EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Map Reveals Stark Divide in Who Caused Climate Change and Who's Being Hit
When the world's nations convene in Durban in November in the latest attempt to inch towards a global deal to tackle climate change, one fundamental principle will, as ever, underlie the negotiations.
Is is the contention that while rich, industrialised nations caused climate change through past carbon emissions, it is the developing world that is bearing the brunt. It follows from that, developing nations say, that the rich nations must therefore pay to enable the developing nations to both develop cleanly and adapt to the impacts of global warming.
The point is starkly illustrated in a new map of climate vulnerability (above): the rich global north has low vulnerability, the poor global south has high vulnerability. The map is produced by risk analysts Maplecroft by combining measures of the risk of climate change impacts, such as storms, floods, and droughts, with the social and financial ability of both communities and governments to cope. The top three most vulnerable nations reflect all these factors: Haiti, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe.
But it is not until you go all the way down 103 on the list, out of 193 nations, that you encounter the first major developed nation: Greece. The first 102 nations are all developing ones. Italy is next, at 124, and like Greece ranks relatively highly due to the risk of drought. The UK is at 178 and the country on Earth least vulnerable to climate change, according to Maplecroft, is Iceland.
"Large areas of north America and northern Europe are not so exposed to actual climate risk, and are very well placed to deal with it," explains Charlie Beldon, principal analyst at Maplecroft.
The vulnerability index has been calculated down to a resolution of 25km2 and Beldon says at this scale the vulnerability of the developing world's fast growing cities becomes clear. "A lot of big cities have developed in exposed areas such as flood plains, such as in south east Asia, and in developing economies they so don't have the capacity to adapt."
Of the world's 20 fastest growing cities, six are classified as 'extreme risk' by Maplecroft, including Calcutta in India, Manila in the Philippines, Jakarta in Indonesia and Dhaka and Chittagong in Bangladesh. Addis Ababa in Ethiopia also features. A further 10 are rated as 'high risk' including Guangdong, Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, Karachi and Lagos.
"Cities such as Manila, Jakarta and Calcutta are vital centres of economic growth in key emerging markets, but heat waves, flooding, water shortages and increasingly severe and frequent storm events may well increase as climate changes takes hold," says Beldon.
With the world on the verge of a population of seven billion people, the rapid urbanisation of many developing countries remains one of the major demographic trends, but piles on risk because of the higher pressure on resources, such as water, and city infrastructure, like roads and hospitals.
Helen Hodge, head of maps and indices at Maplecroft, says it is not only local populations at risk from climate change impacts, serious though that is. The breaking of international supply chains for businesses working in a globalised world is also a big risk, she says.
"The recent flooding in Bangkok shows how very large multinationals can have long supply chains put at risk," she says, noting that Thailand is the world's largest producer of hard-disk computer drives.
China, the world's workshop, sits almost exactly halfway in the vulnerability index at 98 out of 193. That's appropriate, as China now sits awkwardly between the nations getting rich on carbon emissions and those suffering from its effects. And that's the other major contention that will underpin the UN climate talks in Durban.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
12 Comments so far
Show All"the rich nations must therefore pay to enable the developing nations"
I'm glad they made that clear this time. The last few times they a "climate change" conference everyone was saying it was about climate, and not wealth redistribution.
And I am overjoyed to see you're coming around to a more humanitarian worldview, my friend! ; )
Two fundamental issues of justice are involved: the north-south issue which has been discussed in climate negotiations, and intergenerational justice. Hansen has expressed concern that our obligations to future generations not be forgotten:
The so-called 'north-south' injustice of climate disruption has been emphasized in international discussions, and payment of $100B per year to developing countries has been proposed. Focus on this injustice, as developed countries reap the economic benefits of fossil fuels while developing countries are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, is appropriate. Payments, if used as intended, will support adaptation to climate change and mitigation of emissions from developing countries. We must be concerned, however, about the degree to which such payment, from adults in the North to adults in the South, are a modern form of indulgences, allowing fossil fuel emissions to continue with only marginal reductions or even increase.
The greatest injustice of continued fossil fuel dominance of energy is the heaping of climate and environmental damages onto the heads of young people and those yet to be born in both developing and developed countries.
The entire premise of the article is flawed.
Climate changes without human intervention. We do not understand all the factors that contribute to natural climate variation.
Therefore, we cannot know the extent to which human activity contributes to natural climate variation, nor the direction in which that effect occurs.
There is no justification for the premise that climate change is "caused" by human activity in one area and preferentially affects people in other areas. This is a political statement that has nothing to do with climate variation.
You're right. What does the insurance industry know about risk, anyway? They're politically motivated. The globe is homogeneous. Changes in carbon dioxide levels don't matter. Climate scientists are crazy people-- it's a job requirement. It would be impossible for people in one area to inflict damage on another area. We can't predict anything, or know anything about how our activities might impact anything, anybody, anytime. The globe is really the back of a big bowling ball, made of snow.
Regarding the denialist poppycock from Hayduke:
Svante Arrhenius discovered the greenhouse effect of atmospheric CO2 in 1896. Observations have monitored a geologically-unprecedented increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1958. Physical calculations indicate that a doubling of CO2 should raise the temperature of the Earth by 3 C, and temperature records have shown that exact trend.
Finally, the carbon isotope building up in the atmosphere is c-12 (not c-13 or c-14), which conclusively establishes its fossil fuel origin. If you'll believe that humans are not the cause of global warming despite evidence this overwhelming, you'll believe anything.
Hayduke2000....
You said, "...This is a political statement that has nothing to do with climate variation..."
Isn't it funny, when someone is denying, minimising or projecting...what they are REALLY doing is deflecting the very thing they are blaming on someone else....
i.e. point your finger at someone and there is three fingers pointing back at YOU the accuser...
**The entire premise of the article is flawed.**
The entire premise of this article rests on science, which is based upon data, not perfect knowledge, which is an impossible standard held up only by lying extraction industry shills such as yourself.
**Climate changes without human intervention.**
This is technically true, but utterly irrelevant. It changes with and without human intervention. You also know it to be true but irrelevant. You are a profoundly immoral individual and should, I and many others believe, be prosecuted for your contribution towards putting countless billions of people born and unborn at risk for disease, starvation and death. Expect one day to be prosecuted for your crimes and as an accessory to crimes.
**We do not understand all the factors that contribute to natural climate variation.**
This is technically true, but utterly irrelevant. Needing to know every last little factor is an impossible standard held up by denialist frauds like yourself. You also know it to be true but irrelevant. Refer to above for assessment of your lack of character and impending fate.
**Therefore, we cannot know the extent to which human activity contributes to natural climate variation, nor the direction in which that effect occurs.**
We cannot know the extent which bananas enjoy network television, but we can make uncannily accurate predictions and assumptions based upon the data and scientific evidence. Were you born a liar or are you simply paid to be one? Do you ever consider that one day you may be called to answer for the crimes you are an accessory to? You should consider this very seriously.
**There is no justification for the premise that climate change is "caused" by human activity in one area and preferentially affects people in other areas. This is a political statement that has nothing to do with climate variation.**
Did you go to law school to learn to lie like this or was this propaganda passed down to you from better liars than yourself? Are you quite done posting your boilerplate lying claptrap you little rat-faced shill? Do you think anyone here believes you? Do you think anyone here believes you to be anything other than a despicable pile of human excrement for touting such transparent falsehoods in service to corrupt industrial interests here in a public forum? Do you believe you will get away with such lies forever, that ideas of karma and the will for human justice somehow will pass you by?
Consider this: in 2011, per capita carbon foot print (i.e., a measure of consumption) for a few selected nations were: Japan: 13.8 tons CO2 equivalent, USA: 28.6 and Bangladesh: 1.1; lowest, Malawi: 0.7; See this for the full list: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es803496a?prevSearch=Carbon%2BFootprint%2Bof%2BNations&searchHistoryKey=
The usual response to the impending crisis is begging for (by the vulnerable nations) and throwing of (by the developed economies) money at it! Bangladesh is expected to lose about third of its southern coastal land mass to sea-rise: no amount of money is going to keep the sea out. Add to this two other factors: worldwide dwindling resources and growing populations. Real solution is to look into the cause of it: endless and voracious consumption, but reversing that requires unprecedented social control on the way people live in the developed countries, and aspire to do so in the rest. That requires completely different economic system and social organizations. It is very difficult to get excited about the fake enthusiasm of professional ‘environmentalists’ who do not have the intellectual ability and/or honesty to face the truth, and challenge the status quo, instead of continuing to prostrate themselves to global capitalist ideology.
Maplecroft provides advice to corporatists seeking disaster opportunities to exploit ala the "Shock Doctrine".
They are advising their clients that the "South" presents greater opportunities to leverage capital in climate disasters, and mapping these "investment" opportunities.
The whole article is disgusting.
Let us, for just a moment, take a look at the section of the map covering the United States.
On my monitor, the map indicates at least two major areas of significant impact: the Gulf Coast, and all of Southern Florida.
Furthermore, just to the south of Florida are two nations with significant related populations in South Florida, Haiti and Cuba, places where events and disasters immediately effect conditions on the U.S. mainland.
Thanks for the map, Maplecorp, and we appreciate the discussion, abstract though it may be, about North-South and inter-generational justice. But perhaps those of us in the U.S. should stop for a bit and ponder the implications of relocating Miami and New Orleans.