Jim Yong Kim, the new President of the World Bank, called on the world to address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a shift for an organization that usually does not weigh in on the subject. Kim’s report, “Why a 4° Centigrade Warmer World Must Be Avoided,” has a very specific intent. “It is my hope that this report shocks us into action,” Kim writes in the foreward.
The report paints a terrifying picture of a warmer world, and all the challenges countries would face under that scenario.
“It would be so dramatically different from today’s world that it is hard to describe accurately; much relies on complex projections and interpretations,” Kim writes, but he manages to quantify it enough to make it significantly unpalatable. It would consign millions of people around the world, particularly in tropical regions, to massive suffering and an inability to rise from poverty, while it would completely reverse sustainable development projects in much of this world.
The distribution of impacts, the report writes, would fall unequally on the poorest citizens in the world, living in equatorial regions.
Extreme weather events would proliferate everywhere, with global effects on agricultural production, societal development, and social unrest. Coastal regions would face the greatest threats from rising sea levels, and this would also magnify around the Equator. Oceans would acidify, threatening fragile ecosystems like coral reefs. Food and water systems would break down, and the impacts on human health could be incalculable. Entire populations would have to move from their inundated islands and coasts.
The executive summary concludes this way:
Thus, given that uncertainty remains about the full nature and scale of impacts, there is also no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible. A 4°C world is likely to be one in which communities, cities and countries would experience severe disruptions, damage, and dislocation, with many of these risks spread unequally. It is likely that the poor will suffer most and the global community could become more fractured, and unequal than today. The projected 4°C warming simply must not be allowed to occur—the heat must be turned down. Only early, cooperative, international actions can make that happen.
About half of the 4°C rise is probably locked in, absent a miraculous agreement for immediate carbon pollution reductions. That means tens of billions in annual costs of adaptation and disaster relief, as well as all of the effects previously discussed.
If a staid organization like the World Bank is sounding the alarm, you would think that nations would pay attention.
Photo by World Bank GFDRR Disaster Risk Management (DRM) under Creative Commons Licenses





27 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
There’s no reason to think that. The system doesn’t operate that way. Foreign Affiars had an article on climate change at least six years ago. There’s nothing more respectable in U.S. elite opinion that Foreign Affairs.
I mean, even before that article, one could have predicted a Foreign Affairs climate-change-themed article would have made no difference. But certainly afterwards, I don’t think there’s any reason to be surprised because the World Bank is being ignored (or will be ignored).
Until the capitalist system itself is threatened by a massive anti-capitalist movement, the only changes one can expect to see vis-a-vis global warming would be ones that are highly authoritarian and beneficial to elite interests.
If and when such changes occur, however, my guess is that they will be wildly supported by the left — and deeply damaging to poor and working-class people in the U.S.
And yes, I’m conflating global opinion with U.S. elite opinion. But until the U.S. does something on the issue, no one else will. That should be understood by everyone as a truism.
you are wrong.
for instance, a quick search which took me about thirty seconds:
From Climateprogress:
“A state in Germany’s industrial heartland is moving quickly to replace nuclear power with renewable energy, a transition that supporters say could be applied in the United States to reduce our reliance on coal.
The state of Baden-Württemberg, home to Mercedes-Benz and a strong manufacturing sector, faces abrupt changes to its energy systems as Germany strives to close its 17 nuclear power plants over the next 12 years. About half of the state’s electricity derives from nuclear generation, or double the national average.
Officials aim to lean heavily on renewable energy sources like solar, wind, hydro and biomass, which are expected to provide at least 80 percent of the state’s electricity by 2050. Germany is already moving in that direction, with about 20 percent of its power currently coming from renewable sources.”
There are other examples.
Is Exxon capitalist?
“But with chatter about carbon taxes in both conservative and progressive Washington political circles growing into a serious bi-partisan conversation, influential players are chiming in with their support.
Speaking to Bloomberg News, oil and gas giant Exxon reiterated its support for a carbon tax yesterday. A spokeswoman for the company said that the tool could “play a significant role in addressing the challenge of rising emissions.”
“Combined with further advances in energy efficiency and new technologies spurred by market innovation, a well-designed carbon tax could play a significant role in addressing the challenge of rising emissions,” Kimberly Brasington, a spokeswoman for the company, said in an e-mail. “A carbon tax should be made revenue neutral via tax offsets in other areas,” she added.”
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2012/exxon-carbon-tax-would-play-a-significant-role-in-addressing-rising-emissions-22774
To bad America can’t lead as it once did. Somehow money got in the way of merit and ingenuity?
From nuclear to biomass? Not very carbon friendly.
AFAIK, Michael Mann and some other well respected greens are looking seriously at Goodbye cap and trade; hello fee and dividend
Used to agree. Bill McKibben and other committed greenns are changing my mind.
How Can Biochar Be Carbon-Negative?
NRDC releases new Fact Sheet on biochar
My understanding is that pyrolysis (high temperature heating of the biomass in an anaerobic environment) results in a net carbon negative result.
There are a lot of people who want to capture hydrogen and syngas from the process.
“Officials aim to lean heavily on renewable energy sources like solar, wind, hydro and biomass, which are expected to provide at least 80 percent of the state’s electricity by 2050. Germany is already moving in that direction, with about 20 percent of its power currently coming from renewable sources.”
Senate here killed 20% requirement as I recall.
WWII’s onset Germany had distinct tech and military advantage over rest of world. Guess Germany knows the real war is for clean energy, produces efficiently and used efficiently.
In America its called enable Americans servitude to energy from sequestered carbon and then waste 80 bucks for every hundred bucks spent on the refined black gold, gasoline? Lets go get some German scientist like we did during and at the end of WWII?
Stop global warming = short term pain for long term gain. In which “democracy” is that gig popular?
It’ll take a crisis, then it’ll be too late.
Get all the hydrogen you want from desalinating sea water, using solar power.
So much for supply side economics Boo. There is a better way. America just does not know it yet. But they will. Once enlightened, Americans will demand it and if we don’t get it, well lets just say the south did not win the civil war. Their monopoly on “energy,” slavery, ended at great cost to America because a privileged minority did not want change. They said it would cost to much….
scorched earth….. Fucken losers…
So, you guys don’t think this will all just “blow over”???
IF anyone listened to last week’s Radio Ecoshock program with scientist Dr. Kevin Anderson speaking on why a 4d C temperature rise is rather inevitable; we can understand how far behind the actual curve the World Bank president and the rest of our elites are in discussing this problem in any substantive way so there can be a substantive change in our consumptive patterns.
Didn’t Obama say in his after election remarks ” getting the economy moving ” was priority 1. Here we are talking about cuts to federal programs and real austerity for most; the old fiscal cliff, when the jobs program of the next 2 decades stands before us. Saving the earth and mitigating some of the worst effects of global warming should become the full time job of our gov’t. After the last decade our economy is ripe for this jobs program. We’ll see sooner rather than later, I’m afraid, that energy production (think corporate subsidies and sweet heart contracts ) trumps our best thinkers’ efforts on this subject. Money talks and the electioneering of 2012 was unmatched in this regard. What all that influence buys has yet to be determined.
“…so there can be a substantive change in our consumptive patterns.”
Like a drug addict, no substantive change in consumptive patterns, called substance abuse, results in deleterious consequences for the addict and his family. Manifest in premature death. The consumptive patterns concerning fossil fuels is no different. Sobriety is a mindset, not limited to ingestion of substances, creating dysfunctional dependencies…..
http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/11/19/today-on-the-cycle-what-obama-could-learn-from-thomas-jefferson/
About time. Long overdue. Coming up!
Jefferson detested monopolies America. Guess what we got here in America?
Coerced faith is tyranny… Got that right..
Seems counterintuitive, but I’ll defer to you on this one. Though, I seem to remember nuclear power being promoted as too cheap to meter when it was first introduced.
Everyone I respect says we’re past the point of just being able to slide over to renewables.
I like hydrogen, a lot, but it leaks. How do you store it? Were you planning to use platinum in the reaction? If not platinum, what? Do you even know the other fuel cell options?
Electrolysis has been around a long time. It works with fresh water too. Do you have a link to your claim about the desalination? To work in a fuel cell the purity matters.
Yes, very counter-intuitive.
Lots of youtubes out there about biochar.
Lots of scientific papers on pyrolysis and gasification.
Well the basic issue is that our elites never frame the Climate problem in a way which we can address, nor do they use or state the actual data for the current state of affairs. Kim’s suggestion 4dC is actually avoidable is patently misleading today.
They all expect to be able to buy their way out of it while leaving the rest of us to deal with the consequences.
Depends on whether you believe the nuclear lobby’s dodgy data on carbon dioxide, which leaves out these nasty side effects:
The leaders of the world’s most powerful nations do whatever the leaders of the dirty-energy industries tell them to do.
“The total solar energy absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.
In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.
Wikipedia
Oh, good luck with all that, Mr. Jim Yong Kim.
That works against solar and wind too. You don’t plant wind turbine seeds and wait for them to grow. Mine the ore for steel, transport it, build the components, transport them, move massive cranes to install.
Let them stand for 100 years to wait for the bresk-even point.