The Cost of Adapting to Climate Change

study  The costs of adaptation to climate change have been grossly underestimated, the authors of a new study suggest.

There is widespread agreement among policymakers that cold, hard cash will be an essential element in persuading nations vulnerable to climate change to sign up to a global agreement in Copenhagen in December.

Far less clear: how much cash is needed to do the job.

European ministers have discussed sums up to about $140 billion to be paid each year by more affluent countries to developing countries. Meanwhile, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has estimated the annual global costs of adapting to climate change to be up to $170 billion each year.

This week, academics in Britain presented a report, Assessing the Costs of Adaptation to Climate Change, contending that sums in that range are gross underestimations.

The authors of the report, including experts from institutions including Imperial College London, the London School of Economics, Oxford and Cambridge, criticized the U.N. body in particular for producing its estimates too quickly.

Notably, the authors said the U.N. body had failed to include key industry sectors like energy, manufacturing, retailing, mining, tourism and ecosystems in its estimates.

One of the authors of the new report, Martin Parry of Imperial College, said the real costs of adaptation could be up to three times higher than U.N. estimates, or about $500 billion each year. The high costs of building new infrastructure in regions like Africa, preparing coastal zones for sea level rises and more intense storms, and protecting ecosystems were among Mr. Parry’s multipliers.

Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, in a statement issued Friday, said precise figures on the amount of cash required was unnecessary at this stage. Such estimates “remain a moving target,” he said, adding that “starting to plug the hole right now is more important than determining its exact future size.”

But Mr. de Boer also acknowledged that ensuring that poorer nations could rely on increasing amounts of aid to prepare for the impact of climate change remained an important goal. Those sources of finance need “to be significantly scaled up over time so that funding for climate action in the developing world does not have to be renegotiated every year,” he said.

Global leaders at the U.N. climate conference in December in Copenhagen should “determine the framework that provides clarity on these mechanisms,” he said.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Part of the global warming phenomenon is nothing more than artificial market scarcity. If you look at the number of refineries and oil wells that haven’t been permitted over the decades, yes, decades in the United States, it kind of becomes apparent that there’s been more than a little ‘business’ involved that has little to do with the normal supply and demand phenomenon, and everything to do with people trying to squeeze another buck out of their oil futures investments. Want to lay the blame at the feet of the world’s largest polluter? Fine. Go sit on Wall St. with your polar bear T-shirt, and let fly, there. But, the rest of us kind of depend on this commodity which is traded on markets like Wall St., and it’s not our solemn responsibility to prop up overpaid investors and foreign countries with our daily fuel purchases.

Another measurable phenomenon is the mass migration of large sums of US currency out of this country in exchange for the oil. Enough of that goes on, it makes for a bad political environment, already has. And that’s my chief concern on the oil issue, rather than polar bears, it’s about money. Lots of things in life mainly have to do with money, and energy is one of them. People want to make a buck. Great. But, when that desire for profit gets to the point where people are expected to pay $4,5,6 bucks a gallon to get to a job that isn’t going to cover the fuel bill, there, you’ve hit this area of imbalance that’s eventually going to kill off the golden goose, as it were. Charging too much money for key commodities like oil will result in one thing: Long-term loss of revenue, possibly permanently, and the reason I say that is because the United States is also home to inventors, smart people who are savvy enough to realize that there’s certain things that can’t be patented and taken off the market that way, and that the people with the money to pay the lawyers to fight new technology coming on to the market are….typically oil barons. There’s people in the oil business that basically have money falling out of their butts. What do they want? More, of course. Who’s their captive audience? Every poor slob in this country that drives any kind of vehicle. What should we do about it? Keep studying the widely available literature on the subject, and put the oil people OUT of business, bye bye, see ya later, see ya, wouldn’t wanna BE ya, etc. Some of these oil companies are essentially operated by governments of countries that have a bone to pick with the United States and its’ people, and getting them OUT of our wallets may be the single biggest favor we can do for ourselves in this country in the 21st century. It’s even possible we’ll make better friends with other nations, by then helping THEM to kick the oil habit. Win, win, win, oh, and the actual air might end up a little cleaner too, along with cleaning up politics.

These numbers are totally meaningless and yet another indication of the total failure of the UN to respond to the threat of climate change in a meaningful manner.

No person in their right mind would pay any attention to these numbers.

What is infinitely more important is the underlying model that this august body of experts used in order to arrive at this figures.

Obviously, you all must have been using some type of stable theoretical and quantitative model… last I checked there wasn’t really a Nobel Prize in the category of Excellence in Speculation within the Rarefied Confines of an Ivory Tower.

Why not try to translate the underlying model upon which your ‘framework for action’ is based into language that us mere mortals will be able to understand?

Also, the last time I checked, the principle culprits in terms of climate change were the populations of the overdeveloped countries… including Western ‘climate change’ experts who spend half their time jetting to-and-fro between climate change conferences, each generating obscenely high carbon footprints while forcing the people of the underdeveloped countries to stagnate developmentally to further their own questionable agenda.

Has anyone looked into Mr. Gore’s annual carbon footprint these days?

The biggest hypocrites today are the rich Westerners who have deluded themselves into thinking they’re somehow ‘carbon-neutral’ because they’ve used their wealth to essentially stifle the economic development of the poorest nations.

So why are you folks now discussing transferring cash to the underdeveloped countries? So they can become further corrupted and subservient upon your handouts and at the mercy of your political whims?

The only time overdeveloped Western nations give money to the underdeveloped world is when they seek to corrupt local leadership and exert political influence to further their own selfish interests.

Wouldn’t you agree that the funds are better spent fixing your own polluting industries domestically rather than promulgating yet another wave of hypocritical hegemony upon an increasingly impatient world?

Demonstrate true leadership by addressing your failures domestically first before forcing your hypocritical views on weaker and more vulnerable targets overseas. Otherwise you’re merely acting like overdeveloped bullies.

I suspect when the significant effects and attendant high costs of climate change arrive that there will be a scramble by the wealthy countries to backpedal on most of their promises to help with the environmental ravages to their less prosperous neighbors. There will simply be too much pressure at home to take care of their own problems during the unfolding meltdown.

My understanding of the European Proposal coming in around $140 billion annually was a mitigation rather than an adaptation strategy. //greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/how-much-should-poor-countries-be-paid-to-fight-climate-change/

It seems to me that the underestimate of sea level rise alone in the 2007 IPCC report should catch the attention of the US and China since coastal assets are very much at risk. //sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw/lecz.jsp

Perhaps the two countries can form a partnership to double up the European contribution to mitigation for a few years.

And where do we think these $140 to 170 billion dollars to developing countries will actually end up? The vast majority IMHO will go into the secret bank accounts of corrupt politicians and their cronies both here and abroad to support their carbon intensive life styles. Global climate hysteria is merely one more scam to redistribute wealth from the middle class to the politicians and the politically-connected. Robert Mugabe will be thrilled.

Ok, I know you guys have big gaping mouths at the cost but think about

1. The massive poverty
2. Drought, water starvation
3. War
4 Hunger
5. Did I mention cost?

Then it’s better to do every possible thing you can at the moment to prevent global warming from going further.

I actually agree with many of the comments above, especially with respect to the non transparent and unaccountable transfer of funds that will go to governments that are still learning to be accountable and transparent. My viewpoint comes directly from my current experience trying to get information from the Government of Guyana on a Low Carbon Development Strategy that is being proposed for forest protection. In country national “consultations” on this document are underway, with little true public engagement as the sessions are more like information sessions. Numbers were derived from McKinsey & Co who were paid by the Clinton Foundation. When asked about the numbers, people are being referred to the McKinsey report, yet this cannot be found in the public domain. The management structure proposed by the government involves 3 agencies, two of which are directly overseen by the office of the president. This would probably be fine if there did not exist an atmosphere of distrust in the country right now.

In the NY courts, two cases, one is defense attorney Mr. Simels and the other is accused Guyanese drug dealer Roger Khan. During these trials ministers in the government of Guyana have been linked with illicit activities including the purchase of wire tapping equipment that was then given to Mr. Khan These accusations may or may not be true, but they definitely raise concerns by many that something needs to be done in Guyana to at least investigate some of this stuff. To date, the government has denied any involvement with any of the activities. So, it is under circumstances like these that many developing countries will continue to receive overseas development aid & why, like comments above, one must really wonder what better mechanisms can there be that really protect the lives of the majority of the poor in the world.

I’m sorry but I think the author of the story has the story entirely wrong and has totally missed the point of the repot.

The UN report of $140-170 billion is the cost of MITIGATION. The british report with the $500 billion price tag is the cost of ADAPTION.

In other words it is much cheaper to prevent and avoid the problem than it is to try to adapt to it. I.e. if you stop global warming you don’t have to spend so many billions protecting costal regions.

Clearly the report say that we must take action now to avoid the huge cost of ADAPTION. As everybody know, prevention is always the cheapest cure.

Whats the point of all of this? It’s not like China is going to join this looney circus anyway, and the west has no way to force them to do that. That is, without starting a tradewar that would just collapse there econonies! This was a dead idea from the start!

now or later?

The bigest issue with the Scientists involved is that the real data now shows that the earth is cooling and the seas are going down.
Since this outcome does not lead to massive funding and further research, it continues to be overlooked.
Wonder why? No money in my pocket could be the most obvious answer.
What if the government funded scientists are just plain wrong and we hare going for an ice age?

The globalists need more money to save us: To brainwash the entire world and to keep up the aggressive fear mongering and propaganda by funding shady SCIENTIFIC STUDIES is a costly proposition indeed.

The UN, EU and in particular the British elitists know that. They never intend to stop advancing their agenda through misinformation and through dummying down the public by stating that global warming is a matter of scientific fact while it actually is a religion. Re-naming global warming to CLIMATE CHANGE did not make the SAVE THE PLANET-scheme more credible but the religion more believable. More believers joined the green cult

To stay on track with the execution of the hoax governments have learned from and adapted the funding techniques used by industries. They decided to fund believers only.

By using the proven Tobacco/Pharmacia funding models they have assured us the forgone results/conclusions of their scientific research: 92% of governmental research grants have been awarded to scientists in support of the warming thesis while only 8% have gone toward the research of the anti-thesis (needless to say, the 8% were grants awarded by mistakes in the application process).

On the surface all this might have the appearance of conflict of interest. However, we are being assured it is not (like Big Tobacco did), and are told to blindly trust our elitists who would have nothing else but our best interest at hart.

Who are the elitist globalists kidding?

First poor countries are poor because of 1 reason, corruption.

Next fossil fuel reduction doesn’t cost anything if done right, Since when has using less of an increasingly expensive product cost more? The energy saving over 2-10 yr will pay for it all.

If you want to help poor countries give the women micro loans and help with tech like solar or more eff stoves, solar lights, things that increase productivity and reduce labor like gathering fuel wood.

Teach them how to make their own fertilizer, raised bed farming, etc. Grow hemp, bamboo for fuels, clothes, etc.

Bit until corruption stops, any money you give the govs will be wasted.

This sounds like an excuse for governments to give money to their cronies, particularly in underdeveloped countries, although we know there is plenty of influence peddling, favoritism, and subsidies in exchange for bribes and campaign contributions in the US and Europe also. Cap and trade is a device to enable politicians to give valuable emission permits to their friends (in exchange for…?).

Adaptation will cost money, but most of it would be spent anyway as infrastructure (that becomes obsolete or wears out in about 50 years) is replaced and upgraded. Now some of the depreciation will be spent on moving coastal infrastructure inland.

The accounting doesn’t include the benefits of warming in the form of longer growing seasons and reduced heating costs. They may well exceed the costs.

This climate change agreement cannot change the problem of climate change because they see the problem as CO2. NOVA had a program a number of years ago that if the sun and moon were a little closer, it would dramatically increase the C02 and you would almost be able to watch things grow, they would grow so fast. By reducing C02 it would decrease the growing capacity of the earth and we would die quickly from starvation at least.

It takes more polluting energy to create green technology and transport all the parts around the world. It would not reduce the cost of energy, it would only change who was paid for it. Most people, especially in a financial crisis will not be able to afford the new technologies. The plan is well-intentioned, but has no positive affect.

The surest, easiest, quickest, fairest, most beautiful and least expensive solution is to turn from the employment lifestyle that is destroying the air, land, water and food making the people and the earth diseased. We can solve the world problems at the same time we turn to a garden paradise lifestyle with trees, plants and pets that provide fresh food around us. God promises rain in due season and good health and peace for animals and people if they follow His wisdom. Leviticus 26

Money and jobs are the obstacles to choosing the only sustainable solution. We cannot build the undeveloped world into a small town 1800 century lifestyle, but we can show them a garden paradise lifestyle that they can rejoice in. It will be an answer to the expected extinction of humanity and a joy in ending the oppression and stress of the employment lifestyle for those who have been stuck in it The garden paradise lifestyle ends the problem; it does not delay it. It obviously will work; the only question is, Are we willing to retire?

Send Twitter: Any candidate, political party, God’s solutions to overcome problems at US, UN, EU, NATO, ME Quartet, religions, at Divine-Way.com FREE

11-09-09 //thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/the-copenhagen-treaty-explained-%e2%80%94-part-i/#comment-2251 The Copenhagen Treaty Explained, Part 1.

Marie Devine
//www.divine-way.com
God has solutions to world problems we created by ignoring His wisdom.

Bookmarked this. Thank you looking for sharing. Unequivocally worth my time.