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

[Vergent]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/26/us-climate-inaction-idUSBRE88O1HG20120926

[Msalgado]

I'm not dismissing this out of hand (but I admit I'm pretty damn close to) but I really don't think there is a way to meaningfully quantify this AT ALL.

[Vergent]

There is a live talk:

http://asiasociety.org/new-york/live

[Vergent]

The full report: 44mb

http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2-Low.pdf

summery: 4mb

http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf

more info:

http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/report/

[SVT450R]

I'm not dismissing this out of hand (but I admit I'm pretty damn close to) but I really don't think there is a way to meaningfully quantify this AT ALL.

Exactly more then likely most of the deaths are from hunger and disease which is nothing new millions have died from it more like alarmist scare tactics.

[TerryM]

I'd assume that like all the other multigovernmental reports about global warming, this one too will be found to have been far too conservative.

Terry

[Snow_Miser]

I'd assume that like all the other multigovernmental reports about global warming, this one too will be found to have been far too conservative.

Terry

Terry, are you joking?

On what basis can you say such a claim?

[HailMan06]

How can one possibly quantify the number of deaths caused by a trend in the global temperature? What are the variables and algorithms involved to reach such a number? Those are my main questions.

[tacoman25]

I'm pretty sure at least 100 million people will die by 2030 even if the world does "act on climate".

[TerryM]

Terry, are you joking?

On what basis can you say such a claim?

Quite serious. Every prognostication put out by government sponsored groups thus far has underestimated the effects of global warming to a rather alarming degree. If you can recall a multi governmental study that over estimated the risks I'd like to be reminded.

Hailman

I've no idea where one would start, but food production and availability of potable water could have consequences.

Terry

[Jonger]

I'm pretty sure at least 100 million people will die by 2030 even if the world does "act on climate".

Roughly 1.1 Billion will die before 2030.

[nflwxman]

I don't think anyone could argue fossil fuels have drastically improved the quality of life over the past 150 years. Many of our great inventions and innovations have come because the abundance of cheap and affordable electricity. I think the point here is, we now have the technology and the need to move away from what has proped up our society for the past century. It obviously will not be easy, but it will certainly HAVE to happen, if for nothing else, fossil fuels are finite by nature. 100 years ago, we would not have nuclear power, industrial wind/solar/hydro, and battery storage. All these technologies now allow us to move towards a cleaner direction.

[donsutherland1]

Although I recognize that the scientific foundation for the anthropogenic explanation for climate change is strong despite some residual uncertainties and am aware that climate change will entail costs to society (adaptation, health i.e., related to growing incidence of extreme heat or northward migration of insects, energy from greater need for cooling, geopolitical costs associated with the distribution of conventional fossil fuel-based energy resources, opportunity costs, etc.), I am not sure this report will make a constructive contribution to the policy debate. In fact, I worry that it will have the opposite impact.

For starters, its methodology is frustratingly thin. Key factors such as the statistical approaches employed, data utilized, level of uncertainty, assumptions made, etc., are not provided in anything close to adequate detail. Characteristic of its description of methodology is the following language, "The Monitor uses an enumerative methodology to estimate a wide range of distinct effects resulting from climate change and the carbon economy that can be summed to guage overall country and global impacts in socio-economic terms." What's missing is any meaningful detail as the specifics involved in that "enumerative methodology." How robust is it? Is it widely-accepted as a valid analytical framework? How dependent is it on various assumptions and how much uncertainty is involved with each of those assumptions? How well can the impacts actually be attributed to climate change considering that attribution science is still in its relative infancy?

All said, the paper makes bold claims (whether or not they are reasonable is an entirely different matter) but offers almost nothing of substance on which policy makers can assess the validity of its claims. With policy makers in many developing countries focused on economic growth to raise their standard of living and those in advanced economies facing substantial long-term fiscal challenges, few policy makers are likely to attempt to design new solutions based on this report's claims. There is too little in this paper on which they can anchor those claims. Policy makers won't act on faith alone that the paper is accurate (even if its findings are, in fact, reasonable). Policy makers need far more concrete content than what the paper provides. Its glossy charts and colorful maps are no substitute for its stunning lack of rigor when it comes its description of its methodology. Put another way, the paper has many layers of elaborately-designed, colorful packaging, but when it comes to concrete substance, the proverbial box is largely empty.

On account of its largely opaque methodology and/or general absence of rigor, it will probably do more to galvanize those who reject the findings of climate science than to break the current policy gridlock. Perceptions arising from its lack of detail could lead some who are ambivalent about climate change today to assume that the lack of detail in the paper also implies a lack of support when it comes to climate science itself. If so, that would be particularly damaging, as public policy in democratic countries can only be sustainable if it commands broad public support.

[tacoman25]

Quite serious. Every prognostication put out by government sponsored groups thus far has underestimated the effects of global warming to a rather alarming degree. If you can recall a multi governmental study that over estimated the risks I'd like to be reminded.

Hailman

I've no idea where one would start, but food production and availability of potable water could have consequences.

Terry

We have seen about .8C of climate change over the past 100 years, yes? How many people have died because of it so far?

[tacoman25]

Although I recognize that the scientific foundation for the anthropogenic explanation for climate change is strong despite some residual uncertainties and am aware that climate change will entail costs to society (adaptation, health i.e., related to growing incidence of extreme heat or northward migration of insects, energy from greater need for cooling, geopolitical costs associated with the distribution of conventional fossil fuel-based energy resources, opportunity costs, etc.), I am not sure this report will make a constructive contribution to the policy debate. In fact, I worry that it will have the opposite impact.

For starters, its methodology is frustratingly thin. Key factors such as the statistical approaches employed, data utilized, level of uncertainty, assumptions made, etc., are not provided in anything close to adequate detail. Characteristic of its description of methodology is the following language, "The Monitor uses an enumerative methodology to estimate a wide range of distinct effects resulting from climate change and the carbon economy that can be summed to guage overall country and global impacts in socio-economic terms." What's missing is any meaningful detail as the specifics involved in that "enumerative methodology." How robust is it? Is it widely-accepted as a valid analytical framework? How dependent is it on various assumptions and how much uncertainty is involved with each of those assumptions? How well can the impacts actually be attributed to climate change considering that attribution science is still in its relative infancy?

All said, the paper makes bold claims (whether or not they are reasonable is an entirely different matter) but offers almost nothing of substance on which policy makers can assess the validity of its claims. With policy makers in many developing countries focused on economic growth to raise their standard of living and those in advanced economies facing substantial long-term fiscal challenges, few policy makers are likely to attempt to design new solutions based on this report's claims. There is too little in this paper on which they can anchor those claims. Policy makers won't act on faith alone that the paper is accurate (even if its findings are, in fact, reasonable). Policy makers need far more concrete content than what the paper provides. Its glossy charts and colorful maps are no substitute for its stunning lack of rigor when it comes its description of its methodology. Put another way, the paper has many layers of elaborately-designed, colorful packaging, but when it comes to concrete substance, the proverbial box is largely empty.

On account of its largely opaque methodology and/or general absence of rigor, it will probably do more to galvanize those who reject the findings of climate science than to break the current policy gridlock. Perceptions arising from its lack of detail could lead some who are ambivalent about climate change today to assume that the lack of detail in the paper also implies a lack of support when it comes to climate science itself. If so, that would be particularly damaging, as public policy in democratic countries can only be sustainable if it commands broad public support.

Bingo.

[Msalgado]

Although I recognize that the scientific foundation for the anthropogenic explanation for climate change is strong despite some residual uncertainties and am aware that climate change will entail costs to society (adaptation, health i.e., related to growing incidence of extreme heat or northward migration of insects, energy from greater need for cooling, geopolitical costs associated with the distribution of conventional fossil fuel-based energy resources, opportunity costs, etc.), I am not sure this report will make a constructive contribution to the policy debate. In fact, I worry that it will have the opposite impact.

For starters, its methodology is frustratingly thin. Key factors such as the statistical approaches employed, data utilized, level of uncertainty, assumptions made, etc., are not provided in anything close to adequate detail. Characteristic of its description of methodology is the following language, "The Monitor uses an enumerative methodology to estimate a wide range of distinct effects resulting from climate change and the carbon economy that can be summed to guage overall country and global impacts in socio-economic terms." What's missing is any meaningful detail as the specifics involved in that "enumerative methodology." How robust is it? Is it widely-accepted as a valid analytical framework? How dependent is it on various assumptions and how much uncertainty is involved with each of those assumptions? How well can the impacts actually be attributed to climate change considering that attribution science is still in its relative infancy?

All said, the paper makes bold claims (whether or not they are reasonable is an entirely different matter) but offers almost nothing of substance on which policy makers can assess the validity of its claims. With policy makers in many developing countries focused on economic growth to raise their standard of living and those in advanced economies facing substantial long-term fiscal challenges, few policy makers are likely to attempt to design new solutions based on this report's claims. There is too little in this paper on which they can anchor those claims. Policy makers won't act on faith alone that the paper is accurate (even if its findings are, in fact, reasonable). Policy makers need far more concrete content than what the paper provides. Its glossy charts and colorful maps are no substitute for its stunning lack of rigor when it comes its description of its methodology. Put another way, the paper has many layers of elaborately-designed, colorful packaging, but when it comes to concrete substance, the proverbial box is largely empty.

On account of its largely opaque methodology and/or general absence of rigor, it will probably do more to galvanize those who reject the findings of climate science than to break the current policy gridlock. Perceptions arising from its lack of detail could lead some who are ambivalent about climate change today to assume that the lack of detail in the paper also implies a lack of support when it comes to climate science itself. If so, that would be particularly damaging, as public policy in democratic countries can only be sustainable if it commands broad public support.

As always Don, a very good post.

I basically think of the error bars involved with the initial climate predictions getting magnified to an unusable degree when that data is then used to project complicated effects. As another poster pointed out, fossil fuels add a great degree to the quality of life around the world and I doubt that was taken into account in this "study".

You can't take predictions which aren't ground in stone and then use them to make predictions that are going to be very valuable.

[Vergent]

How can one possibly quantify the number of deaths caused by a trend in the global temperature? What are the variables and algorithms involved to reach such a number? Those are my main questions.

This report estimates that

5 million lives are lost each year

today as a result of climate change

and a carbon-based economy,

with detailed explanations for

why this is the case found in the

relevant chapters that follow.

Did you read the relevant chapters?

[tacoman25]

Did you read the relevant chapters?

The 5 millions lives lost to climate change every year is very, very debatable. To put it kindly.

[SVT450R]

The increase in deaths would also be contributed with population growth globally.

[TerryM]

We have seen about .8C of climate change over the past 100 years, yes? How many people have died because of it so far?

Any idea what the global warming numbers have been where people actually live, or grow food?

Hamilton, the nearest large metropolitan area to me has recorded over 3.5C change in the last 50 years. This probably hasn't resulted in any deaths, but I live in a well off section of a rich country with outstanding medical facilities.

The biggest change here has been the ubiquitous use of air conditioning through the summer. This year the apple crop failed - a first time event for a failure of this magnitude, and last year the Canadian wheat crop was destroyed by too much rain. It costs a little more to be comfortable and to eat, but nothing life threatening.

None of the 100 million are liable to be neighbors of you or I, so I suppose we can easily ignore them.

Perhaps that's a subject worth discussion. If global warming was found to be killing off the poor in say Bangladesh, but raising living standards in the US, would we have a moral obligation to do something to ameliorate the situation?

Terry

[SVT450R]

Any idea what the global warming numbers have been where people actually live, or grow food?

Hamilton, the nearest large metropolitan area to me has recorded over 3.5C change in the last 50 years. This probably hasn't resulted in any deaths, but I live in a well off section of a rich country with outstanding medical facilities.

The biggest change here has been the ubiquitous use of air conditioning through the summer. This year the apple crop failed - a first time event for a failure of this magnitude, and last year the Canadian wheat crop was destroyed by too much rain. It costs a little more to be comfortable and to eat, but nothing life threatening.

None of the 100 million are liable to be neighbors of you or I, so I suppose we can easily ignore them.

Perhaps that's a subject worth discussion. If global warming was found to be killing off the poor in say Bangladesh, but raising living standards in the US, would we have a moral obligation to do something to ameliorate the situation?

Terry

Tens of thousands of people die every day because of hunger and disease globally this is nothing new while some try to help it's still a big problem and to try and link climate change to something like this is difficult. It's almost like trying to use climate change as an excuse now to convince people of harm while meanwhile it's been going on for a long time.

[tacoman25]

Any idea what the global warming numbers have been where people actually live, or grow food?

Hamilton, the nearest large metropolitan area to me has recorded over 3.5C change in the last 50 years. This probably hasn't resulted in any deaths, but I live in a well off section of a rich country with outstanding medical facilities.

The biggest change here has been the ubiquitous use of air conditioning through the summer. This year the apple crop failed - a first time event for a failure of this magnitude, and last year the Canadian wheat crop was destroyed by too much rain. It costs a little more to be comfortable and to eat, but nothing life threatening.

None of the 100 million are liable to be neighbors of you or I, so I suppose we can easily ignore them.

Perhaps that's a subject worth discussion. If global warming was found to be killing off the poor in say Bangladesh, but raising living standards in the US, would we have a moral obligation to do something to ameliorate the situation?

Terry

Well, that's a significantly higher amount of temperature change than most of the world has seen. And of course, you live in a country further north. The places that would probably have much more trouble coping with change like that are places that were already hot and further south. And as we know, the closer you get to the equator, the less temperature change seen.

[TerryM]

Taco - Total agreement. The problem as I see it is that the cooler, "bread basket" areas are being effected sooner. Without these sources of cheap wheat and corn, those places with huge populations that rely on imported - sometimes donated - food are the ones that are going to be hurt first. I also understand that a large part of the worlds rice is grown in Vietnam, and is threatened by SLR.

SVT - The question I posed was hypothetical. We're all aware that people are sometimes harmed in producing things that make our life a little easier, just wondering where the line should be drawn.

Terry

[Msalgado]

Did you read the relevant chapters?

I did not read it so perhaps you can help me out with this question: DId they talk about how many people will be saved in developing countries as they increase their carbon usage and see a general improvement of life? If you're going talk about a net increase in deaths dude to increased carbon emissions then you have to analyze how many lives are saved by the expansion of cheap energy into those areas. Did they do that?

[TerryM]

I did not read it so perhaps you can help me out with this question: DId they talk about how many people will be saved in developing countries as they increase their carbon usage and see a general improvement of life? If you're going talk about a net increase in deaths dude to increased carbon emissions then you have to analyze how many lives are saved by the expansion of cheap energy into those areas. Did they do that?

Perhaps if you had made a habit of reading relevant material, instead of asking others to explain things to you, you might have learned enough by now to make informed decisions, instead of parroting the views of others.

Not likely, but a possibility.

Terry

[Jonger]

Any idea what the global warming numbers have been where people actually live, or grow food?

Hamilton, the nearest large metropolitan area to me has recorded over 3.5C change in the last 50 years. This probably hasn't resulted in any deaths, but I live in a well off section of a rich country with outstanding medical facilities.

The biggest change here has been the ubiquitous use of air conditioning through the summer. This year the apple crop failed - a first time event for a failure of this magnitude, and last year the Canadian wheat crop was destroyed by too much rain. It costs a little more to be comfortable and to eat, but nothing life threatening.

None of the 100 million are liable to be neighbors of you or I, so I suppose we can easily ignore them.

Perhaps that's a subject worth discussion. If global warming was found to be killing off the poor in say Bangladesh, but raising living standards in the US, would we have a moral obligation to do something to ameliorate the situation?

Terry

UHI, most of this region is around 0.8C since 1880, you are basically downwind of me by less then 150 miles. 3.5C would be a MASSIVE increase. Show me where you got this figure?

[Jonger]

Terry,

I'm not calling you a liar, but lets just call it..... Not accurate or even remotely.

See that SE Michigan quadrant, thats within an arms reach of Hamilton, 0.5 to 1.0F from 2005-2011 compared to the 1895-2000 base period. 3.5C would be 7F maybe? You are overshooting that by nearly 7 times.

[Jonger]

Thats the last 11 years.... Basically no increase in that timeframe... Yea, white coloration... like zero.

[rygar]

Vergent is so obviously trolling it hurts.

[andyhb]

Quite serious. Every prognostication put out by government sponsored groups thus far has underestimated the effects of global warming to a rather alarming degree. If you can recall a multi governmental study that over estimated the risks I'd like to be reminded.

Hailman

I've no idea where one would start, but food production and availability of potable water could have consequences.

Terry

This post is