If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

Climate Change, Pollution to Wipe 3.2% From Global GDP by 2030

Climate change is already stripping 1.6 percent annually from global GDP, amounting to $1.2 trillion, a figure that will double to 3.2 percent by 2030 as temperatures escalate and carbon-related pollution continues, according to a DARA report.

The Spain-based NGO’s report, “Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of a Hot Planet,”  estimates climate change causes 400,000 deaths on average each year, primarily due to hunger and communicable diseases.  Separately, fossil fuels and the activities that support such a carbon-intensive energy system cause an estimated 4.5 million deaths each year linked to air pollution, hazardous occupations and cancer.

Economic losses dwarf the modest cost of tackling climate change, DARA says. Achieving emissions reductions of just 0.5 percent of GDP for the next decade and providing support to vulnerable countries would cost a minimum of $150 billion a year for developing countries.

The report calculates and compares the vulnerability of 184 countries in four areas of impact—environmental disasters, habitat change, health impact and industry—using 34 climate and carbon-related indicators. The monitor uses five levels of vulnerability, from acute to low, to compare and contrast nations. The Climate Vulnerable Forum, a group of developing countries facing high degrees of insecurity due to climate change, commissioned the report.

The losses for lower-income countries are already extreme, and is estimated will cost 11 percent of GDP, on average, by 2030.

Major economies also have been, and will continue to be, heavily hit, the report said. In less than 20 years, China will incur the greatest share of all losses at more than $1.2 trillion. The US economy will be held back by more than 2 percent of GDP, India more than 5% of its GDP, the report said.

Economic losses in 2030 of China, India and the United States alone will collectively total $2.5 trillion and more than 3 million death per year, or half of all mortality, the report said.

Global emissions of carbon dioxide increased by three percent in 2011, reaching an all-time high of 34 billion metric tons, according to a report released in July by the European Commission Joint Research Centre and PBL, the Netherlands’ environmental assessment agency.

The 2011 increase in global CO2 emissions is above the past decade’s average annual increase of 2.7 percent, but below the five percent surge shown in 2010, according to Trends in Global CO2 Emissions.

Video: Expense & Data Management for Complex Payables
Sponsored By: Ecova, Inc.

  
Practical Guide to Transforming Energy Data into Better Buildings
Sponsored By: Lucid

  
The Corporate Sustainability Professional's Guide to Better Data Management
Sponsored By: Urjanet

  
Planning for a Sustainable Future
Sponsored By: Dakota Software

  

15 thoughts on “Climate Change, Pollution to Wipe 3.2% From Global GDP by 2030

  1. More fruitcake left wing scam garbage. It seems the effort to dumb down graduating students is bearing fruit. That is, the young can;t reason, and “following their hearts” believ all the bleeding liberal hearts, and their idiotic scare trash

  2. This comes from an Institute in Spain, which is going broke as I type this, because of all the leftists in their government, wanting everyone to receive all benefits without putting anything into the system. Sounds like Obama has his fingers in the pie.

  3. Right General Mills Sr…

    And cars don’t burn gas, they run on fairy farts. Name calling, hatred and anger don’t make you come off as being very knowledgeable about the problem. The problems and causes of global warming are simple basic physics. Researchers have know about the problem for decades now. They call it the greenhouse effect because that’s basically how it works, with CO2 replacing the glass in this anology. Do you know how greenhouses work? Initially they were unsure of the outcomes because to model it for the entire globe is complex. Would the environment respond with more clouds which would block the sun? Would ocean and plant life increase growth rapidly due to the increase in CO2 which they use for growth? These types of questions made predictions difficult in the beginning but after years of study they now know more about the problem and it is a dire one of all of us.

    Why in the world would researchers of the problem, and the far majority people in the world with scientific background want to create a scare? Ask any person who beleives there is a problem and they will tell you they wish it wasn’t true. Why would we want there to be droughts and other extreme weather? Or more rapid extinction of animal species than we already have?

    God told us we would have dominion over the earth, but also told us to take care of it because it couldn’t be replaced. Maybe we should listen eh?

    Mark.

  4. For those who have unbiased minds just one good look at Google Earth will convince of scope of the environmental changes caused by humans. Our planet is quite small. One can walk around it in couple of years, one can fly around it in one day… Most of the forests are already gone… Metropolitan areas occupy significant portion of the surface… The impact of human-caused devastation is likely to be much worse than any of the above reports mention. Liberal propaganda? Just zoom on your neighborhood, mister – it is all houses, highways and shopping malls, isn’t it?

  5. Mark,
    Thank you for responding in an adult manner. regardless of the total accuracy of these data, we have a big problem and it needs to be addressed by working together nation with nation and, yes, Republicans with Democrats in the US. The attitude of it being a propoganda problem of the left does not help anyone.

  6. Exaggerating isn’t a lie, yet. Here is proof climate change was exaggerated and REAL planet lovers are glad a crisis wasn’t real after all:
    -The scientists who say we may be at the brink of unstoppable warming have NEVER said any climate crisis “WILL” happen, only might happen and could happen and….. . Never, prove me wrong!
    HELP MY HOUSE IS ON FIRE MAYBE?
    -Not one single IPCC warning is clear and is always qualified with “maybes”. Prove me wrong.
    So isn’t that a good enough reason to thankfully call climate change crisis research “exaggerated” and not the threat to our kids after all? You would have to want this misery to be true based on 26 years of “maybe”.
    -nd wouldn’t the millions of people in the global scientific community be marching with the dozens of climate change protesters if their “crisis” was truly real? They have kids too.

  7. Since this has been realized, why is not greater efforts being put forward toward Increased Energy Efficiency.
    You are so right in your remark Mark, America and Europe are the leaders, and they have to continue to move forward. In America the Republicans and Democrats are going to have to agree there is this problem, and instead of fighting against each other for political ground reasons, discuss it with Europe. The 2 agreeing groups will then be able to move the energy efficiency measure forward.
    Increasing energy efficiency measures will also created jobs, and that is something the Republicans are pushing for.

  8. mememine69 doesn’t understand science or the scientific process – his comment makes that quite clear. Science never makes unqualified declarations of ‘truth’ or ‘certainty’. Instead, scientists speak in terms of probabilities. Initial hypotheses that get confirmed well enough and repeatedly enough, eventually graduate to the status of accepted scientific theory. As yet more data rolls in, the theory is either additionally confirmed, or minimally modified as the additional data indicates. But theories (some people incorrectly call them scientific ‘laws’) are always subject to future modifications if future data warrant.

    Furthermore, mememine69 is also incorrect in his statement “wouldn’t the millions of people in the global scientific community be marching with the dozens of climate change protesters …”. The truth of the matter is that about 98% of the relevant scientific community support the tenets of anthropogenic climate change. Here is a link to back up that statement: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.

  9. Judy’s remark that “The climate has been changing for millions of years and CO2 never ever had a thing to do with it then”; is incorrect. CO2 has always influenced the climate – both then and now. The only difference now; is that humans are frantically pumping megatons of extra CO2 back into the atmosphere via the burning of fossil fuels. All that coal, gas, and oil represent millions of years worth of carbon sequestration, and now it is being re-introduced into the atmosphere in mere hundreds of years. The only physically possible system reaction to that pace of reintroduction is a near-term change in equilibrium heat energy content, that in turn drives climate changes.

  10. So what is actually the problem in reducing our waste – even if you don’t believe global warming to be true. Surely it wouldn’t harm for every person to try to be a little more conservative with their waste. So, instead of buying bottled water how about trying to hydrate from good old tap (faucet) water for example. Or, if you have time to get from A to B – how about consciously driving 10 mph slower. Agree with global warming or not – or believe that the scientists are all wrong and nothing will happen really shouldn’t make a difference to stop being pig-headed about consume and burdening the (not our) planet.

Leave a Comment