YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY

1 - 12 of 127prevnext
Takepart.com

Shocking Study: By 2030, Climate Change Could Kill 100 Million People

Takepart.com – Wed, Sep 26, 2012
Money talks. So maybe this bit of news will sway a few climate-change deniers.
A report commissioned by 20 governments and conducted by the humanitarian organization DARAfound that, “More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change,” reportsReuters.
“More than 90 percent of those deaths will occur in developing countries, said the report that calculated the human and economic impact of climate change on 184 countries in 2010 and 2030.” And the report added, “the effects of climate change had lowered global output by 1.6 percent of world GDP, or by about $1.2 trillion a year, and losses could double to 3.2 percent of global GDP by 2030 if global temperatures are allowed to rise, surpassing 10 percent before 2100.”
DARA has touched on this subject before, noting last month that, “For every one-degree centigrade increase in temperature, a poor country can expect economic growth to drop by about 1.3 percentage points . . . As emerging nations are playing catch-up in terms of technology, being knocked off course is not good news.”
Commenting on the impact of climate change in the developing world, The Economist said earlier this month that, “Most people in the West know that the poor world contributes to climate change, though the scale of its contribution still comes as a surprise. Poor and middle-income countries already account for just over half of total carbon emissions . . . Brazil produces more CO2 per head than Germany. The lifetime emissions from these countries' planned power stations would match the world's entire industrial pollution since 1850.”
“Less often realized, though, is that global warming does far more damage to poor countries than they do to the climate. In a report in 2006 [Lord] Nicholas Stern calculated that a 2°C rise in global temperature cost about 1% of world GDP.”
But Reuters noted that, “Even the biggest and most rapidly developing economies will not escape unscathed. The United States and China could see a 2.1 percent reduction in their respective GDPs by 2030, while India could experience a more than 5 percent loss.”
And last year, BBC News reported that the “Negative effects of climate change could cost Canada the equivalent of 1% of its GDP by 2050 and 2.5% by 2075 . . . Damage could reach C$41bn ($20bn; £27bn), estimates say, depending on global emissions, the economy and population growth.”
In other words, we really are all in this together.
Do you think the economic implications of global warming highlighted here might change the minds of some climate-change deniers?
Related Stories on TakePart:
Lawrence Karol is a writer and editor who lives with his dog, Mike. He is a former Gourmet staffer and enjoys writing about design, food, travel and lots of other stuff. @WriteEditDream | Email Lawrence | TakePart.com

MORE SCIENCE NEWS

 

46 comments

  • Papa Ray
    Papa Ray  •  1 day 2 hrs ago
    So the U.S. will see a drop in it's GDP of 2.something. And it will mean the doom of at least a million people the world over.

    Big deal. The U.S. has seen a 6.something drop in it's GDP in the last three years and the World has had over a million people die from wars and other causes in just the last year.

    Can't any news organization print anything that makes any sense or of any value anymore? Do they always have to generate news from nothing?

    The world is just going to have to get over climate change. Nobody cares enough about it to change it....if they could...which they can't now or in the foreseeable future. Plus it costs money to even buy "Climate Change" Green tax credits, which change NOTHING.

    Who wants to give money to make people like Gore rich?

    If there were (magically) all climate change effected (affected) by the human race starting right now reduced to ZERO, it would make no difference in the least to the big picture of climate or any change to it, none. what. so. ever.

    Papa Ray
  • cowgirl
    Cowgirl  •  5 days ago
    I'll ask again, if i do everything i can to clean up our environment, yet, i dont believe in man made global warming. Then what?
    • Bobby
      Bobby 4 days ago
      Clean environment is good, fewer diseases to be found in a clean environment.
  • Charles
    Charles  •  1 hr 17 mins ago
    "Shocking Study: By 2030, Climate Change Could Kill 100 Million People" - Make it 200 Million and you've got a deal. Good riddance.
  • christopher
    Christopher  •  17 hrs ago
    This just in:

    "In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production."

    Sources: Norman Myers, ‘Environmental refugees, An emergent security issue’, 13. Economic forum, Prague, OSCE, May 2005 ; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 ; Liser, 2007.

    Global Warmists are complete Idiots.

    Source: Christopher
  • Jose
    Jose  •  4 days ago
    I guess we will see in 2030...
  • cjr_j_r
    Cjr_j_r  •  4 days ago
    Predict something that cannot accurately be concluded 18+ years away, achieve a level of "high drama" with readers, get your fix for being the drama queen, the writer moves on, and we all forget about it 10 years out...
  • erich
    Erich  •  5 days ago
    And I COULD win the lottery!
  • cowgirl
    Cowgirl  •  4 days ago
    56 Million deaths occur per year, does this article mean that everyone alive today will be alive in 2030 and if our planet warms, 100 million will die that would have been alive.....
    • rem1967
      Rem1967 4 days ago
      It means 100 million more people will die than otherwise would have durning that period.
  • A Yahoo! user
    A Yahoo! User  •  4 days ago
    drivers don't realize they are going to fast until the crash. why would anyone change before the damage is done.
  • Robert
    Robert  •  5 days ago
    By 2030, Ten Billion People COULD Die in World War.
    By 2030, World Population COULD be 20 Billion.
    By 2030, Giant Meteor COULD Strike The Earth and Cause Extinction of Humans.
    Could is a big word.
    • lost boy
      Lost Boy 5 days ago
      Robert ...I'm still waiting on the flying cars that were predicted at the '64 World Fair..
  • Practicalman
    Practicalman  •  1 day 3 hrs ago
    The UN's climate change industry continues grasping at straws in it's ongoing quest for worldwide taxation and control.
    Don't worry, if they can't sway us over to their global conspiracy plot, THEY are already killing us with chemtrails, GMOs, cancer-virus vaccines, fluoridated municipal water, and AGENDA 21!
    (I wonder how much of their "globe saving carbon taxes" are being spent for the "chemtrail spraying-engineered weather modification-and HAARP" programs??.......)
    A few years ago it was "global warming", twenty years before that it was "global cooling". Now, its "climate change" (that should cover whatever comes up next, right?)
    REJECT TYRANNY: END THE UNITED NATIONS!!!!
  • W H A T ?
    W H A T ?  •  5 days ago
    If it's that critical why did Kyoto allow China to spew CO2? I guess they will blame any deaths on the US and Canada solely while ignoring the rest, as they do now. I noted that it was presented by 20 countries and a humanitarian outfit. This came from the lobbyists and the countries involved, while not listed in this article, likely all have something to gain from this new chicken little call. Kyoto said one thing and did another - the very definition of hypocrisy. If the danger had been real they would have called for reductions in all countries - wouldn't they?
  • Dixie
    Dixie  •  4 days ago
    Money talks, that's the truth. And they will make billions off the global warming hoax.

    More ways for the governments to control the people.
  • GWISAHOAX
    GWISAHOAX  •  4 days ago
    There is absolutely no basis for this conclusion. They are simply using computer models with very biased and faulty inputs.

    There has not been a single time in human history where a warmer climate resulted in calamity for the human race. On the contrary, a cooler climate almost brought the human race to extinction 80,000 years ago. every human on earth can be traced to a population of about 10,000 humans 80,000 years ago. This phenomena is called a bottle neck.

    During the little ice age, millions upon millions died in Europe alone. It is estimated that 25% of the population died from famine and disease.

    I am not a denier, I am a skeptic. The differnce is, I am certain the climate has warmed over the last 150 years. I am not convinced the primary cause is due to human activity. I am also completely in disagreement that the human population will suffer because of it.
    • Roger
      Roger 3 days ago
      Mark D, you are naive and assume too much!

      Here's Dr. Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (one of the main contributors to the International Panel on Climate Change reports) in his own words in an email to a co-hort on his own computer skills in plotting a trend:

      "I’m not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here."

      As they say, you can look it up...
  • christopher
    Christopher  •  3 days ago
    "A report commissioned by 20 governments and conducted by the humanitarian organization DARA found that, “More than 100 million people will die and global economic growth will be cut by 3.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change,” reports Reuters."

    Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, EXAGGERATED or UNPROVABLE claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories.

    A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.[2] Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing.[3] Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science.[4] "Pop" science may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction.[4] Pseudoscientific BELIEFS ARE WIDESPREAD, even among public school science teachers and newspaper reporters.[5]
  • Bobby
    Bobby  •  4 days ago
    DARA, looks like they were founded to make money from alarmism, while doing as little good as possible.
    check out their website, linked in the article.
  • Paul E
    Paul E  •  3 days ago
    Well the Eco-Nuts have always advocated thinning out humans.. they should applaud this..
  • Dixie
    Dixie  •  4 days ago
    I guess that all the previous "facts" from scientists about the Earth going through warming and cooling cycles was nothing but lies.
  • Obie
    Obie  •  4 days ago
    Nothing will change their minds. You can't change stupid.
  • B
    B  •  5 days ago
    Blah, Blah, Blah... More of the same, different package! Soon this will be a Man Made Issue… Man Made Global Cooling… Man Made Ice Age coming in 1970’s... Man Made Global Warming... Man Made Climate Change… All within ONLY 40 to 60 years +18. Are you kidding ME? GET REAL!
    • Rex
      Rex 23 hrs ago
      We prefer 'anthropogenic' to 'man-made' (the cult of gender-neutrality).
 Post a comment

FOLLOW YAHOO! NEWS