Economic loser's

It is clear that with climate change there are ‘winners’ (believe it or not) and losers’. Throughout this blog it has become evident who falls into which ‘category’. In previous weeks we have touched on the environmental impacts faced by developing nations in the form of droughts and floods, and the social impacts faced in the form of involuntary migration. In this penultimate post, the focus will be on the economic impacts that arise for developing nations and emerging economies as a result of climate change. The economic impacts of climate change are interesting, which is why I have kept it until the end. The thing is, economic impacts can occur as a result of social and environmental impacts – they are interlinked. Let’s take a drought for example. This is an environmental impact resultant of climate change. A drought means the land used for cultivation will dry out, which in turn means crops will not grow. Many people in developing nations rely on crops as a form of income. The cycle then continues.

Deschenes (2006) has argued that as temperature plus rainfall partake in direct involvement in farming, it remains common certainty that the main financial upsets should be undergone within this industry. The reason why Climate change is anticipated to have additional hostile monetary influences in developing nations than in developed countries is due to the fact that individuals in underprivileged nations have fewer prospects to acclimate to deviations in their inhabiting circumstances. A key source for this is that a lot of industries are superficial or absent, consequently deserting families and businesses diminutive area for change (Chambwera et al 2010). What this means is that when drought or floods occur and crop land becomes damaged, those living in developing countries are less able to earn their living through another source, whereas those living in developed nations are more likely to do so – emphasisng how economic impacts are harder felt in poor nations.  Economic impacts can also occur on a much larger scale, where a whole country’s economy is severely disrupted.  Let’s take Namibia for example. Studies in Namibia have advocated that over 20 years, yearly deficits to the Namibian economy will possibly reach 6 per cent of the GDP as a result of the influence climate change will exert on its unprocessed possessions only (Reid 2007). Within a poor country, there are also people who are better off than others. Thus this bearing on the Namibian economy will strike the lowliest of the residents toughest, with subsequent constrictions on work openings and deteriorating incomes (Reid 2007).

Due to a lack of adaptation strategies, any change in climate will have devastating monetary burdens on emerging economies, highly constraining their growth and contributing to already high poverty levels. Many studies within the climate change sector have indicated that there is a connection amongst diminutions in development and prosperity and climate change effects (OECD 2013). These studies have found that any increase in temperature will result in a decrease in the farming industry, and other natural resources thus indicating the significant economic damage that will be felt by developing nations. While the overall financial costs of climate change may be higher in developed nations due to expensive infrastructure and so forth, financial deductions as a percentage of GDP are tremendously higher in developing nations (OECD 2013). It should be remembered that although one off economic impacts can occur, catastrophes correspondingly diminish continuing economic progress as many developing nations tend to spend money on emergency respite and recuperating from disasters such as flood, instead of investing that money into progression and poverty alleviation (OECD 2013). Let’s take Honduras for example. The hurricane that hit that nation in 1992 had such severe economic impacts, that six years after the disaster struck, GDP was projected to be 6 percent to 9 percent below what it could have been, and should have been if the tragedy did not take place (OECD 2013). It is highly unlikely that a developed nation would take this long to recover from such impacts.

As this post draws to a close, I think that it has become clear to both me and you, that economic impacts are expected to be vastly adverse for the majority of emerging economies and poor nations, with even the slimmest global mean temperature rise. What has also become clear is that just as economic impacts can be instigated by environmental impacts – they can similarly have knock on effects. As economic impacts will be unevenly distributed, being felt by developing nations and the poorest inhabitants of developing countries, it is likely that there will be huge increases in disparity of health, access to satisfactory nutrition and hygienic water (Ravindranath et al 2006).  

 

Why Climate Change Is a Threat to Human Rights - Mary Robinson

This TED talk features Mary Robinson, who served as the first female President of Ireland between 1990-1997 and as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights between 1997-2002. Her main message is that it is clear that climate change is unfair - the impacts are felt most by those who contribute the least, developing nations and emerging economies. Robinson tackles the Human Rights issued faced as a result of climate change. 

In the video she mentions that while she was President of Ireland, she didn't have to think about purchasing land for her people, because as a developed nation the people of Ireland were not likely to be forced to migrate as a result of climate change. She contrasts this with the President of Kiribati - who has had to buy land in Peru as security for his people due to the impacts climate change will have on the island nation, once again emphasising how unfair climate change is. She touches on how over 300 people were killed in Malawi, with hundreds of thousands more displaced due to a flood that took place in January 2015. The fact of the matter is that the average person in Malawi emits 80kg of CO2 a year, whereas the average US citizen emits about 17.5 metric tonnes, showing how developing countries are increasingly bearing the brunt, with minimal contributions to the problem. She mentions how she spoke to a lady from Uganda, who said that as the years went by long periods of droughts and flash floods have become more common, destroying livelihoods.
One major point that she argues is that developing countries and emerging economies have to develop without fossil fuels/emissions as targets are set to reduce emissons (due to large amounts already released by developed nations), which means they will not be able to grow to full potential and will therefore be left behind.

Have a watch to see all the other interesting points she makes.

Why are developing nations more vulnerable to impacts?

Over the past couple of weeks this blog has focused on the social, economic and environmental impacts faced by developing countries as a result of climate change. The notion that developing countries endure the burden of the impacts instigated by climate change, even though they have not contributed as much to the change, was initially presented through Schelling (1992). Keeping that perception in mind, this week the aim of this post is to look at the regional dissimilarities of climate change impacts, and trying to understand why this is the case. It should be taken into deliberation that the aim of this post is to not debate what makes a developing country and what makes a developed one, but instead the aim is to try understand the variation of impact distribution.

It has been argued that as the years have gone by not much thought has gone into the regional variation of climate change impacts, with existing literature failing to acknowledge that some locations are likely to experience greater consequences (Nordhaus, 1991; Tol, 1995; Fankhauser, 1995; Pearce et al., 1996). Although models have been developed in the past attempting to forecast future changes, these models tend to presuppose that all parts of the world will experience the same climate change impacts due to the belief that temperature is on the rise globally. However, as we can see before our very own eyes, this has not been the case. Climate change is rapidly destroying agriculture and land used for cultivation – and it’s the developing countries that rely on this as a form of income, as previously mentioned. Recently, new research that has been undertaken has found fresh understandings as to how impacts vary (Mendelsohn and Neumann, 1999; McCarthy et al., 2001; Mendelsohn, 2001; Tol,2002). It is evident that many developed and rich countries are located in cooler parts of the globe, while the majority of developing nations are located in warmer regions, hence why they face greater climate change impacts. Thus the studies carried out found that for farmers in developed countries their agricultural business could grow as their location is cooler than optimum temperature meaning that a rise in temperature would actually be beneficial, whereas farmers in developing countries would face a decline in business as an already warm climate becomes even warmer (Mendelsohn et al 2006).

Mendelsohn et al indicated that if all nations had parallel climatic conditions primarily, then the impacts faced after would be shared out equally. However, all countries do not have the same initial climate – as we have established, developing nations are more likely to have a warmer climate to begin with due to their locations. The report has concluded that the main reason as to why developing nations face greater impacts is because they are situated in warm, low latitudinal regions. Developed countries on the other hand will most likely profit from climate change as they are typically situated in mid/high latitudinal areas therefore experiencing chilled temperatures (Mendelsohn et al 2006). 

So what does this mean for the future? Each country has many factors that could determine how they will be impacted by climate change. These factors range from population to GDP. The problem is that these characteristics are constantly changing and these changes mean that severity of impacts could increase. Nonetheless, ultimately the developing countries will endure the majority of the impacts from climate change. Although some developed countries will also experience some impacts, the damages will be incomparable to those faced in the poor regions. Mendelsohn et al even goes as far as concluding that the most affluent nations will in fact benefit.

Asia - A flood magnet 2

Just stopping by to share two videos with you that are closely related to my last post. The first video features meteorologist Derek Van Dam who explains the reason why parts of Asia are prone to flooding is because of a phenomenon known as the North East monsoon. This is when high pressure builds across China, thus producing a north easterly wind which carries moisture from the South China Sea towards the mountainous regions of Indonesia and Malaysia, leading to heavier rainfall. He explains that flooding can lead to increased landslides and mudslides, thus causing catastrophic impacts. It is a hugely educating video so have a watch.

The second video speaks less of the science behind flooding, and more of the impacts that arise as a result, highlighting that life is a struggle for people who call the region home. It goes on to indicate that the residents are facing the worst floods in 200 years (2015). Have a watch to find out what social, environmental and economic impacts arise in the region as a result of the flooding.