Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
References

Is climate change the number one threat to humanity?

Profile image of Indur GoklanyIndur Goklany

2012, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

https://doi.org/10.1002/WCC.194
visibility

…

description

20 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

This paper challenges claims that global warming outranks other threats facing humanity through the foreseeable future (assumed to be 2085-2100). World Health Organization and British government-sponsored global impact studies indicate that, relative to other factors, global warming's impact on key determinants of human and environmental well-being should be small through 2085 even under the warmest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenario. Specifically, over 20 other health risks currently contribute more to death and disease worldwide than global warming. Through 2085, only 13% of mortality from hunger, malaria, and extreme weather events (including coastal flooding from sea level rise) should be from warming. Moreover, warming should reduce future global population at risk of water stress, and pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity (by increasing net biome productivity and decreasing habitat conversion). That warming is not fundamental to human well-being is reinforced by lower bound estimates of net gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. This measure adjusts GDP downward to account for damages from warming due to market, health, and environmental impacts, and risk of catastrophe. For both developing and industrialized countries, net GDP per capita-albeit an imperfect surrogate for human well-being-should be (1) double the current US level by 2100 under the warmest scenario, and (2) lowest under the poorest IPCC scenario but highest under the warmest scenario through 2200. The warmest world, being wealthier, should also have greater capacity to address any problem, including warming. Therefore, other problems and, specifically, lowered economic development are greater threats to humanity than global warming. 

Related papers

08-01 "An Overview of Climate Change: What does it mean for our way of life? What is the best future we can hope for?
At Tufts, Neva Goodwin

2008

This paper starts with the question of whether climate change will require a significant reduction of consumption among the richer people in the world, and ends with the most optimistic picture the author can conjure up, of the world in the year 2075. That hopeful picture is of a world in which inequalities – among and within nations – have been substantially reduced. The challenges and adjustments confronting humanity in the coming decades provide an opportunity that could be used to mitigate climate change in ways that can improve the circumstances of the poor. Ecological reasons to reduce throughput of energy and materials in economic systems urge the abandonment of high-consumption life-styles. The 21st century will be an era of many losses, but it is conceivable that societies will successfully make the transition from goals of economic growth, as understood in the 20th century, to goals of maintaining and increasing sustainable well-being.

View PDFchevron_right
Climate Change, Human Health and Some Economic Issues
Tonmoy Chatterjee (231014059)

Handbook of Research on Climate Change Impact on Health and Environmental Sustainability

This chapter attempts to correlate different economic issues like inequality, poverty, green infrastructure and international trade with human health in the context of climate change. In this short survey not only we have tried to capture most of the relevant articles in the corresponding category, but also we have shouted for some of the major research gaps in the form of future research agenda. Interestingly from our short survey we have found that importance of developing as well as less developed economies have been neglected in the context of climate change.

View PDFchevron_right
Living with Global Warming
Indur Goklany

Should we try to prevent global warming? Or should we use our resources to adapt to the consequences of warming? An argument for the former is that climate change will exacerbate existing problems -specifically, malaria, hunger, water shortage, coastal flooding and threats to biodiversity. This is a particular concern for developing countries, many of which are beset by these problems but lack the economic and human resources needed to obtain and implement technologies that would finesse or cope with them. This paper analyzes costs and benefits of two different approaches. One approach -mitigation -would limit carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in the atmosphere largely by reducing emissions due to human activities. The Kyoto Protocol is an example of this approach. The second approach -adaptation -would reduce society's vulnerability to, or help cope with, the consequences of global climate change due to higher CO 2 emissions.

View PDFchevron_right
Climate Change: The 21st Century's Most Urgent Environmental Problem or Proverbial Last Straw?
Indur Goklany

2003

View PDFchevron_right
What to Do about Global Warming, Policy Analysis, Number 609, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 5 February 2008.
Indur Goklany
View PDFchevron_right
Economic Growth or the Flourishing of Life: The Ethical Choice Climate Change Puts to Humanity
Philip Cafaro
View PDFchevron_right
Ambiguous Futures: Global Warming and the Third World
Arthur Saniotis

2006

Increasing global warming of the planet has been at the foreground of much scientific and political debate, leading to the Kyoto Summit in 1997. While many countries have invested technological know how to diminishing greenhouse gases, the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol have yet to be achieved. Moreover, many countries in the third world which are responsible for emitting the least amount of greenhouse gases are predicted to face serious pandemics and negative climatic conditions in the 21 st century. Global warming demands new ways of dealing with ensuing climate change as a matter of

View PDFchevron_right
Relative Contributions of Global Warming to Various Climate Sensitive Risks, and Their Implications for Adaptation and Mitigation
Indur Goklany

A rationale for mitigating global warming (GW) is that warming might exacerbate many of today's urgent problems -hunger, malaria, water shortage, coastal flooding, and habitat conversion -which could be particularly problematic for developing countries. Recent assessments of the global impacts of climate change indicate that into the 2080s, except for coastal flooding, GW's contribution to these problems [∆P(GW)] would be small compared to P(BASELINE), the problem's magnitude in the absence of warming, i.e., under baseline conditions. Hence, mitigation can, at best, reduce only the smaller portion of the total problem [= ∆P(GW) + P(BASELINE)]. To compound matters, costs of markedly reducing ∆P(GW) through mitigation are high; moreover, because of the inertia of the climate system,

View PDFchevron_right
Up in Smoke?: Threats from, and Responses to, the Impact of Global Warming on Human Development
andrew simms

2005

Informative and readable, this compelling report from some of the world's leading environmental and development organisations expresses concerns about how global warming affects people's lives, particularly those living in developing countries, and how it could threaten attainment of the Millennium Development Goals. It features case studies with photos from communities around the world, and details of how aid agencies are helping them implement solutions to the problems that global warming causes.

View PDFchevron_right
Global Health Threats: Global Warming in Perspective
Indur Goklany

Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 2009

Some authorities have claimed that global warming is one of the most—if not the most—important public health threat of this century. They do not, however, support this assertion by comparative analysis of the relative magnitude and severity of various health threats. Such an analysis, presented here, shows that other global health threats outrank global warming at present, and are likely to continue to do so through the foreseeable future, even under the warmest scenario developed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Exaggerated and unsupported claims about the importance of global warming risk skewing the world’s public health priorities away from real, urgent health problems. Policies curbing global warming would, moreover, increase energy prices and reduce its usage, retarding both economic development and advances in human wellbeing. That would slow advances in society’s adaptive capacity to deal not only with the effects of global warming, but all other s...

View PDFchevron_right

References (118)

  1. King DA. Climate change science: adapt, mitigate, or ignore? Science 2004, 303:176-177.
  2. Rosenthal E. U.N. Chief seeks more climate change leadership. New York Times, November 18, 2007.
  3. Ki-Moon B. Sustainable development is the only way out of the world's crisis. Taipei Times, October 24, 2008.
  4. UPI. U.N. hails Bolivian climate efforts. May 10, 2010. Available at: http://www.upi.com/Business_News/ Energy-Resources/2010/05/10/UN-hails-Bolivian- climate-efforts/UPI-53381273499314/print/#ixzz1 Mx6OW4VY. (Accessed July 7, 2011).
  5. Gronewold N. NATIONS: Ban Ki-moon way ahead in the U.N. race to replace himself. ClimateWire, 2011. Available at: http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/ 2011/06/07/6/. (Accessed June 7, 2011).
  6. Olsen JM. Clinton: beware of global warming. Orlando Sentinel, May 18, 2005. Available at: http:// www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-asecwarming18051805 may18,0,4343566.story?coll=orl-home-headlines. (Accessed May 19, 2005).
  7. Cordis News. Reducing global warming is our pri- ority, say Chirac and Blair. Cordis News, November 19, 2004.
  8. McNicoll T. The President's Passion Play. Newsweek, February 18, 2008. Available at: http://www. newsweek.com/id/109547. (Accessed December 29, 2011).
  9. Goklany IM. Is a richer-but-warmer world better than poorer-but-cooler worlds? Energy Environ 2007, 18:1023-1048.
  10. Goklany IM. Is climate change the ''defining challenge of our age''? Energy Environ 2009, 20:279-302.
  11. Lorenzoni I, Adger WN. Critique of treatments of adaptation costs in PAGE and FUND models. In: Warren R, Hope C, Mastandrea M, Tol R, Adger N, Lorenzoni I, eds. Spotlighting Impacts Functions in Integrated Assessment Models. Working Paper 91. Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research; 2006, 72-79. See p. 74.
  12. Parry ML, Livermore M, eds. A new assessment of the global effects of climate change. Global Environ Change 1999, 9:S1-S107.
  13. Arnell NW, Cannell MGR, Hulme M, Kovats RS, Mitchell JFB, Nicholls RJ, Parry ML, Livermore MTJ, White A. The consequences of CO 2 stabilization for the impacts of climate change. Climatic Change 2002, 53:413-446.
  14. Parry ML, ed. Special issue: an assessment of the global effects of climate change under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ Change 2004, 14:1-99.
  15. Parry M, Arnell N, McMichael T, Nicholls R, Martens P, Kovats S, Livermore M, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Fischer G. Millions at risk: defining critical climate change threats and targets. Global Environ Change 2001, 11:181-183.
  16. Parry M, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Fischer G, Liver- more M. Climate change and world food security: a new assessment. Global Environ Change 1999, 9:S51-S67.
  17. Parry ML, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Livermore M, Fischer G. Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ Change 2004, 14:53-67.
  18. Martens P, Kovats RS, Nijhof S, De Vries P, Livermore MTJ, Bradley DJ, Cox J, McMiuchael AJ. Climate change and future populations at risk of malaria. Global Environ Change 1999, 9:S89-S107.
  19. van Lieshout M, Kovats RS, Livermore MTJ, Marten P. Climate change and malaria: analysis of the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ Change 2004, 14:87-99.
  20. Arnell NW. Climate change and global water resources. Global Environ Change 1999, 9:531-549.
  21. Arnell NW. Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and socio economic sce- narios. Global Environ Change 2004, 14:31-52.
  22. Nicholls R. The impacts of sea level rise. Available at: http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/ pubs/brochures/B1999/imp_sea_rise.html. (Accessed December 4, 2002).
  23. Nicholls RJ. Coastal flooding and wetland loss in the 21st century: changes under the SRES climate and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ Change 2004, 14:69-86.
  24. White A, Cannell MGR, Friend AD. Climate change impacts on ecosystems and the terrestrial carbon sink: a new assessment. Global Environ Change 1999, 9:S21-S30.
  25. Levy PE, Friend AD, White A, Cannell MGR. Mod- elling the impact of future changes in climate, CO 2 concentration and land use on natural ecosystems and the terrestrial carbon sink. Global Environ Change 2004, 14:21-30.
  26. Alcamo J, Fl örke M, M ärker M. Future long-term changes in global water resources driven by socio- economic and climatic changes. Hydrol Sci J 2007, 52:247-275.
  27. Goklany IM. Relative contributions of global warming to various climate sensitive risks, and their implications for adaptation and mitigation. Energy Environ 2003, 14:797-822.
  28. IPCC. Government and Expert Review of Second Order Draft Specific Comments, Expert Review Com- ments, Summary For Policy Makers. Geneva: IPCC; 2006.
  29. Goklany IM. Potential consequences of increas- ing atmospheric CO 2 concentration compared to other environmental problems. Technology 2000, 7S: 189-213.
  30. IPCC. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001, 957-958.
  31. IPCC. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
  32. IPCC. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, eds. Climate Change 2007. Impacts, Adap- tation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
  33. van Vuuren DP, Isaac M, Kundzewicz ZW, Arnell N, Barker T, Criqui P, Berkhout F, Hilderink H, Hinkel J, Hof A, et al. The use of scenarios as the basis for combined assessment of climate change mitiga- tion and adaptation. Global Environ Change 2011, 21:575-591.
  34. US Global Change Research Program. Global Cli- mate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2009, 18.
  35. Goklany IM. Trapped between the falling sky and the rising seas: the imagined terrors of the impacts of Opinion wires.wiley.com/climatechange climate change. University of Pennsylvania Workshop on Markets & the Environment, December 13, 2009.
  36. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007, 17.
  37. Oreskes N, Shrader-Frechette K, Belitz K. Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the earth sciences. Science 1994, 263:641-646.
  38. Carter TR, Jones RN, Lu X, Bhadwal S, Conde C, Mearns LO, O'Neill BC, Rounsevall MDA, Nicholls R, Oppenheimer M, et al. New assessment methods and the characterisation of future conditions. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, eds. Climate Change 2007. Impacts, Adaptation, and Vul- nerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007, 136, footnote 2.
  39. US Climate Change Science Program. Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research; 2008, 52. See also p. 3.
  40. Goklany IM. Integrated strategies to reduce vulner- ability and advance adaptation, mitigation, and sus- tainable development. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 2007, 12:755-786. doi:10.1007/s11027-007-9098-1.
  41. Goklany IM. Discounting the future. Regulation 2009, 32(Spring):36-40.
  42. Goklany IM. Have increases in population, affluence and technology worsened human and environmental well-being? Electron J Sustain Dev 2009, 1:3-28.
  43. Arnell NW, Livermore MJL, Kovats S, Levy PE, Nicholls R, Parry ML, Gaffin SR. Climate and socio- economic scenarios for global-scale climate change impacts assessments: characterising the SRES story- lines. Global Environ Change 2004, 14:3-20.
  44. Stern N. The Economics of Climate Change. London: Her Majesty's Treasury; 2006.
  45. Tol RSJ. The social cost of carbon: trends, outliers and catastrophes. Economics 2008, 2:1-24.
  46. Carter RM, De Freitas CR, Goklany IM, Holland D, Lindzen RS. Climate change. Climate science and the Stern review. World Econ 2007, 8:161-182.
  47. Goklany IM. The Improving State of the World. Wash- ington, DC: Cato Institute; 2007, 214-215.
  48. Becker GS. Human capital. In: Henderson DR, ed. Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. 2nd ed. 2007. Available at: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ HumanCapital.html. (Accessed December 26, 2011).
  49. Goklany IM. Deaths and death rates from extreme weather events: 1900-2008. J Am Phys Surg 2009, 14:102-109.
  50. Anbarci N, Escaleras M, Register CA. Earthquake fatalities: the interaction of nature and political econ- omy. J Publ Econ 2005, 89:1907-1933.
  51. Pogge T. Growth and inequality: understanding recent trends and political choices. Dissent Winter 2008, 66-75.
  52. Goklany IM. Death and death rates due to extreme weather events: global and U.S. trends, 1900-2006. The Civil Society Report on Climate Change, 2007, 12.
  53. Castello LD, Gil-Gonzalez D, Diaz CA-D, Hernandez- Aguado I. The Environmental Millennium Develop- ment Goal: progress and barriers to its achievement. Environ Sci Policy 2010, 13:154-163. doi:10.1016/ j.envssci.2009.12.001.
  54. Keefer P, Neumayer E, Pl ümper T. Earthquake Propensity and the Politics of Mortality Prevention. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5182, 2010.
  55. Kahn M. The death toll from natural disasters: the role of income, geography, and institutions. Rev Econ Stat 2005, 87:271-284.
  56. Sen AK. Poverty and Famine: An Essay on Entitle- ment and Deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
  57. Scruggs L, Benegal S. Declining public concern about climate change: can we blame the great recession? Global Environ Change 2012, 22:505-515. doi:10. 1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.01.002.
  58. Kahn ME, Kotchen MJ. Environmental Concern and the Business Cycle: The Chilling Effect of Reces- sion. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 16241, 2010.
  59. Broder JM. Climate talks in Durban yield limited agreement. New York Times, December 11, 2011. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/ science/earth/countries-at-un-conference-agree-to- draft-new-emissions-treaty.html. (Accessed December 31, 2011).
  60. Allen K. Canada should be shunned for Kyoto igno- rance. Der Spiegel, December 14, 2011. Available at: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518, 803670,00.html. (Accessed January 3, 2012).
  61. Lang S. Japanese parliamentarians reject an exten- sion to the Kyoto Protocol. Reporting Development Network Africa, December 6, 2011. Available at: http://reportingdna.org/blogs/?p=1594. (Accessed Jan- uary 3, 2012).
  62. Parker L, Blodgett J, Yacobucci BD. U.S. Global Climate Change Policy: evolving views on cost, com- petitiveness, and comprehensiveness. Congressional Research Service 2010. Available at: http://www.cnie. org/nle/crsreports/10Jul/RL30024.pdf. (Accessed Jan- uary 3, 2012).
  63. National Centre for Social Research. Environment- concern about climate change: a paler shade of green? The British Social Attitudes Survey 28. 2011-2012 ed. London: Sage Publications; 2011, 91-110.
  64. Puliese A, Ray J. Fewer Americans, Europeans view global warming as a threat. Gallup April 20, 2011. Available at: http://www.gallup.com/poll/147203/ fewer-americans-europeans-view-global-warming- threat.aspx. (Accessed January 3, 2012).
  65. WHO. World Health Report 2002 Statistical Annex. Geneva: WHO; 2002.
  66. Murray CJL, Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Vander Hoorn S. Comparative quantification of health risks: conceptual framework and methodological issues. In: Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Murray CJL, eds. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease due to Selected Major Risk Factors. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004, 1-38.
  67. WHO. The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. Geneva: WHO; 2008, 2-3.
  68. Jamison DT, Breman JG, Meacham AR, Alleyne G, Claeson M, Evans DB, Jha P, Mills A, Musgove P. Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
  69. McMichael AJ, Campbell-Lendrum D, Kovats S, Edwards S, Wilkinson P, Wilson T, Nicholls R, Hales S, Tanser F, Le Sueur D, et al. Global climate change. In: Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Murray CJL, eds. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease due to Selected Major Risk Factors. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004, 1543-1649.
  70. Patz JA, Campbell-Lendrum D, Holloway T, Foley JA. Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature 2005, 438:310-317.
  71. Costello A, University College London-Institute for Global Health and Lancet Commission. Managing the health effects of climate change. Lancet 2009, 373:1693-1733.
  72. McMichael AJ, Woodruff RF, Hales S. Climate change and human health: present and future risks. Lancet 2006, 367:859-869.
  73. Campbell-Lendrum D, Woodruff R. Comparative risk assessment of the burden of disease from climate change. Environ Health Perspect 2006, 114:1935-1941.
  74. Goklany IM. Global public health: global warming in perspective. J Am Phys Surg 2009, 14(3):69-75.
  75. World Health Organization (WHO). Global Health Risks. Geneva: WHO; 2009. Available at: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/ global_health_risks/en/index.html. (Accessed May 8, 2011).
  76. Goklany IM. Could biofuel policies increase death and disease in developing countries? J Am Phys Surg 2011, 16(1):9-13.
  77. Falagas ME, Karageorgopoulos DE, Moraitis LI, Vouloumanou EK, Roussos N, Peppas G, Rafailidis PI. Seasonality of mortality: the September phenomenon in Mediterranean countries. Can Med Assoc J 2009, 181:484-486.
  78. UK Office for National Statistics (UKONS). Excess winter mortality-historical data. Available at: http:// www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Expodata/Spread sheets/D7090.xls. (Accessed May 5, 2011).
  79. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 3302.0-deaths, Aus- tralia, 2008. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3302.02008?Open Document. (Accessed May 11, 2011).
  80. Statistics New Zealand. Deaths: table 2.5 By NZ resi- dent deaths by occurrence year and month. Available at: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/educa tion_and_training/tertiary%20education/unistats/prod ucts-and-services/vital-stats-births-and-deaths-data- package.aspx. (Accessed June 4, 2010).
  81. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). 2007-08 data from Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2008. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009, 57:6.
  82. National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). GMWKIV, deaths from each cause by month, race, and sex: United States, 1999-2005. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/mortality/gmwkiv.htm. (Accessed July 28, 2010).
  83. Statistics Canada. Table 102-0502, deaths, by month, Canada, provinces and territories, annual. Available at: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a05?lang=eng& id=1020502&paSer=&pattern=102-0502&stByVal= 1&csid=. (Accessed July 10, 2011).
  84. Woodhouse PR. Why do more old people die in win- ter? J Hong Kong Geriatr Soc 1993, 3:23-29.
  85. Keatinge WR. Winter mortality and its causes. Int J Circumpolar Health 2002, 61:292-299.
  86. Douglas AS, al-Sayer H, Rawles JM, Allan TM. Seasonality of disease in Kuwait. Lancet 1991, 337:1393-1397.
  87. Marie GC, Gonz ález RT, Palanco IM. Seasonal vari- ation in mortality for five main death causes. Cuba, 1996-2006. Internet J Epidemiol 2009, 6. Available at: http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of -epidemiology/volume-6-number-2/seasonal-variation -in-mortality-for-five-main-death-causes-cuba-1996- 2006.html. (Accessed September 21, 2012).
  88. Maddison A. Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1-2008 AD. 2010. Avail- able at: http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/Historical_ Statistics/horizontal-file_02-2010.xls. (Accessed May 11, 2011).
  89. Boden TA, Marland G, Andres RJ. Global, regional, and national fossil-fuel CO 2 emissions. 2010. Available at: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/ overview_2006.html. (Accessed May 11, 2011).
  90. CDIAC. Preliminary 2008-09 Global & National Estimates by Extrapolation. Available at: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2_emis/Preliminary_ CO2_emissions_2009.xls. (Accessed May 11, 2011).
  91. World Bank. World Development Indicators. Avail- able at: http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do. (Accessed June 13, 2011).
  92. Tol RSJ, Dowlatabadi H. Vector-borne diseases, development & climate change. Integr Assess 2001, 2:173-181.
  93. Tol RSJ, Yohe GW. Of dangerous climate change and dangerous emission reduction. In: Schellnhuber HJ, Cramer W, Nakicenovic N, Wigley TML, Yohe G, eds. Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006, 291-298.
  94. James C. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/ GM Crops: 2010. International Service for the Acqui- sition of Agribiotech Applications (ISAAA) Brief No. 42-2010, Ithaca, NY, 2011.
  95. Silva CB, de Moraes MAFD, Molin JP. Adoption and use of precision agriculture technologies in the sugar- cane industry of S ão Paulo state, Brazil. Precision Agric 2010, 12:67-81. doi:10.1007/s11119-009-9155-8.
  96. Yan X, Jin J, He P, Liang M. Recent advances on the technologies to increase fertilizer use efficiency. Agric Sci China 2008, 7:469-479.
  97. Fischer G, Shah M, Tubiello FN, van Velhuizen H. Socio-economic and climate change impacts on agri- culture: an integrated assessment, 1990-2080. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2005, 360:2067-2083.
  98. Tubiello F, Fischer G. Reducing climate change impacts on agriculture: global and regional effects of mitigation, 2000-2080. Technol Forecasting Soc Change 2007, 74:1030-1056.
  99. Long SP, Ainsworth EA, Leakey ADB, Nosberger J, Ort DR. Food for thought: lower-than-expected crop yield stimulation with rising CO 2 concentrations. Sci- ence 2006, 312:1918-1921.
  100. Ainsworth EA, Leakey ADB, Ort DR, Long SP. FACE- ing the facts: inconsistencies and interdependence among field, chamber and modeling studies of ele- vated [CO 2 ] impacts on crop yield and food supply. New Phytol 2008, 179:5-9.
  101. Leakey ADB, Ainsworth EA, Bernacchi CJ, Rogers A, Long SP, Ort DR. Elevated CO 2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE. J Exp Bot 2009, 60:2859-2876.
  102. Bloom AJ, Burger M, Asensio JSR, Cousins AB. Car- bon dioxide enrichment inhibits nitrate assimilation in wheat and Arabidopsis. Science 2010, 328:899-903.
  103. World Bank, World Development Indicators. Avail- able at: http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/DDPQQ/ member.do?method=getMembers&userid=1&query Id=135. (Accessed May 28, 2010).
  104. Oki T, Kanae S. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 2006, 313:1068-1072.
  105. Arnell NW, van Vuuren DP, Isaac M. The implications of climate policy for the impacts of climate change on global water resources. Global Environ Change 2011, 21:592-603.
  106. Wilcove DS, Rothstein D, Dubow J, Phillips A, Losos E. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 1998, 48:607-615.
  107. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005.
  108. UN Development Program. Frequently asked ques- tions (FAQs) about the human development index (HDI). 2011. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/ media/FAQs_2011_HDI.pdf. (Accessed December 23, 2011).
  109. Sen A. Assessing human development: special contri- bution. In: United Nations Development Programme (1999). Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999, 23.
  110. O'Brien K, St. Clair AL, Kristoffersen B, eds. Cli- mate Change, Ethics and Human Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
  111. Hagopian K, Ohanian L. The Mismeasure of Inequal- ity. Policy Review 2012, vol. 174. Available at: http:// www.hoover.org/print/publications/policy-review/ article/123566. (Accessed September 21, 2012).
  112. Charmes J. The informal economy worldwide: trends and characteristics. Margin: J Appl Econ Res 2012, 6:103-132.
  113. Lahsen M. A science-policy interface in the global south: the politics of carbon sinks and science in Brazil. Climatic Change 2009, 97:339-372.
  114. Reidpath DD, Allotey PA, Kouame A, Cummins RA. Measuring health in a vacuum: examining the disabil- ity weight of the DALY. Health Policy Plann 2003, 18:351-356.
  115. Finkel AM. Perceiving others' perceptions of risk: still a task for Sisyphus. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2008, 1125:121-137.
  116. Gouveia N, Hajat S, Armstrong B. Socioeconomic dif- ferentials in the temperature-mortality relationship in S ão Paulo, Brazil. Int J Epidemiol 2003, 32:390-397.
  117. Seto TB, Mittleman MA, Davis RB, Taira DA, Kawachi I. Seasonal variation in coronary artery dis- ease mortality in Hawaii: observational study. Br Med J 1998, 316:1946-1947.
  118. WHO. Disease and injury regional estimates. Available at: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_ disease/estimates_regional/en/index.html. (Accessed June 18, 2011).

Related papers

Is Climate Change the "Defining Challenge of Our Age"? Energy & Environment 20(3): 279-302 (2009).
Indur Goklany

Climate change, some claim, is this century's most important environmental challenge. Mortality estimates for the year 2000 from the World Health Organization (WHO) indicate, however, that a dozen other risk factors contribute more to global mortality and global burden of disease. Moreover, the state-of-theart British-sponsored fast track assessments (FTAs) of the global impacts of climate change show that through 2085-2100, climate change would contribute less to human health and environmental threats than other risk factors. Climate change is, therefore, unlikely to be the 21 st century's most important environmental problem. Combining the FTA results with WHO's mortality estimates indicates that halting climate change would reduce cumulative mortality from hunger, malaria, and coastal flooding, by 4-10 percent in 2085 while the Kyoto Protocol would lower it by 0.4-1 percent. FTA results also show that reducing climate change will increase populations-at-risk from water stress and, possibly, threats to biodiversity. But adaptive measures focused specifically on reducing vulnerability to climate sensitive threats would reduce cumulative mortality by 50-75 percent at a fraction of the Kyoto Protocol's cost without adding to risks from water stress or to biodiversity. Such "focused adaptation" would, moreover, reduce major hurdles to the developing world's sustainable economic development, lack of which is the major reason for its vulnerability to climate change (and any other form of adversity). Thus, focused adaptation can combat climate change and advance global well-being, particularly of the world's most vulnerable populations, more effectively than aggressive GHG reductions. Alternatively, these benefits and more -reductions in poverty, and infant and maternal mortality by 50-75%; increased access to safe water and sanitation; and universal literacy -can be obtained by broadly advancing sustainable economic development through policies, institutions and measures (such as those that would meet the UN Millennium Development Goals) at a cost approximating that of the Kyoto Protocol. However, in order to deal with climate change beyond the 2085-2100 timeframe, the paper also recommends expanding research and development of mitigation options, reducing barriers to implementing such options, and active science and monitoring programs to provide early warning of any "dangerous" climate change impacts. 279 1

View PDFchevron_right
Is Climate Change the “Defining Challenge of Our Age”?
Indur Goklany

Energy & Environment, 2009

Climate change, some claim, is this century's most important environmental challenge. Mortality estimates for the year 2000 from the World Health Organization (WHO) indicate, however, that a dozen other risk factors contribute more to global mortality and global burden of disease. Moreover, the state-of-theart British-sponsored fast track assessments (FTAs) of the global impacts of climate change show that through 2085-2100, climate change would contribute less to human health and environmental threats than other risk factors. Climate change is, therefore, unlikely to be the 21 st century's most important environmental problem. Combining the FTA results with WHO's mortality estimates indicates that halting climate change would reduce cumulative mortality from hunger, malaria, and coastal flooding, by 4-10 percent in 2085 while the Kyoto Protocol would lower it by 0.4-1 percent. FTA results also show that reducing climate change will increase populations-at-risk from water stress and, possibly, threats to biodiversity. But adaptive measures focused specifically on reducing vulnerability to climate sensitive threats would reduce cumulative mortality by 50-75 percent at a fraction of the Kyoto Protocol's cost without adding to risks from water stress or to biodiversity. Such "focused adaptation" would, moreover, reduce major hurdles to the developing world's sustainable economic development, lack of which is the major reason for its vulnerability to climate change (and any other form of adversity). Thus, focused adaptation can combat climate change and advance global well-being, particularly of the world's most vulnerable populations, more effectively than aggressive GHG reductions. Alternatively, these benefits and more -reductions in poverty, and infant and maternal mortality by 50-75%; increased access to safe water and sanitation; and universal literacy -can be obtained by broadly advancing sustainable economic development through policies, institutions and measures (such as those that would meet the UN Millennium Development Goals) at a cost approximating that of the Kyoto Protocol. However, in order to deal with climate change beyond the 2085-2100 timeframe, the paper also recommends expanding research and development of mitigation options, reducing barriers to implementing such options, and active science and monitoring programs to provide early warning of any "dangerous" climate change impacts.

View PDFchevron_right
An Overview of Climate Change: What Does it Mean for Our Way of Life: what is the Best Future We Can Hope For?
Neva Goodwin

2008

This paper starts with the question of whether climate change will require a significant reduction of consumption among the richer people in the world, and ends with the most optimistic picture the author can conjure up, of the world in the year 2075. That hopeful picture is of a world in which inequalities -among and within nations -have been substantially reduced. The challenges and adjustments confronting humanity in the coming decades provide an opportunity that could be used to mitigate climate change in ways that can improve the circumstances of the poor. Ecological reasons to reduce throughput of energy and materials in economic systems urge the abandonment of highconsumption life-styles. The 21 st century will be an era of many losses, but it is conceivable that societies will successfully make the transition from goals of economic growth, as understood in the 20 th century, to goals of maintaining and increasing sustainable well-being.

View PDFchevron_right
Millions at risk: defining critical climate change threats and targets
Ana Iglesias

Global Environmental Change, 2001

View PDFchevron_right
Managing Climate Change Risks in the Context of Other, More Urgent Risks to Humanity
Indur Goklany

Summary Several British-sponsored state-of-the-art assessments of the global impacts of climate change on various climate-sensitive threats (namely, malaria, hunger, water stress, coastal flooding, habitat loss, carbon sink capacity, and coastal wetlands) using the major scenarios developed by the IPCC indicate that through 2085 to 2100, i.e., the foreseeable future, the contribution of climate change to such threats will generally be overshadowed by non-climate change related factors. For example, under the richest-but-warmest (A1FI) scenario, which is projected to increase global temperature by 4.0°C by 2085, climate change would be responsible for only 21% of the people at risk (PAR) of hunger. Translating estimates of PAR into mortality indicates that climate change would in 2085 be responsible for 4-10% of the mortality for hunger, malaria and coastal flooding under the four major IPCC scenarios, while the net PAR of water stress could increase from 0-72%. Regarding environment...

View PDFchevron_right

Cited by

Membership in multilateral environmental agreements and global security challenges
Dragoljub Todic

Zbornik Radova: Pravni Fakultet u Novom Sadu, 2017

Са же так: У ра ду се ука зу је на од но се из ме ђу ме ђу на род них мул ти лате рал них уго во ра у обла сти жи вот не сре ди не (ММУЖС) гло бал ног ка ракте ра и са вре ме них без бед но сних про бле ма. На гла ша ва се зна чај не ко ли ко кључ них без бед но сних иза зо ва (кли мат ске про ме не, упра вља ње вод ним ресур си ма, за шти та би о ди вер зи те та и упра вља ње от па дом и опа сним хеми ка ли ја ма). Раз ма тра се пи та ње од но са пре ма гло бал ним про бле ми ма у обла сти жи вот не сре ди не од стра не чла ни ца Са ве та без бед но си УН (СБУН), Ре пу бли ке Ср би је (РС) и њој су сед них др жа ва чла ни ца ЕУ. За основу ана ли зе је узе то пи та ње ста ту са ових др жа ва у 15 ММУЖС чи ји је де по зи тар Ге не рал ни се кре тар УН. Кон ста ту је се да не по сто ји ујед нач но члан ство др жа ва чла ни ца СБУН у ММУЖС. У не ко ли ко ММУЖС из о стаје члан ство не ких др жа ва чла ни ца СБУН. Исто вре ме но, члан ство у нај већем бро ју има ју др жа ве чла ни це ЕУ (ка ко стал не ча ни це СБУН, та ко и РС су сед не др жа ве). РС, у по гле ду бро ја уго во ра у ко ји ма је стра на уго вор ни ца, за о ста је за су сед ним др жа ва ма чла ни ца ма ЕУ. Кључ не ре чи: ме ђу на род ни уго во ри у обла сти жи вот не сре ди не, глобал на без бед ност, Са вет без бед но сти УН, Европ ска уни ја, Ре пу бли ка Срби ја.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved