Is Global Warming a Crisis?

Recommend (5) Comments (0)

A consensus is forming concerning the appropriate response to global warming. While scientists continue to debate the extent to which humans are responsible for rising average global temperatures, a growing number of economists and policy experts have concluded that the best response to climate change is to adapt by investing resources in more pressing problems.

Meeting the carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions reductions required by the Kyoto protocol carries an estimated total cost of more than $165 billion annually (in 2003 dollars). By contrast, a multi-pronged effort of "focused adaptation" — to solve the problems climate change is expected to exacerbate — would cost approximately $10 billion annually.

• An additional $1.5 billion annual investment in malaria prevention and treatment today would cut the current annual number of deaths due to malaria in half — from more than 1 million to less than 500,000.

• ·Investing an additional $5 billion annually to solve agricultural problems in developing countries today would cut the population at risk of hunger by 50 percent — beginning today, not in 2085.

• Institutional reforms such as allowing water pricing and transferable water rights could reduce agricultural water use. And just an 18 percent decrease would double the availability of water for nonagricultural uses.

• Investing an additional $1 billion annually in preventative measures — such as building sea walls and relocating coastal populations — would reduce the people at risk from flooding now and in the future.

Recent studies indicate that the cost of mitigating climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions far exceeds the benefit. Rather than create new problems, climate change is projected to exacerbate existing ones, so the world is much better off adapting, while reducing climate sensitive hazards in vulnerable regions.