Thursday, July 05, 2018
Global warming, mattering
The map above (from a connected story in the New York Times, all of which is worth reading) shows something shocking: The expected degradation of living standards in South Asia if global temperatures increase by 1.6 degrees centigrade (on the left) or 2.2 degrees centigrade (on the right) by 2050. Bright red areas indicate a "high" decrease in living standards, while the less-red areas indicate a "moderate" decrease. The less-severe scenario on the left represents what would happen if we do take steps now to address global warming.
The worst effects are expected to occur in the poorest areas.
Of course, India itself is a major global polluter, and contains 14 of the 15 most polluted cities in the world. In the world rankings, China is number one, producing about 30% of carbon dioxide emissions-- the US is number two with 15%, and India is number 3 three with 7%. So... they are bad, but not as bad as us.
The benefits of industrialization go largely to the wealthy and the new middle class that industrialization hopefully produces. The costs- as usual-- will be borne by the poor.
I think this matters; it is a tragedy that will play out in my lifetime. But I worry that even in functional democracies (like ours), those who will be most affected by climate change are not a significant force on environmental issues-- at least not enough to elect those who would make dramatic changes.
What do you think?
Comments:
<< Home
Although the U.S. produces 15% of greenhouse gases, putting us at #2 for the total, another really important number is per capita greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. is one of the top emitters per capita -- India really isn't close.
You're exactly right that some of the first people to feel the effects of climate change will be the poorest folks. It's already happening in areas like Bangladesh (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-unfolding-tragedy-of-climate-change-in-bangladesh/), which floods regularly. Areas like Kiribati and Yemen are in crisis mode (for different reasons). Smith and Tangier Islands in the Chesapeake Bay will be underwater in a couple of decades.
Even if people feel no sympathy for folks affected by climate change, they should be paying attention (and maybe checking their empathy meters). Mass migration is already a reality in areas like Kiribati and the U.N. is trying to come up with a definition for a "climate" or "environmental" refugee. The U.S. DOD has identified these migrations as an area of concern (see the 2014 DOD Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap).
To answer your question, "what do you think?" I think this is an issue that should be in the top three issues for our country's government (local, state, federal). I think there is time to avoid catastrophic change, but that time is quickly getting shorter.
Post a Comment
You're exactly right that some of the first people to feel the effects of climate change will be the poorest folks. It's already happening in areas like Bangladesh (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-unfolding-tragedy-of-climate-change-in-bangladesh/), which floods regularly. Areas like Kiribati and Yemen are in crisis mode (for different reasons). Smith and Tangier Islands in the Chesapeake Bay will be underwater in a couple of decades.
Even if people feel no sympathy for folks affected by climate change, they should be paying attention (and maybe checking their empathy meters). Mass migration is already a reality in areas like Kiribati and the U.N. is trying to come up with a definition for a "climate" or "environmental" refugee. The U.S. DOD has identified these migrations as an area of concern (see the 2014 DOD Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap).
To answer your question, "what do you think?" I think this is an issue that should be in the top three issues for our country's government (local, state, federal). I think there is time to avoid catastrophic change, but that time is quickly getting shorter.
<< Home
