change mitigation.
Emissions trading can support the transition to sustainable energy in Australia but will surely not be enough, a fact acknowledged by the Government's initiation of complementary programs such as the Climate Change Action Fund, to spur the adoption of innovative energy technologies.
Transformative technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration at coal-fired power plants, large-scale solar power, plug-in hybrids, green buildings and perhaps nuclear power, are even more important in achieving a low-cost transformation.
Australia stands to benefit enormously by speedier action on technological development and demonstration. As the world's largest coal exporter, and as a continent with vast solar potential, Australia could find itself a sustainable energy technology leader in just a few years. I think the same could be true about nuclear power in Australia, despite the obvious grounds for public reservations.
One of the greatest benefits from the Government's new initiative will be geopolitical. Australia needs to be at the global negotiating table, not only to defend its national interests but also to help broker the global grand bargain. There is probably no world leader better placed than Kevin Rudd to help intermediate the complex pas de deux that will begin between China and the US next year. Only a solid agreement between the two largest emitters can underpin global actions beyond mere gestures.
China will have to understand that it can no longer hang back and call on rich countries to lead first. China is already rich enough, and emitting enough, to bear major global responsibilities. In any event, the US Senate will not ratify an agreement that puts US industry at a competitive disadvantage. At the same time, China will not move unless it sees a way to combine its continued rapid economic growth with emissions restraint.
Since Australia and China are close neighbours and major trading partners, and share such basic challenges as coal-based power sectors, increasing water stress and solar potential, Australia is especially well placed to help identify global principles and a technological pathway that can accommodate the concerns of China, the US and Europe.
I don't subscribe to every detail of the green paper. I would have leaned more heavily on upstream carbon taxes than downstream carbon permits as the way to put a market price on carbon with least administrative difficulty and most long-term predictability. I am more sympathetic to nuclear power. But Australia has taken a huge step forward to protect its economy, its fragile climate-stressed ecology, its long-term technological leadership and its geopolitical role.
Jeffrey Sachs is the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and a special adviser to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, on the Millennium Development Goals. He is author of Common Wealth: Economics For A Crowded Planet.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Africa’s Climate Roadmap: From Johannesburg through Africa to Copenhagen
“Africa’s Climate Roadmap, from Johannesburg through Africa to Copenhagen” was adopted at the twelfth session of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN-12), which took place from 7-12 June 2008, in Johannesburg, South Africa. In our climate change discussions we highlighted the urgency for Africa to articulate a common position during the ongoing climate change negotiations for a strengthened international agreement beyond 2012, and to exploit the opportunity to build consensus on the complex issues of climate change and sustainable development for the benefit of the continent. Africa agreed to put forward a shared vision based on scientific evidence and broad political consensus. That shared vision would have several key elements: the future climate change regime should accommodate the priorities for Africa of sustainable development, poverty reduction and attainment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); increased support should be provided under the regime for capacity-building, financing and technology development and transfer for adaptation and mitigation in Africa (the means of implementation); and the agreement should result in the stabilization of emissions in the atmosphere. A deal on climate change requires a deal on development, including Africa.
African Ministers of Environment have repeatedly stressed the importance of giving adaptation a higher priority in order to balance it with mitigation on the international negotiating agenda. Africa will remain vulnerable even if, globally, emissions peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years. African countries are taking action to address the impacts of climate change. However, our efforts will not be effective without international support. The longer the international community delays in providing support for adaptation programmes in Africa, the more costly it is going to be in the future. No agreement on the strengthening of the international climate architecture, when we meet in Copenhagen at the end of 2009, will be considered balanced if adaptation is not accorded much higher priority. Our deliberations in Johannesburg stressed that a future agreement should emphasize the importance of providing assistance to developing countries with adaptation technologies, finance and capacity building. In particular there is an urgent need to upscale adaptation financing that is new and additional and that does not divert existing official development assistance away from poverty eradication and other development priorities. It is our firm belief that these new sources of finance must be channeled through the Kyoto Protocol’s Adaptation Fund. Political conditionalities on funding African development are unacceptable. In our decisions we have requested the UN agencies, Bretton Woods Institutions, African Development Bank (AfDB) and other development partners to support African countries in taking measures to build economic and ecosystem resilience against climatic variability and change, and to effectively implement the Bali Action Plan.
At the regional and national levels, African ministers have committed to integrate climate change adaptation measures into national and, where appropriate, regional development plans, policies and strategies, with a view to ensuring adequate adaptation to climate change in such areas as water resources, food and energy security, and management of coastal and marine resources. The framework will also include stand-alone adaptation activities, building African capacity to respond to extreme events and changes in the short, medium and long-term. At AMCEN-12, we adopted a wide ranging decision regarding the development of a Comprehensive Framework of African Climate Change Programmes. This Framework will address the critical need to integrate existing and future climate change initiatives and programmes under a consolidated agenda, thereby ensuring greater coordination and coherence in the implementation and review of climate change initiatives and sustainable development plans in Africa. This Framework should be ready for adoption when African Environment Ministers meet next year at a Special AMCEN Session.
In this regard, several important events have recently taken place to solidify an integrated African climate and development agenda.
Africa’s Ministers of Environment and Health took strides toward integrating climate and development when they adopted the Libreville Declaration at the Inter-ministerial Conference for Health and Environment in Africa, held from 26-29 August 2008, in Libreville, Gabon. The Declaration will be submitted to the African Union (AU) Heads of State Summit for consideration and adoption.At AMCEN-12, we launched a call for the modification of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), to enhance its contribution to sustainable development efforts on the continent and to provide increased support for the introduction of climate change mitigation measures and technologies in African countries. African governments, the private sector, civil society and the UN system have gathered in Dakar, Senegal, from 3-5 September 2008, at the first African Carbon Forum to address these concerns. The inequitable geographic distribution of CDM projects must be addressed in the second review of the Kyoto Protocol to be undertaken in Poznań, Poland, in December 2008.
With the window for CDM projects under the first commitment period rapidly closing, African governments and our development partners need to scale-up efforts to maximize the development potentials of the CDM. During the next commitment periods under the Kyoto Protocol, the potential of the carbon market to contribute to low carbon growth and sustainable development will grow by orders of magnitude. If all developed countries took on much more stringent emissions reduction targets, aiming for cuts of 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050, and if they purchased half of their reductions in the developing world at a carbon price of at least US$10 per ton, then financial flows to developing countries could gradually grow beyond US$100 billion per year by mid-century. Capturing even a modest share of these financial opportunities could make part of the difference in the choice between fossil-fuel energy and more expensive renewable energy sources. But then the international conditions must be in place. And we must also mobilize public funding leveraging private investment beyond carbon markets. More ambitious mid-term targets for emission cuts by all developed countries, towards the upper end of the range of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, would be critical to stimulate demand in the carbon market. The need to develop large scale CDM projects in Africa is also important. However, many economies in Africa, where the energy, transport, construction or industrial sectors are in early stages of development, have relatively small mitigation potentials. We must therefore also find ways to seize the opportunities that exist by developing methodologies for appropriate small scale mitigation projects, simple in structure and finance, but with high contributions to sustainable development. The mitigation challenge for most of Africa is about avoiding emissions (rather than emission reductions) – not to follow the dirty development path of the North in order to get cleaner later, but to develop in a more sustainable manner in the first place.
To read the rest portion click:
http://www.iisd.ca/climate-l/bulletin/guestarticle/guestarticle5.html
African Ministers of Environment have repeatedly stressed the importance of giving adaptation a higher priority in order to balance it with mitigation on the international negotiating agenda. Africa will remain vulnerable even if, globally, emissions peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years. African countries are taking action to address the impacts of climate change. However, our efforts will not be effective without international support. The longer the international community delays in providing support for adaptation programmes in Africa, the more costly it is going to be in the future. No agreement on the strengthening of the international climate architecture, when we meet in Copenhagen at the end of 2009, will be considered balanced if adaptation is not accorded much higher priority. Our deliberations in Johannesburg stressed that a future agreement should emphasize the importance of providing assistance to developing countries with adaptation technologies, finance and capacity building. In particular there is an urgent need to upscale adaptation financing that is new and additional and that does not divert existing official development assistance away from poverty eradication and other development priorities. It is our firm belief that these new sources of finance must be channeled through the Kyoto Protocol’s Adaptation Fund. Political conditionalities on funding African development are unacceptable. In our decisions we have requested the UN agencies, Bretton Woods Institutions, African Development Bank (AfDB) and other development partners to support African countries in taking measures to build economic and ecosystem resilience against climatic variability and change, and to effectively implement the Bali Action Plan.
At the regional and national levels, African ministers have committed to integrate climate change adaptation measures into national and, where appropriate, regional development plans, policies and strategies, with a view to ensuring adequate adaptation to climate change in such areas as water resources, food and energy security, and management of coastal and marine resources. The framework will also include stand-alone adaptation activities, building African capacity to respond to extreme events and changes in the short, medium and long-term. At AMCEN-12, we adopted a wide ranging decision regarding the development of a Comprehensive Framework of African Climate Change Programmes. This Framework will address the critical need to integrate existing and future climate change initiatives and programmes under a consolidated agenda, thereby ensuring greater coordination and coherence in the implementation and review of climate change initiatives and sustainable development plans in Africa. This Framework should be ready for adoption when African Environment Ministers meet next year at a Special AMCEN Session.
In this regard, several important events have recently taken place to solidify an integrated African climate and development agenda.
Africa’s Ministers of Environment and Health took strides toward integrating climate and development when they adopted the Libreville Declaration at the Inter-ministerial Conference for Health and Environment in Africa, held from 26-29 August 2008, in Libreville, Gabon. The Declaration will be submitted to the African Union (AU) Heads of State Summit for consideration and adoption.At AMCEN-12, we launched a call for the modification of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), to enhance its contribution to sustainable development efforts on the continent and to provide increased support for the introduction of climate change mitigation measures and technologies in African countries. African governments, the private sector, civil society and the UN system have gathered in Dakar, Senegal, from 3-5 September 2008, at the first African Carbon Forum to address these concerns. The inequitable geographic distribution of CDM projects must be addressed in the second review of the Kyoto Protocol to be undertaken in Poznań, Poland, in December 2008.
With the window for CDM projects under the first commitment period rapidly closing, African governments and our development partners need to scale-up efforts to maximize the development potentials of the CDM. During the next commitment periods under the Kyoto Protocol, the potential of the carbon market to contribute to low carbon growth and sustainable development will grow by orders of magnitude. If all developed countries took on much more stringent emissions reduction targets, aiming for cuts of 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050, and if they purchased half of their reductions in the developing world at a carbon price of at least US$10 per ton, then financial flows to developing countries could gradually grow beyond US$100 billion per year by mid-century. Capturing even a modest share of these financial opportunities could make part of the difference in the choice between fossil-fuel energy and more expensive renewable energy sources. But then the international conditions must be in place. And we must also mobilize public funding leveraging private investment beyond carbon markets. More ambitious mid-term targets for emission cuts by all developed countries, towards the upper end of the range of 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, would be critical to stimulate demand in the carbon market. The need to develop large scale CDM projects in Africa is also important. However, many economies in Africa, where the energy, transport, construction or industrial sectors are in early stages of development, have relatively small mitigation potentials. We must therefore also find ways to seize the opportunities that exist by developing methodologies for appropriate small scale mitigation projects, simple in structure and finance, but with high contributions to sustainable development. The mitigation challenge for most of Africa is about avoiding emissions (rather than emission reductions) – not to follow the dirty development path of the North in order to get cleaner later, but to develop in a more sustainable manner in the first place.
To read the rest portion click:
http://www.iisd.ca/climate-l/bulletin/guestarticle/guestarticle5.html
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Climate Change and India
New Delhi: Climate change is likely to have a much greater impact onIndia than other countries in similar positions, according to anassessment by the South Asia regional office of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (Unido).
A Unido spokesperson said here on Wednesday the extra impact on Indiawas due to a unique combination of its geography, diverse populationcharacteristics and extremely high dependence on fossil fuels.
India's dependence on fossil fuels such as coal and oil for energygeneration and transport could lead to heavy environmental, social andregulatory costs, causing a drain on the nation's resources as adirect impact of Climate Change over the next century, says theassessment report.
The assessment is based on the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) 2007 ofBritain, reports IANS.
According to calculations done by the CDP, cost of climate changecould have a major impact on the Indian economy by causing a 9-13 percent loss in the country's gross domestic product (GDP) in real termsby the year 2100.
The report noted that increase in temperature in India could be higherthan the global average, as predicted by the United NationsIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
It said that the country was witnessing rapidly changing andincreasingly unpredictable patterns of monsoon and rainfall andpredicted that a decline in crop yields of up to 30 per cent will benoticed in India and other South Asian countries by 2080.
India would see a rise in sea levels which could submerge coastalareas and also infuse salt water into fresh water sources. This inturn could create a large number of so-called climate change refugeesnot only in India but also from across the borders into the country,thereby leading to further strain on resources, the report pointedout.
It further said that the increased pace of retreating of the Himalayanglaciers would reduce India's fresh water sources in the future.
India will witness an increased incidence of more severe vector-bornediseases such as dengue, bacterial and arboviral diseases andincreased frequency of extreme weather conditions such as droughts andfloods, the report said.
According to the IPCC, India will experience the greatest increase inenergy and greenhouse gas emissions in the world if it sustains eightper cent annual economic growth or more as its primary energy demandwill then multiply at least three to four times its present levels.
A Unido spokesperson said here on Wednesday the extra impact on Indiawas due to a unique combination of its geography, diverse populationcharacteristics and extremely high dependence on fossil fuels.
India's dependence on fossil fuels such as coal and oil for energygeneration and transport could lead to heavy environmental, social andregulatory costs, causing a drain on the nation's resources as adirect impact of Climate Change over the next century, says theassessment report.
The assessment is based on the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) 2007 ofBritain, reports IANS.
According to calculations done by the CDP, cost of climate changecould have a major impact on the Indian economy by causing a 9-13 percent loss in the country's gross domestic product (GDP) in real termsby the year 2100.
The report noted that increase in temperature in India could be higherthan the global average, as predicted by the United NationsIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
It said that the country was witnessing rapidly changing andincreasingly unpredictable patterns of monsoon and rainfall andpredicted that a decline in crop yields of up to 30 per cent will benoticed in India and other South Asian countries by 2080.
India would see a rise in sea levels which could submerge coastalareas and also infuse salt water into fresh water sources. This inturn could create a large number of so-called climate change refugeesnot only in India but also from across the borders into the country,thereby leading to further strain on resources, the report pointedout.
It further said that the increased pace of retreating of the Himalayanglaciers would reduce India's fresh water sources in the future.
India will witness an increased incidence of more severe vector-bornediseases such as dengue, bacterial and arboviral diseases andincreased frequency of extreme weather conditions such as droughts andfloods, the report said.
According to the IPCC, India will experience the greatest increase inenergy and greenhouse gas emissions in the world if it sustains eightper cent annual economic growth or more as its primary energy demandwill then multiply at least three to four times its present levels.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Adapting to Climate Change: Can We Do It Again?
Dangerous climate change will not be prevented by reduced emissions. The damage is already done. For many vulnerable societies, the priority must be adaptation.
About 15 million years ago, dense African forests began drying up to be replaced by open savannah. Tree-dwelling primates eventually descended and found that the new environment suited walking.
Humanity has been adapting more or less successfully to climate changes ever since. After the last ice age ended between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago, agriculture and urban settlements developed and humans gradually colonized all but the most hostile environments. But our transformation of the environment is now coming back to haunt us. Man-made climate change is rapidly increasing temperatures and sea levels, altering rainfall patterns, and producing more violent storms.
“People and species have always adapted to changing climates,” say Kit Vaughan, a WWF advisor on climate change adaptation. “What is different is the speed and the scale of the change we are facing.”
The areas most at risk are small islands, dry areas in Africa, large river deltas in Asia, and polar regions. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) identified 100 countries most vulnerable to climate change. The vast majority are poor countries, many crowded with people living on vulnerable floodplains or drought-prone badlands. Whether an individual, an economy, or a society can deal with the impacts of climate change depends on its adaptive capacity.
“Take Holland, it has a very strong economy, but is very low lying,” says Vaughan. “So it has high risks, but a very high adaptive capacity. They can build dikes and pumps. Bangladesh has an equally high level of risk, but a very small adaptive capacity.”
Adaptive capacity involves a complex combination of knowledge, institutions, technology, and money – ingredients that are scarce in poor countries. The IIED says these countries will need billions of dollars a year to adapt.
Without successful adaptation, however, the World Bank projects, the costs of climate change could be up to 100 billion dollars a year, pushing poor countries further into poverty. And the poorer they become, the less they can adapt. The IIED warns of “chronic famine or forced migration of tens of millions of people,” citing the example of Africa and Asia’s coastal areas and river deltas. (knowledge.allianz.com)
About 15 million years ago, dense African forests began drying up to be replaced by open savannah. Tree-dwelling primates eventually descended and found that the new environment suited walking.
Humanity has been adapting more or less successfully to climate changes ever since. After the last ice age ended between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago, agriculture and urban settlements developed and humans gradually colonized all but the most hostile environments. But our transformation of the environment is now coming back to haunt us. Man-made climate change is rapidly increasing temperatures and sea levels, altering rainfall patterns, and producing more violent storms.
“People and species have always adapted to changing climates,” say Kit Vaughan, a WWF advisor on climate change adaptation. “What is different is the speed and the scale of the change we are facing.”
The areas most at risk are small islands, dry areas in Africa, large river deltas in Asia, and polar regions. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) identified 100 countries most vulnerable to climate change. The vast majority are poor countries, many crowded with people living on vulnerable floodplains or drought-prone badlands. Whether an individual, an economy, or a society can deal with the impacts of climate change depends on its adaptive capacity.
“Take Holland, it has a very strong economy, but is very low lying,” says Vaughan. “So it has high risks, but a very high adaptive capacity. They can build dikes and pumps. Bangladesh has an equally high level of risk, but a very small adaptive capacity.”
Adaptive capacity involves a complex combination of knowledge, institutions, technology, and money – ingredients that are scarce in poor countries. The IIED says these countries will need billions of dollars a year to adapt.
Without successful adaptation, however, the World Bank projects, the costs of climate change could be up to 100 billion dollars a year, pushing poor countries further into poverty. And the poorer they become, the less they can adapt. The IIED warns of “chronic famine or forced migration of tens of millions of people,” citing the example of Africa and Asia’s coastal areas and river deltas. (knowledge.allianz.com)
Climate change could devastate Philippines: NASA scientist
MANILA (AFP) — Climate change could have a devastating impact on the Philippines, leading to widespread destruction of the country's flora and fauna and flooding the capital Manila, a NASA scientist warned here Friday.
The continued melting of Arctic ice caps, brought on by climate change, could cause sea levels to rise by seven metres (23 feet), said National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) physicist Josefino Comiso.
He said the country's fish stocks would be depleted and many species of plant and animal life would die because of the change in ocean temperatures caused by climate change.
Comiso said the slow melting of the ice caps should be more than "just an item of curiosity" for Filipinos.
"The Philippines is a country that is among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change," Comiso said.
"Slight changes in ocean temperature will lead to coral bleaching which will impact on the coral reefs on which the country's fishes feed."
Fish species are already starting to disappear from Philippine waters as delicate coral reefs, some of the biggest in the world, are destroyed in the archipelago, according to the international marine watchdog group Reef Check.
In a report last year the group said coral reefs were already suffering from severe bleaching.
Only five percent of the world's reefs -- which shelter and provide food for a vast number of marine species -- are still in pristine condition, according to Reef Check.
Comiso said the melting of the polar ice caps meant the sun's rays were no longer being reflected, but instead going into the Arctic waters and warming them up.
"Currents from the Arctic waters travel around the world to all the other oceans, including the waters surrounding the Philippines.
"Such warming would encourage the growth of algae in the world's oceans, which would gravely affect the world's food chain," he said.
He also noted that rising temperatures could reach a point where "various living creatures" would start to die in large numbers.
"Such temperatures would vary from species to species," he said.
"But the deaths of these creatures would gravely affect the food supply chain."
Comiso, a senior research scientist at a NASA centre that monitors the effects of global warming, made the warning after attending a conference of the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical Astronomical Services Administration.
He said he was working on a project, to be funded by the Manila government weather station, to monitor the effects of global warming in the Philippines.
The project, which will be based in a state university outside Manila, will coordinate its research with NASA.
Comiso was part of the United States Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former US vice president Al Gore.
The continued melting of Arctic ice caps, brought on by climate change, could cause sea levels to rise by seven metres (23 feet), said National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) physicist Josefino Comiso.
He said the country's fish stocks would be depleted and many species of plant and animal life would die because of the change in ocean temperatures caused by climate change.
Comiso said the slow melting of the ice caps should be more than "just an item of curiosity" for Filipinos.
"The Philippines is a country that is among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change," Comiso said.
"Slight changes in ocean temperature will lead to coral bleaching which will impact on the coral reefs on which the country's fishes feed."
Fish species are already starting to disappear from Philippine waters as delicate coral reefs, some of the biggest in the world, are destroyed in the archipelago, according to the international marine watchdog group Reef Check.
In a report last year the group said coral reefs were already suffering from severe bleaching.
Only five percent of the world's reefs -- which shelter and provide food for a vast number of marine species -- are still in pristine condition, according to Reef Check.
Comiso said the melting of the polar ice caps meant the sun's rays were no longer being reflected, but instead going into the Arctic waters and warming them up.
"Currents from the Arctic waters travel around the world to all the other oceans, including the waters surrounding the Philippines.
"Such warming would encourage the growth of algae in the world's oceans, which would gravely affect the world's food chain," he said.
He also noted that rising temperatures could reach a point where "various living creatures" would start to die in large numbers.
"Such temperatures would vary from species to species," he said.
"But the deaths of these creatures would gravely affect the food supply chain."
Comiso, a senior research scientist at a NASA centre that monitors the effects of global warming, made the warning after attending a conference of the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical Astronomical Services Administration.
He said he was working on a project, to be funded by the Manila government weather station, to monitor the effects of global warming in the Philippines.
The project, which will be based in a state university outside Manila, will coordinate its research with NASA.
Comiso was part of the United States Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former US vice president Al Gore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)