- It is my hope that this report shocks us into action. Even for those of us already committed to fighting climate change, I hope it causes us to work with much more urgency.
This report spells out what the world would be like if it warmed by 4 degrees Celsius, which is what scientists are nearly unanimously predicting by the end of the century, without serious policy changes.
The 4°C scenarios are devastating: the inundation of coastal cities; increasing risks for food production potentially leading to higher malnutrition rates; many dry regions becoming dryer, wet regions wetter; unprecedented heat waves in many regions, especially in the tropics; substantially exacerbated water scarcity in many regions; increased frequency of high-intensity tropical cyclones; and irreversible loss of biodiversity, including coral reef systems.
And most importantly, a 4°C world is so different from the current one that it comes with high uncertainty and new risks that threaten our ability to anticipate and plan for future adaptation needs.
The lack of action on climate change not only risks putting prosperity out of reach of millions of people in the developing world, it threatens to roll back decades of sustainable development.
It is clear that we already know a great deal about the threat before us. The science is unequivocal that humans are the cause of global warming, and major changes are already being observed: global mean warming is 0.8°C above pre industrial levels; oceans have warmed by 0.09°C since the 1950s and are acidifying; sea levels rose by about 20 cm since pre-industrial times and are now rising at 3.2 cm per decade; an exceptional number of extreme heat waves occurred in the last decade; major food crop growing areas are increasingly affected by drought.
Despite the global community’s best intentions to keep global warming below a 2°C increase above pre-industrial climate, higher levels of warming are increasingly likely. Scientists agree that countries’ current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change emission pledges and commitments would most likely result in 3.5 to 4°C warming. And the longer those pledges remain unmet, the more likely a 4°C world becomes.
Data and evidence drive the work of the World Bank Group. Science reports, including those produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, informed our decision to ramp up work on these issues, leading to, a World Development Report on climate change designed to improve our understanding of the implications of a warming planet; a Strategic Framework on Development and Climate Change, and a report on Inclusive Green Growth. The World Bank is a leading advocate for ambitious action on climate change, not only because it is a moral imperative, but because it makes good economic sense.
But what if we fail to ramp up efforts on mitigation? What are the implications of a 4°C world? We commissioned this report from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics to help us understand the state of the science and the potential impact on development in such a world.
It would be so dramatically different from today’s world that it is hard to describe accurately; much relies on complex projections and interpretations.
We are well aware of the uncertainty that surrounds these scenarios and we know that different scholars and studies sometimes disagree on the degree of risk. But the fact that such scenarios cannot be discarded is sufficient to justify strengthening current climate change policies. Finding ways to avoid that scenario is vital for the health and welfare of communities around the world. While every region of the world will be affected, the poor and most vulnerable would be hit hardest.
A 4°C world can, and must, be avoided.
The World Bank Group will continue to be a strong advocate for international and regional agreements and increasing climate financing. We will redouble our efforts to support fast growing national initiatives to mitigate carbon emissions and build adaptive capacity as well as support inclusive green growth and climate smart development. Our work on inclusive green growth has shown that—through more efficiency and smarter use of energy and natural resources—many opportunities exist to drastically reduce the climate impact of development, without slowing down poverty alleviation and economic growth.
This report is a stark reminder that climate change affects everything. The solutions don’t lie only in climate finance or climate projects. The solutions lie in effective risk management and ensuring all our work, all our thinking, is designed with the threat of a 4°C degree world in mind. The World Bank Group will step up to the challenge.
Dr. Jim Yong Kim President, World Bank Group
The issue with dry, technical PDFs from the World Bank is that they tend to be read by people who will click on dry, technical PDFs from the World Bank. More populist literature with the exact same message has been available for years; I'm fond of Bill McKibben's "Eaarth" (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=bil...) And Paul Gilding's "The Great Disruption" (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Disruption-Climate-Crisis-Shoppi...) Looks like Paul has a movie I haven't seen. Gonna have to check it out. Even then, those will only convince the true believers further because it's such an intellectually divisive issue. Perhaps the most compelling argument I've ever seen for use with global warming denial is a simple search on Google for "reinsurance global warming" (although one might have to look up "reinsurance" first as nobody has ever dealt with Munich Re). Simply put, the guys who insure the insurance companies have been basing their underwriting on the reality of unchecked climate change for the better part of a decade now. The buck ultimately stops with them and they're hunkering down for Sandy and beyond. Climate change isn't a political issue for them, it's a factor in their bottom line.
Remember, the ONLY cure for <x> is larger government, world regulation, higher taxes, and lower standards of living (except for the powerful and political) in the west. It will also be helpful if as many unaccountable NGO's as possible are involved so that my nieces and nephews can get good jobs and spend as much time as possible in Fiji and Davos. _XC
That's not at all true. Most anyone with half a clue knows that "eating and doing less" is only a "lower standard of living" if you are wholly and completely committed to an aggressively materialist lifestyle. Teenagers of today are radically better for the environment than teenagers of 20 years ago, for example, for the simple reason that they drive a hell of a lot less to hang out (thanks to Facebook et. al.). Hate it all you want, but a new Prius C is a hell of a lot better for the environment than a new F250. An old F250 is hella better than a new Prius C, though, because the pickup already exists. This isn't about terking yer jerbs, it's about having an open, rational discussion about the externalizations of our collective lifestyle, east, west and in between.
On the flip side, they are big contributors to the junk food industry, who are among the biggest polluters on the planet, along with cow or pig farmers. I don't think the role of food choices is given nearly enough time in the media when we talk about solutions for the environment. Sure, I drive a car that gets shitty gas mileage, but its a rare day when I eat a steak or a bag of Doritos. That's a point well taken about new vs. used cars. Remember the hilarity of '08 when they were pushing "cash for clunkers" as an "environmental" strategy?Teenagers of today are radically better for the environment than teenagers of 20 years ago, for example, for the simple reason that they drive a hell of a lot less to hang out (thanks to Facebook et. al.).
Junk food does not make the following list: http://www.environment911.org/164.The_Worlds_5_Biggest_Pollu... Further, teenagers are generally not responsible for their family's purchases, they are merely influencers. Even if teenagers ran on coal and wood pulp you can't hold them responsible unless they're the ones cutting the checks. "Cash for clunkers" was an economic strategy couched in environmental terms. The most common durable goods purchased by consumers are automobiles and appliances and all the appliances are made in China. Considering the automotive industry in the United States was heading the way of British Leyland, a boondoggle to get everyone buying cars wasn't a bad play. You get to soothe the oil independence libertarians through raising the fleet fuel economy. You get to soothe the hippies by getting a bunch of gas guzzlers off the road. You get to sop the midwest with red meat by aiding the auto industry through good old-fashioned capitalism (sorta). And you inject a bunch of money into the economy in a vein NOT controlled by the banking industry, everyone's favorite villain.
Cash for clunkers was a good program for its time and place (economically speaking); I just thought it was sold dishonestly. I understand they were towing a political line and trying to please multiple interested parties, but that doesn't mean we don't get to call bullshit when they spout things that are verifiably false (e.g. this program is good for the environment). And the junk food thing I was kind of wrapping into agribusiness. Junk food is obviously only one component of a much larger problem.
As i said: pricing externalism is always for thee and not for me. When I was a teenager lo these many years ago I had five t-shirts, two pairs of jeans, two pairs of gym shorts, and a pair of Nike Court that had to last me all year. I had a two transistor AM radio and a six year old five speed bike for amusement and the family shared a 12" color TV. Unless you're not around kids, then you are smoking crack if you think they consume less than we did. -XC
You have a sample size of one. If AM radios were common when you were a teenager, Brezhnev had yet to take Afghanistan. Which meant you lived in a world without recycling, where "compact cars" were 3500lb monstrosities like the AMC Pacer. Ask yourself: which consumes more resources to make, a Motorola AM radio powered by 9V batteries or an iPhone? Which consumes more resources to operate? I'll also point out that I in no way insulted you. Just because I've read studies and can back my statements up with facts does not mean I'm "smoking crack."
I am pretty cynical when it comes to the World Bank, and I agree with you, they probably won't be a big part of any solution. As I see it, we face a problem that does not motivate the markets to produce solutions until the consequences are well-advanced. Few want to pay for more expensive energy today to prevent a warmer climate tomorrow. So as a result, we wait until pain points start to motivate us. Global governance will try to apply pain points, but as your response indicates, even speculation on action brings criticism, -often valid, because they've done such a bang-up job in other sectors. I don't see that we will prevent this. More likely, we will only adjust.
Remember, when people say they want to "price the externalities" they only want to price the externalities they disapprove of. I was getting quite a lecture from a DINK friend of mine about "conspicuous consumption." I mildly pointed out to him that as he is white, married, and without kids he should be paying 30% - 50% more for social security and not taking it very soon either, where as I, with a history of heart disease and three kids should pay less and retire sooner. Sorta ended the conversation. -XC