Climate Change Hurts the Poor

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Jamila

Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Joined
Jan 28, 2004
Messages
5,454
Location
Texas
Climate change 'harms world poor'
By Roger Harrabin


BBC News Environment Correspondent


More extreme weather events are forecast
The poorest people in the world in Asia and Africa will be worst hit by climate change, a UK government report says.

It says droughts and floods fuelled partly by carbon emissions from countries such as the UK will hurt the same people targeted by overseas aid.

The report was obtained by BBC News under the Freedom of Information Act.

It says emissions are making natural disasters worse and warns that rising sea levels could undo more than half the development work in Bangladesh.

The internal report at the Department for International Development (Dfid) reveals the depth of concern shared by officials about climate change.



Rising seas

It forecasts that global warming threatens to reduce India's farm output by as much as a quarter - just as its population is booming. In Africa, the number of people at risk from coastal flooding is likely to rise from one million in 1990 to 70 million by 2080.

The Dfid report will increase pressure on the Prime Minister. Next week, the government publishes its review of Climate Change Strategy. It's committed to cutting emissions by 20% below 1990 levels but under Labour emissions have actually increased by 1.9%.

The report is Dfid's contribution to the UK government's review of climate economics being carried out by Nick Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank.

The Dfid report points that natural disasters cost donors $6bn annually. Seventy-three percent of them are climate related, so the bill will almost certainly soar if, as forecast, extreme weather events get much worse as the climate changes.




Ice melt 'to hasten sea rise'

Dfid says the world will need to adapt to some degree to an inevitable measure of change fuelled by greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere; but it says all international development policies must be framed with climate change in mind.

It urges a target to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations (a difficult goal as the US - the main emitter of these gases - refuses to discuss any such target). And it complains that the price of carbon is too low internationally to prompt cleaner development.

"It's crazy for the UK government to be talking a lot about climate change while at the same time our emissions are increasing," Farhana Yamin of the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, told the BBC.

"A great deal more action is needed domestically to reduce our carbon footprint which is going to have a massive impact on developing countries."

Until recently, the debate over climate change economics tended to have been dominated by industry lobby groups worried about the effect of clean-up measures on growth.

I understand that the Stern review is likely to predict that it will be much cheaper to reduce emissions than to attempt to deal with all the consequences of climate change.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4839834.stm

:tsk:
 
Here's a positive response to a difficult situation in Tanzania:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4786216.stm



Using the sun to sterilise water


Tanzanian villagers have begun using an energy-saving method to sterilise their drinking water - leaving the water under the sun.

Rose Longwa says the process is very simple
The piped water supply to Ndolela village in the central Iringa region is intermittent and even when it does flow, it is not clean enough to drink.

When the pipes run dry, villagers get water from a dirty spring.

Mother of five Rose Longwa says the new process has changed her life.

"We no longer suffer from stomach illness. That's because the water is clean and safe."

Like many other people in rural Africa with no access to safe drinking water, she used to sterilise her water by boiling it.

But she says the smoke from the firewood to heat the water used to irritate her eyes. She is also glad she no longer has to go to fetch wood from the bush.



Ultra-violet rays

About 40 houses in Ndolela are using solar purification.

Mrs Longwa says the process is simple to follow.


"I fill the plastic bottles, put the lids on, then put them on my black-painted roof where they stay for a whole day."

The sun heats the water, helped by the black roof, which helps to absorb the heat.

Solar radiation means a combination of ultra-violet rays and heat destroys the bacteria which cause common water-borne diseases like cholera, typhoid, dysentery and diarrhoea.

After eight hours in the sun, it is ready to drink.

If the water reaches more than 50C, it is safe in just one hour.

Pastor Moses Kwanga from the Diocese of Ruaha is behind the project:

"The technology is very easy, but up to now people have not been told about it. We can use old pieces of roofing to put the bottles on. It is also very cheap, so is accessible to everyone."



Resistance

Up to now, the number of people in Tanzania purifying water using the power of the sun is limited to a few villages like Ndolela, where small-scale education programmes are underway.


The villagers get water from this spring if the pipe runs dry
Daudi Makamba is a water expert for the aid agency Plan International, which is considering whether to introduce solar purification across the country.

He says it can be difficult to persuade people to use the technology.

"The big resistance from the community is cultural beliefs. People believe the water will be contaminated, or an enemy will put something bad in it, so we need to educate the people."

The technology is working well for at least one community in Tanzania but more work is needed if more people are to taste the benefits.

World Water Day is 22 March.


Great story! :rockon:
 
A_Wanderer said:
Climate change will help a lot of poor people too.

Like what? I'm not arguing, I'm interested to know. Based on your other posts, you seem to know a lot about many fields of science I'm afraid to touch!
 
Jamila said:

"The big resistance from the community is cultural beliefs. People believe the water will be contaminated, or an enemy will put something bad in it, so we need to educate the people."

It's interesting the article mentions this. When I was in Tanzania, we listened to lectures about health issues. The doctor mentioned that in order to encourage people to boil their drinking water, they encorporated concepts of eveil spirits from traditional religions. Many people boil their water because it casts out evil spirits. Also, many people use a certain type of grass to use as their floor covering and mattresses. Unfortunately, there's parasites that thrive in this type of grass. The health community has had difficulty convincing people that they can't use this grass in their homes.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:


Like what? I'm not arguing, I'm interested to know. Based on your other posts, you seem to know a lot about many fields of science I'm afraid to touch!
Global climate is basically an elaborate means of energy exchange, this energy is moved around by interactions between the oceans, the atmosphere, the lithosphere (all the rocks on the surface) etc. It is not a 1:1 thing, by changing one aspect we can set off a whole set of chain reactions and feedback mechanisms that will yield an unforseen result in something that we didn't consider.

Basically with global warming if we push the Earth in a direction that makes it go hotter in one place the upset in rainfall patterns may also lead to more rain in other places. I am not saying that there will not be negative side effects from climate change, I am saying that there are benefits and they should be factored into how we decide to treat the "problem".

There is cause to be concerned about climate change and it does demand attention and investigation.
 
Like, "for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction"? That's all I remember from physical science!
 
Not quite - think a bit more like the butterfly effect; the sheer complexity of the system makes predictions problematic - it can be broken down though and we can develop a better understanding of what goes on with climate.
 
I don't know enough to care to predict all the consequences, but at least some rise in sea levels would seem a. feasible and b. very bad for a lot of poor and not-so-poor people who live near said sea levels. Depending on how gradually it occured. Certain very low-lying Pacific islands would not have much breathing room.
 
Eek I am 6 blocks from the Beach and I often think about how far a tidal wave would come inland, or how far inland high tides would flood. This is really serious for global climate changes.
 
Carek1230 said:
Eek I am 6 blocks from the Beach and I often think about how far a tidal wave would come inland, or how far inland high tides would flood. This is really serious for global climate changes.


Seriously thinking and perhaps preparing for these possibilities are always a good thing.

:sexywink:
 
Carek1230 said:
Eek I am 6 blocks from the Beach and I often think about how far a tidal wave would come inland, or how far inland high tides would flood. This is really serious for global climate changes.

As soon as we can generate tidal waves, it should be a concern.

Otherwise, the connection between tidal waves and man's influence on the global weather system is absent.
 
nbcrusader said:
As soon as we can generate tidal waves, it should be a concern.

Otherwise, the connection between tidal waves and man's influence on the global weather system is absent.

Americans aren't known for their "preventative medicine." After all, people said for years that New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen and long recommended restoring their shoreline as protection against devastating hurricanes. And as Republicans balked at an estimated $15 billion price tag for years, we'll be spending much more than that for many more years to come.

Melon
 
melon said:


Americans aren't known for their "preventative medicine." After all, people said for years that New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen and long recommended restoring their shoreline as protection against devastating hurricanes. And as Republicans balked at an estimated $15 billion price tag for years, we'll be spending much more than that for many more years to come.

Melon

Is it safe to say the Dems also didn't exactly embrace the "preventive" medicine ?
 
cardosino said:
Is it safe to say the Dems also didn't exactly embrace the "preventive" medicine ?

Lest we forget, the Democrats have not been in control of Congress now for 12 years, and it is up to Congress, not the President, to write and pass bills. Spending over $50 million to investigate a blow job and an anti-flag burning amendment was more important to Republicans than actually doing their job.

Melon
 
melon said:


Lest we forget, the Democrats have not been in control of Congress now for 12 years, and it is up to Congress, not the President, to write and pass bills. Spending over $50 million to investigate a blow job and an anti-flag burning amendment was more important to Republicans than actually doing their job.

Melon

Lest we forget. The potential for Hurricanes like Katrina were around in the days when Dems were in control and actually had a say in running the country.
 
cardosino said:
Lest we forget. The potential for Hurricanes like Katrina were around in the days when Dems were in control and actually had a say in running the country.

Cute, but the New Orleans disaster scenario did not exist until the 1990s. I don't have the exact year, but since 1990, we have only had two years when we have had both a Democratic President and Democratic Congress. That means 14 years of having Republicans at the helm in at least in the Legislature and/or Presidency.

Plus, there was even a marked difference in disaster preparation for a potential New Orleans disaster.

Here's Bill Clinton:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12528233.htm

For example, in the 1990s, in planning for a New Orleans nightmare scenario, the federal government figured it would pre-deploy nearby ships with pumps to remove water from the below-sea-level city and have hospital ships nearby, said James Lee Witt, who was FEMA director under President Clinton.

Here's George W. Bush:

Federal flood control spending for southeastern Louisiana has been chopped from $69 million in 2001 to $36.5 million in 2005, according to budget documents. Federal hurricane protection for the Lake Pontchartrain vicinity in the Army Corps of Engineers' budget dropped from $14.25 million in 2002 to $5.7 million this year. Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu requested $27 million this year.

Both the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper and a local business magazine reported that the effects of the budget cuts at the Army Corps of Engineers were severe.

In 2004, the Corps essentially stopped major work on the now-breached levee system that had protected New Orleans from flooding. It was the first such stoppage in 37 years, the Times-Picayune reported.

And even as late as a few months before Katrina, Bush still balked at spending $14 billion on fixing Louisiana's wetlands. Sure, even if it had passed at that time, it would still have been too late; but the point is that this was never going to be on the GOP's priority list.

Kind of reminds me of how the Bush Administration gave the Taliban $43 million in May 2001 for its work on the "War on Drugs."

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

And somehow we're supposed to believe that Bush was concerned about terrorism the whole time? How much of that $43 million ended up in the pockets of Al Qaeda?

Yet we're still going to blame Democrats for all the ills of the world, right?

Melon
 
Last edited:
melon said:


Cute, but the New Orleans disaster scenario did not exist until the 1990s.



Riiigghhhttt..., tell the folks in Galveston there were no hurricanes before then.
 
melon said:


A completely irrelevant argument.

Melon

you brought politics into it, blaming the Republicans for not spending th emoney on th elevees, yet the potential for the disaster has always been there during administrations of all kinds.
Completely relevant. Seems you don't like it when you CAN'T just blame Republicans. Entirely consistent though, kudos.
 
cardosino said:
you brought politics into it, blaming the Republicans for not spending th emoney on th elevees, yet the potential for the disaster has always been there during administrations of all kinds.
Completely relevant. Seems you don't like it when you CAN'T just blame Republicans. Entirely consistent though, kudos.

The disaster scenario regarding New Orleans did not hit public consciousness until the early 1990s. The proposal for the $14 billion to restore the wetlands existed for years, which came about particularly after a study by the U.S. Geological Survey discovered that much of the wetland loss occurred from peak oil extraction in the 1970s and 1980s. The study figured that $14 billion to restore Louisiana wetlands was a bargain compared to the $100-150 billion it was projected to repair a destroyed New Orleans.

Now who has controlled the Legislature, more or less, since the 1990s? This bill never made it out of Congress.

Melon
 
Not a surprising turn to see yet another issue turn into a left/right finger pointing session.

The New Orleans disaster scenario has existed since the local natives told the French it was a bad location for a city.
 
nbcrusader said:
The New Orleans disaster scenario has existed since the local natives told the French it was a bad location for a city.

A statement that smacks of willful blindness of the situation.

There's a reason why the French Quarter is still standing.

Melon
 
melon said:


The disaster scenario regarding New Orleans did not hit public consciousness until the early 1990s. T

Oh, so now the Dems are off the hook for not doing anything about "preventive measures" because you feel the possibility of a cat 5 Hurricane hitting New Orleans wasnt in the "Pulic Consciousness" at that time?????

Quite a stretch as rationale for completely absolving them of responsibility.
 
nbcrusader said:
And that would be.................?

Contrary to popular belief about New Orleans, the French Quarter is actually above sea level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Quarter

At the end of August 2005, the majority of New Orleans was flooded due to levee breaches after Hurricane Katrina. The French Quarter, like most of the parts of town developed before the late 19th century, was one of the areas to remain substantially dry, since it was built on dry land that predated New Orleans' levee systems and sits 5 feet (1.5 metres) above sea level. Some streets experienced minor flooding, and several buildings experienced significant wind damage. Most of the major landmarks suffered only minor damage and most have since reopened or are scheduled to reopen. The Quarter largely escaped the looting and violence after the storm highlighted by large national and international media outlets; nearly all the fine antique and art shops in the French Quarter, for example, were untouched.

So, no, we can't scapegoat the French for this quagmire.

Melon
 
Last edited:
cardosino said:
Quite a stretch as rationale for completely absolving them of responsibility.

So what comes first...the problem or the solution? You can't have a solution for an unrecognized problem. And for as long as this problem has been recognized, Republicans have ignored the solution that was brought before them.

Melon
 
melon said:


Contrary to popular belief about New Orleans, the French Quarter is actually above sea level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Quarter



So, no, we can't scapegoat the French for this quagmire.

Melon

Cute.

Yes, the French Quarter is a small patch of ground above sea level. The rest of the area has lived with the flood potential for centuries. Until now, we've been discussing New Orleans, not the French Quarter.

This wasn't an attempt to scapegoat the French, but to show the lenghth of time the floor risk has been "in the public consciousness".
 
melon said:


So what comes first...the problem or the solution? You can't have a solution for an unrecognized problem. And for as long as this problem has been recognized, Republicans have ignored the solution that was brought before them.

Melon

That's right, it was only discovered in the '90' that most of the area was under sea level and that hurricanes might occur there.

Facts that, let's face it, neither party did anything about.
 
nbcrusader said:
This wasn't an attempt to scapegoat the French, but to show the length of time the floor risk has been "in the public consciousness".

The reason for the $14 billion for wetland restoration is because the flood and hurricane risk was alleviated by the presence of wetlands, which have been dangerously eroded due to 20th century development. This danger was uncovered by a study by the U.S. Geological Survey--the results of which were released in the early 1990s. If the wetlands had not been damaged, the levees flat out may never have been breached.

And now we're back to where I started.

Melon
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom