Friday, July 18, 2014

Calculating the costs of climate change

Attempts to put a price on environmental disasters have always been pretty cynical—after all, how can one put a price on the priceless?

The closest human efforts come to economically modeling the natural order come during the practices of mass production.  For example, if an automobile has 12,064 parts, all 12,064 must be on hand or the assembly line cannot move.  Under those circumstances, a washer costing a fraction of a cent is as valuable as a driver's seat worth hundreds of dollars.  It doesn't matter one whit how cheap the missing parts may be, if they are missing, production stops.

Unfortunately, when folks start to tote up the price of climate change, they tend to count up the costs of those missing washers and not the costs of a global environmental stumble.  But even at that pathetically inadequate level of "cost analysis" the numbers are beginning to add

The costs for doing nothing about our currently unsustainable practices are also beginning to mount up.  This is only to be expected too.  Every step in the wrong direction only makes the journey to a solution longer.  But change is hard—especially when the forces arrayed against change include our old friends ignorance, laziness, and a lack of imagination.

Weather Disasters Have Cost the Globe $2.4 Trillion

By Brian Kahn  July 16th, 2014

Weather- and climate-related disasters have caused $2.4 trillion in economic losses and nearly 2 million deaths globally since 1971 according to a new report. While the losses are staggering, the report also shows that we have learned from past disasters, lessons the world will need as development continues in hazardous areas and the climate continues to change.

The report, released by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), highlights just how costly extreme weather could be as well as how important disaster reporting is. It focused on six types of hazards: floods, droughts, extreme temperatures, storms, wildfires, and landslides from 1971-2010.

It’s easy to look at the graphics in the report and see trends in the number of reported disasters and their cost. Each has risen notably since the 1970s.

While it’s tempting to peg the rise to one cause, the story is a lot more complicated. The report itself didn’t analyze the causes, but Jochen Luther, an analyst with WMO’s disaster risk reduction program, said a number of factors have come into play.

“Everywhere (around the globe), there is a lot of development going on and population growth going on in hazard-prone areas, especially coastal areas that are very much affected by sea level rise and in addition to that, storm surges, tropical cyclones, extratropical storms,” Luther said.

Increasing globalization has also pushed some disasters to have outsize economic impacts. Thai floods in 2011 caused nearly $41 billion in economic losses in large part because they disrupted supply chains for computer and car part manufacturers.

Luther cautioned against reading too far into the trends or comparing regions because disaster reporting is far from uniform.

“Many countries do not systematically record disaster losses and damage, or if they do, there’s not a standardized way of doing it (across countries),” Luther said.

Major disasters have also skewed impacts somewhat. The 10 disasters that caused the greatest loss of life represent only 0.1 percent of all disasters reported, yet they accounted for 69 percent of all lives lost. Economic losses show a similar, though not quite as dramatic, influence. The 10 most costly disasters accounted for 19 percent of all losses.

The number of deaths by decade are also heavily influenced by a handful of major events. In the 1980s, the majority of deaths were due to drought in East Africa that, in part, caused a famine. The WMO reported that 550,000 deaths in 1983-84 were attributable to the drought, accounting for roughly 85 percent of all weather- and climate-related deaths around the globe in the 1980s. In the 2000s, heat waves that hit Europe in 2003 and Russia in 2010 accounted for the majority of deaths.

While there’s no denying the dramatic impact big events can have, there are also glimmers of hope that we aren’t doomed to repeat the same mistakes time and time again.

“In the wake of 2003, several of the big meteorology services, France and Germany, introduced new measures, heat health stress indexes,” Luther said.

That information will hopefully provide more clarity and warning for future heat waves and reduce the death toll.

Similarly, some countries in East Africa have invested in drought early warning systems and other innovations such as affordable weather insurance for farmers to avoid a repeat of the 1980s famine. Those systems have been tested by two major droughts in the 2000s and most areas avoided famine and loss of life with the exception of Somalia in 2011.

Luther said the WMO is trying to work with national meteorological services around the world to create “seamless” climate and weather forecasts. He pointed out that El Niño, currently brewing in the tropical Pacific, helps improve seasonal forecasts by tipping the odds in favor of certain types of weather in certain regions. Building on that information with weekly and even hourly weather forecasts can help meteorologists and disaster managers plan ahead for floods, hurricanes, droughts or whatever else may come their way.

Those efforts will matter even more in the future as climate change increases the likelihood of extreme events.

Climate change has already increased the likelihood of flooding in New York Harbor, and a number of studies have shown that unless actions to protect coastal areas are taken, trillions more in assets will be exposed to the hazards posed by rising seas and coastal floods.

Stronger tropical cyclones and more extreme heat and precipitation patterns will also create more climate change-related risks. When coupled with continued development in disaster-prone areas, that means ever-more communities and assets will be in harm’s way unless warning systems and protections keep pace. more

Europe faces deadly cost for climate inaction

By Tim Radford

A failure to act to reduce the impacts of climate change could cost Europe dear in lives lost and economic damage, according to a European Commission study.

LONDON, 13 July 2014 − Inaction over climate change costs lives. And in the case of European inaction, it is estimated that this could one day cost 200,000 lives a year.

That is the warning in a new European Commission (EC) study, which also says that failing to take the necessary action could burn 8,000 square kilometres of forest, and commit European taxpayers to at least €190 billion (US$259 bn) a year in economic losses.

Flood damage, too, could exceed €10bn a year by 2080, while the number of people affected by droughts could increase sevenfold, and coastal damage from sea level rise could treble.

The study weighs the bleak consequences of inaction. Scientists considered what would happen if the politicians and players on the continent worked with international partners to constrain global warming to a 2°C rise, or alternatively took no action and allowed global temperatures to soar to 3.5°C. They analysed the impact of climate change in agriculture, river floods, coasts, tourism, energy, droughts, forest fires, transport infrastructure and human health.

All involved in the research emphasised that their projections were conservative – that is, they were underestimates – and imagined a planet 60 years from now that was occupied by its present population, at its present state of economic growth. In a more populated, more developed world, the losses would be hugely greater.

Probable underestimates

The biggest and most obvious cost was to human health: premature death – from heat stress or other climate-related impacts – would account for €120 billion; coastal losses would claim €42 billion and agriculture €18bn. The worst-hit regions would be southern and south central Europe, which would bear 70% of the burden; northern Europe would experience the lowest.

If the world keeps temperature rise to the current international target of 2°C, there will still be huge costs, but the constraint would knock at least €60 billion off the overall bill. It would save lives too, reducing the notional premature death toll by 23,000, and would burn only about 4,000 square kilometres of forest.

Calculations such as these − which are aids to political and economic planners, and intended to spur forthcoming political action − are uncheckable, but they are also almost certainly underestimates. They take no account of losses of, for example, biodiversity, on which it is impossible to place a value, and they do not include the consequences of catastrophic tipping points, such as the melting of Arctic ice.

Connie Hedegaard, the EC’s Commissioner for Climate Action, said: “No action is clearly the most expensive solution of all. Why pay for the damages when we can invest in reducing our climate impacts and becoming a competitive low-carbon economy?

“Taking action and taking a decision on the 2030 climate and energy framework in October will bring us just there, and make Europe ready for the fight against climate change.” – more

No comments:

Post a Comment