« Econ 255 readings - update | Main | ECON 255 Final Paper »




I read this piece in development economics and was profoundly affected by it. It’s part of why I lobbied so hard to get into environmental economics. When I read it in December, I was struck by the plight of the impoverished in the case of climate change and decided this was something I cared about deeply. It’s unfair for our developed country to carry on with our current practices at a disproportionate disadvantage to underdeveloped ones; additionally, it is worth noting that even those who are currently labeled as developed can be pushed into poverty through the extreme climate shocks set to follow a 4-degree increase. That I could understand pretty well without knowing as much about approaches to climate change policy.

But reading this piece with a better understanding of the market-based approaches that can theoretically change this trajectory of anthropogenic global warming has opened my eyes further. Before, I was impassioned. Now, I am more focused. This is a problem that strikes a chord with people when they think about hungry kids and poor parents. At times, the incredible volume of global poverty paints it as an issue too big to tackle. But slowing carbon emissions will slow global temperate increase – and consequently slow the disproportionate burden shifting to the world’s impoverished. I can now read this with a better sense of solutions. The next step, then, is to implement them through petition to government.

I would have our country’s leaders know that green growth is not inhibitory. Reducing emissions does not have to come at a cost for business. After reading Tuesday’s papers, reducing carbon emissions can accomplish conservative goals not typically highlighted. Following the theme of this course – If we know we can use a market-based approach to reducing carbon emissions, why wouldn’t we?

Sal Diaz

The most enlightening section of this piece, for me, was the section regarding the social vulnerability of certain economic and social classes. I, like many others am easily able to associate the adverse effects of climate change, like drought and sea level rise, to the harm they inflict upon certain people. I predominantly associate these consequences with farmers, costal residents, and the extremely impoverished. However, this particular section provides a necessary reminder that, while those groups are affected, they are far from the only groups. This section accurately reminds individuals like me about the perversity of the disproportionate impact of global climate change on ethnic minorities, women, the elderly, and Migrant workers.

Additionally, this section brings up an interesting political question (It is not stated as a political issue, but with today's political climate I find it difficult not to consider the political ramifications of it.). If these groups are displaced by increases in temperature, they will need to move somewhere. This change in migration patterns will almost certainly aggravate the already polarized immigration debate in the United States. I wonder if solutions to climate change were pitched with emphasis on its ability to lower immigration numbers, and therefore the number of illegal immigrants, if it would make a difference. For those who see illegal immigration as one of the most important issues facing the United States, and I am under the impression there are many such people, I could see this as a major selling point for a carbon tax or other climate change initiatives.

Chantal Iosso

The evidence is clear, from this article and many others, that climate change will have profound effects on humans, particularly those in impoverished countries. In many places, those effects are already being felt. However, somehow, opponents of action to mitigate the impacts of climate change continue to somewhat successfully argue that the impacts are unclear. I think there is some perception in the United States that trying to reduce the impacts of climate change is valuing trees, organisms, etc. over humans, or that what we are really trying to protect are the species at risk like bees and salamanders. Thus, it’s justifiable (in their minds) to value “the market” over natural things. In fact, as this article states, mitigating climate change is really about saving ourselves. Perhaps the majority of American voters, particularly those of reasonable means that are landlocked, have little to fear in the recent future, whereas some of those species at risk and poorer, seaside people do. However, I find it difficult to believe that the possibility of mass death doesn’t elicit an emotional response, or a push for policy.
Perhaps in order to get people interested in seriously considering climate protecting actions, the argument has to be framed in a more anthropocentric manner, which seems inherently problematic since it means that ecosystem value is dependent only on the importance humans give it. However, an anthropocentric view might catch a lot more attention and cause more of a push to action.

Abby Beasley

I have never doubted that climate change is a real issue affecting more than just the environment but this piece/study has put into perspective how critical the effects are on a multitude of resources, including social. We often hear that there is a growing divide between classes -- the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It's interesting to see how this feeds into the cyclical problem as accessibility to natural resources changes as our environment diminishes. An increasingly small demographic of people, secluded geographically, will maintain access to natural resources while the geographically disadvantaged will face compounding effects as they are more likely to be in impoverished countries. Should these groups of people be forced out of their native land, they are then further disadvantaged through resettlement difficulties, both social and financial. I am particularly interested in the Latin American Caribbean region and the potential risks that indigenous groups may face, specifically in the Andean region with flooding and water damage as these areas lack the infrastructure or technology needed to maintain access to resources. Human health is often stated as a primary concern in the climate change discussion but rarely is the effect on the economy included in the same discussion. This piece is thorough in its description of the lasting effects on a broad array of issues facing human both directly and indirectly. The data presented here has given me a more concise understanding of the critical condition the world is in. The clear presentation of the connection between every country and its people and environment and further development begs the reader to consider his/her responsibility in ensuring a decrease in global warming for their own social ecosystem and the ecosystem at large.

Tommy Concklin

It is extremely frightening how massive an effect a 1 degree change can have on ecosystems around the world. It is also worrying that emissions from years ago are still trapped in the atmosphere and will continue to contribute to climate change even if we were able to achieve carbon neutrality.
As many people have mentioned, inequality is a huge trend in terms of economics today. Obviously, at some point we have all read about income inequality as a major problem today. It is extremely unfortunate that emissions from developed nations can vitally affect the livelihood of struggling individuals in developing countries. If more polarizing weather or biodiversity loss do not scare individuals of the consequences of current climate change, an article like this would be important to read in order to gain perspective.

Courtney Freudenthal

The Foreword and Executive Summary of this article outline in clear terms just how devastating climate change and global warming will (or might) be. I took the Geology of Climate Change with Professor Greer so these facts are not new to me, but reading the harms of global warming again in the context of this class brings new frustrations to my mind. Since the price of green house gas emissions do not currently reflect the damages associated with these emissions, people in a country like the U.S. are accustomed to ignoring this market failure. I wish that purely bringing these high damages to people's awareness would motivate people to either change their demand patterns or motivate firms to capture these damage costs in their prices. However, I think it will take more than just telling people about these damages associated with GHG emissions. Throughout this term we've established different economic arguments for reducing GHG emissions or other environmental resource market failures, but after reading an article like this one there seems to be a strong underlying argument that needs to be based on moral suasion. Polluting societies need to care about how their actions will affect other societies across the globe. I am not sure how this argument would be made, but I think it must incorporate not only economics but also an appeal to people's morality.

Monette Carli

This article really makes the negative and extreme impacts of climate change clear. While just a couple of degrees doesn’t sound like a lot, it is amazing how much of an impact it can have. As others have mentioned, it would be important for people in the general public to read articles like this to fully understand what climate change can lead to.

One aspect of this piece that is very alarming is the fact that many of the climate change impacts that have already occurred are irreversible, and we are headed down a much worse path that will lead to even more inequality. I think that if people truly understood the ramifications climate change will have on many of our other goals as a society, they would be more concerned. The sentence in the article that stood out to me said, “the task of promoting human development, of ending poverty, increasing global prosperity, and reducing global inequality will be very challenging in a 2⁰C world, but in a 4⁰C world there is serious doubt as to whether this can be achieved at all.” This is a very serious and frightening claim. The goals it suggests may become unattainable are widespread issues and topics of conversation within politics right now, but many people probably don’t connect them to climate change.

While I would like to think that spreading this knowledge and encouraging others to read an article like this would change opinions or increase urgency, I do not believe that is true. People will need other incentives to change, and as Courtney mentioned, these could come from moral suasion. When we discussed moral suasion in class before, we talked about how it often isn’t effective on its own. For that reason, I think it is critical to combine it while real economic incentives, like the carbon tax rebates. When people can extract personal gain from being more efficient, combined with social and moral pressure to do so, we might finally be able to reach a sustainable, low level of emissions.

AJ Witherell

This reading did a tremendous job at bringing to light all of the negative effects of global climate change. Often times, readings of this nature only describe how it will affect agriculture, health, poverty, economics, and business in the United States. However, I enjoyed how this particular reading pointed to other regional areas around the world and provided a complete explanation as to how each area would be uniquely affected. For me, it was particularly interesting to read how certain levels of temperature change may lead to drastically increased chances of prevalent diseases in certain regions. I feel as though that is a major consequence that is often put on the back-burner and not mentioned/argued as often in the climate change debate, even though it presents a very serious issue.

One question that I have always been curious about is how fast can we (as a worldwide population) slow down climate change? Obviously, the emissions that have already been released to atmosphere cannot be reversed and we can’t simply stop emitting immediately. So I think it would be interesting to see a study as to how long it would take to plateau the level of emissions and at what level that would be. Furthermore, in relation to this paper, at what temperature level would climate change eventually plateau. In addition, there is also the idea that the climate itself has not exactly “caught up” to the amount of emissions that have been released into the atmosphere. Even if we were to cut greenhouse gas emissions on the spot, the Earth would still heat over the next few decades until finally reaching an equilibrium. With this being considered, what levels of emissions and temperature change are we realistically already going to experience? Or has this factor already been included in the calculations for papers such as this?


I think this paper can answer one of the questions Professor Casey asked us on Tuesday, "How can/does reduced carbon emissions via a carbon tax boost the economy?" On Tuesday we talked about revenue recycling and how the bottom percent of people will have significantly increased incomes via dividends and that the top 10% will lose only 1% of their already 120k+ incomes. This paper by the World Bank now shows us how important reduced emissions are for the world economy. Increasing global temperatures will make dry areas drier and wet areas more wet. This has profound effects on the agriculture systems, specifically in developing countries. Poorer crop yields will reduce food supplies and could potentially cause shortages. And this is only one of the many problems that will be/have been occurring worldwide. Regardless of whether or not a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax will be more effective or beneficial, it is imperative that we implement one of those programs now so as to prevent any further economic degeneration. It's clear that the argument against reducing carbon emissions because it will hurt the economy is complete bullshit. Sure, it has the potential to harm the economy if it is done incorrectly. But if there is a carbon tax system that works, like the one described in Tuesday's paper, then not only our economy will improve but also the economies of developing nations.
Jack Miller

Chris Shelby

This informative reading from the World Bank Group highlights many different impacts of global climate change in developing regions. One of the impacts that has perplexed me for a while is the increase in sea level. Since many people around the world live close to the coast, how can we respond to this eventual problem, and when do we start preparing for it? Many major cities will be severely impacted by sea level rise, displacing millions of people due to loss of infrastructure and homes. While not as much can be done in the Carribean, maybe it is time to move more important assets further inland. Urban sprawl is already causing more infrastructure and jobs andchored by coastal cities to move inland, but maybe government buildings and more expensive assets should follow suit. My second favorite issue mentioned in the article is the impact of droughts and floods on agriculture. While this disproportionately effects low-income societies, I am interested to see if this will actually be a problem going forward. Decades ago, the Green Revolution helped save millions of people from starvation. Maybe we will see another such farming advancement in response to climate change. In the meantime, we need to address all of these issues mentioned in the reading to slow the affects of climate change.

Alana Babington

Upon reading this article, I realized I had also read it last winter while studying abroad in Copenhagen. I took developmental economics with a focus in Sub Saharan Africa. We read a wide-range of articles about diverse happenings in the world that the majority of people do not even know widely affect the world’s poorest people. One of the last articles was this piece from The World Bank. My main takeaway was both from the drastic affects of a 1 degree change in the global climate and also the detrimental ramifications on low-income countries around the world. After scanning my classmates posts, I realize I had never really considered how sea level rise might affect populated countries. I had previously just imagined the polar bears in the arctic, but what about the people on populated coastlines? I live in Mobile, Alabama, a place that would be greatly affected in the long run by sea level rise. If the climate were to stay below 2 degrees celsius, would the sea level rise and cause ramifications near the equator? This is something I will look into further. I found the chart at the end of the executive summary both helpful and eye opening. It is crazy to look at how the small change in degrees would cause unspeakable effects globally. One other thing that stood out to me was the declaration that developmental would halt if climate change continues. This is such a incomprehensible statement, but I do believe it to be true, which is truly terrifying. One thing that has kept popping up in my head during the course of the term is how little does the movement have to be for there to be a change? Does one person not using their car as much or turning off their light, etc. really change that much in the long run?

Justin Pedersen

While the forward and executive summary focuses on a myriad of direct impacts stemming from climate change, (increased heat extremes, proliferating droughts and flooding, melting glaciers and permafrost, decreased agricultural yields, etc.), I couldn’t help but think how climate change would directly affect my life. Being an avid fisherman, I took some time after finishing the article to reflect on how climate change would indirectly plague the commercial fishing industry. After a brief analysis, I’ve concluded that this industry would be excessively impaired in a 2 degree warmer world.

When the fishing industry initially came to mind, I thought of freshwater fly-fishing. With heightened weather extremes, trout, salmon, and other temperature-sensitive species that thrive in cold waters would perish. With declining populations (i.e. especially in southern, low altitude regions like Lexington), guide services and equipment producers would inevitably lose substantial revenue. While a non-fisher may assert that an extensive decline in the fly fishing industry would not yield a significant market impact, fly fishing services and equipment are expensive, with rod and reel prices extending into the thousands. To put this into perspective, Americans spent over 750 million dollars on fly-fishing equipment in 2011 alone. (http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/flytalk/2012/08/interesting-facts-about-flyfishingmarket). Thus, with decreased success (i.e. due to climate change) and an increased pursuit of substitute recreational activities, a decline in this industry could introduce sizeable macroeconomic ramifications.

While climate change and warming most greatly affects humanity in regards to drought and crop security, this example manifests that innumerable other facets of modern life are affected by global climate change. Since rising eustatic sea levels and increased drought in the Mediterranean may fail to put climate change in perspective for many, nuanced examples, such as the implications imposed on the fly fishing industry, may be able to motivate a larger spectrum of individuals to combat climate change.

Rainsford Reel

One of the biggest topics in today's political arena is the alleviation of poverty across the globe. The authors of "Turn Down the Heat" have suggested that by failing to reduce our emissions and neglecting the global warming crisis, solving this issue will become more and more difficult. As we have said time and time again in our class discussions, there is a prominent sentiment of "Not in my backyard." Arguably, much of the developed world neglects to focus on climate change because, as the authors state, it disproportionately affects developing regions and equatorial regions. However, the resulting consequences of a lack of change it seems will have effects that spill over into our backyards. The first three projected impacts that the authors suggest, though initially would have direct impacts in developing areas, over time those impacts would expand and influence more developed areas.
All this considered, it seems that as an international community, we need to be more proactive in our efforts to alleviate negative environmental impacts.

Robert Lance

I think the impact of climate change on agricultural production is the most fascinating aspect of this World Bank piece. This entire class has focused on the non-market valuation of resources. While the actual monetary impacts of global climate change can be incredibly difficult to quantify, the effect on agricultural production, both for subsistence and export, may actually be seen in global markets. For example, Brazil's influence in the global soybean markets has created a large competition for American soybean farmers looking to export their produce. With the correct weather conditions in Brazilian soybean producing regions, global soybean prices could drop dramatically. Although we can't see the effects of climate change on current soybean prices necessarily, it's obvious that increased temperatures causing crop failures would roil global agricultural markets. It's odd to think that although those economic losses may not be observable now, food scarcity caused by global warming may not necessarily be a "non-market" valuation. Furthermore, as climate change is shown to effect the world's economic classes disproportionately, the loss of subsistence agricultural production would need foreign imports to meet their demands, meaning prices of agricultural goods could increase even more for the economically endowed.


i feel like the executive summary from the third "Turn Down the Heat" piece did an excellent job of explaining and summarizing all the areas that we have talked about in our class that are severely effected by climate change primarily in terms of fisheries, forests, and biodiversity. The article also did an excellent job of explaining the cascading effects that climate change has as temperatures increase from pre-industrial levels to our current level of 0.8 degrees above, how 2 degrees above is a reasonable target to stabilize around, and how approaching 4 degrees above could prove to be catastrophic. In tandem with the summary of issues and why the rising global temperature matters I think the article did an amazing job of explaining the finite impacts of climate change by breaking the world down into geographic regions and explaining the individual issues that would arise in the specific areas. By doing that the issues felt a lot more realistic and i genuinely felt more invested in the outcome.

Amanda Meador

I think the piece sums up this semester well. Climate change is a global crisis that will have varied effects on different people and parts of the planet. There must be a call for us to mutually agree to mutually coerce ourselves in to avoiding the unnecessary and costly mitigation outlays and act to reduce the anthropogenic effect on our climate. This article puts figures and ranges to the total and real costs that we are causing at the present. Currently, we are not operating in an efficient market which will only intensify if a protocol is not enacted.

I have taken Global Climate Change with Lisa Greer, so the effects and figures of climate change are not news. However, seeing the societal impacts on the marginalized always drive the severity of this issue home. An earlier post commented how the human aspect of climate change is often illustrated at the forefront. Scientific findings and reports produced by the IPCC do an efficient job of underscoring the changes in sea level or the degree in temperature increase, but the realistic future implications to human lives do not always come across. This is where the World Bank's point of view becomes imperative to the narrative. Telling a person that the earth with be four degrees warmer on average is not as effective as, saying you will most likely have to move away from your home due to drought, flooding, or storms, and crop productions could reduce up to 50% so finding food will be hard. To me tangible consequences are much more effective than abstract figures and charts.

We have gone over the strengths and flaws of the Malthusian theory and the Modern Malthusian theory at the directive of Keynes. I like to put those theories in the perspective of human reaction to discomfort and change rather than population growth. At the present, I do not have much faith in solving the issue of climate change until those with the power to change the climate have felt the negative effects of their actions. At that point, let’s see how far innovation can take us.

Cole Wilbur

I found the executive summary of "Turn Down the Heat" to be very effective in delivering its message. It shows the broad overview of potential effects of climate change, but by a more effective means than the typical climate change article. This piece of literature points out specific examples of negative effects that have the potential of happening to specific peoples. By pointing out unique countries and their individual problems form climate change, the reader has a more concerned feeling for these groups and thus for climate change as a whole. For example, Latin American countries will suffer from a rising temperature by “drier areas getting drier and wetter areas getting wetter”. This article makes it abundantly clear how much can go wrong by us choosing to do nothing. It systematically points out every area that could harm society until it is drilled into our heads. My question is what more do people need to read before something is done? An above blog mentioned the idea that people will have to start being negatively effected (maybe to the point of disease and death?) before any change is enacted. I think this may be the sad truth. People seem to want to refrain from action until the negative effects are tangible, present, and problematic. My concern is…at that point will it be too late?

Paul Callahan

This article presents the problem of global warming very boldly. It is effective in making the reader very concerned and even scared if change does not happen. Rising temperatures pose one of the greatest problems for our generations and future survival. As the article says, if the trend continues in the direction it is right now, crops yields will decline, rain will increase in wet areas, and dry areas will become even more dry. What I found very interesting was the analysis on how the rising temperatures are hurting and putting an even greater burden on the poor and third world populace. It seems as if we have all the proof and science showing that change needs to happen, but it still isn't. What has to happen to make people believe climate change is a reality? Even if the rising temperatures do not effect our generation heavily today, down the road our children, and our children's children will potentially be living in a much more dangerous and hard world. Do we want to put that burden on them?

Parker Kellam

I don't think this piece offered any new ideas, however it built upon so many already talked about in the context of climate change and its impacts felt in different parts of the world and by different people. With such a broad overview, bringing so much information together in one place, it is no wonder to me that there is so much uncertainty about the extent of the facts. Yes, climate change is certainly a real thing and accepted by so many; but what really got me thinking was how many different events that could happen that could then lead to multiple more. Depending on X first and large events to happen, a certain chain of events will take place next. This chain could differ if it was Y first and large events that set them off. I almost got the feeling that there was always going to be uncertainty until we knew what events unfolded and at that point hindsight is 20/20. The thing is though, if we don't act in some capacity now to mitigate warming things will continue to get worse and the results we will see will be so much more drastic.

Liam Curtin

After reading the forward alone, something very alarming dawned on me that seemed very trivial in past readings. In our everyday lives, we change the temperature of the rooms we inhabit all the time, usually by a couple of degrees, and pay no mind to it. When the paper stated that the global temp could rise by 4 degrees celsius, I'm sure many uniformed people would brush it off as nothing since it amounts to only about a 7 degree change in fahrenheit, something we experience in our daily weather that is really not that big of a deal. However, to put it in context of a global climate, this seemingly small change has extreme changes to our entire planet.
The section in the executive summary about how vulnerable certain social classes would be affected really put it in perspective for me. People in our position who don't rely on the land won't be affected directly(though we will definitely feel the repercussion). However, those who do work the land and live in coastal areas will be devastated. An inch less of rain could affect a farmers crop output that could put them in peril. I believe this paper does an excellent job of pointing out the gravity of the situation that could come about because of a significant increase in global temperature.

Michael Robinson

The problem associated with combating climate change in lower income countries and combating poverty is that it seems like a Catch-22. This is especially true for countries like India where population densities are soaring and poverty is rampant. Yet, India is one of the countries that emits the most GHG. Industrial and economic development, the sort of which the US went through in the late 19th and early 20th century, is one of the main drivers that reduced poverty. At the same time, industrial development is responsible for massive amounts of GHG emissions. So what can India do? Invest in industrial development so that their citizens can have electricity and other basic necessities, or forego those developments to combat climate change, a move that the rest of the world (especially a Trump-led US) would free ride off of? The depressing implication is that countries like India will lose either way. They are likely to be hit hardest by the effects of climate change given the vulnerability of their impoverished citizenry. Developing their country and emitting more GHGs will only serve to worsen those effects. Yet, it could raise millions out of impoverishment. And how can we, as a country that’s owes its wealth and success to industrialization, now tell India “Sorry, you are too late to the game”.

Elise George

I agree with Parker,this article elaborates on all of the topics we have discussed in class, and there is also the uncertainty in the overlapping causes of the detrimental results. Seeing the concrete examples at just an increase of 2 degrees Celsius has amplified my visualization of the catastrophes that may result. The fact that in less than 30 years, there could be a 60 to 80 percent increase in coral reef bleaching in the Caribbean, or high yield declines for wheat and maize is terrifying. The paper also emphasizes the extreme stress that the poor would endure. I'm starting to realize that the biggest issue with climate change is lack of education. I know there are some people who claim they don't care, but I think when the world is projected to have so many, massive, natural disasters that will hurt everyone, its hard to not care.

James Willey

Melting permafrost in regions such as Russia is especially alarming for climate science reasons, global welfare reasons, and economic reasons. Such rapid release of massive amounts of methane would be climate in terms of increased greenhouse gasses and the diminished ability of these regions to sequester carbon. Methane is especially troubling because it is very dense and a very good insulator, meaning a large scale release would have non-trivial and short term impacts on global temperature. The global risk to welfare of this are clearly laid out by the world bank. Adding permafrost methane to the atmosphere would accelerate the impacts of the four, and perhaps even eight, degree increases in global temperature. I am especially concerned for development in poorer regions because any resources currently available to growth and modernization will have to be diverted to necessary adaptations to climate stressors simply to avoid slipping into deeper poverty. I also fear that losing permafrost will be very difficult to deal with economically. In the short, there may be greater use of norther lands (assuming any number of negatives such as pest inundation don’t occur), and as such there will be no economic reason preventing behavior that accelerates permafrost melting without a string of non-market valuations. First, many of the costs are well removed from the melting, for example sea level rise in the Caribbean, and secondly many of the costs are in the future. Additionally, it is a very difficult externality to internalize because it is a global problem and you can’t make a forest pay higher taxes, so the “blame” has to first be assigned somewhere.

Sam Ross

Having studied the climate change phenomenon in detail for the past three or four years, I am quite familiar with the processes and impacts covered in the paper. Specifically, my geology and environmental professors have always alluded to how future effects of a warming climate will be unevenly distributed; that is, how the poor and underprivileged will tend to be the first to endure the negative externalities associated with climate change. This is fairly indisputable, for it is far more difficult for lower-income individuals to move away or safeguard themselves from adverse climate conditions with insufficient wealth. The authors mention how within the two possible future models—2 degree and 4 degree warming—the latter will undoubtedly prove disastrous for these low-income individuals. In fact, the authors state that promoting their prosperity and alleviating them from poverty will prove to be impossible in a 4 degree warming scenario. Although I certainly recognize the inherent threats of climate change, this statement somewhat vexed me. I wish they had included descriptions of their models or methodologies in their executive summary so as to corroborate this assertion. Their report is certainly professional and comprehensive, but I try to maintain a healthy sense of skepticism in the face of potentially baseless facts/arguments (especially with today’s political climate)

Jones Veith

The topics covered in the foreword and executive summary were not at all surprising. In general, the concerns the report identified were not unlike those we discussed after reading chapters of the Kahn textbook. In particular, the report consistently mentioned deforestation or forest die back as potential problems resulting from our changing climate. Particularly, the report mentioned Russia's boreal forests. I had never heard of the boreal forests, nor had I ever considered that Russia might have any kind of forest (or anything besides snow and things from the Soviet Era). So, I definitely did not expect for a forest in Russia to make up 20% of the world's forest cover. I think that is what the article meant by this quote, "The boreal ecosystems of the Russian Federation that account for about 20 percent of the world ́s forest cover large permafrost regions (carbon and methane-rich frozen soil layers) are likely to be quite sensitive to projected warming and heat extremes," but I am not exactly sure. Regardless, with the Russians (all of a sudden) having a crucial role in the world's climate change, what will the Russians do? While many of my posts have questioned Donald Trump and his climate policy, I'd like this one to be about Trump's pal Putin. Under the Paris agreement, Russia pledged to reduce its emissions. Despite being the fifth largest emitter in the world, Russia's pledge was the weakest of any government. Before reading this report, I did not associate Russia with any connotations about climate change. I do know that Russia and Putin have done things like annex Crimea and attempt to interfere with an American election. For this reason, I not only do not trust Russia, but I also do not trust them to act on the climate. With Trump's plan for the EPA and what seems like his plans for friendship with Putin, I think the report's 4degree scenario may be a lot more likely.

The comments to this entry are closed.