Global Development: Views from the Center

A recent article in Science (http://tinyurl.com/2ndjad) by leading climate scientists compares the actual climate observations over the past decade to previous IPCC projections:

They find that IPCC projections are generally on the money for temperature projections, and considerably on the conservative end for sea level rise projections. Therefore, going by their past record, IPCC sea level rise numbers need to be revised upwards when considering future policy implications.

The conclusion that sea level rise is especially threatening to poor countries turns on two facts: more people in those countries live within a few meters of sea level than in richer countries; and poorer countries have fewer resources for dealing with the looming catastrophe. The first fact doesn't mean that the population of poor countries is any more coastally concentrated that that of richer countries--there are simply more people in the former group. And it is certainly true that if tens or hundreds of millions of people are displaced by rising waters--even if there is no worsening of storms or rain-fed flooding--the social consequences will be horrific. The mass migrations that accompanied the partition of India will seem small and quiet by comparison.

However, this discussion, and just about every other discussion of the subject, omits one obvious fact. If the sea rises several meters, all the world's seaports will shut down, and that means that international trade will essentially stop. Ships carry nearly all the volume and much of the value of trade; aircraft can substitute for only a tiny fraction of the total, and anyway, many of the world's airports will go under water, too, since they are often close to seaports. The result will be a catastrophic fall in income and employment all over the world, even if it were possible to resettle refugees peacefully. And one crucial consequence will be that rich countries may suffer as much or more, per capita, because the amount of fixed infrastructure per head is so much larger than in poor countries. One can move with one's family and a few possessions, as the refugees from Hurricane Katrina had to do; there's no way to pick up and move entire cities. Among other things, that means that poor countries won't be able to look for any help from (formerly) rich countries if the catastrophe hits. If the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is an example, rich countries may not even be able to deal with their own loss of coastal land and infrastructure and massive economic and social dislocation.

I like David Wheeler's extensive analysis of Global warming and its likely consequencies on the poor countries. This comes a few days when Pascal Lamy, the WTO top man was in Uganda, also warning that the failure of Hong Kong WTO talks were to have drastic negative consequences on developing countries. I think we should who is contributing largely to GHGs that U.S with 36% ot total emissions and other industrialised countries and what mechanisms have been established by the industrial big powers to control their GHG emisions?. United States has reasoned that it can not sacrifice its developement goals leave alone American politicians rejecting environmental protocols as the Kyoto. Russia on the hand sees Global warming as a saviour for the high costs involved in electricity warming in Siberia. The politics thus has taken centre stage in the environment concerns. Consider these facts- that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and methane, according to the climatologists, has increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750, that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change [IPCC] has projected global temperatures to increase by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2010. That the United Kingdom, Italy and Germany each would lose at least 200,000 jobs and Spain would lose 800,000.[ Source: International Council for Capital Formation, “The Cost of the Kyoto Protocol: Moving Forward on Climatic Change Policy while Preserving Economic Growth,” Brussels, Belgium, November 2005.] Having considered all these,who has the greatest role to play in reducing GHG emissions?. other developing countries have regional agreements such as the ASEAN Agreement on trans-boundary Haze pollution signed in 2002 between the ASEAN nations to bring Haze pollution under control. Haze is the dust or smoke and other particles that obscure the normal clarity of the sky. The developed countries are counting the global warming danger in terms of how much jobs will be lost than how many hundreds of thousands will die or be displaced in developing countries.
Paul Mayende
Graduate Student, International Relations and Diplomatic Studies
Makerere University Uganda.

You wrote: "The critics have a point." (About China, India and other poor countries refusing (so far) emission limits).

No, they do not!

* China's CO2 emissions are about equal to those of the US. However, almost a quarter of mankind lives in China and less than 5% in the US. So, who has got the highest CO2 emission per head?
* China emits about 25% of worldwide CO2. Well almost 25% of the world population lives in China. How about those less than 5% living in the US, also emitting 25%.
* China's emissions are only high quite recently, while those of the US have been extremely high for a long long time. As CO2 stays in the atmosphere for about 200 years, the current beginning climate change is to be blamed to the US, not China.
* Since W set the Middle East on fire, crude oil and natural gas is in short supply. Prices have exploded to levels unaffordable to poor countries. Therefore China has to make do with coal. If the US would bring oil and gas consumption (currently a staggering 40% of world production) down to their rightful share, viz. 5%, it would enable China to produce its electricity in combined cycle powerstations with efficiencies up to 60%, instead of something like 40% in steam plants, which are virtually unavoidable when the fuel is coal. This on top of more carbon in coal per unit of energy. It is US behavior that forces Chinese CO2 emissions up.
* Asian people tend to copy-cat those in the US. As the current hype in the US is a Hummer, they all want a Hummer. When the Prius becomes the hype in the US; they all want a Prius. So US: ban Hummers and put $5 of tax on every liter of gas!

Jan van der Steeg, The Netherlands, living about 4 meters above sea level.

Wait a minute - if I track your argument correctly, you state that the current scientific consensus represented by the IPCC findings predicts sea level rise of between 8 and 24 inches (roughly). You then argue that because you've used a model to simulate a scary scenario (5 meter sea level rise), and because the current scientific consensus doesn't include the 'possible' eventual total melting of Greenland (which you admit noone expects in the next 100 years), then:

"there is a significant risk that global warming will raise the sea level by 1-3 meters in this century."

I don't buy it.

I find the Nile Delta graphic and discussion woefully over-simplistic. The implication seems to be that current fertile soils would be lost, while the increased water table would not increase fertility upstream (as far as natural replenishment with minerals and nutrients goes, with the construction of the Aswan Dam, large amounts of fertilizer are used in the delta now, anyhow).

The science doesn't back the idea of sea levels rising more than 6 inches in the next century. That is why the IPCC keeps REDUCING its estimate of sea level rise. If anything the science showed that in 1999 and 2000 the sea levels actually fell. Ice pack in Antarctica has increased to compensate for the decrease in the north atlantic. Core samples taken from Greenland in the last year show that even with temperatures much warmer than current temperatures that over the last 150,000 years the sea level was never more than 1 meter over current levels. Over the last 20,000 years sea levels have risen 400 feet.

Temperatures have risen 13 degrees centigrade since the last ice age and have been rising since the 1650 mini-ice-age. Should we have stopped that? What is the perfect temperature for the earth? Should it be colder than today? Why? Is it simply the idea of change that is frightening? Has it occured to you warmalists (warming alarmists) that things will always change and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

Sea levels are falling all over the world.
Sea levels have been falling for millions of years. Sea levels will keep falling long after we are all gone and after all the Ice Caps have all melted away. The truth is that Ice Caps are melting on the fringes but will not disappear. Truth is that the earth is expanding and the sea are receding faster than any fresh water imput will negate. The earth is expanding and as it does sea levels fall. Truth is that the Earth is getting hotter from its own internally generated heat. We have very little to do with it and can do even less about it. It good that we stem polution and its good that we look for alternative energy sources. Global Warming is here to stay and we just have to learn to cope with it. My greatest concern is that based on all the sensational media hype about rising sea levels poor Island States will be spending a large part of their capital budgets uselessly for coastal defenses an eventuality that will never occur.
We have to look at history to see where seas were to where they are today. Sea levels were much higher in the days when dinosaurs roamed the North American Continent. The footprints are still there on the shores of ancient seas that crested at 6000 feet and covered Denver.
History tells us that the city of Nineveh in Baghdad was once a sea port but it is today 3000 feet above sea level and 1000 miles from the sea.
History tells us that Ur of the Chaldees the birthplace of Abraham the father of the Jewish Nation was once a seaport on the Gulf. Today Ur is 200 miles from the sea and 135 feet above sea level. We know I am sure that Baghdad had a port on the Gulf in ancient times but today Baghdad is 350 Miles from the sea and 125 feet above sea level. Now we may be saying that what has that got to do with the United States? Just visit
Hemmingways house in Key West and the first anomaly that strikes home is that the Lighthouse is right across the road from his house. You have to ask yourself what is a lighthouse doing in the middle of the built up city. Also in Key West on a visit to Fort Zachary Taylor a fort built during the Civil War. The tourist brochures show the fort out in the sea where it was build in 1865. Today however you drive right up to the fort for the sea is long and far gone in only 140 Years. Now for up to date information on the receding seas read the New York Times article of September 26 entitled.
"Jersey Rights to Shore prove costly to Casinos."
It tells what is happening in the real world. The State of New Jersey hs been selling off the Coastal land left behind by the receding sea to Casino Developers such as Donald Trump. The State is researching back to 1776 to find out where the sea was back then. They are attempting to charge retroactive taxes to all the people who captured and used the lands that the State has inherited from the sea over the last 231 years. The State has inherited in excess of 50000 acres along a 130 mile coastline and is selling the land for $1.9 Million per acre to developers along the Casino Strip. Now I hope that will put the Rising Sea Myth to sleep finally. Jersey as well as 20 other seafront states have inherited nearly 700000 acres of land in the last 231 years since independence from Britain. Jersey alone has gained 1/2 Mile of new seafront since 1776.
Three Hundred years ago Pearl Street in Manhattan was on the East River. Today it is hemmed in by Water and Front Streets and FDR Drive. In another 100 years FDR will be also hemmed in by new highways along the East River. The City will grow another 500 feet outward.
On the West side the expansion has been greater than the East side over the last 300 years when Broadway was on the Hudson. Our Seas are receding and that is a historical fact. No amount of fresh water added to the sea will reverse that trend because, although the recession process is slow and almost undetectable, for a number of reasons, it is relentless and irreversible.

Dear richard guy
living in NJ, I can tell you where all that land comes from
they invented the steam dredger in 1832(OR SO)
land is coming from the bottom of the bays and from the sand further out in the ocean..
the ocean hasnt dropped ,the land has risen(dredgers)
and if the ocean beaches have lost any sand they bring it back every spring..

Dear NJ writer
All authorities have to dredge and keep dredging to keep their shipping channels open. This is because the sea levels recede and keep receding.
Read the article in the NY Times of September 26 2007 and you will see where the new land is coming from. New Jersey knows. The State is looking back into history to find out where the sea was back in 1776. They want to charge back taxes on those lands. No my friend (NJ) they did not dredge the lands up since 1776. Read the article. I do appreciate your simple explanation. Thanks