Guest post by Indur Goklany
The Economist’s print edition has published my letter taking it to task for a pretty uninformed piece it published on the impacts of climate change last month. Although the editors changed the title, dropped the references which I furnish reflexively, and is somewhat briefer, the printed version is for the most part quite faithful to the spirit of the original. I am furnishing the original below for the benefit of your readers who may be interested in checking my statements and going beyond the “he said, she said” nature of most exchanges on the opinion pages of newspapers and magazines.
********************************************
A badly developed climate backgrounder
SIR — The Economist’s article, A bad climate for development (September 17), which also serves as a backgrounder for an online debate on climate change, is not only selective in the information it presents, it is riddled with speculation and unsubstantiated claims.
For example, its chart 3 presents portions of two of three panels in figure 2.1 of the World Development Report 2010. But the panel that it chooses not to display shows that deaths from all climate related disasters have actually declined at least since 1981–85 despite (a) an enormous increase in the population at risk, namely, the world’s population, and (b) the fact that older data has a greater tendency to underestimate the number and casualties of extreme weather events. The original source of the data (Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, CRED) states that the increase in the data until 1995 “is explained partly by better reporting of disasters in general, partly due to active data collection efforts by CRED and partly due to real increases in certain types of disasters.”[1] They also state that they are unable to say whether the latter increases are due to climate change.
Secondly, the backgrounder cites estimates sponsored by the World Health Organisation and published in Comparative Quantification of Health Risks that attributed 150,000 deaths and a loss of 5.5m disability-adjusted life years — a measure of the global burden of disease — to climate change in the year 2000. But these studies also show that at least twenty other risk factors contributed more to death and disease.[2] That is, there are many more important health problems facing the world than climate change.
Thirdly, the article goes on to claim that the indirect harm to public health from the impact of climate change on water supplies, crop yields and disease is “hugely greater.” But what’s the evidence for this?
In fact, access to safe water, improved sanitation, crop yields, and life expectancy has never been higher in the history of mankind.[3] This is true for both the developing and developed worlds. Much of this has been enabled, directly or indirectly, by economic surpluses generated by the use of fossil fuels and other greenhouse gas generating activities such as fertilizer usage, pumping water for irrigation, and use of farm machinery. And crop yields, in particular, are also higher today than ever partly because of higher concentrations of CO2, without which yields would be zero.
Fourthly, the backgrounder claims that global warming is causing both droughts and floods. Regardless of whether this is the case, deaths from droughts have declined by 99.9% since the 1920s, and 99% from floods since the 1930s.[4] In fact, since the 1920s, average annual deaths from all extreme weather events have dropped by 95 percent while annual death rates, which factor in population growth, have been reduced by 99 percent.
One item, however, where I agree with the backgrounder is that projections of the future impacts of climate change are “no more than educated guesses” although, as Alexander Pope might have said, a little education is a dangerous thing.
Indur M. Goklany
Notes
[1] Revkin AC. 2009. Gore Pulls Slide of Disaster Trends. Dot Earth Blog. February 23, 2009. Available at http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/gore-pulls-slide-of-disaster-trends/. Visited September 10, 2009.
[2] Goklany IM. Climate change is not the biggest health threat. Lancet 2009; 374: 973-74.
[3] Goklany IM. The Improving State of the World: Why We’re Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2007).
[4] Goklany IM. Death and Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events: Global and U.S. Trends, 1900-2006, in The Civil Society Report on Climate Change, November 2007, available at http://goklany.org/library/deaths%20death%20rates%20from%20extreme%20events%202007.pdf.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jack Simmons (10:21:18) : “This Sunday I have a sure thing on the Broncos. They will either win or lose (maybe tie).”
Unless of course the game is called off because of the ice age. 🙂
These arguments use data from the recent past to criticize projections into the future. There is an underlying assumption of relevancy: that the climate won’t change.
I presume that everyone agrees with me, this time.
Francis (14:50:49) :
“These arguments use data from the recent past to criticize projections into the future. There is an underlying assumption of relevancy: that the climate won’t change.
“I presume that everyone agrees with me, this time.”
*******************************
1. The Economist claims recent events show matters are getting worse and offers examples. Hence, I deal with those.
2. Regarding the future, read the last para.
From the Economist: “Poor countries’ economic development will contribute to climate change…”
This is an article about future development. There isn’t any mention of recent or present development–such as successes or failures.
“By 2030 climate change may expose 90m more people to malaria…”
“Diarrhoea is forecast to rise 5% by 2020 in poor countries because of climate change.”
“…60% of the world’s population will be exposed to (dengue fever) by 2070.”
“Ten of the developing world’s 15 largest cities are in low-lying coastal areas vulnerable to rising sea levels or coastal surges.”
When currently melting mountain glaciers are gone, the water storage they had provided will be lost.
“…world farm production could fall by 16% by the 2080’s, and possibly by as much as 21% in developing countries. Although the timescale makes such figures no more than educated guesses, there is not much doubt that climate change is undermining the gains from intensive farming in developing countries–at the very time when population growth and greater wealth mean the world will need to double food production over the next three or four decades. By 2050 the world will have to feed 2 billion to 3 billion more people and cope with the changing (water-hungry) diets of a richer population…”
That melting glaciers argument is just plain crazy! If the glaciers were GROWING, there wouldn’t be any runoff from glacier melt either. Most of that runoff comes from melting SNOW. If the glaciers are in equilibrium, that melting snow is all the runoff we get. If the glaciers are growing, we get slightly less runoff, if the glaciers are shrinking, we get slightly more.
I’ve been a subscriber for more than a decade. Until a few years ago I would spend a couple of hours each weekend reading the latest issue. Nowadays, however, more and more often they lie unopened in their plastic wrap for weeks.
Interesting to see that I’m not alone in having the impression that the once shining beacon is slowly fading into the fog.
H.R. (06:01:03):
“Yeah, when Newsweek became Newsweak, I quit subscribing.”
Now the Economist is becoming the Economissed. 🙁
Francis (19:52:43) :
You claim that the Economist article is “about future development. There isn’t any mention of recent or present development–such as successes or failures.” But here is the byline (click on the image of the Economist article above):
Poor countries’ economic development will contribute to climate change. But they are already its greatest victims
Note the present tense in the second sentence.
And the byline is an accurate portrayal of the article. First, it talks about a number of ongoing problems implying or explicitly trying to connect them to global warming, and then it tells us about all the things that could or will go wrong. Consider the following extracts:
Francis (19:52:43) :
BTW, I am touched by your faith in the projections alluded to in the Economist. Is it because these projections (not predictions) are:
• Based on models — plural, because it’s not one model that is used to develop these projections but several concatenated models “with the uncertain output of each model serving as the input for the next model” — that have been carefully and successfully validated and verified against real world observations at the scale they are being employed? Just with respect to climate change models, the IPCC 2007 report notes : “Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller [than continental] scales” (WG I, SPM, p. 10) But impacts analyses (except possibly for sea level rise but even that is debatable ) must necessarily be done not at continental scales, not even at national scales, but at more like county level (or smaller) scales. And no matter how good our ability to simulate temperature, the ability to simulate precipitation — which is probably more critical to vegetation and most life as we know it — is worse.
• Spot on in their future projections of the drivers of emissions such as growth in population, economic development, and technological change?
• Based on plausible estimates of changes in adaptive capacity that should occur consistent with the economic development used to generate future emissions trajectories (see here)?
• Based on plausible estimates of changes in adaptive capacity that should occur if the rate of technological change approaches historical rates seen over the past century (see here)?
Pardon me if I’m a little skeptical.
It appears that these tiny human ants think that all the good things come from happy god Gaia and all the bad ,fire, floods, drouth, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are caused by evil actions of people. We must placate Gaia by sacrificing virgins and ending all uncontrolled human activity. Only the “priest class” knows the right path.
Actually they will be overthrown at the end of the age. In their overreaching zeal the real people will wake up ( happening now ) and kick them out, discredited. 2012 rapidly approches. And then the beginning of the next age. An age of reason and not of religious believes.
” May we live in interesting times”
Indur, some good points. The figures on numbers of deaths from disasters tells a different story and yes the figures pre-dating 1995 are not so reliable. However, to totally dismiss the argument without weighing up the claims to support the alternatvie argument is hypocritical.
Just to pick up one point you made:
‘They also state that they are unable to say whether the latter increases are due to climate change’
So to take your statement one step further and to strengthen your analysis; it might be worthwile putting forth an alternative argument rather than just pointing out problems in data (as commonly recognised in disaster community with climate change/disaster statistics).
Firstly, while you do highlight important points, the theory behind climatic disasters needs to be incorporated into any analysis. A disaster is not a natural event created by the environment, it requires a human part. The interaction between a hazard (the event created by the environment) and vulnerability (poor people/ poorly constructed buidlings/ lack of resources to protect people form disasters) is what actually creates the disaster. As vulenrability increases so to does the susceptability of people to disasters. In short, climate change excarbates these inequalities and will change the intensity and impact of climatic disasters.
In the last quarter-century, 98 percent of the people injured or affected by natural disasters were living in 112 countries classified as low income or low-middle income (World Watch Institute, State of the World Report 2007).
Lucky for us, the development community has moved a long way forward and recognises that climate change is changing the nature of the disasters and numbers of people affected. This, in turn, impacts other sectors including education, health, infrastrucutre, governance and can cripple an economy.
Secondly, what about figures for the number of slow onset non-mega disasters like droughts to which you refer. I think you’ll find that the number of slow onset disasters is increasding- which means less people die but more people cant earn a living or continue their daily lives. These disasters typically dont grab the headlines in the media and are very difficult to report and measure. The data available (just look at CRED) suggests that these are increasing.
Similarly, the numbers of weather related disasters are increasing. During the period 1987 to 2006, the number of reported weather-related disasters increased significantly from an average of 195 per year between 1987 and 1998 to 365 per year between 2000 and 2006 (Hoyois, P, Scheuren, JM, Below, R, Guha-Sapir, D 2007, Annual disaster statistical review: numbers and trends 2006. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters).
Rather than dismiss arguments due to some inaccuracies, it is important to understand the basic theory behind disasters and underlying reasons for the severity of these climatic events. This would strengthen your case.
Also, the science behind climatic disasters is increaisngly becoming more accurate. Slow onset disasters which impact more people as a result of weather related disasters are increasing. Take heed to the words in the article, even if they overlook some inaccuracies in data.
Increased vulnerability (06:02:44) :
I agree with you regarding the fact that there is a large human element that can convert an extreme event into a disaster. Hurricane Katrina is perhaps the poster child for this. I also agree that as vulnerability increases so does the susceptibility of people to disasters. However, I do take issue with a couple of your comments. But before getting into the particulars, let me put this post into context.
Specifically, the post notes that the Economist printed my letter responding to its article, provides links to both the article and the printed letter, and it then provides the original version of my letter. Unfortunately, a letter to the editor necessarily has to be brief, if one hopes to get it printed. This means nuance and well developed arguments and counterarguments have to be eschewed. I wish it were otherwise but these are the (unwritten) rules of getting a letter published in any newspaper.
Let’s now get to the specifics of where we disagree.
Firstly, you take me to task regarding the statement in my original letter, “They also state that they are unable to say whether the latter increases are due to climate change”, for not “putting forth an alternative argument rather than just pointing out problems in data.” You’ll note that “my” statement is really a quote taken from reference 1 (in the original letter) which was based on Andy Revkin’s report of what CRED had told him. At least in Revkin’s account, CRED did not offer any alternative hypothesis. He specifically quotes CRED as saying: “We estimate that the data in the most recent decade present the least bias and reflect a real change in numbers. This is especially true for floods and cyclones. Whether this is due to climate change or not, we are unable to say.” Revkin’s account is available at http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/gore-pulls-slide-of-disaster-trends/.
Secondly, you claim that “In short, climate change excarbates (sic) these inequalities and will change the intensity and impact of climatic disasters.” But I don’t see on what basis you have made this claim. You may be right, but it hasn’t been proven that climate change exacerbates inequalities or that intensity and impact of climate disasters will increase. If anything, the empirical information that exists indicates that fewer people die from such disasters. See reference 4 above.
Thirdly, you claim that the number of “non-mega disasters” are increasing according to CRED data. But I point you to the full quote from CRED, according to Revkin:
Based on the above, I am not convinced that non-mega disasters are indeed increasing. In fact, I just finished a paper that, among other things, looked at this matter. In it I note that the average number of weather event records in the CRED database increased from 2.5 per year in 1900-09 to 8.5 per year in 1940-49, after which the records escalated rapidly, reaching 354 per year in 2000-08! [Talk of hockey-sticks!] Note that the escalation began before any significant global warming. Moreover, the criteria that CRED uses to include events in its disaster database are likely to have been triggered more frequently as the 20th century advanced.
For a disaster to be entered into the CRED database, at least one of the following criteria must be met:
• Ten (10) or more people should be reported killed.
• Hundred (100) people should be affected.
• There should be a declaration of a state of emergency.
• There should be a call for international assistance.
But these criteria are likely to have been tripped with increasing frequency with the march of time, because of (a) the advance of telecommunications, (b) broader news coverage, (c) the globalization of international aid, and (d) an increased tendency by authorities to declare natural disaster emergencies for a variety of reasons. First, as nations become wealthier — and almost all have during the course of the twentieth century — political leaders have more resources to afford emergency declarations. Second, the number of democracies has also increased during this period, and in democracies it behooves political leaders to declare emergencies early and often. The latter tendency is probably reinforced by the attraction of a “photo-op,” so frequently craved by politicians, intrinsic to a helicopter trip to the scene of a disaster. Moreover, one should also expect that since global population has sextupled since 1900, the number of recorded events should increase at least proportionately — “at least”, because not only are there six times as many people potentially exposed but also because there are six times as many observers. Thus, the number of events — and associated mortality — is likely to have been systematically under-reported in the early decades of the 20th century in the CRED database; the further back we go, the greater the under-reporting.
OOPS! The bold stuff in the previous comment should have been a blockquote. So much for my HTML skills.
Reply: Fixed. ~ ctm
Thanks, ctm
But leaving trails in realspace isn’t entirely new. ,