Too many people still don't believe global warming is a major concern in the United States. This article, though it does say that poorer countries will be more widely affected, presents some information about how the U.S. will be affected. With regards to crop yield reductions, it listed the U.S. as one location with large negative effects. The increased heat would also increase flooding of the Mississippi River and the wildfires of California. These are all very real concerns that the average person doesn't seem to take into account. Furthermore, though the article mentions higher sea levels, it doesn't touch upon the very real threat of losing actual cities. When I traveled to Venice last year, I had to walk across a raised platform to even get into the Basilica because there was over two feet of standing water surrounding it. Venice has always been in the conversation, but there are many cities within the United States that are at risk. There are reports that beloved U.S. cities including Miami, Boston, New York City, Atlantic City, San Diego and more are in danger of sinking within the century.
As the article clearly indicates, climate change is a major concern. With all the potential damage detailed in this article, development seems almost futile without simultaneously trying to slow or completely stop global warming. According to an MIT study cited in the article, "higher temperatures substantially reduce economic growth in poor countries and have wide-ranging effects, reducing agricultural output, industrial output, and political stability." Now, developing countries are much less likely to focus on the affects of the future, especially if people cannot even provide for their families right now. So it is of even greater importance for developed countries to try and prevent this from occurring.
This paper provided a wealth of information on what the world will look like if temperatures rise 4°C. The implications discussed, such as loss of ice sheets and rising sea-levels, extreme heat waves and stunted coral reef growth easily depict the severity of the future effects climate change and global warming. The paper also painted the potential consequences of extreme natural events clearly in order to depict the severity of climate change. An example that stood out to me was the chain of effects resulting from major floods. First, that major floods interfere with food production that could potentially “induce nutritional deficits and the increased incidence of epidemic diseases”, as well as contaminate water supplies and “increase incidence of diarrheal and respiratory illnesses.” Clearly, major flooding can have enormous negative consequences on health, especially for people living in poor regions, and the examples demonstrate the severity of the potential consequences of climate change on the entire world, and especially the world’s poor. Because the paper highlights the severity of this issue, I expected more discussion about current policy and funding allocation efforts to promote sustainability and halt (or reverse, if possible) this damage caused to the environment. While in class we discussed the issues of having incentive to conserve without a market for conservation, I would have been very interested in learning about policy proposals and potential solutions and quantifiable means to conserve besides “turning down the heat.”
This article gave a very good comprehensive look at evidence for climate change, the negative effects that we're already seeing, and the predicted effects if we continue on the same path that we are currently as a planet. The evidence is staggering and extremely alarming. The negative effects reach almost all spans of the environment and daily lives, whether its raising sea levels to reduced soil capacity to increased incidence of diseases (something that I had never thought of before as a result of climate change, but makes a whole lot of sense not that I have).
As Rachel mentioned in her post, it is extremely concerning how many people still don't believe in climate change. Of particular concern, at least to me, is that the two Republicans that are leading in the polls, Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson, have neither said climate change is real nor have they called for any degree of action to mitigate it. The article clearly emphasizes that it is necessary for countries to come together to "turn down the heat." As the United States is the leading world power, we should be taking large steps to push the international community towards working together to combat climate change. I worry that if either of those candidates do assume the presidency, they will not be willing to cooperate with the international community to help slow the rate of climate change and leave our future generations with an Earth that is not as productive and causes major strains on daily life.
Although the article briefly mentions the human capacity to adapt, it is nothing short of terrifying to imagine a world in which the coolest months are substantially warmer than the warmest months of the 21st century and summers are comparable to heat waves that have implications such as death and harvest loss. It is blatantly obvious that there is a problem at hand regarding climate change and while no nation is safe from the repercussions from inaction towards the issue, developing countries will suffer the most. What is striking about this is that the developing countries have substantially fewer capabilities to cope and adapt but are contributing the least to the degradation of our world and its ecosystems. It seems to be unfair that the populations and regions that contribute the least to global climate change will face more severe impacts.
My sole qualm with the summary was that it did not elaborate on the policies mentioned. The policies that, if met, are still capable of leading to a temperature increase exceeding 2°C. Despite painting a very descriptive picture of what a 4°C warmer world would look like, the article did not go in to detail about the mitigation commitments and pledges that are already in place to avoid a severe rise in global temperatures. I think this would have been a critical addition in terms of understanding the current issues and discovering a way to solve the predicament at hand.
This World Bank article gave me a great overview of what a 4-degree warming to the earth would cause. To the average citizen who does not know much about climate change, 4 degrees doesn’t sound significant, when in fact the consequences are severe. If this change were to occur, the wealthier countries who have contributed the most to this problem, will have an easier time adapting than the poorer countries who will take more of the hit. In the tropics specifically, a change in the ecosystem would effect their whole way of living and with fewer resources it would be much more difficult for them to adapt to the change.
Like a few of the other students have mentioned already, I am interested in the policies that are currently being used (or not used) to combat climate change, as well as policies that could be effective. It was almost frustrating reading an article that talked about all the negative impacts that will occur, but no specific solutions. I think part of the reason people might not want to invest in combating climate change is because they will bear the cost now and may not even see the benefits in their lifetime – but instead future generations will benefit. People always want the benefits now and the cost later, but no change can occur with that kind of mindset.
The Executive Summary Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must Be Avoided illustrates the major impacts that global warming and climate change can potentially have on our society and world. This paper highlights how all of society will experience these potential effects from climate change, although “the distribution of impacts is likely to be inherently unequal and tilted against many of the world’s poorest regions, which have the least economic, institutional, scientific, and technical capacity to cope and adapt” (The World Bank). This reminded me about the discussion we had Tuesday on how the poor contribute very little to global warming and climate change; however, the poor are the individuals who are the most affected. Because even the rich will have to adapt to climate change, the difficulty for the poor to adapt will be even greater due to their limited income and limited environmental resources. Heat waves, droughts, and floods will all hurt the livelihood of the poor because they do not have adequate resources to mitigate the effects from any disastrous events. For example, any weather-related event could dramatically decrease economic growth in poor countries, such as a flood or drought inhibiting agricultural output. Because “it is likely that the poor will suffer most and the global community could become more fractured, and unequal than today,” the need to alleviate this potential growth in inequality is crucial (The World Bank). Therefore, what are the appropriate policies to implement to help those who are more susceptible to climate change?
When thinking about climate change and the extremely high negative externalities that are associated with it, I can’t help but think about what drives policy in the U.S. Study after study comes out warning of the huge costs that our neglect of global warming will have, and yet little to nothing changes. Maybe it is in part to the fact that the brunt of the damage will be done “somewhere else”, meaning the poor who are unable to deal with these changes. Maybe part of it is corporations push to keep the status quo so that they can maximize profits without having to worry about the future. But it has to only be a matter of time before, they come to terms with the blatant scientific research that is before them. That increases in heat will cause ruin to a lot of crops. That the Artic glaciers will continue to melt and raise the sea level to levels never seen before. That cyclone intensity will increase and continue to wipe out poor nations. And that there will be severe droughts and a lack of drinking water, which maybe fine for the U.S. but certainly not for developing countries. The only problem with this is that as the paper states, the time for change is now. We are at a critical point in terms of temperature and we need change now. I just find it hard to be optimistic with the current system.
The World Bank's report is the type of literature that needs to be circulated on a mass scale. It brings to light many of the consequences of rapid climate change, and urges us to collectively consider the price of inaction. I think one of the most interesting consequences discussed which is especially relevant today is the mass dislocation that climate change may cause. We're already seeing (for more general economic and political reasons) that impoverished people will go to great lengths for opportunity, and developed nations are largely unprepared for this exogenous shock. To Mr. Trump's demise, it seems like a wall and widespread forced deportation are not sustainable solutions to this global migration. With climate change, people would have no choice but to leave their home regions, and there needs to be strategy in place for how these millions of impoverished people can be integrated into an existing economy. The issue is not solely an economic one. The merging of various cultures could cause geopolitical unrest in regions with religious and ethnic tensions. Self-inflicted economic destruction via armed conflict would be adding insult to the various injuries the global economy would suffer upon the arrival of a 4-degree warmer world.
This executive summary felt very familiar while I was reading over it. I’m not sure if it was in environmental economics that we read it or in my global climate change course, but their estimates were not as surprising to me the second time around. I want to discuss Rachel’s first sentence that “Too many people still don't believe global warming is a major concern in the United States.” I took a global climate change course my freshman year, and Professor Greer had us take surveys of ten people to see their perceptions on global climate change. Surprisingly, I got a lot of respondents who expressed that they did not even believe in the global phenomenon. That was a bit discouraging to hear, but doing more research into this, I found a paper titled "Now What Do People Know About Global Climate Change?” This paper indicated that most people in 2009 were generally more aware of global climate change and the contributing factors than in 1992. This was reassuring to read as it suggests that the trend is more positive. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and I clearly saw that during my short interviews with people. I definitely think that small steps should be taken knowledge in order to have a greater public understanding of global climate change for policy to combat the issue. Instead of thinking “Well, global warming can't be occurring because it snowed the other day!" (a theme that I saw reoccur throughout my interviews), people will hopefully learn that climate is different from weather. Knowledge and education is the key when it comes to this issue. In order to have policy to ensure that we don’t see some of the drastic effects discussed in the summary, we need people to be on the same page and working together.
After reading this article by the World Bank, it just blows my mind how so many people still don't believe that global climate change is a real phenomenon. The statistics in this article were absolutely frightening. This is the type of article that nearly every person on this planet should be reading.
The part that I found the most fascinating, yet saddest, was the fact that changes double in magnitude going from a 2-degree warmer world to a 4-degree warmer world! Prior to reading this article, I would not have thought that just a 2-degree increase could have that significant of an effect. The other part that had the greatest impact on me is how the global climate changes will have an even greater effect on the developing countries. As we have already discussed in class, poor countries already have no other choice than to adapt to environmental changes. This will simply magnify to great extents if the government, private sector, and individuals cannot cooperate and work together to solve this issue. Fortunately, as the authors point out, there is evidence that a 4-degree warmer world can be avoided. It is just time for government, private sector, and civil society to finally take action.
This executive summary provided by the World Bank gives an excellent oversight on how developed and developing countries could be affected by global warming. The one thing that really jumped out at me when I read this article was the fact that 2-4 degree temperature change isn’t that large; however, when it comes to the earth’s temperature over a century it’s an enormous deal regarding agriculture, carbon emissions, and sea level changes. The countries to suffer the most initially would be the developing countries which would be tough on them since they don’t have the economy or technology to adapt to these issues.
I understand the paper briefly discusses solutions to some of the problems that are present; however, I am interested in the specific solutions. For example, do governments of developed countries have any new technologies on the way to help reduce global warming? Or are these governments coming up with more reduction policies rather than innovations and inventions? In today’s world it’s easy to place thermometers in different regions of the world to measure the Earth’s temperature. I thought it was very interesting to see certain methods to determine Earth’s temperature in different regions thousands of years ago by the thickness of rings on tree trunks.
I agree with several of the comments above that it is so hard to believe that there are people out there who dispute the validity of climate change. In my chemistry class we are talking about climate change and our professor has likened it to a cancer diagnosis, the person receiving it doesn't want to believe the majority that say they have it and are willing to trust the one out of 100 who say it isn't true. There are however others that admit it is a problem but argue that the effects aren't that great. I think this article does a great job of illustrating how devastating a temperature rise can be and especially how some areas, the poorest for the most part, are going to be hit the hardest. The warming for instance is supposed to lead to a larger increase in temperatures in the middle east, north africa, and the Mediterranean which are all reasons that are already under a great deal of stress today. I think it is interesting that such a problem can have far greater impacts that just environmental but could also lead to increased political instability and social unrest in these regions. Another thing that seems so hard to grasp is that global warming which is causing sea levels to rise and water to make up a greater portion of our environment will also lead to water scarcity issues in much of the world. Living in this country we take access to water for granted it with rising temperatures on the way it is really important to figure out ways to utilize the water we have on the planet.
While the article goes into great depths explaining all the issues that could occur I found the most interesting point to be why. The issue of global warming is obviously an example of a negative externality, but what makes it unique is its expansiveness. If it were a simple localized case of pollution you could tax the firm or industry causing the problem thereby making the MPC equal to the MSC. In this case the government would enact this tax. Climate change however is on a global scale. Government interest’s which typically considered the “social” interest become the “private” interest and governments consequently chose the optimal level of CO2 emissions which maximize their countries MPB and MPC. The global social benefit is ignored. This leaves it up to larger governing bodies, such as the UN, the daunting task of aligning countries MPC with the globe’s MSC(without nearly as much power as traditional governments).
It is actually really interesting and mind blowing that a 4 degrees Celsius difference can have such a great impact on the world. Obviously, those hit most by the change in climate would be the developing countries because of the negative repercussions such as heat waves, drought, and floods. Clearly, everyone will be impacted by the change in climate, and considering the severity of the repercussions, perhaps more policy should be implemented concerning emission pathways and such. The issue is clear that a 4 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures coupled with other issues such as social, economic, and population stresses can be a major problem facing the entire world. Poverty and inequality will be even more stratified and adaptability may not be a plausible coping mechanism. Basically, this is a BIG DEAL!!
When I was reading through this report from the World Bank, I felt that every sentence was astonishing and quite frankly, terrifying. I thought back to class last Thursday when we defined sustainability and that at its core, sustainability revolves around the idea of acting in ways that will leave the world's environmental health in the same way that we received it from the previous generation. Beginning with the factual evidence that we can observe over the last century and considering the previous centuries actions in addition to our current actions, the World Bank's report explains the consequences of our current path on the future of the health of the climate, the oceans, the coastal habitats, and the ecosystems. In doing so, I believe the article hits home with me when it describes the costs that will incur to developed and developing nations alike. Unfortunately, I watched the GOP debate last night. This article and the evidence supported would have been great rebuttals to many of the environmental positions taken by Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Rand Paul. Despite all of this evidence, we still have lawmakers who believe these facts to be untrue and blown out of proportion. We're talking about people who are in line to possibly hold the most powerful and executive position in the world who still refuse to believe the science behind global warming. As the wealthiest country in the world with the greatest access to technology and capital, we must be heading this movement to enact policy that aims to prevent these catastrophes from occurring. Only then can we look to support and aid the developing countries to follow suit. I firmly believe that it is the United States that must spearhead this pursuit, and I hope that we begin to see more proactive changes in policy. Voters must take this into consideration in the upcoming election process.
Global warming is clearly a large issue for anyone and everyone living on this planet. This report did a fantastic job of explaining the negative externalities that global warming can create. In the report, some of the negative externalities that could be caused by global warming include: increases in extreme-weather related deaths, reduced crop production, large increases in sea level, etc. The quote that particularly struck me was, “In fact, in a 4°C world climate change seems likely to become the dominant driver of ecosystem shifts, surpassing habitat destruction as the greatest threat to biodiversity”. I was previously unaware of the quantifiable effects that carbon dioxide had on the earth’s atmosphere, but this report, and this quote in particular, has opened my eyes to this issue that so desperately needs to be rectified.
The report discussed how the world’s poor would be most affected by global climate change. Many of the world’s poor people reside close to the equator, where global climate change can arguably be felt the most. My concern with this is that the parts of the world that can aid with reducing carbon dioxide emissions the most will not do so until it is too late, mainly because the effects of global warming are not being felt as strongly.
As I was reading the article, I was thinking about how we have talked in class about how technology has expanded our resource frontiers. I couldn't stop thinking about whether this would be true here as well: are we capable of adapting to this if we can't mitigate it? For example, will we be able to create coastal barriers to protects cities from flooding, or devise better irrigation methods to avoid droughts? I am by no means saying that mitigation is not important, I am just trying to figure out why, if we can adapt to other circumstances, this wouldn't be one of those.
I was also very intrigued the geographical extent of this phenomenon, and how it would shape the global migration patterns. Part of the refugee crisis we are seeing in Europe is said to be due to rough droughts in some countries. If global warming is expected to create many more, then the development plans and infrastructure of those countries that would be not as affected by global warming should take into consideration that they are likely to be the next receiving countries of several future immigrant waves.
After reading the article about global warming the first thing that came to my mind was how exactly can this thing be slowed. Its apparent that there are still many people in our country and others that are still skeptical about the possibility of the Earth warming, but after reading the report of the World Bank, it is hard to ignore the evidence that our planet is indeed warming. However, it say that we can start ti mitigate the warming so we don't have to experience a 4 degree hotter world. However, my thought was how exactly do we as a world come together and fight such a thing. Clearly, after reading the report that the countries that will bear most of the consequences are usually considered poorer countries such as Mozambique, Bangladesh, Mexico, and other countries found in the tropics. Clearly, these countries are going to have a harder time getting the world to fix its problems that are hurting our planet. And on top of that its countries like China and the U.S. that are leading the charge in amount of greengages produced. So it should be our responsibility to lead the charge. But again, there is an apparent problem with this because the effects from a warming climate will not occur until the end of this Century, so how do we go about fixing a problem in which we endure the costs now and the benefits do not come for a long time. One thing that I thought could be a possibility in terms of jump-starting the fight would be focusing on the monetary impacts that would arise from this, because money is often the one thing that gets things going. In the report, it talked about the acidification of the ocean and how that would damage the reefs and therefore impact coastal towns since reefs are protective barriers. Well tourism is one of the world's largest industries and a world without coral reefs, or coastal cities would dramatically affect tourism. This is probably one way that can monetize the impact of global warming so we can help present the idea to fix it better since we would then have tangible evidence of the impact apart from the damages to environment.
I would not call myself ignorant to the effects of global warming in the world today, but I was not aware of the significant and severe consequences that a seemingly small degree increase would cause to the world. A 4-degree warming to the earth does not seem like much, but this article does a very good job at highlighting the impacts it will have on the world, and especially to the developing countries. I do not think the average person would have knowledge that a 4-degree increase would affect a country’s agricultural and industrial production and their political and health stability. Poorer countries experience greater problems in these areas, which prevent them from economically developing, and there is not much they can do about it. I think this relates to an idea we discussed on Tuesday. More developed and wealthier countries are not as affected by the 4-degree warming increase. This leads me to think whether these countries should be helping the poorer countries alleviate the impacts global warming has on their development? In a more recent article from World Bank, Global warming will drive 100 million people into poverty, the idea that wealthier countries could help the poorer countries through this climate change is addressed. There are plans in the works to raise $100 billion each year through 2020 to distribute to the developing countries and fund multiple things for better development. These include, renewable energy, better air quality and improved public transportation” (World Bank, Global warming will drive 100 million people into poverty). I think if countries follow through with this idea, the world may not experience as devastating effects from a 4-degree warming increase.
One problem with pollution is that it is a negative externality. However, it is not just a statewide or national externality. It is a global problem, and therefore must be dealt with globally. If some countries make a change, it may help, although it may be negligible, depending on how the other countries react. For example, if the production of high emission cars is banned in the US, but owning and operating a high emission vehicle is not, then another country could produce this vehicle and sell it to the US. In this scenario, the impact would be minimal. Therefore, the whole population must come up with some method of minimizing the effect that humans are having on the environment. This change must be global, and must be enforced globally.
Climate change is an issue that I haven’t had had a lot of exposure to academically and, frankly, tend to avoid due in part to its highly politicized nature. However, I really appreciate this article’s perspective and its focus on the effects of climate change more so than the causes. While the article does say that climate change is human-induced, that is definitely not the focus on the paper. Focusing on consequences, the summary stresses the impending realities of a warmer climate should compel our undivided attention and a swift global response. I think the article does a great job of presenting these possible outcomes objectively while simultaneously emphasizing the inequity of the burden these changes would place on developing countries. However, I would have liked to read more about potential World Bank strategies to combat climate change in both developed and developing countries. How would the WB create a more established international market for climate change? The article mentions that “large-scale and disruptive changes” in the environment are not accounted for in traditional economic models of decision-making, so current outcomes likely do not reflect the true costs to society and ultimately lead to inefficiencies. How can these costs and negative externalities best be included in decision-making strategies going forward? What impact could updating models to include these previously unaccounted costs have on market expectations?
The article ultimately calls for “early, cooperative, international” action to avoid the effects of global warming. This seemingly simple solution is disappointing (maybe even unrealistic). Policymakers in the U.S., for example, don’t agree on the legitimacy of climate change, let alone on a potential policy response. Intra-country disagreement can only fuel international disagreement, and when combined with climate’s status as global public good, it becomes clear that coordination failure plagues the effectiveness of climate change policy. As with underdevelopment, complementarities are a major hurdle to achieving the desired end.
Building on my previous comment, this article reminded me of an article that we read previously in class that detailed the problems with models. Those are all very evident to me here, as the assumptions used to create this model are very complex. There is very likely omitted variables (natural climate change, cooling of ocean temperatures, etc.). Therefore, the accuracy of the conclusions drawn is most likely not statistically probable. For example, NASA found that the melting of the ice from the Arctic area will cool, or possibly slow or stop, ocean currents, causing "Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago." Therefore, due to the complexity of the real world, and the lack of measurable statistics throughout history, most of the assumptions made by the models used in this paper are guesswork. My previous comment assumed the accuracy of the science and assumptions behind the model. That being said, if it is true, it is certainly frightening, and as humans we should explore potential changes that can be made to prevent global climate change. For example, the anecdote about Russia losing $25 billion in agriculture due to a heat wave. This cannot happen to a developing economy. Developing economies rely on agriculture and mineral extraction to boost their economy, and global climate change will clearly damage these countries more than others. Therefore, preventing humans from causing climate change is a problem that must be solved now, before conditions change for the worst.
I always had this idea in my head that climate change was bad, but I had never actually done any substantial reading on climate change before reading this article. Suffice to say, I was extremely shocked and horrified at how much of a growing threat it is.
Aside from scaring me to death, the article really highlighted some of the major themes we have been talking about in class. Just like how we talked about how the negative effects of forgoing conservation would impact the poorest regions most on Tuesday, the author of this article writes, “the distribution of impacts is likely to be inherently unequal and tilted against many of the world’s poorest regions,” giving examples like how the sea-level rise is likely to be larger in the tropics. The article also highlighted the two-sided relationship between economic development and climate change (i.e. ED = f(CC) and CC = f(ED). Furthermore, it revealed that the negative impacts resulting from climate change are all interrelated and, in ways, functions of each other.
The article talked about solving the problem through international collaboration. I was a little disappointed by how brief and vague this was. I would have loved to read more about the types of collaborative policies that might be effective in fighting climate change.
I found it interesting how a rise in the global temperature could affect different countries and regions so differently. Before I read this article I assumed for the most part that every country would experience an increase in temperature, a rise in sea level, and maybe more droughts. However, this scientific literature proved the otherwise. For example, global warming would cause the tropics to experience a 20% increase in sea level while higher latitudes would be below average. Also, some regions like Africa (except in the northeast), parts of South America and North America, and southern Europe are projected to experience drier conditions, while higher latitudes like northern Europe and northern North America are projected to experience wetter conditions. The article made it sound like the regions adversely affected were areas with developing countries. This I found this especially troubling, as these areas are least responsible for the global damage, yet, they are suffer most because they don’t have the resources to adapt.
The Turn Down the Heat report for the World Bank displayed the alarming effects and aftermaths of a world 4°C Warmer. Regions with higher economic development will have higher “economic, institutional, scientific, and technical capacity to cope and adapt.” The impacts of a world 4°C warmer creates a further divide between developed and developing regions. Developed regions will focus on the shifting environmental and social changes, while developing regions will attempt but face severe disparity to combat their immediate needs due to lack of production and cascade effects. Ultimately due to the interconnectedness of the world rising temperatures will displace even developed countries. The decrease in growth and potential growth of regions remains correlated with rising temperatures. As these concerns are clearly present recently China has been burning 17% more coal than previously thought. In addition, India’s expected economic expansion will result in “9bn megatonnes by the end of the next decade.” India’s aggressive expansion of industry and energy production will lift an estimated 300 million out of poverty. An economic and moral question is raised should a country peruse economic growth increasing carbon emissions/pollutants if the effects lift the poor immediately? Or should the country avoid economic growth, delaying the lifting of the poor in the aims to prevent the conditions/contributions that will lead to a warmer climate? In India’s case its focus remains on uplifting the poor in lieu of increasing carbon emissions. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/11/india-could-push-world-into-climate-change-danger-zone-warn-scientists http://www.environmentalleader.com/2015/11/10/chinas-underestimated-carbon-emissions-what-does-it-mean-for-climate-action/
Too many people still don't believe global warming is a major concern in the United States. This article, though it does say that poorer countries will be more widely affected, presents some information about how the U.S. will be affected. With regards to crop yield reductions, it listed the U.S. as one location with large negative effects. The increased heat would also increase flooding of the Mississippi River and the wildfires of California. These are all very real concerns that the average person doesn't seem to take into account. Furthermore, though the article mentions higher sea levels, it doesn't touch upon the very real threat of losing actual cities. When I traveled to Venice last year, I had to walk across a raised platform to even get into the Basilica because there was over two feet of standing water surrounding it. Venice has always been in the conversation, but there are many cities within the United States that are at risk. There are reports that beloved U.S. cities including Miami, Boston, New York City, Atlantic City, San Diego and more are in danger of sinking within the century.
As the article clearly indicates, climate change is a major concern. With all the potential damage detailed in this article, development seems almost futile without simultaneously trying to slow or completely stop global warming. According to an MIT study cited in the article, "higher temperatures substantially reduce economic growth in poor countries and have wide-ranging effects, reducing agricultural output, industrial output, and political stability." Now, developing countries are much less likely to focus on the affects of the future, especially if people cannot even provide for their families right now. So it is of even greater importance for developed countries to try and prevent this from occurring.
Posted by: Rachel Stone | 11/08/2015 at 11:29 PM
This paper provided a wealth of information on what the world will look like if temperatures rise 4°C. The implications discussed, such as loss of ice sheets and rising sea-levels, extreme heat waves and stunted coral reef growth easily depict the severity of the future effects climate change and global warming. The paper also painted the potential consequences of extreme natural events clearly in order to depict the severity of climate change. An example that stood out to me was the chain of effects resulting from major floods. First, that major floods interfere with food production that could potentially “induce nutritional deficits and the increased incidence of epidemic diseases”, as well as contaminate water supplies and “increase incidence of diarrheal and respiratory illnesses.” Clearly, major flooding can have enormous negative consequences on health, especially for people living in poor regions, and the examples demonstrate the severity of the potential consequences of climate change on the entire world, and especially the world’s poor. Because the paper highlights the severity of this issue, I expected more discussion about current policy and funding allocation efforts to promote sustainability and halt (or reverse, if possible) this damage caused to the environment. While in class we discussed the issues of having incentive to conserve without a market for conservation, I would have been very interested in learning about policy proposals and potential solutions and quantifiable means to conserve besides “turning down the heat.”
Posted by: Ali Norton | 11/10/2015 at 08:03 PM
This article gave a very good comprehensive look at evidence for climate change, the negative effects that we're already seeing, and the predicted effects if we continue on the same path that we are currently as a planet. The evidence is staggering and extremely alarming. The negative effects reach almost all spans of the environment and daily lives, whether its raising sea levels to reduced soil capacity to increased incidence of diseases (something that I had never thought of before as a result of climate change, but makes a whole lot of sense not that I have).
As Rachel mentioned in her post, it is extremely concerning how many people still don't believe in climate change. Of particular concern, at least to me, is that the two Republicans that are leading in the polls, Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson, have neither said climate change is real nor have they called for any degree of action to mitigate it. The article clearly emphasizes that it is necessary for countries to come together to "turn down the heat." As the United States is the leading world power, we should be taking large steps to push the international community towards working together to combat climate change. I worry that if either of those candidates do assume the presidency, they will not be willing to cooperate with the international community to help slow the rate of climate change and leave our future generations with an Earth that is not as productive and causes major strains on daily life.
Posted by: Jacqueline Carson | 11/11/2015 at 12:43 AM
Although the article briefly mentions the human capacity to adapt, it is nothing short of terrifying to imagine a world in which the coolest months are substantially warmer than the warmest months of the 21st century and summers are comparable to heat waves that have implications such as death and harvest loss. It is blatantly obvious that there is a problem at hand regarding climate change and while no nation is safe from the repercussions from inaction towards the issue, developing countries will suffer the most. What is striking about this is that the developing countries have substantially fewer capabilities to cope and adapt but are contributing the least to the degradation of our world and its ecosystems. It seems to be unfair that the populations and regions that contribute the least to global climate change will face more severe impacts.
My sole qualm with the summary was that it did not elaborate on the policies mentioned. The policies that, if met, are still capable of leading to a temperature increase exceeding 2°C. Despite painting a very descriptive picture of what a 4°C warmer world would look like, the article did not go in to detail about the mitigation commitments and pledges that are already in place to avoid a severe rise in global temperatures. I think this would have been a critical addition in terms of understanding the current issues and discovering a way to solve the predicament at hand.
Posted by: Rachael Wright | 11/11/2015 at 01:07 AM
This World Bank article gave me a great overview of what a 4-degree warming to the earth would cause. To the average citizen who does not know much about climate change, 4 degrees doesn’t sound significant, when in fact the consequences are severe. If this change were to occur, the wealthier countries who have contributed the most to this problem, will have an easier time adapting than the poorer countries who will take more of the hit. In the tropics specifically, a change in the ecosystem would effect their whole way of living and with fewer resources it would be much more difficult for them to adapt to the change.
Like a few of the other students have mentioned already, I am interested in the policies that are currently being used (or not used) to combat climate change, as well as policies that could be effective. It was almost frustrating reading an article that talked about all the negative impacts that will occur, but no specific solutions. I think part of the reason people might not want to invest in combating climate change is because they will bear the cost now and may not even see the benefits in their lifetime – but instead future generations will benefit. People always want the benefits now and the cost later, but no change can occur with that kind of mindset.
Posted by: Sarah Schaffer | 11/11/2015 at 08:19 AM
The Executive Summary Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must Be Avoided illustrates the major impacts that global warming and climate change can potentially have on our society and world. This paper highlights how all of society will experience these potential effects from climate change, although “the distribution of impacts is likely to be inherently unequal and tilted against many of the world’s poorest regions, which have the least economic, institutional, scientific, and technical capacity to cope and adapt” (The World Bank). This reminded me about the discussion we had Tuesday on how the poor contribute very little to global warming and climate change; however, the poor are the individuals who are the most affected. Because even the rich will have to adapt to climate change, the difficulty for the poor to adapt will be even greater due to their limited income and limited environmental resources. Heat waves, droughts, and floods will all hurt the livelihood of the poor because they do not have adequate resources to mitigate the effects from any disastrous events. For example, any weather-related event could dramatically decrease economic growth in poor countries, such as a flood or drought inhibiting agricultural output. Because “it is likely that the poor will suffer most and the global community could become more fractured, and unequal than today,” the need to alleviate this potential growth in inequality is crucial (The World Bank). Therefore, what are the appropriate policies to implement to help those who are more susceptible to climate change?
Posted by: Ali Coy | 11/11/2015 at 09:38 AM
When thinking about climate change and the extremely high negative externalities that are associated with it, I can’t help but think about what drives policy in the U.S. Study after study comes out warning of the huge costs that our neglect of global warming will have, and yet little to nothing changes. Maybe it is in part to the fact that the brunt of the damage will be done “somewhere else”, meaning the poor who are unable to deal with these changes. Maybe part of it is corporations push to keep the status quo so that they can maximize profits without having to worry about the future. But it has to only be a matter of time before, they come to terms with the blatant scientific research that is before them. That increases in heat will cause ruin to a lot of crops. That the Artic glaciers will continue to melt and raise the sea level to levels never seen before. That cyclone intensity will increase and continue to wipe out poor nations. And that there will be severe droughts and a lack of drinking water, which maybe fine for the U.S. but certainly not for developing countries. The only problem with this is that as the paper states, the time for change is now. We are at a critical point in terms of temperature and we need change now. I just find it hard to be optimistic with the current system.
Posted by: Mitchell Brister | 11/11/2015 at 10:17 AM
The World Bank's report is the type of literature that needs to be circulated on a mass scale. It brings to light many of the consequences of rapid climate change, and urges us to collectively consider the price of inaction. I think one of the most interesting consequences discussed which is especially relevant today is the mass dislocation that climate change may cause. We're already seeing (for more general economic and political reasons) that impoverished people will go to great lengths for opportunity, and developed nations are largely unprepared for this exogenous shock. To Mr. Trump's demise, it seems like a wall and widespread forced deportation are not sustainable solutions to this global migration. With climate change, people would have no choice but to leave their home regions, and there needs to be strategy in place for how these millions of impoverished people can be integrated into an existing economy. The issue is not solely an economic one. The merging of various cultures could cause geopolitical unrest in regions with religious and ethnic tensions. Self-inflicted economic destruction via armed conflict would be adding insult to the various injuries the global economy would suffer upon the arrival of a 4-degree warmer world.
Posted by: Andrew Head | 11/11/2015 at 11:53 AM
This executive summary felt very familiar while I was reading over it. I’m not sure if it was in environmental economics that we read it or in my global climate change course, but their estimates were not as surprising to me the second time around. I want to discuss Rachel’s first sentence that “Too many people still don't believe global warming is a major concern in the United States.” I took a global climate change course my freshman year, and Professor Greer had us take surveys of ten people to see their perceptions on global climate change. Surprisingly, I got a lot of respondents who expressed that they did not even believe in the global phenomenon. That was a bit discouraging to hear, but doing more research into this, I found a paper titled "Now What Do People Know About Global Climate Change?” This paper indicated that most people in 2009 were generally more aware of global climate change and the contributing factors than in 1992. This was reassuring to read as it suggests that the trend is more positive. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and I clearly saw that during my short interviews with people. I definitely think that small steps should be taken knowledge in order to have a greater public understanding of global climate change for policy to combat the issue. Instead of thinking “Well, global warming can't be occurring because it snowed the other day!" (a theme that I saw reoccur throughout my interviews), people will hopefully learn that climate is different from weather. Knowledge and education is the key when it comes to this issue. In order to have policy to ensure that we don’t see some of the drastic effects discussed in the summary, we need people to be on the same page and working together.
Posted by: Rachana Ghimire | 11/11/2015 at 12:12 PM
After reading this article by the World Bank, it just blows my mind how so many people still don't believe that global climate change is a real phenomenon. The statistics in this article were absolutely frightening. This is the type of article that nearly every person on this planet should be reading.
The part that I found the most fascinating, yet saddest, was the fact that changes double in magnitude going from a 2-degree warmer world to a 4-degree warmer world! Prior to reading this article, I would not have thought that just a 2-degree increase could have that significant of an effect. The other part that had the greatest impact on me is how the global climate changes will have an even greater effect on the developing countries. As we have already discussed in class, poor countries already have no other choice than to adapt to environmental changes. This will simply magnify to great extents if the government, private sector, and individuals cannot cooperate and work together to solve this issue. Fortunately, as the authors point out, there is evidence that a 4-degree warmer world can be avoided. It is just time for government, private sector, and civil society to finally take action.
Posted by: Kasey Cannon | 11/11/2015 at 12:30 PM
This executive summary provided by the World Bank gives an excellent oversight on how developed and developing countries could be affected by global warming. The one thing that really jumped out at me when I read this article was the fact that 2-4 degree temperature change isn’t that large; however, when it comes to the earth’s temperature over a century it’s an enormous deal regarding agriculture, carbon emissions, and sea level changes. The countries to suffer the most initially would be the developing countries which would be tough on them since they don’t have the economy or technology to adapt to these issues.
I understand the paper briefly discusses solutions to some of the problems that are present; however, I am interested in the specific solutions. For example, do governments of developed countries have any new technologies on the way to help reduce global warming? Or are these governments coming up with more reduction policies rather than innovations and inventions? In today’s world it’s easy to place thermometers in different regions of the world to measure the Earth’s temperature. I thought it was very interesting to see certain methods to determine Earth’s temperature in different regions thousands of years ago by the thickness of rings on tree trunks.
Posted by: Riley Stout | 11/11/2015 at 01:03 PM
I agree with several of the comments above that it is so hard to believe that there are people out there who dispute the validity of climate change. In my chemistry class we are talking about climate change and our professor has likened it to a cancer diagnosis, the person receiving it doesn't want to believe the majority that say they have it and are willing to trust the one out of 100 who say it isn't true. There are however others that admit it is a problem but argue that the effects aren't that great. I think this article does a great job of illustrating how devastating a temperature rise can be and especially how some areas, the poorest for the most part, are going to be hit the hardest. The warming for instance is supposed to lead to a larger increase in temperatures in the middle east, north africa, and the Mediterranean which are all reasons that are already under a great deal of stress today. I think it is interesting that such a problem can have far greater impacts that just environmental but could also lead to increased political instability and social unrest in these regions. Another thing that seems so hard to grasp is that global warming which is causing sea levels to rise and water to make up a greater portion of our environment will also lead to water scarcity issues in much of the world. Living in this country we take access to water for granted it with rising temperatures on the way it is really important to figure out ways to utilize the water we have on the planet.
Posted by: Jack Masterson | 11/11/2015 at 01:52 PM
While the article goes into great depths explaining all the issues that could occur I found the most interesting point to be why. The issue of global warming is obviously an example of a negative externality, but what makes it unique is its expansiveness. If it were a simple localized case of pollution you could tax the firm or industry causing the problem thereby making the MPC equal to the MSC. In this case the government would enact this tax. Climate change however is on a global scale. Government interest’s which typically considered the “social” interest become the “private” interest and governments consequently chose the optimal level of CO2 emissions which maximize their countries MPB and MPC. The global social benefit is ignored. This leaves it up to larger governing bodies, such as the UN, the daunting task of aligning countries MPC with the globe’s MSC(without nearly as much power as traditional governments).
Posted by: Benjamin Bayles | 11/11/2015 at 02:57 PM
It is actually really interesting and mind blowing that a 4 degrees Celsius difference can have such a great impact on the world. Obviously, those hit most by the change in climate would be the developing countries because of the negative repercussions such as heat waves, drought, and floods. Clearly, everyone will be impacted by the change in climate, and considering the severity of the repercussions, perhaps more policy should be implemented concerning emission pathways and such. The issue is clear that a 4 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures coupled with other issues such as social, economic, and population stresses can be a major problem facing the entire world. Poverty and inequality will be even more stratified and adaptability may not be a plausible coping mechanism. Basically, this is a BIG DEAL!!
Posted by: Alena Hamrick | 11/11/2015 at 03:22 PM
When I was reading through this report from the World Bank, I felt that every sentence was astonishing and quite frankly, terrifying. I thought back to class last Thursday when we defined sustainability and that at its core, sustainability revolves around the idea of acting in ways that will leave the world's environmental health in the same way that we received it from the previous generation. Beginning with the factual evidence that we can observe over the last century and considering the previous centuries actions in addition to our current actions, the World Bank's report explains the consequences of our current path on the future of the health of the climate, the oceans, the coastal habitats, and the ecosystems. In doing so, I believe the article hits home with me when it describes the costs that will incur to developed and developing nations alike. Unfortunately, I watched the GOP debate last night. This article and the evidence supported would have been great rebuttals to many of the environmental positions taken by Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Rand Paul. Despite all of this evidence, we still have lawmakers who believe these facts to be untrue and blown out of proportion. We're talking about people who are in line to possibly hold the most powerful and executive position in the world who still refuse to believe the science behind global warming. As the wealthiest country in the world with the greatest access to technology and capital, we must be heading this movement to enact policy that aims to prevent these catastrophes from occurring. Only then can we look to support and aid the developing countries to follow suit. I firmly believe that it is the United States that must spearhead this pursuit, and I hope that we begin to see more proactive changes in policy. Voters must take this into consideration in the upcoming election process.
Posted by: Hugh Gooding | 11/11/2015 at 03:43 PM
Global warming is clearly a large issue for anyone and everyone living on this planet. This report did a fantastic job of explaining the negative externalities that global warming can create. In the report, some of the negative externalities that could be caused by global warming include: increases in extreme-weather related deaths, reduced crop production, large increases in sea level, etc. The quote that particularly struck me was, “In fact, in a 4°C world climate change seems likely to become the dominant driver of ecosystem shifts, surpassing habitat destruction as the greatest threat to biodiversity”. I was previously unaware of the quantifiable effects that carbon dioxide had on the earth’s atmosphere, but this report, and this quote in particular, has opened my eyes to this issue that so desperately needs to be rectified.
The report discussed how the world’s poor would be most affected by global climate change. Many of the world’s poor people reside close to the equator, where global climate change can arguably be felt the most. My concern with this is that the parts of the world that can aid with reducing carbon dioxide emissions the most will not do so until it is too late, mainly because the effects of global warming are not being felt as strongly.
Posted by: Austin Tamayo | 11/11/2015 at 03:43 PM
As I was reading the article, I was thinking about how we have talked in class about how technology has expanded our resource frontiers. I couldn't stop thinking about whether this would be true here as well: are we capable of adapting to this if we can't mitigate it? For example, will we be able to create coastal barriers to protects cities from flooding, or devise better irrigation methods to avoid droughts? I am by no means saying that mitigation is not important, I am just trying to figure out why, if we can adapt to other circumstances, this wouldn't be one of those.
I was also very intrigued the geographical extent of this phenomenon, and how it would shape the global migration patterns. Part of the refugee crisis we are seeing in Europe is said to be due to rough droughts in some countries. If global warming is expected to create many more, then the development plans and infrastructure of those countries that would be not as affected by global warming should take into consideration that they are likely to be the next receiving countries of several future immigrant waves.
Posted by: Daniel Rodriguez-Segura | 11/11/2015 at 04:07 PM
After reading the article about global warming the first thing that came to my mind was how exactly can this thing be slowed. Its apparent that there are still many people in our country and others that are still skeptical about the possibility of the Earth warming, but after reading the report of the World Bank, it is hard to ignore the evidence that our planet is indeed warming. However, it say that we can start ti mitigate the warming so we don't have to experience a 4 degree hotter world. However, my thought was how exactly do we as a world come together and fight such a thing. Clearly, after reading the report that the countries that will bear most of the consequences are usually considered poorer countries such as Mozambique, Bangladesh, Mexico, and other countries found in the tropics. Clearly, these countries are going to have a harder time getting the world to fix its problems that are hurting our planet. And on top of that its countries like China and the U.S. that are leading the charge in amount of greengages produced. So it should be our responsibility to lead the charge. But again, there is an apparent problem with this because the effects from a warming climate will not occur until the end of this Century, so how do we go about fixing a problem in which we endure the costs now and the benefits do not come for a long time. One thing that I thought could be a possibility in terms of jump-starting the fight would be focusing on the monetary impacts that would arise from this, because money is often the one thing that gets things going. In the report, it talked about the acidification of the ocean and how that would damage the reefs and therefore impact coastal towns since reefs are protective barriers. Well tourism is one of the world's largest industries and a world without coral reefs, or coastal cities would dramatically affect tourism. This is probably one way that can monetize the impact of global warming so we can help present the idea to fix it better since we would then have tangible evidence of the impact apart from the damages to environment.
Posted by: Buck Armstrong | 11/11/2015 at 04:40 PM
I would not call myself ignorant to the effects of global warming in the world today, but I was not aware of the significant and severe consequences that a seemingly small degree increase would cause to the world. A 4-degree warming to the earth does not seem like much, but this article does a very good job at highlighting the impacts it will have on the world, and especially to the developing countries. I do not think the average person would have knowledge that a 4-degree increase would affect a country’s agricultural and industrial production and their political and health stability. Poorer countries experience greater problems in these areas, which prevent them from economically developing, and there is not much they can do about it. I think this relates to an idea we discussed on Tuesday. More developed and wealthier countries are not as affected by the 4-degree warming increase. This leads me to think whether these countries should be helping the poorer countries alleviate the impacts global warming has on their development? In a more recent article from World Bank, Global warming will drive 100 million people into poverty, the idea that wealthier countries could help the poorer countries through this climate change is addressed. There are plans in the works to raise $100 billion each year through 2020 to distribute to the developing countries and fund multiple things for better development. These include, renewable energy, better air quality and improved public transportation” (World Bank, Global warming will drive 100 million people into poverty). I think if countries follow through with this idea, the world may not experience as devastating effects from a 4-degree warming increase.
Posted by: Emily Rollo | 11/11/2015 at 05:30 PM
One problem with pollution is that it is a negative externality. However, it is not just a statewide or national externality. It is a global problem, and therefore must be dealt with globally. If some countries make a change, it may help, although it may be negligible, depending on how the other countries react. For example, if the production of high emission cars is banned in the US, but owning and operating a high emission vehicle is not, then another country could produce this vehicle and sell it to the US. In this scenario, the impact would be minimal. Therefore, the whole population must come up with some method of minimizing the effect that humans are having on the environment. This change must be global, and must be enforced globally.
Posted by: Kyle Tipping | 11/11/2015 at 06:14 PM
Climate change is an issue that I haven’t had had a lot of exposure to academically and, frankly, tend to avoid due in part to its highly politicized nature. However, I really appreciate this article’s perspective and its focus on the effects of climate change more so than the causes. While the article does say that climate change is human-induced, that is definitely not the focus on the paper. Focusing on consequences, the summary stresses the impending realities of a warmer climate should compel our undivided attention and a swift global response. I think the article does a great job of presenting these possible outcomes objectively while simultaneously emphasizing the inequity of the burden these changes would place on developing countries. However, I would have liked to read more about potential World Bank strategies to combat climate change in both developed and developing countries. How would the WB create a more established international market for climate change? The article mentions that “large-scale and disruptive changes” in the environment are not accounted for in traditional economic models of decision-making, so current outcomes likely do not reflect the true costs to society and ultimately lead to inefficiencies. How can these costs and negative externalities best be included in decision-making strategies going forward? What impact could updating models to include these previously unaccounted costs have on market expectations?
The article ultimately calls for “early, cooperative, international” action to avoid the effects of global warming. This seemingly simple solution is disappointing (maybe even unrealistic). Policymakers in the U.S., for example, don’t agree on the legitimacy of climate change, let alone on a potential policy response. Intra-country disagreement can only fuel international disagreement, and when combined with climate’s status as global public good, it becomes clear that coordination failure plagues the effectiveness of climate change policy. As with underdevelopment, complementarities are a major hurdle to achieving the desired end.
Posted by: Caroline Sanders | 11/11/2015 at 06:19 PM
Building on my previous comment, this article reminded me of an article that we read previously in class that detailed the problems with models. Those are all very evident to me here, as the assumptions used to create this model are very complex. There is very likely omitted variables (natural climate change, cooling of ocean temperatures, etc.). Therefore, the accuracy of the conclusions drawn is most likely not statistically probable. For example, NASA found that the melting of the ice from the Arctic area will cool, or possibly slow or stop, ocean currents, causing "Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago." Therefore, due to the complexity of the real world, and the lack of measurable statistics throughout history, most of the assumptions made by the models used in this paper are guesswork. My previous comment assumed the accuracy of the science and assumptions behind the model. That being said, if it is true, it is certainly frightening, and as humans we should explore potential changes that can be made to prevent global climate change. For example, the anecdote about Russia losing $25 billion in agriculture due to a heat wave. This cannot happen to a developing economy. Developing economies rely on agriculture and mineral extraction to boost their economy, and global climate change will clearly damage these countries more than others. Therefore, preventing humans from causing climate change is a problem that must be solved now, before conditions change for the worst.
Posted by: Kyle Tipping | 11/11/2015 at 06:25 PM
I always had this idea in my head that climate change was bad, but I had never actually done any substantial reading on climate change before reading this article. Suffice to say, I was extremely shocked and horrified at how much of a growing threat it is.
Aside from scaring me to death, the article really highlighted some of the major themes we have been talking about in class. Just like how we talked about how the negative effects of forgoing conservation would impact the poorest regions most on Tuesday, the author of this article writes, “the distribution of impacts is likely to be inherently unequal and tilted against many of the world’s poorest regions,” giving examples like how the sea-level rise is likely to be larger in the tropics. The article also highlighted the two-sided relationship between economic development and climate change (i.e. ED = f(CC) and CC = f(ED). Furthermore, it revealed that the negative impacts resulting from climate change are all interrelated and, in ways, functions of each other.
The article talked about solving the problem through international collaboration. I was a little disappointed by how brief and vague this was. I would have loved to read more about the types of collaborative policies that might be effective in fighting climate change.
Posted by: George Park | 11/11/2015 at 06:55 PM
I found it interesting how a rise in the global temperature could affect different countries and regions so differently. Before I read this article I assumed for the most part that every country would experience an increase in temperature, a rise in sea level, and maybe more droughts. However, this scientific literature proved the otherwise. For example, global warming would cause the tropics to experience a 20% increase in sea level while higher latitudes would be below average. Also, some regions like Africa (except in the northeast), parts of South America and North America, and southern Europe are projected to experience drier conditions, while higher latitudes like northern Europe and northern North America are projected to experience wetter conditions. The article made it sound like the regions adversely affected were areas with developing countries. This I found this especially troubling, as these areas are least responsible for the global damage, yet, they are suffer most because they don’t have the resources to adapt.
Posted by: Austin Gilbert | 11/11/2015 at 07:04 PM
The Turn Down the Heat report for the World Bank displayed the alarming effects and aftermaths of a world 4°C Warmer. Regions with higher economic development will have higher “economic, institutional, scientific, and technical capacity to cope and adapt.” The impacts of a world 4°C warmer creates a further divide between developed and developing regions. Developed regions will focus on the shifting environmental and social changes, while developing regions will attempt but face severe disparity to combat their immediate needs due to lack of production and cascade effects. Ultimately due to the interconnectedness of the world rising temperatures will displace even developed countries. The decrease in growth and potential growth of regions remains correlated with rising temperatures. As these concerns are clearly present recently China has been burning 17% more coal than previously thought. In addition, India’s expected economic expansion will result in “9bn megatonnes by the end of the next decade.” India’s aggressive expansion of industry and energy production will lift an estimated 300 million out of poverty. An economic and moral question is raised should a country peruse economic growth increasing carbon emissions/pollutants if the effects lift the poor immediately? Or should the country avoid economic growth, delaying the lifting of the poor in the aims to prevent the conditions/contributions that will lead to a warmer climate? In India’s case its focus remains on uplifting the poor in lieu of increasing carbon emissions.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/11/india-could-push-world-into-climate-change-danger-zone-warn-scientists
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2015/11/10/chinas-underestimated-carbon-emissions-what-does-it-mean-for-climate-action/
Posted by: Davis Turner | 11/11/2015 at 07:08 PM