Skip to main content

Not only that, but doing nothing, thus further incurring myriad risks associated with climate change, could cost nations up to one-fifth (19%) of their GDP by 2030, with developing countries most vulnerable, according to a new report from the Economics of Climate Adaptation Working Group, created by the World Bank’s Global Environment Facility and the UN Environment Programme.  The report says that some cost-effective adaptation measures already exist—some that are half as expensive as the eventual cost of inaction on climate change—and can prevent between 40 and 68 percent of the expected economic loss.  Even higher levels of prevention are possible in certain areas, according to the report.  As we debate climate legislation and head for international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, this report is a must-read for US policymakers—including President Obama, who so far has not warned US residents of the hazards and costs associated with unchecked climate disruption.

The report, Shaping Climate-Resilient Development (full report in .pdf (164 pp., 6MB), or Exec Summary) was prepared by a group of experts from Swiss Re, a leading global reinsurer, and McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm.  They employed what they say is a rigorous and replicable methodology to identify and assess the risks that climate change imposes on economies worldwide, and that the methodology can be used in any setting where society must consider risk.  "It provides a set of tools for decision makers to adopt a tailored approach for estimating these costs based on local climate conditions, and for building more resilient economies," according to Swiss Re’s press announcement.

"By determining a location’s total climate risk – calculated by combining existing climate risks, climate change and the value of future economic development – and using a cost-benefit analysis to create a list of location-specific measures to adapt to the identified risk, the Working Group was able to evaluate current and potential costs of climate change and how to prevent them," Swiss Re’s media release says.

McKinsey & Company’s announcement explains:

   "The aim of this report is to provide decision-makers with a systematic way of answering these questions. Focusing specifically on the economic aspects of adaptation, it outlines a fact-based risk management approach that national and local leaders can use to understand the impact of climate on their economies – and identify actions to minimize that impact at the lowest cost to society.

Sponsorship and key guidance was provided by ClimateWorks, an international network of foundations focused on achieving low-carbon development; the European Commission; the Rockefeller Foundation, which brought its experience with building climate resilience in developing countries; and Standard Chartered Bank, a global bank with a strong emerging market footprint.

The methodology was applied in specific geographic areas in eight countries—China, the United States, Guyana, Mali, the United Kingdom, Samoa, India, and Tanzania—areas representing a wide range of climate hazards, economic impacts, and development stages.  The working group estimated expected economic loss for these eight regions under three climate change scenarios for the year 2030: 1) today’s climate conditions—assuming a continuation of historical climate patterns with no additional climate change, in the context of expected economic growth 2) moderate climate change—the average predicted or projected impact, among all available studies and interviews of experts, for the particular hazard being studied, e.g. wind speed during a hurricane; and 3) "high" climate change, based on the upper brackets of climate change impacts considered possible by 2030, as presented in existing studies and experts consulted.  (See page 37 of the report.)

   Overall findings from the eight case studies showed that easily identifiable and cost effective measures – such as improved drainage, sea barriers, and improved building regulations, among many others - could reduce potential economic losses from climate change for all regions. In fact, most could deliver economic benefits that far outweigh their costs – with adaptation measures that on average cost less than 50 percent of the economic loss avoided. (emphasis added)

Four overarching findings are reported in the Executive Summary:

   The first is that, despite much uncertainty about the possible effects of global warming on local weather patterns, society knows enough to build plausible scenarios on which to base decision-making.  This is true even in developing countries, where historical longitudinal climate data may be limited. Using such scenarios helps decision-makers identify adaptation measures that would be useful against a range of climate change outcomes.  (emphasis added)  CSW comment:  This finding refutes a common denialist claim that too much uncertainty regarding local and regional impacts precludes policy responses to mitigate or invest in adaptation measures.

 

   The second finding is a sobering one: significant economic value is at risk.  If current development trends continue to 2030, the locations studied will lose between 1 and 12 percent of GDP as a result of existing climate patterns, with low income populations such as small-scale farmers in India and Mali losing an even greater proportion of their income. Within the next 20 years, climate change could worsen this picture significantly: in the locations studied, a scenario of high climate change would increase today’s climate-related losses by up to 200 percent as soon as 2030.

   Thirdly, however, the cases found that a portfolio of cost-effective measures can be put together to address a large part of the identified risk. In principle, between 40 and 68 percent of the loss expected to 2030 in the case locations – under severe climate change scenarios – could be averted through adaptation measures whose economic benefits outweigh their costs - with even higher levels of prevention possible in highly targeted geographies. These measures include infrastructure improvements, such as strengthening buildings against storms or constructing reservoirs and wells to combat drought; technological measures, such as improved fertilizer use; systemic or behavioral initiatives, such as awareness campaigns; and disaster relief and emergency response programs. Risk transfer or insurance measures also play a key role in addressing low-frequency, high-severity weather events such as once-in-100 year floods. However, in most cases there remains a proportion of climate-related risk that cannot be averted through known adaptation measures – underlining the fact that adaptation, no matter how well designed, cannot be a substitute for action to reduce carbon emissions and slow the rate of global warming. (emphasis added)  

   Finally, the cases reinforced the view that adaptation measures are in many cases also effective steps to strengthen economic development – especially in developing countries. In Mali, for example, the implementation of climate-resilient agricultural development could potentially bring in billions of dollars a year in additional revenue. Measures with demonstrated net economic benefit are also more likely to attract investment – and trigger valuable new innovations and partnerships. Indeed, well-targeted, early investment to improve climate resilience – whether in infrastructure development, technology advances, capacity improvement, shifts in systems and behaviors, or risk transfer measures – is likely to be cheaper and more effective for the world community than complex disaster relief efforts after the event.  (See CSW’s related post on September 18.)  

The case study for the US focused on the hurricane risk in three counties in Florida:  Broward, Miami-Dade, and Palm Beach, the three most hurricane-prone counties in the state, and large population and economic centers. Key findings include:

   • Florida can expect an annual expected loss of $33 billion from hurricanes – more than 10 percent of GDP - under a high climate change scenario, and $30 billion under a moderate scenario.  However, Florida is already at risk from hurricanes in today’s climate conditions, to the tune of $17 billion.  Losses are mostly a result of damage from the high winds, storm surges, and driving rain associated with tropical cyclones.

   • Florida could offset more than half of its expected loss by employing measures that have net economic benefits.

   *  However—despite measures taken, it is unlikely that Florida could avert more than 40% of the expected losses, unless economic development patterns, now concentrated along the coast, are shifted to less vulnerable areas in the state.  This finding underscores the need to ameliorate climate change through aggressive emissions reductions world-wide to bring down atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.  

   • Cost-effective adaptation measures include beach nourishment (adding more sand to beaches to help buffer the land from ocean storms; stronger building codes requiring more secure roof attachment and raising buildings off the ground; removing trees, branches, and other vegetation close enough to buildings to damage them during a hurricane; and protecting against flood damages by building water intrusion barriers around homes and communities.  

Many cities, towns, rural communities, and states are all making great strides in dealing with the climate threat, by enacting measures to reduce GHG emissions and by implementing cost-effective adaptation responses.  For example, a report released this week by American Rivers, Natural Security: How Sustainable Water Strategies Prepare Communities for a Changing Climate (full report (3.6 MB), .pdf) profiles eight forward-looking cities across the US that have taken critical steps in the area of water management to build in resiliency against four aspects of climate impacts:  public health, extreme weather, water supply, and quality of life.  (The report does not, however, articulate a federal role in helping other communities to follow suit.)

The vast majority of communities and locales in the US are poorly prepared for climate change impacts and will require guidance, technical support, and additional funding to build in the needed resiliency in the face of a climate-disrupted future.  The House climate bill (Waxman-Markey, HR 2454) has good provisions on some aspects of the adaptation problem.  But the US government has not yet adequately warned the public of the hazards and costs of inaction, or established the federal framework needed to assist communities in boosting climate change preparedness.  It is time to do so, with or without a climate bill.  

[Post by Anne Polansky, Sr. Associate, Climate Science Watch, and Rick Piltz, Director.  CSW is a sponsored project of the Government Accountability Project, www.whistleblower.org.  This is Climate Science Watch's second post on DK GreenRoots; yesterday we posted our first, "API, CEI, Heartland, listen up: Big money calls for big cuts in global carbon emissions."]

Originally posted to climate science watch on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 10:38 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Economic failure, food insecurity & immigration (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RunawayRose, Lujane, RLMiller

    all things that the right find frightening.

    These need to be highlighted to get the right to stop their slash and burn mentality.

    Oh no, the dead have risen and they're voting Republican. - Lisa Simpson

    by LaFeminista on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 10:49:18 AM PDT

  •  Very interesting. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RunawayRose

    My day job is insurance litigation (earth movement, water damage, and similar claims) -- suffice to say that no matter how many times a policy says "we don't cover landslides, no way, no how," litigation follows a significant loss.  General Re is urging a political solution, i.e., reducing carbon emissions, out of sheer self interest.  I'm sure that high powered coverage counsel are right now reviewing & attempting to strengthen exclusions for earth movement, water damage, flood, volcanoes, earthquake, and similar items as we speak.

    I suppose that if I were entirely selfish, I would want to see more climate chaos, more landslides, and thus more money...but, alas, those darn principles!

    Keep on posting!  The science has to drive the politics rather than the other way around.

    Full disclosure: Planet Earth pays me, in sunsets, to Adopt A Senator for ACES

    by RLMiller on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 11:02:51 AM PDT

    •  Question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RunawayRose

      Hi RL --

      It's your statement

      "I suppose that if I were entirely selfish, I would want to see more climate chaos, more landslides, and thus more money...but, alas, those darn principles!"

      that raises a question for me.  

      Is the common thinking in the insurance industry that covering risks and potential losses directly related to climate change impacts (e.g. more storm surges, high winds and driving rain during hurricanes, sea level risk and coastal erosion, flooding, and so on) stands to a net positive in terms of revenue and profit -- or a net negative in terms of losses incurred because payouts will exceed premiums (I know nothing about reinsurance or insurance except the basics.)   Swiss Re was one of the very first companies to begin to look at the climate threat as a threat to their business, going back to the 1980s.  

      Also, to what extent are insurance entities still covering "maladpative" behavior --- i.e. building a new hotel on a coast using less-than-adequate building codes and only moderate protection against SLR or storm surges.   Or the tendency to build residential homes at the edge of large forests in the west, prone to more frequent wildfires.   If insurance companies failed to cover this sort of behavior, wouldn't that be a win-win for everyone?  

      Are there any comprehensive studies on this that have been made public?

      We enjoy posting here and will certainly keep it up.  The science has much to say and needs to be articulated much more broadly in society than it has been to date.  

      ~ Anne at CSW

      •  Hi! I've crossed over to what insurance (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RunawayRose

        people call the "dark side," i.e., I represent plaintiffs, but I have some general information.  If a hotel has been built below building code standards, no one knows until it cracks up in a landslide...and then I come in to sue the hotel builder (who is defended by its insurers).

        The insurers lose their shirts on catastrophes.  Their business model is based on calculating risks.  For example, State Farm knows that an average homeowner has a loss every 12 years, and 40-50% of all claims are water related (statistics are from depositions, not  national statistics).  11 out of those 12 years are either profit or a small premium reduction depending on how nonprofit they're supposed to be, and the 12th year will be a small payout.  Catastrophes cause claims far in excess of reserves.  I don't recall the exact amount but IIRC insurers lost $3-5 billion on the Northridge EQ (1994).  The foresighted insurers have figured that climate change = new claim every 6 years, not 12, and the claims will be larger.

        And on insurers refusing to cover maladaptive behavior: distinguish between first party (I make a claim on my own policy, commonly known as homeowner's insurance in California and fire insurance elsewhere) and third party claims (you sue me, so I ask my insurer to defend me and pay you if I am found liable on a covered claim such as negligence).

        First party claims: politically difficult.  I live near, and have cases in, Malibu (Chumash for "Stupid people live here").  Every year there's a wildfire, followed by a landslide, followed by people insisting that homes should not be built there -- but the homes get rebuilt anyway, because developers own Los Angeles County.  Many of them can't get coverage from a for-profit insurer, so the homeowners howl for state relief.  The state has a high-risk pool called the Fair Plan with very limited coverage.  However, California is going broke.  Everyone knows that the system is entirely dysfunctional, but it keeps on going....  Rebuilding New Orleans is another example -- it may be maladaptive and hard to insure, but it's getting rebuilt.

        Third party claims: legally difficult.  The maladaptive behavior may not be known until a loss occurs in the 12th year after premiums have been paid.  An insurer who refuses to defend a third party claim on the ground of maladaptive behavior is leaving itself open to a bad faith lawsuit.

        Probably best to email me if you have more questions -- azureblueskies at sbcglobal dot net.

        Full disclosure: Planet Earth pays me, in sunsets, to Adopt A Senator for ACES

        by RLMiller on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 03:38:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  So, how much are coral reefs worth? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EdlinUser, Calamity Jean, RLMiller

    Or rain forests?  Or elephants, or the tiger?  The militarists are happy to spend trillions on the off chance that someone might attack us, but they don't seem to care about the extermination of thousands of species and the obliteration of huge ecosystems.

    Nothing wrong with your well-written diary, but I'm not really interested in using conventional economics to encourage people to be sane.  It's not a dollars and cents issue, it's a life and death issue.  And megadeath is winning.  

    I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

    by tle on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 11:07:32 AM PDT

    •  I agree with you -- but the flip side is this: (5+ / 0-)

      Not enough of us care about the rainforests and polar bears to do anything more than piecemeal work, i.e., a preserve here and a park there.  To address an international problem, we have to have EVERYBODY on board, including the self-interested types.  I feel like a traitor to everything I believe regarding labor laws when I praise Wal-Mart for taking good positions on sustainability issues, but it is doing so, even if it's doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

      Full disclosure: Planet Earth pays me, in sunsets, to Adopt A Senator for ACES

      by RLMiller on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 11:13:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site