8 March 2016, Renew Economy, Government somnolence on climate change health costs. Climate change is described by leaders of the medical profession as the greatest health risk of this century. Its health impacts are already significant both internationally and in Australia and are predicted to increase with rising temperatures. The severity of natural disasters from extreme weather events is increased by climate change and is an important cause of harms to our health. A report prepared for the Australian Roundtable by Deloitte Access Economics on the costs of these disasters is remarkable in exposing the health costs. It requires dedicated government attention and action if many Australians are to be spared unnecessary harm and suffering. In 2015 the social costs of natural disasters were at least equal to the physical costs in a total of over $9 billion — about 0.6% of gross domestic product. The total cost of disasters is expected to rise to an average of $33 billion per year in real terms by 2050 unless steps are taken to increase resilience and address mitigation. However, as the report indicates, these costs are calculated without considering the potential impact of climate change. This report “assumes natural hazards will be as frequent in the future as in the past. Given the evidence for climate change, this is unlikely to be the case – extreme weather events will probably occur more regularly in the future than in the past” It is not difficult to calculate the tangible costs of disasters, the damage to infrastructure of buildings, roads, land and crops but the importance of the new Report lies in its costing of the intangible damage to people, the health and well being of the affected community-the lives destroyed from an increase in mental health issues, family violence, alcohol consumption, chronic and non-communicable diseases and short-term unemployment. Read More here Access for full Report here
hmcadmin
7 March 2016, Climate News Network, Climate query as US tornado risk rises. Scientists say the climate behaves too capriciously for them to know for sure whether global warming caused by burning fossil fuels is to blame for a growing tornado threat. Tornadoes in the US are getting worse, with the numbers in any one outbreak and the hazard of ever more frequent outbreaks both on the increase. And although climate change driven by global warming from human causes is under suspicion, nobody really knows for sure whether that is driving the pattern of change. But change is certainly happening. New research published in Nature Communications has examined the pattern of outbreaks and found that the average number of tornadoes in any one outbreak has increased since 1954, and the chance of extreme – and therefore extremely destructive – outbreaks has also increased. An outbreak is a large-scale weather event that can last for days, span huge regions and spawn multiple tornadoes. Continental America is used to these outbreaks, which is why a band of territory that spans central Texas, Illinois and Indiana, and embraces parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado and South Dakota, is known as Tornado Alley. Read More here
6 March 2016, Climate News Network, Risk level rises for North American forests. The speed at which the climate is changing is outstripping forests’ ability to adapt to drier, hotter conditions across vast swathes of the US and Canada. Drought and climate change are now threatening almost all the forests of the continental US, according to new research. Scientists from 14 laboratories and institutions warn in the journal Global Change Biology that climate is changing faster than tree populations can adapt. Existing forests, effectively and literally rooted to the spot, are experiencing conditions hotter and less reliably rainy than those in which they had evolved. “Over the last two decades, warming temperatures and variable precipitation have increased the severity of forest droughts across much of the continental United States,” says James Clark, professor of global environmental change at Duke University, North Carolina. He and colleagues synthesised hundreds of studies to arrive at a snapshot of changing conditions and a prediction of troubles ahead. Ominous predictions Other research has already delivered ominous predictions for the forests of the US southwest, but the scientists warn that other, normally leafier parts of the continent face increasing stress. Dieback, bark beetle infestation and wildfire risk may no longer be confined to the western uplands. “While eastern forests have not experienced the types of changes seen in western forests in recent decades, they too are vulnerable to drought and could experience significant changes with increased severity, frequency, or duration in drought,” the authors say. Professor Clark puts it more bluntly: “Our analysis shows virtually all US forests are now experiencing change and are vulnerable to future declines. Given the uncertainty in our understanding of how forest species and stands adapt to rapid change, it’s going to be difficult to anticipate the type of forests that will be here in 20 to 40 years.” Read More here
4 March 2016, Energy Post, BP says not to worry, good times will return. Aside from minor adjustments, BP’s latest Energy Outlook is mostly business-as-usual, writes Fereidoon Sionshansi, president of Menlo Energy Economics and publisher of the newsletter EEnergy Informer.BP seems to have missed out entirely on the agreement reached in Paris in December 2015, as if it did not happen, notes Sionshansi: “The Outlook seems more of a wish list than a forecast.” BP‘s annual Energy Outlook is always worth a read even if you do not agree with BP’s oil-centric outlook. The 2016 edition, which looks out to 2030, is no exception. To its credit, BP is slowly and grudgingly acknowledging that the future may evolve rather differently than the past – e.g., lower global demand growth rates, changes in the mix of fuels that supply the demand, growth of renewables especially in the power generation sector – yet it seems reluctant or unable to abandon the status quo, the history with which it is familiar and comfortable. Call it organizational inertia, or bias, common among all oil majors. Few would fundamentally disagree that at $30 a barrel, oil is too cheap – certainly compared to highs of 100+ in 2014. But given the supply glut and fierce competition among many producers it is less clear how soon the rebalancing will take place, to what extent prices will rebound and for how long. US shale producers, for example, are likely to be back in business once prices rise above $50, dampening the price recovery. Read More here