昨日のTOPICの原稿になります。（グラフの方は上手く載らず、省略させて頂きました。）真剣に聞いてくださり、どうもありがとうございました。これは「不都合な真実」のHPです。興味のある方はどうぞご覧ください。http://
If the temperature keeps on increasing, what can happen in 50 to 100 years?
What is the effect of global warming?
A. In 50 years, it is estimated that the temperature will rise about 2 degrees Celsius, and in 100 years, 3 degrees Celsius.
If the temperature increases…
1 degree Celsius
• Glacier at the North Pole and at high mountains will melt.
• The corals at the coral reef may suffer coral bleaching.
• The alpine plants will wither.
1.5 degrees Celsius
• The quality of water will aggravate.
• One hundred million to two hundred million people will have to face water shortage due to increase of droughts.
• Arid region, such as Mediterranean Sea sides, Africa, central and western Asia will suffer from less rain.
2 degrees Celsius
• The developing countries located at the tropics and subtropics will not be able to make a benefit from farming. (Farmers will have longer growing seasons, but they’ll face reduced water supplies, increased water demands, and changes in pests, weeds and crop diseases.) That will not only economically damage those countries, but also will affect us because we will not be able to import farm products as much as we did before.
• Despite less rain, the population will keep on increasing. There will be less water to drink, and less food to consume.
• Abnormal weather will increase.
• Malaria patient will increase.
3 degrees Celsius
• The ocean circulation will stop and Europe will suffer from severe coolness. Glaciers and other frozen area’s melting rate will rapidly increase and will release large quantity of methane into the atmosphere; provoking much severe case of global warming.
• The sea level will rise about 60 meters from what it is right now.
To keep the lives we are having, the temperature is allowed to rise two degrees Celsius at the most. But, in the last century, the temperature rose about 0.6 degrees; to add to that, the statistic shows that the temperature will continue to rise at more rapid rate.
Other things that can happen (from “Global warming to cost us” by Dan Richman)
• Higher temperature increases the case of wildfire. The number of acres burned will increase by 50 percent by 2020 and by 100 percent by 2040, so the annual cost of fighting wildfires may exceed $75 million by 2020 -- 50 percent higher than the current expenditures. That cost will double by 2040.
• Lost timber sales, lost recreational and tourism opportunities, and health problems stemming from fires could be "many times higher" than the cost of fire control.
• The warming could cause immeasurable public health costs through an increased spread of West Nile virus and increasing incidence of asthma, which already costs the state $400 million a year, and through heat-related illnesses and mortality.
• Winters will bring more rain and less snow in the mountains, leading to a reduction in the snowpack essential for the summer water supply in Seattle and numerous other parts of the state. The cost of offsetting that decline through conservation measures could exceed $8 million per year by the 2020s and double that by the 2040s. Communities such as Spokane, Wenatchee and Walla Walla also will face increased costs for drinking water.
• Puget Sound is likely to rise between 1 and 5 inches per decade, affecting mainly the land adjacent to the south part of Puget Sound. A 2-foot sea level rise would inundate 56 square miles of the state, affecting at least 44,000 people -- larger than the current population of Olympia. These rises could trigger costly upgrades to shoreline protection and to bridges and culverts.
• Sea-level increases also will affect low-lying agricultural areas such as Willapa Bay and the Skagit River delta. Ports within reach of tidewater will feel the effects, as will the outer coast area because of increased erosion and increased vulnerability to storm surges and high tides.
(comment: the sea level will rise only by the melting of the glaciers but also by the expansion of sea water due to the rise of temperature)
• Whatcom and Yakima counties may experience up to a $6 million decline in dairy revenue by the 2040s because higher temperatures adversely affect dairy cows. The average annual crop loss in the Yakima basin because of water shortages and drought could rise from a historic average of $13 million to $79 million by mid-century.
• Wine grapes in Eastern Washington will be pushed to the upper limit of their temperature tolerance range, meaning they'll have to move uphill or to other regions. Cooler areas, such as Western Washington, may become more suitable for grapes.
What is the technical term of “greenhouse effect”?
In simple words, “greenhouse effect” is the rise in temperature that the Earth experiences because of the mass discharge of greenhouse gasses.
There are several types of GHG.
• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH4) < a ton of methane is equivalent to 23 tons of carbon dioxide >
• Nitrous oxide (N2O) < a pound of nitrous oxide is 296 times more potent than a pound of carbon dioxide in affecting global warming.>
• Flon gases …etc
(Adequate amount of greenhouse gasses, for example, CO2 will not cause any problems because it is needed to maintain comfortable atmospheric temperature. With out CO2, temperature of the atmosphere will be -18 degrees Celsius.)
>What causes the mass discharge of greenhouse gasses?
• Burning of fossil fuels and deforestation- leads to higher carbon dioxide concentrations
• Livestock and paddy rice farming, land use and wetland changes, pipeline losses, and covered vented landfill emissions-higher methane atmospheric concentrations.
• Use of cholorofluorocarbons 9CFCs/ Flon gas) in refrigeration system, halons ( a kind of flon gas ) in fire suppression systems, and manufacturing process.
• Agricultural activities, including the use of fertilizers-leads to higher nitrous oxide concentrations.
Fishes stranded on the beach.
• Possible reasons for stranding
.
1. Whales are very sensitive to sharks and big sounds: they seek shelter at shallow water when they encounter sharks or come across big sounds.
2. Sonar use by the US navy: Sonar can affect brains and auditory scenes of whales.
3. About a third of the stranded whales had its tail fin cut off. Those fins are sometimes cut off by sharks or other predators, but, researchers found out that humans sometimes cut off whale’s tail fin when they find it trapped in their fishing nets. To the worst, after they detach the tail fin, they return the whale back in to the ocean water.
4. Pollution of the ocean water can be another reason. Whales are located at the top of the food web. Therefore, long living whales can be affected by pollution of metals such as mercury. Scientist also says that those animals could also be affected by environmental hormones.
Kyoto Protocol
America’s point of view- from wikipedia
<Position of the United States (of the Kyoto Protocol) >
The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified. The United States is as of 2005 the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide form the burning of fossil fuels. On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto protocol was finalized, the U.S Senate unanimously passed by a 95-0 vote the Bryd-Hagel Resolution, which states the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.” On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically singed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.
(skip)
The current President, George W Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world’s second largest emitter of carbon dioxide). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy.
(skip) Despite the refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change. In June 2002, the American Environment protection Agency (EPA) released the “Climate Action Report 2002”. Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol. At the G-8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for “practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies”. According to those same officials, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012. The United States has signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emission individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supports of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol while being more flexible, but critics have said the pact will be ineffective without any enforcement measures.
The U.S. government has attempted to suppress reports by experts that find dangerous effects of global warming. A government official blocked release of a fact sheet by a panel of seven scientists at the national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that finds that global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes.
The Administration’s position is not uniformly accepts in the U.S. For example, Paul Krugman notes that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions. The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official and former oil industry advocate, Philip Cooney, watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies. Critics point to the administration’s close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, States Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company’s “active involvements” in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group global Climate Coalition was also a factor.
Furthermore, supports of Kyoto have undertaken some actions outside the auspices of the Bush Administration. In 2002, Congressional researchers who examined the legal status of the Protocol advised that signature of the UNFCCC imposes an obligation to refrain from undermining the Protocol’s object and purpose, and that while the President probably cannot implement the Protocol alone, Congress can create compatible laws on its own initiative. Nine north-eastern states and 194 mayors from US towns and cities, have pledged to adopt Kyoto-style legal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. On August 31 2006, the California Legislature reached an agreement with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to reduce the state’s greenhouse-gas emissions, which rank at 12th largest in the world, by 25 percent by the year 2002. This resulted in the Global Warming Solutions Act which effectively puts California in line with the Kyoto initiative.
<Analysis>
The United States
• The United States is as of 2005, the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
• U.S. Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution. ( stated that sense of the Senate was that the united States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as in industrialized nations or “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States )
• Pres. Bush indicated that they will not sign the protocol unless developing nation participates: China is the second largest greenhouse emitting country, but since it is a developing country, they do not have to cut down the emission.
• Not signing the protocol ≠ not taking responsibility in environmental problems.
1. American Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) released the “Climate Action Report 2002”
2. expressed a desire for “practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies”
3. is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012.
4. Signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. ( a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism)
• The U.S government has attempted to suppress reports by experts that find dangerous effects of global warming.
• Paul Krugman notes that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions.
( Paul Krugman- economist at the Princeton University. Outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s foreign and domestic policies. )
State’s Position
• Emitting about 25% of World’s greenhouse gas.
• Since the US is emitting 25% of World’s greenhouse gas, it is thought that National negotiations without the participation of the United States are meaning less.
• U.S is emitting most amounts of greenhouse gasses per person.
• U.S. is the top emitter of the greenhouse gas because the price of the energy source, such as gasoline, is quite cheap.
<Japan’s Analysis of the Action of the U.S. >
• The United States, not signing the Kyoto Protocol, became isolated from the National Society.
• The United States has been trying to take focus off from its country’s mass consumption of energy by focusing on other points such as deforestation, and the importance of developing countries in improving the environmental problems.
If the temperature keeps on increasing, what can happen in 50 to 100 years?
What is the effect of global warming?
A. In 50 years, it is estimated that the temperature will rise about 2 degrees Celsius, and in 100 years, 3 degrees Celsius.
If the temperature increases…
1 degree Celsius
• Glacier at the North Pole and at high mountains will melt.
• The corals at the coral reef may suffer coral bleaching.
• The alpine plants will wither.
1.5 degrees Celsius
• The quality of water will aggravate.
• One hundred million to two hundred million people will have to face water shortage due to increase of droughts.
• Arid region, such as Mediterranean Sea sides, Africa, central and western Asia will suffer from less rain.
2 degrees Celsius
• The developing countries located at the tropics and subtropics will not be able to make a benefit from farming. (Farmers will have longer growing seasons, but they’ll face reduced water supplies, increased water demands, and changes in pests, weeds and crop diseases.) That will not only economically damage those countries, but also will affect us because we will not be able to import farm products as much as we did before.
• Despite less rain, the population will keep on increasing. There will be less water to drink, and less food to consume.
• Abnormal weather will increase.
• Malaria patient will increase.
3 degrees Celsius
• The ocean circulation will stop and Europe will suffer from severe coolness. Glaciers and other frozen area’s melting rate will rapidly increase and will release large quantity of methane into the atmosphere; provoking much severe case of global warming.
• The sea level will rise about 60 meters from what it is right now.
To keep the lives we are having, the temperature is allowed to rise two degrees Celsius at the most. But, in the last century, the temperature rose about 0.6 degrees; to add to that, the statistic shows that the temperature will continue to rise at more rapid rate.
Other things that can happen (from “Global warming to cost us” by Dan Richman)
• Higher temperature increases the case of wildfire. The number of acres burned will increase by 50 percent by 2020 and by 100 percent by 2040, so the annual cost of fighting wildfires may exceed $75 million by 2020 -- 50 percent higher than the current expenditures. That cost will double by 2040.
• Lost timber sales, lost recreational and tourism opportunities, and health problems stemming from fires could be "many times higher" than the cost of fire control.
• The warming could cause immeasurable public health costs through an increased spread of West Nile virus and increasing incidence of asthma, which already costs the state $400 million a year, and through heat-related illnesses and mortality.
• Winters will bring more rain and less snow in the mountains, leading to a reduction in the snowpack essential for the summer water supply in Seattle and numerous other parts of the state. The cost of offsetting that decline through conservation measures could exceed $8 million per year by the 2020s and double that by the 2040s. Communities such as Spokane, Wenatchee and Walla Walla also will face increased costs for drinking water.
• Puget Sound is likely to rise between 1 and 5 inches per decade, affecting mainly the land adjacent to the south part of Puget Sound. A 2-foot sea level rise would inundate 56 square miles of the state, affecting at least 44,000 people -- larger than the current population of Olympia. These rises could trigger costly upgrades to shoreline protection and to bridges and culverts.
• Sea-level increases also will affect low-lying agricultural areas such as Willapa Bay and the Skagit River delta. Ports within reach of tidewater will feel the effects, as will the outer coast area because of increased erosion and increased vulnerability to storm surges and high tides.
(comment: the sea level will rise only by the melting of the glaciers but also by the expansion of sea water due to the rise of temperature)
• Whatcom and Yakima counties may experience up to a $6 million decline in dairy revenue by the 2040s because higher temperatures adversely affect dairy cows. The average annual crop loss in the Yakima basin because of water shortages and drought could rise from a historic average of $13 million to $79 million by mid-century.
• Wine grapes in Eastern Washington will be pushed to the upper limit of their temperature tolerance range, meaning they'll have to move uphill or to other regions. Cooler areas, such as Western Washington, may become more suitable for grapes.
What is the technical term of “greenhouse effect”?
In simple words, “greenhouse effect” is the rise in temperature that the Earth experiences because of the mass discharge of greenhouse gasses.
There are several types of GHG.
• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Methane (CH4) < a ton of methane is equivalent to 23 tons of carbon dioxide >
• Nitrous oxide (N2O) < a pound of nitrous oxide is 296 times more potent than a pound of carbon dioxide in affecting global warming.>
• Flon gases …etc
(Adequate amount of greenhouse gasses, for example, CO2 will not cause any problems because it is needed to maintain comfortable atmospheric temperature. With out CO2, temperature of the atmosphere will be -18 degrees Celsius.)
>What causes the mass discharge of greenhouse gasses?
• Burning of fossil fuels and deforestation- leads to higher carbon dioxide concentrations
• Livestock and paddy rice farming, land use and wetland changes, pipeline losses, and covered vented landfill emissions-higher methane atmospheric concentrations.
• Use of cholorofluorocarbons 9CFCs/ Flon gas) in refrigeration system, halons ( a kind of flon gas ) in fire suppression systems, and manufacturing process.
• Agricultural activities, including the use of fertilizers-leads to higher nitrous oxide concentrations.
Fishes stranded on the beach.
• Possible reasons for stranding
.
1. Whales are very sensitive to sharks and big sounds: they seek shelter at shallow water when they encounter sharks or come across big sounds.
2. Sonar use by the US navy: Sonar can affect brains and auditory scenes of whales.
3. About a third of the stranded whales had its tail fin cut off. Those fins are sometimes cut off by sharks or other predators, but, researchers found out that humans sometimes cut off whale’s tail fin when they find it trapped in their fishing nets. To the worst, after they detach the tail fin, they return the whale back in to the ocean water.
4. Pollution of the ocean water can be another reason. Whales are located at the top of the food web. Therefore, long living whales can be affected by pollution of metals such as mercury. Scientist also says that those animals could also be affected by environmental hormones.
Kyoto Protocol
America’s point of view- from wikipedia
<Position of the United States (of the Kyoto Protocol) >
The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified. The United States is as of 2005 the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide form the burning of fossil fuels. On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto protocol was finalized, the U.S Senate unanimously passed by a 95-0 vote the Bryd-Hagel Resolution, which states the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.” On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically singed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.
(skip)
The current President, George W Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world’s second largest emitter of carbon dioxide). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy.
(skip) Despite the refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change. In June 2002, the American Environment protection Agency (EPA) released the “Climate Action Report 2002”. Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol. At the G-8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for “practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies”. According to those same officials, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012. The United States has signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emission individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supports of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol while being more flexible, but critics have said the pact will be ineffective without any enforcement measures.
The U.S. government has attempted to suppress reports by experts that find dangerous effects of global warming. A government official blocked release of a fact sheet by a panel of seven scientists at the national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that finds that global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes.
The Administration’s position is not uniformly accepts in the U.S. For example, Paul Krugman notes that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions. The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official and former oil industry advocate, Philip Cooney, watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies. Critics point to the administration’s close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, States Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company’s “active involvements” in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group global Climate Coalition was also a factor.
Furthermore, supports of Kyoto have undertaken some actions outside the auspices of the Bush Administration. In 2002, Congressional researchers who examined the legal status of the Protocol advised that signature of the UNFCCC imposes an obligation to refrain from undermining the Protocol’s object and purpose, and that while the President probably cannot implement the Protocol alone, Congress can create compatible laws on its own initiative. Nine north-eastern states and 194 mayors from US towns and cities, have pledged to adopt Kyoto-style legal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. On August 31 2006, the California Legislature reached an agreement with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to reduce the state’s greenhouse-gas emissions, which rank at 12th largest in the world, by 25 percent by the year 2002. This resulted in the Global Warming Solutions Act which effectively puts California in line with the Kyoto initiative.
<Analysis>
The United States
• The United States is as of 2005, the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
• U.S. Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution. ( stated that sense of the Senate was that the united States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as in industrialized nations or “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States )
• Pres. Bush indicated that they will not sign the protocol unless developing nation participates: China is the second largest greenhouse emitting country, but since it is a developing country, they do not have to cut down the emission.
• Not signing the protocol ≠ not taking responsibility in environmental problems.
1. American Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) released the “Climate Action Report 2002”
2. expressed a desire for “practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies”
3. is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012.
4. Signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. ( a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism)
• The U.S government has attempted to suppress reports by experts that find dangerous effects of global warming.
• Paul Krugman notes that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions.
( Paul Krugman- economist at the Princeton University. Outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s foreign and domestic policies. )
State’s Position
• Emitting about 25% of World’s greenhouse gas.
• Since the US is emitting 25% of World’s greenhouse gas, it is thought that National negotiations without the participation of the United States are meaning less.
• U.S is emitting most amounts of greenhouse gasses per person.
• U.S. is the top emitter of the greenhouse gas because the price of the energy source, such as gasoline, is quite cheap.
<Japan’s Analysis of the Action of the U.S. >
• The United States, not signing the Kyoto Protocol, became isolated from the National Society.
• The United States has been trying to take focus off from its country’s mass consumption of energy by focusing on other points such as deforestation, and the importance of developing countries in improving the environmental problems.
|
|
|
|
コメント(1)
Club2では、多くの方が参加してくださって本当に感謝しております。
地球温暖化の記事をJapan Timesで見つけたので、参考までに載せておきます。
Tuesday, January16, 2007
Gore in town to push global-warming fight.
Midway through a visit to Tokyo to promote his environmental documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth,”former U.S. Vice President Al Gore on Monday made sure to praise Japan as the birthplace of the Kyoto Protocol.
Something Interesting...(What Al Gore said)
"In English the word 'crisis' conveys a sense of alarm,"
"But in Japanese, when you speak of 'kiko no kiki'(climate crisis), the word kiki is made up of two symbols together. The first by itself meaning danger, but the second by itself means opportunity."
Monday, October30, 2006
Governments' failure to act on global warming could cost up to $7 trillion: report
LONDON(AFP-Jiji) Failure by governments to take bold action against global warming in the next decade could cost the world up to $6.98 trillion, a report warns.
Excerpts of a 700-page report to be released Monday by Sir Nicholas Stern, a former World Bank chief economist, also show that rampant climate change could turn 200 million people into refugees amid drought or flood.
The observer weekly, which published the excerpts of a report it says is the first heavyweight contribution of an economist rather than a scientist on the phenomenon, also said failure to act would trigger a global recession.
Unless the world acts, it costs more than World War ?, World War ? and the Great Depression of the 1930s while rendering large parts of the planet uninhabitable, The Observer said.
地球温暖化の記事をJapan Timesで見つけたので、参考までに載せておきます。
Tuesday, January16, 2007
Gore in town to push global-warming fight.
Midway through a visit to Tokyo to promote his environmental documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth,”former U.S. Vice President Al Gore on Monday made sure to praise Japan as the birthplace of the Kyoto Protocol.
Something Interesting...(What Al Gore said)
"In English the word 'crisis' conveys a sense of alarm,"
"But in Japanese, when you speak of 'kiko no kiki'(climate crisis), the word kiki is made up of two symbols together. The first by itself meaning danger, but the second by itself means opportunity."
Monday, October30, 2006
Governments' failure to act on global warming could cost up to $7 trillion: report
LONDON(AFP-Jiji) Failure by governments to take bold action against global warming in the next decade could cost the world up to $6.98 trillion, a report warns.
Excerpts of a 700-page report to be released Monday by Sir Nicholas Stern, a former World Bank chief economist, also show that rampant climate change could turn 200 million people into refugees amid drought or flood.
The observer weekly, which published the excerpts of a report it says is the first heavyweight contribution of an economist rather than a scientist on the phenomenon, also said failure to act would trigger a global recession.
Unless the world acts, it costs more than World War ?, World War ? and the Great Depression of the 1930s while rendering large parts of the planet uninhabitable, The Observer said.
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
旧NOVA level 2 voiceOB･OG会 更新情報
-
最新のイベント
-
最新のアンケート
-
まだ何もありません
-
