News24

100m will die by 2030 - climate report

2012-09-26 10:09

London - More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday.

As global average temperatures rise due to greenhouse gas emissions, the effects on the planet, such as melting ice caps, extreme weather, drought and rising sea levels, will threaten populations and livelihoods, said the report conducted by humanitarian organisation Dara.

It calculated that five million deaths occur each year from air pollution, hunger and disease as a result of climate change and carbon-intensive economies, and that toll would likely rise to six million a year by 2030 if current patterns of fossil fuel use continue.

More than 90% of those deaths will occur in developing countries, said the report that calculated the human and economic impact of climate change on 184 countries in 2010 and 2030. It was commissioned by the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a partnership of 20 developing countries threatened by climate change.

"A combined climate-carbon crisis is estimated to claim 100 million lives between now and the end of the next decade," the report said.

It said the effects of climate change had lowered global output by 1.6% of world GDP, or by about $1.2 trillion a year, and losses could double to 3.2% of global GDP by 2030 if global temperatures are allowed to rise, surpassing 10% before 2100.

Reduction in global consumption

It estimated the cost of moving the world to a low-carbon economy at about 0.5% of GDP this decade.

British economist Nicholas Stern said earlier this year investment equivalent to 2% of global GDP was needed to limit, prevent and adapt to climate change. His report on the economics of climate change in 2006 said an average global temperature rise of 2-3° in the next 50 years could reduce global consumption per head by up to 20%.

Temperatures have already risen by about 0.8% above pre-industrial times. Almost 200 nations agreed in 2010 to limit the global average temperature rise to below 2° to avoid dangerous impacts from climate change.

But climate scientists have warned that the chance of limiting the rise to below 2° is getting smaller as global greenhouse gas emissions rise due to burning fossil fuels.

The world's poorest nations are the most vulnerable as they face increased risk of drought, water shortages, crop failure, poverty and disease. On average, they could see an 11% loss in GDP by 2030 due to climate change, Dara said.

"One degree Celsius rise in temperature is associated with 10% productivity loss in farming. For us, it means losing about 4 million metric tons of food grain, amounting to about $2.5bn. That is about 2% of our GDP," Bangladesh's Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said in response to the report.

"Adding up the damages to property and other losses, we are faced with a total loss of about 3-4% of GDP."

Even the biggest and most rapidly developing economies will not escape unscathed. The United States and China could see a 2.1% reduction in their respective GDPs by 2030, while India could experience a more than 5% loss.


Comments
  • sagin.verity - 2012-09-26 10:46

    the earth will regain its equilibrium. we will be culled, because we have no respect for our planet. for modern man its profit above all else. Human beings will pass away, but the earth will abide.

      Tony Lapson - 2012-09-26 10:52

      Very true, the earth will be here, but man will create his own demise.

      ianon.ym - 2012-09-26 12:59

      Agreed - it has been around slightly longer than we have and managed quite well on it's own.

  • michael.atkins.7547 - 2012-09-26 10:59

    This contains so many factual and logical errors, it is hard to know where to start. Firstly, the figure of 5 million deaths due to climate change annually is nonsense. "Air pollution" is not a consequence of increased CO2 or of climate change. The report effectively claims that a substantial percentage of hunger deaths result from climate change! How? Even Al Gore's "Scary Movie" did not allege large-scale deaths due to climate change. But, diverting food crop production to (expensive) biofuels causes food shortages and price increases. And how do deaths due to disease stem from climate change? The logic is exposed if one asks simply how many of these deaths used to occur, and in what conditions, and then what has changed, and how dors this change lead to the increase in deaths? Also, the claimed loss of economic "growth" is sucked out of the air,and grossly exagurated. And the cost of "dealing" with climate change is vastly understated. "Green" energy is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than fossil fuels. There is also the unproven ASSUMPTION that reducing CO2 output will somehow affect the climate, and by enough to save "millions" of lives. This is propaganda, through and through. Poorly conceived, and dreadfully presented.

      Goodstuff - 2012-09-26 11:10

      ""Green" energy is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than fossil fuels." - Huh? So a free energy source like the wind or sun is more expensive than coal which needs to be mined, processed and burned for energy? Please explain? Last I checked wind mills was a once off installation with regular maintenance same as solar panels. Please explain?

      raymond.buis.3 - 2012-09-26 11:41

      @goodstuff . Wind energy is not free you idiot . Do you know how much it costs to setup and maintain a wind farm. Beyond that it is not constant .ie wind does not blow all the time. Also where do they store all that energy, batteries ,which need to be replaced at least once every three years. I am so tired of you green Nazi's preaching your uninformed rhetoric.

      robert.cerff - 2012-09-26 11:55

      @Goodstuff: Please explain quite clearly what is green and genuinely renewable.

      Tony Lapson - 2012-09-26 12:34

      Money is a system. To put a price on earth and it's resources may work now, but not when we are scratching for solutions in the future. To even consider "expense" in green solutions is old fashioned. This world is in for big changes, socio-economically and environmentally.

      derekneilmaclachlan - 2012-09-26 12:39

      @ Raymond....You clearly do not know what you are talking about...Maybe you should try a little more research.....btw...modern solar batteries have a lifespan of between 10 and 15 years.

      clifford.sithole.5 - 2012-09-26 13:26

      Its mainly due to the solar exuinoxes that occur due to the magnetic field that shields the earth from radio active materials.When the exuinoxes move slightly the earth's gravatational poles are shifted when solar rays interfere with the magnetic field. Thus causing the earth to be pulled closer to the sun like a BIG magnet.

      raymond.buis.3 - 2012-09-26 18:14

      Nope I installed about 1000 solar batteries in bloemfontien. The life span is three years before they start decaying. So I think you need to do some research. For solar powered street lights.

      cayowin.vanderbadt.1 - 2012-09-27 07:49

      @Clifford: What are you smoking dude, send me some. It looks like it is a good buzz. "Solar exuinoxes" When the exuinoxes move" "the earth's gravatational poles are shifted" "solar rays interfere with the magnetic field." "Thus causing the earth to be pulled closer to the sun like a BIG magnet." Wow, just wow.

  • J.Stephen.Whiteley - 2012-09-26 11:03

    Holocaust perhaps - but not from warming. From our failure to provide energy perhaps.

  • Sean de Beer - 2012-09-26 11:15

    Hurry up and re-legalize HEMP . They keep saying that we need to go green, but turn a blind eye to the Earth's most useful green resource.

      raymond.buis.3 - 2012-09-26 11:45

      I agree with you totally . Hemp is the wonder plant. Bio diesel, fabrics, paper and medicines . Also it has a negative carbon foot print. It uses more C02 during its growing than is produced during its refinement . But alas big oil and big pharmaceutical will never allow that.

      Tony Lapson - 2012-09-26 12:36

      Agreed. Massive hemp harvests can change the world.

      derekneilmaclachlan - 2012-09-26 12:41

      Hemp is a wonder plant. The reason they dont want to legalize it yet is because they still need to suck as much money out of oil and coal sales first!!!

  • lawson.lutchman - 2012-09-26 11:43

    We are the dinosaurs, were on our way home

  • jody.beggs - 2012-09-26 11:43

    Only 100m , we are so over populated as it is .... Damn the man.

  • Tawizee - 2012-09-26 11:51

    100m from 7 billion (Current population) still leaves about 7 billion people alive.

  • lawson.lutchman - 2012-09-26 12:00

    Use GMO's are fuel source.

  • charmaine.hoffmann.1 - 2012-09-26 12:10

    People in Africa need to stop breeding like it's the only thing they were made for....other countries as well. Planning and education is the most important factor if we want to survive...otherwise, let nature run it's course and cul the population on it's own terms....

      derekneilmaclachlan - 2012-09-26 12:42

      Not only Africa....Asia...India as well.

      mlungisi.fynn - 2012-09-26 17:43

      I don't think overpopulation is an African problem.Any poverty stricken region has the same issue.

  • derekneilmaclachlan - 2012-09-26 12:37

    100 million is a drop in the ocean!!!!By 2030 the world population will be so overcrowded a few billion dying wont even make a difference!!!

  • david.t.gent - 2012-09-26 12:55

    there is a saying that you will reap what you sow, right then time to start reaping!! we dont deserve this amazing place in the universe, 100 000 years time, the earth will have forgotten us, and only once we have destroyed everthing that has been given to us will we realise that we cannot eat money. WELL DONE HUMANITY

  • noquecx.nokabee - 2012-09-26 13:08

    Global population control. This is all lies. If you read between the lines. I sense somewhat biological warfare. This is a conspiracy

  • ludlowdj - 2012-09-26 13:11

    Down side of green energy is cost, at anything up to R20 000 per single low light solar panel, it is prohibitively expensive to set up and the returns may take years to be realized, Solar batteries although advancing in leaps and bounds still give an honest usage assessment of between 1 and 20 years depending on charge rates, usage, temperature etc.

  • petrus.ngwenya.3 - 2012-09-26 14:12

    It cannot be stopped. Even if the human contribution is removed completely, climate change will happen. I will try to ensure that my childred are educated enough to be able to emigrate to where the new paradise is (Yes, there will still be greenstuff, just not where it is now), and try not to be part of the "100 million". The blame for the average person's apathy should be with all the scientists and politicians who cried wolf. Fact is, I still live 657km's from the beach. Same as 15 years ago.

  • gary.landman - 2012-09-26 15:20

    Seems odd that during the Roman occupation, England was a wine growing and producing area. Got cooler, and now it possibly could be getting warmer. Natural cycle? And for all the informed idiots out there, My electric car can still only tavel 50 miles and takes 8 hours to recharge, and where does the electricity come from? It also is 50% more expensive than a petrol vehicle and plain sucks. @pieterpan, climate change scientests do not make any real money, they just get to keep their jobs by spewing out all the crap. Its the carbon taxes that drives this lucrative lie. Look at the tax on your next new car..who gets that?

  • mike.dufham.7 - 2012-09-26 15:49

    How can we ensure that the majority of deaths occur in Africa?

      mlungisi.fynn - 2012-09-26 17:45

      That is more stupid then racist.

  • morgaenart.farto - 2012-09-26 17:22

    ...Not the better 100 million...

  • Anthony - 2012-09-27 02:51

    @PieterPan - Yes, what government in its right mind? Gillard's government in Aus has implemented a massive 'climate' tax and next election she'll be gone. Even the US has not directly implemented climate tax but instead have had to use stealth through its EPA to introduce changes without their public finding out. Maybe Toyota knows something about the viability of electric cars…….they have just decided to abandon theirs. And I guess the abandoning of wind farms that we are beginning to see has nothing to do with their absolute useless ability to provide adequate, reliable and cost-effective power generation. Who says that challenging climate science lies means abandoning anti-pollution efforts? However efficient coal-fired power stations will be the mainstay of power generation throughout the world for decades to come.

  • pages:
  • 1