Follow this blog:
RSS

World Bank chief: Climate change will be ‘devastating’

By | November 19, 2012, 5:45 AM PST

The World Bank president Jim Yong Kim has called for urgent measures to combat the “devastating” consequences of climate change.

The Financial Times reports that the World Bank president believes the risk of climate change and accompanying rise in temperature could result in a world of floods, sea level rises, crop damage and food shortages, water scarcity, as well as other unforeseen consequences.

The findings of a recent report analyzing a world 4 degrees hotter, published by the World Bank, prompted the call for action — which says that although climate change will affect every nation, the poorest will suffer.

“A 4 degree warmer world can, and must be, avoided –- we need to hold warming below 2 degrees,” said Kim. “Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today. Climate change is one of the single biggest challenges facing development, and we need to assume the moral responsibility to take action on behalf of future generations, especially the poorest.”

Dr Kim hopes the report will “shock us into action”. As global warming is increased by the burning of fossil fuels — including coal, oil and gas — we may not be seeing the full effects yet, but the World Bank can foresee a future where devastating natural disasters become commonplace.

As an example, heat waves like the one in Russia two years ago which led to thousands of deaths and an estimate $15bn of economic damage “are likely to become the new normal summer in a 4°C world”, according to the study.

If temperatures rise by more than 2 degrees, it is believed by many scientists that this alone will trigger dangerous consequences. The International Energy Agency recently said that without a worldwide agreement to slow this process and cut carbon emissions, the threat would be “locked in” by 2017.

The world’s temperature has risen 0.8 degrees from pre-industrial levels, but with smarter use of fossil fuels and energy conservation techniques, the World Bank believes that levels can be held below 2 degrees.

“The world must tackle the problem of climate change more aggressively,” Kim said. “Greater adaptation and mitigation efforts are essential and solutions exist. We need a global response equal to the scale of the climate problem, a response that puts us on a new path of climate smart development and shared prosperity. But time is very short.”

Related:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Charlie Osborne

About Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne

Contributing Editor

Charlie Osborne is a freelance journalist and graphic designer based in London. In addition to SmartPlanet, she also writes the iGeneration column for business technology website ZDNet. She holds degrees in medical anthropology from the University of Kent.

Follow her on Twitter.

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne

Charlie Osborne does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
20
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
-1 Votes
+ -
Only a comet hit would have been worse than CC crisis.
Climate change crisis would have been a virtual comet hit of an emergency if it had been true, (Since nothing besides nuclear war could be worse-deny that please?) and it has turned out obviously to not be the crisis science claimed it might have been.

-IF it were a crisis the world would be in a global emergency status and the millions of people in the global scientific community would be leading the mission to deal with a climate crisis and probable death of their own children, not just ours.
-If it were a crisis the news of this coming crisis would be the leading tag on social media and at the top of the news casts and not at the bottom.
-The UN would have issued TV commercials and issued posters and bumper stickers because a little climate crisis is impossible.

The exaggeration of climate change was astounding and history is already calling this CO2 madness; climate control omen worship; I see the signs of change. The change is all around us
Posted by mememine69
19th Nov
-4 Votes
+ -
Climate Change
"A 4 degree warmer world - " would open up a whole lot of new farmland...

we need to hold warming below 2 degrees,

Good luck with that one... maybe you can hold back the tide with your hands, too...

Pray tell, at what time in earth's long history was it at the optimal temperature? Explain why and provide scientific proof.
Posted by bb_apptix
19th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
the optimum temperature
the 'optimum' temperature is the optimum temperature for US, humans. That's been here pretty much for the last 10,000 years, and now it's going. I hope you enjoy watching the humans decline and something else taking over. You are completely blind and lacking imagination. Not a lot of people live in the Sahara Desert. There's a good reason for that, and yet, only 3000 to 4000 years ago, much of it was lush and green savannah, crossed by many rivers, many crocodiles, herds of antelope and wildebeest. Not a lot of people have lived historically in Central Asia, though in fact it has adequate rainfall. Fewer people will live there from now on, if it catches fire every summer and all their cops burn. If even half of Greenland's ice melts the oceans will rise two to four meters. Two is enough, with the tide, to flood most of the large cities on river estuaries or by the sea. Say goodbye to most of New York, London, Hong Kong, Manila, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc not to mention Florida. If you think that's impossible, think on this: the archaeologists tell us that just 10000 years ago while the big melt following the last glaciation was already under way, Great Britain (the main island of the British Isles) was joined to the European continent by a land bridge 100+ miles wide. The sea there is now 50 to 150 feet deep, depending on exactly where you are. It's NOT going to be 'alright' if we simply let it happen, no matter whose fault it is, or who's to blame. You've listened to those in whose (generally financial, monetary) interest it is to do nothing for long enough, and probably too long. It's time to shut them up and do something. And it need not hurt. There are better ways to live on this planet, and we already know most of them. Perhaps when the price of corn and wheat (and therefore, beef and many other foodstuffs) double next year you'll begin to think.
Posted by RHambeau
19th Nov
-4 Votes
+ -
Hook, line, and sinker...
Apparently, you've bought into every lie that's ever been been brought up by the environmental wackos and the agendized liberal politicians, and the biased mainstream media, and the corrupted science that's been bought by the environmentalists and the liberals in government.

The Sahara? Hmmm... How long has it been a desert? How long has it been expanding? I'm pretty sure it's been a desert and expanding way before man ever discovered how to use oil for fuel or to heat our homes.

BTW, Greenland's ice had already melted around the middle-ages, and way before the first SUV was manufactured, and the ocean levels had risen and fallen millions of times in earth's history. And, that's before anyone ever knew anything about CO2, or about sun spots or about how the moon affected the tides. There was no junk science way back to try to persuade people to stop burning twigs or raising cattle or to stop all the farting.

Hurricane Sandy and all other weather events are naturally occurring, and so are all other natural disasters.

Your comments are about what the agenda seeking environmental wackos want, and they and their cohorts in the media and in government are being aided by those that swallow that agenda, hook, line and sinker, such as you.
Posted by adornoe
19th Nov
+4 Votes
+ -
horses's rear
When some buffoon says "wacko" and "liberal" you can tell they've abandoned scientific discussion and rational thought for their toy hobby horse.
Posted by James Mooney
19th Nov
-4 Votes
+ -
Wacko and liberal are the correct terminology for those shysters,
and there is no better description.

They are the snake-oil salesmen of today's world.

Stop being in denial!!!
Posted by adornoe
19th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
whistling to death...
This guy won't even panic when the tsunamis come in, from the Antarctic Ice Shelves breaking off and flowing into the ocean.

He must be a God-Talker, who thinks this was all pre-planned by the deity as a way to thin the herds, pre-Judgement Day.
Posted by Lightning Joe
19th Nov
+5 Votes
+ -
you missed the point
adornoe, the Romans would have told you that the sahara was mostly green in the north (they wrote about it), they hunted lions and leopard and antelope there less than 2000 years ago. There were bears in Libya. The Egyptian Nile civilisation started its rise around 6-7 thousand years ago after the land further to the west became too dry to support many people. They had to move. We know this because they left their burials grounds in what is now the deep desert. NOTE THAT Global warming did NOT cause these changes. And that's the point: it's not that global warming caused these things, it's that those places were quite heavily populated then, and aren't now, because of the changes. Change comes, and when it does, civilisations fall, and people have to move or die, and when they move, if there isn't empty land to move into, there is conflict. If you think that this isn't going to be difficult to cope with, you're wrong. If you think it wouldn't be worth your while to try to avoid it, you're wrong. What global warming will do is force these changes on us, and rapidly. And the main thing is that these changes, unlike the localised changes that have always been going on, will be happening everywhere at the same time. This isn't the same kind of climate change as has always been happening, where it gets warmer, wetter, or drier in some parts of the world and cooler, drier, or wetter in others over intervals of thousands of years. This is everywhere at once, and much steeper, much quicker (over the next century). We are already seeing crop yields fall in the unlucky parts, including North America. The world price of wheat is 40% more than it was a year ago. The price of corn is nearly three times what it was four or five years ago. What if North America has another year like the last? Fires and drought. How many repeats of that before the price of wheat or corn is out of most peoples reach?

But we're too stupid to even try to avoid it, it seems, and it IS avoidable. Too lazy to change, even if it kills us.

And who told you Greenland's ice melted in the middle ages? That's complete nonsense. Only the southern coastal tip of Greenland has been habitable for farming people in the last few hundred thousand years. The Viking settlements in the early middle ages just managed to hang on while there was a temporary warming (caused by volcanism, it's thought - all that dust in the high atmosphere keeps the heat in, see?) which lasted around 150 years. This meant the coastal plain was free of ice to a few miles inland for a while. These people never had an easy time of it. When this changed and 'the weather' went back some way to what it had been for the prior few thousand years, they starved, because they were farmers, not hunter-gatherers like the Inuit. Greenland is buried under more than a mile of ice for the most part, two miles in places, and has been throughout human history. In the depths of the last ice age 25000 years ago, global sea levels were 250 feet below where they are now. If people had had any kind of civilisation on the coastal plains of that world (we do like to live near to large rivers), they would all have been submerged and we would never have known they existed.
My point was that such changes are extremely disruptive and very hard to get through. Faced with shortages, people kill each other. Those that don't try to move and are not prepared to fight to live, starve. Do nothing to avoid what's likely coming IF we do nothing, and millions, and probably tens or hundreds of millions, will die before their time. It won't be pretty.
People rave about illegal immigration now - wait until there are hundreds of millions of people trying to move to the parts of the world where it is still possible to have a decent life. You wouldn't want to be there.
And why are you so wedded to burning oil ? We've only been doing it seriously for a hundred years or so. My Dad was born in 1907 into a world where only a very few rich people had a car, where you bought gasoline by the pint in the local Pharmacy! And it was only 200 years before that, that we started burning coal in any real quantity. We know how to manage without these things now. We have other better ways to get energy, and they don't produce CO2. The sun supplies more energy than we will ever need, if we gear ourselves up to collect it, and we know how to produce nuclear power too. We should be doing both. Oil is too precious and useful a material simply to burn it. Sell your shares in Amoco or Texaco or BP or whatever and buy into solar and nuclear. You will make a fortune (eventually, when enough people realise it's the only way to go).

And by the way, the sahara wasn't a desert at all 8000 years ago, except in what's now the deep centre in the south. There's still a hell of a lot of fresh water under it, but it's a mile (or two) down and being depleted rapidly by human extraction - satellite photos make it very clear where the many rivers used to flow, and a lot of them still do flow, but deep in the sand, not on the surface - where do you think the deep (artesian) wells get their water from?
Posted by RHambeau
Updated - 19th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
Greenland
"BTW, Greenland's ice had already melted around the middle-ages, and way before the first SUV was manufactured..."

You really need to get over the notion that a significant amount of Greenland's ice melted back in the middle ages. It's trivial to prove that wrong just by an examination of sea levels at the time. Any significant change in the ice on Greenland would cause a significant change in sea level and there's no indication that has happened in the past 2,000 years.
Posted by riverat1
20th Nov
+4 Votes
+ -
I will believe this scientist before a banker.
She is well respected in her field by people on both sides of the global warming discussion.

From what I have read, she seems to believe warming is happening now, but much of her research is focused on how warming happened naturally in the past and how does that compare to today. Most global warming scientists ignore some of the past because it often conflicts with their theories of the present.

She seems to ask the tough questions. What caused the historic warming? Are there differences in how rapid or gradual the temperature change was during various historic temperature cycles? What natural events caused some historic cycles to be rapid and others to be slow? What really indicates mans actions as being the difference maker this time?

She sounds like wants to put the science back in the discussion. She clearly recognizes there are legitimate questions that need to be answered.

Surprisingly she directly names only the United Nations IPCC WG2 report on a short list of sloppy science from both extreams of the argument to be denounced.

She calls for new standards for the collection of climate meta data. Obviously to address concerns over the integrity of the climate data kept at clearing houses like East Anglia.

She seems open minded and I appreciate it. I look forward to seeing more of her work here.

http://scienceblogs.com/usasciencefestival/2011/04/14/climate-change-reconstructing/

http://scienceline.org/2010/03/ancient-cave-formations-reveal-history-of-abrupt-climate-changes/

http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/othertalks/PASI_cobb.ppt
Posted by Hates Idiots
19th Nov
+1 Vote
+ -
Ain't no sech thing
But, but, Rush Pigbaugh says there is no global warming. There are no superstorms, superdroughts, and superfires. And the poles aren't melting. Ice melts when it gets colder, according to Rush. He should know - anyone who can get millions of morons to listen to lies every day has to be pretty sharp.
Posted by James Mooney
19th Nov
-1 Votes
+ -
And, Rush Limbaugh would be correct, and you would be ignorant,
and nothing more than a lemming.

Rush does his homework, and you only know how to repeat what you hear from the environmental wackos and from liberal politicians and from the liberal media.

Try using your own head instead, and do try to get the facts, instead os just repeating what you hear.
Posted by adornoe
19th Nov
-1 Votes
+ -
Self Serving
Dr Kim hopes the report will shock us into action

Meaning, money should be extracted from taxpayers to be given to organizations such as his for "better" purposes.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
World Bank Bullbeep
am i sick of these pathetic rich people telling me how to live my life so that their collective wealth will continue to rise. I cannot afford to pay more for hydro or fuel for my vehicle and this talking head wants more. Why has big business failed to produce low cost non polluting electricity and fuel with their billions in profits? The poor of the world do not care if the ocean rises, they do care whether they will have food to eat today, not whether they will have food 80 years from today.
Posted by Massassagua
20th Nov
0 Votes
+ -
Exactly.
"Poor" people don't give a damn about their "carbon footprint". That is why you will continue to see China and other developing countries built out their coal-fired grid with complete abandon while the affluent west wrings it's hand over climate change.

Genuine concern for the environment does not evolve in a society until it gets affluent enough not to be worried about where the next meal is coming from. Conversely, societies, like ours, which is systematically making people less affluent is setting the stage for a majority that will not care as much about environmental issues.

This is how the Progressive economic/environmental agenda will ultimately fail in protecting the environment.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
20th Nov
-1 Votes
+ -
The poor of the world do not care if the ocean rises, ?? really?
tell that to the folks in Bangladesh, for example. They're poor, and if the sea rises just a couple of meters, they won't have a country at all.
"I cannot afford to pay more for hydro or fuel for my vehicle " - well, lucky you - I can't afford a vehicle (and don't have one).
Posted by RHambeau
20th Nov
+2 Votes
+ -
If you read any of the UN reports on this topic you would know something.
The poor are being forced to live on "last available land" in these Asian mega cities.

Meaning they get to live on the swamp land, the marshes, the river flood plains and the tidal areas. Simply put, the area that the government and their rich allies do not want for development.

So lets turn a blind eye while the governments take western aid and give it to rich friends who build all the fancy world record height towers and ground breaking sky parks on top of skyscrapers and the like. Lets praise them for their work.

Work that impresses morons across the world into thinking that these poor countries are actually getting better.

A great example of the idiotic praise that fooled westerners heap on these nations was a post on here in June about Singapore installing state of the art man made trees in a newly developed area.

http://www.smartplanet.com/search?q=man+made+trees

What the post did not talk about was how poor people had lived on house boats in that shallow bay for generations. Or how they were forced to move to slums in a coastal swamp so the shallow bay could be back filled for the billion dollar resort development.

Or the fact that the sand for the back fill came from a nearby river estuary. The dredging not only destroyed islands that people had lived on for generations, but those same barrier islands that had been protecting a nearby city from storms for hundreds of years.

Or that destroying the estuary will reduce the long term fish population in the entire coastal region by eliminating a key breeding area.

No, let us not discuss mans arrogance in destroying the physical world around him.

Lets blame global warming.
Posted by Hates Idiots
21st Nov
0 Votes
+ -
No, they've got bigger problems.
Imagine strolling through any shanty town and asking people cooking over inefficient improvised stoves if they knew that what they were doing was contributing to "climate change".

What kind of reaction might you expect?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
21st Nov
0 Votes
+ -
The sad thing is...
...we have within our reach, access to sufficient energy to solve these problems while eliminating oxidizing fuels as an energy source nearly completely. And we've had it within our reach for 35 years while we argued and fought and killed and died over the 'scarce' resources of the Earth (only a tiny fraction of which we even touch,) as if that infantesimal bit of matter and energy were the complete Universe, instead of the tiniest imaginable fraction of our available resources.
Posted by wizoddg
4th Dec
0 Votes
+ -
Climate Change
Climate Change is a problem compounded by various other problems like air pollution, garbage (solid & gray water) disposal, shortages of vegetables, etc. It can be solved by adopting Rooftop farming using solar/wind energy & recycle of gray water with converting solid waste to fertilizer. There are various schemes offered by the State & Central Governments to solve these problems. But an integrated approach is required to slow down the climate change.
Posted by Khalid_wahab
29th Dec
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!