Global Warming and Human Health
Global Warming and Human Health Global warming may have grave consequences for the future control of disease. The current warming trend is likely to increase the exposure of millions of people to new diseases and health risks. The 1995 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that global warming is likely to have “ wide-ranging and mostly adverse impacts on human health, with significant loss of life.” Infectious disease are currently emerging, resurging, and undergoing redistribution on a global scale. Although there are many contributors to the emergence of infectious diseases, climate change is playing a significant role in infectious disease resurgence. Infectious diseases that are spread by “ vectors”such as mosquitoes or rodents are very responsive to environmental change. For example, meningitis epidemics are associated with severe drought conditions. Some recent infectious diseases in the United States such as hantavirus pulmonary syndrome and Lyme disease have not been imported, but actually emerged here. The incidence of malaria will dramatically increase over the next century. Global warming could cause 1 million additional deaths from malaria each year. Those at risk of infection from malaria could increase to an estimated 60% of the world’ s population. Thirty new infectious diseases have emerged in the past 20 years. Scientists also project more intense heatwaves and extreme precipitation. The National Climatic Data Center has reported that extreme weather events have substantially increased in the United States. Droughts, floods, storms and fires directly cause death and injury. Floods also create breeding grounds for insects carrying diseases and can contribute to the contamination of drinking water. Heat waves and winter storms can cause cardiac and respiratory deaths. Current models project that by 2050, many major cities around the world could be experiencing up to several thousand extra heat-related deaths annually, independent of any increases due to population growth. Additional indirect effects include respiratory and allergic disorders due to climate-enhanced increases in some air pollutants, pollens, and mold spores. Some regions of the world could experience adverse impacts on food and fisheries productivity, which could exacerbate malnutrition and hunger problems that already exist. There may also be regional shortages in fresh drinking water. Long-term ocean warming, particularly in combination with coastal pollution can promote the proliferation of toxic “red tides”which can encourage water-related diseases, such as cholera, to emerge. Children, the elderly and the poor will be most vulnerable to the human health effects from global warming. The developing world will suffer much more than the industrialized world.
Sources' Working Group Two of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: McMichael. A. ./., Hanes. A.. SIoof R.. Kovals. S.. editors. Climate Change and Human Health. 1996
1700 Connecticut Avenue, NW •Washington, DC 20009-1143 •(202)265-6738 •Fax (202)986-6041 •www.ozone.org
O
primed on 1G]: : recycled paper
i
action Global Warming and Agriculture Agriculture is highly dependent upon a relatively stable climate. Crops are very sensitive to changes in soil moisture, temperature, precipitation, water availability, erosion, pests, and carbon dioxide. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) composed o f more than 2,500 world experts, has concluded with “high confidence”that the pattern o f agriculture production is likely to change in a number o f regions because o f climate change. There will be winners and losers depending on several factors. The agriculture sector could provide many o f the solutions to prevent major climate change through wind farms and bio fuels. Global climate change, bought on by the burning o f fossil fuels, is expected to raise temperatures, increase the frequency and severity o f extreme weather events (floods and downpours), raise sea-levels, increase the spread o f insects and pests, and require entire ecosystems to shift. Agriculture will be impacted by all o f these changes. • Warmer temperatures can exacerbate droughts in some regions while increasing aridity in others. Temperature extremes could severely affect plant functioning. • Sea-level rise can inundate coastal agriculture plains and cause saltwater intrusion o f ground water. Storm surges will also have greater reach inland which could increase crop damage. • With recent El Nino, we have seen that crops and soils can be devastated by heavy rain, flooding, high winds and hail. • Projected changes in the geographical distribution o f crop pests and their vigor will affect productivity. For example, the potato leafhopper, black catworm, sunflower moth and the green cloverworm may extend their ranges northward in the US due to increased overwintering capability. For farmers, negative pest impacts from climate change will be felt both in terms o f reduced crop productivity and the higher costs o f additional control measures as necessary. • As ecosystems attempt to shift poleward in order to remain within their climatic requirements, weeds will also migrate posing an additional stress on farmers. Many o f the worst weeds in temperate regions originated in tropical and the lower latitudes. Currently, low temperatures and frosts limit these weeds distribution. If they are no longer contained, these weeds could becom e problematic in the Corn Belt. • It is important to note that the pressure on increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been modeled to be generally beneficial to plants because plants breathe in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. This may have a mitigating effect.
(Sources: Pg. 429 IPCC Working Group II, 1995, Second Assessment Report: and Climate Change and the Global Harvest, by C. Rosensweig and Daniel Hi Ilei, 1998.)
1700 Connecticut Avenue, NW •Washington, DC 20009-1143 •(202)265-6738 . Fax (202)986-6041 ■www.ozone.org
f r priii'.:3 cn 100: : lecjCi;! caper v r ^
o z on e action
Global Warming and Sea Level Rise
Sea level rise is a major impact o f global warming. As atmospheric temperatures warm, the sea rises due to thermal expansion o f the oceans and melting glaciers. The sea level has already risen globally 4-6 inches during the past 100 years. It is expected to rise another 6 inches to three feet by 2100. People living in low-lying areas are most at risk from sea level rise. Although hurricanes are not currently projected to increase in number from global climate change, the damage from hurricanes and tropical storms will be exacerbated by sea level rise because higher sea levels will result in stronger storm surges. For instance, a 3-foot rise in sea level could turn a 20 year storm into a 100 year flood. A 19 inch sea level rise would put approximately 92 million people at risk o f flooding due to stronger storm surges. Estimated land losses range from 0.05% for Uruguay to about 80% for the Majuro Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Other economic impacts include potential loss o f tourism, increased insurance costs, increased dredging, increased property loss, and decreased fisheries yield. From a financial standpoint, travel and tourism is the largest industry in the world with world wide revenues o f $2.9 trillion. Travel and tourism contribute $746 billion to GNP in the United States. Beaches are the leading tourist destination in the U.S., with 85% o f tourist revenues spent in coastal states. Due to beach erosion, the federal government has spent $30 million annually over the last 10 years on beach nourishment. These costs will only increase as the sea continues to rise at accelerated rates along US coasts. There are many ecological impacts as well that include beach erosion, increased flooding, saltwater intrusion in agriculture and estuaries, diminished fresh water supplies, wetland destruction, risk o f water-borne disease, increased pollutants in coastal waters, eroding shorelines, altered tidal ranges in rivers and bays, altered sediment depositional pa' .and coastal biodiversity. In Massachusetts, a relative sea level rise o f 1.57 feet would submerge 10,000 acres of land at roughly $1,000,000 per acre. In New York, a three-foot rise during a major storm could flood Wall Street, along the Hudson and East Rivers and Battery Park, endangering the underground subway system. A three-foot rise in Washington, D C would allow the Potomac to flood a large portion o f the Capitol Mall area during only a 50 year event. A recent study in California concluded that a two foot sea level rise in Ventura County by 2040 could swamp hotels, power plants, the Point Mugu military base, roads, railroads, recreational facilities and as many as 4,100 low-lying houses. In Louisiana, the state’ s coastal wetlands are vanishing at a rate o f about 35square miles each year due to relative sea level rise.
Sources: Dr. Stephen P. Leatherman ; 1995 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report; Dept, o f Natural Resources Protection, Broward County
1700 Connecticut Avenue, NW •Washington, DC 20009-1143 •(202)265-6738 •Fax (202)986-6041 •www.ozone.org
G W in!?;!cr. MB--, «:.cte
action
Economic Impacts of Global Warming
In 1997 over 2,500 economists signed a statement saying “...sound economic analysis shows that there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American-living standards, and these measures may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the longer run.”In December of 1997, the United States adopted an international protocol that will require America to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in order to combat global warming. Following are some of the reasons it would be economically beneficial for the United States to reduce its emissions: The effects of pollution today are extremely costly. Burning fossil fuels has many indirect effects— including ill health, premature death, and reduced productivity o f agriculture, forestry and aquatic ecosystems—because of the pollution it causes. The combined damages from these effects may comprise anywhere from two to five percent of our gross domestic product (GDP). Am erica’ s dependence on fossil fuels threatens national security. The United States is dependent on foreign oil imports, and that means our oil supply needs to be defended abroad. Every year we spend about $69 billion, one-fourth of our defense funds, on fossil fuel security. Current methods of regulating pollution are expensive. The combined costs of regulating and enforcing fossil fuel pollution laws along with the cost to the consumer of meeting the requirements is estimated to be about $130 billion a year, or 2% of GDP. The predicted costs of climate change are significant. If the temperature increases just 3.6°F by the year 2050, the combined harmful effects on agriculture, disease, housing, the insurance industiy, and the damages produced by a 0.5 meter rise in sea-level could be enormous. Estimates range form $12 to $100 billion a year, with a best estimate of about $47 billion in total cost. Reducing emissions could cause an increase in GDP. Models that use the best-case scenarios to predict the effects of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels find a 2.4 % increase in GDP by 2020. However, even models that assume no air pollution or climate change damages are avoided predict about a 1 percent increase in GDP*. T h is is the CGE Model in The Costs o f Climate Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed. The assumptions are efficient economic responses, non-carbon backstop fuel available, joint implementation adopted, revenues (from a carbon tax?) recycled effectively. Fossil fuel data: Comprehensive Estimate o f Combined Costs o f Fossil Fuel Emissions. Orie Louks. Miami University: Center for Sustainable Systems Studies. A congressional seminar presentation sponsored by U.S. Global Change Research Program, April 1998. Sources: The Costs o f Climate Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed. Robert Repetto and Duncan Austin. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1997.
The Economists' Statement on Climate Change. San Francisco, California: Redefining Progress, 1997.
1700 Connecticut Avenue, NW < Washington, DC 20009-1143- (202)265-6738* Fax (202)986-6041 - www.ozone.org
O
Pr|n!*j or.
action Impacts of Global Warming G lo b a l w arm in g is a term that d escrib es the “g re e n h o u se ”effect. H eat from the sun enters the Earth’ s a tm osp h ere and is trapped b y certain g a s e s like carbon dioxide. T h e se g a se s a b sorb heat from the sun that w ou ld oth erw ise eventually e sca p e from the Earth’ s atm osphere. E m issio n s o f th ese green h ou se g a se s have been g r o w in g sin ce the industrial revolu tion d u e to the burning o f fo ssil fu els like coal, o il and gas. T herefore, an unnatural am ount o f heat has been trapped w h ich has ca u sed the Earth’ s su rface to warm. In 1995, the Intergovernm ental Panel on C lim a te C h a n ge co n v e n e d a panel o f 2,500 scien tists w h o c o n c lu d e d that the “balan ce o f e v id en ce su g g e sts a d iscern ib le human in flu ence on glo b a l clim ate.” F o llo w in g are so m e o f the k ey im pacts o f g lo b a l w an n in g: T e m p e r a t u r e C h a n g e : G lo b a l m ean su rface air tem perature has in creased b y betw een 0.54 and 1.08 d e g r e es Fahrenheit. T h e IP C C p ro jects that the a v erage g lo b a l tem perature w ill rise b y 1.8 to 6.3 d eg re es Fahrenheit b y 2100. R e g io n a l tem peratures m ay vary substantially w ith p ron ou n ced w arm in g in so m e areas and c o o lin g in others. T h e average rate o f w arm in g w ou ld proba bly b e greater than ever seen du rin g the last 10,000 years. S e a L e v e l R ise: S ea level has risen 4-6 in ch es du ring the past 100 years. E xpa n sion o f the o ce a n s and m eltin g m ountain gla ciers and ic e sheets cau se sea level rise. S ea level is e x p e cte d to rise another 6 in ch es to three feet b y 2100. B eca u se w ater takes a lo n g tim e to a b sorb and resp on d to heat, o n ly 50 to 90 percen t o f the sea lev el rise w ill be c o m p le te d b y 2100. A 19 inch sea lev el rise w o u ld put a pp roxim ately 92 m illion p e o p le at risk o f flood in g. E stim ated land lo ss e s range from 0.05% fo r U ruguay to abou t 80% fo r the M ajuro A toll in the M arshall Islands. E x tr e m e W ea th er: W arm er tem peratures w ill cau se a m o re v ig o r o u s h y d ro lo g ica l cycle. T h is m eans there w ill be stronger precipitation and in creased flo o d in g in s o m e region s, and m o re sev ere d rou gh ts in other areas. H igh tem peratures are lik ely to b e c o m e m o re extrem e, and b eca u se n igh t tem peratures w ill in crease as well, heat w a v es sh ou ld b e c o m e m ore serious. H u m a n H ea lth : A c c o r d in g to the IP C C , "C lim a te ch a n ge is lik ely to have w ide-ran gin g and m o stly a dv erse im pacts on hum an health w ith sign ifica n t lo s s o f life." H ealth e ffects in clu d e illn esses and deaths du e to p rojected in creases in the intensity and duration o f heat w aves. Tem perature ch a n g e s m ay a lso a ffect the tran sm ission o f in fectiou s d ise a se s like malaria, dengue, y e llo w fever and encephalitis. F o r e sts: T h e IP C C reports that entire forest ty p es m ay disappear and that boreal (or northern) forests are lik ely to ex p erien ce large sca le lo ss e s o f liv in g trees. C o a s ts : M any coastal e c o sy ste m s are at risk in clu d in g saltwater marshes, m an groves, wetlands, coral reefs and river deltas. G la c ie r s a n d S n ow : M o d e ls predict that betw een one-third and on e-h a lf o f ex istin g m ountain gla cier m ass co u ld disappear du ring the next 100 years. T h e redu ced extent o f gla ciers and depth o f sn ow co v e r a lso w o u ld affect the season al distribution o f river flo w and w ater su pply fo r h y d roelectric generation and agriculture.
Source: Working Group Two o f the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report, 1995.
1700 Connecticut Avenue, N W . Washington, DC 20009-1143 •(202)265-6738 •Fax (202)986-6041 •www.ozone.org
O pratedon10G--recycledcaperrani
action The Southern Company: A Campaign O f Denial "R espect for the environment is part o f what we call the Southern Style — our written philosophy o f how we do business." — A.W. D ahlberg - Southern C om pany Chairman, President and CEO, April 1996 The actions o f The Southern Company, the parent company o f Georgia Power, stand in stark contrast to this philosophy. The company has ignored the conclusions o f the world's best scientists that actions are required now to improve our air quality and stop global warming. With membership in industry-funded front groups. The Southern Company participates in multimillion dollar advertising and public relations campaigns that confuse the public's understanding o f clean air issues and climate change. These groups are listed below. The Air Quality Standards Coalition (AQSC) was created as a joint project o f the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association o f Manufacturers. The AQSC was formed to wrongly convince the Clinton Administration that current air quality standards are adequate and that the science does not support improved public health protections. G eorgia Clean Air G roup is an industry coalition created to undermine and block the U.S. EPA's proposal to strengthen national air quality protections for sm og and air particulates. They successfully lobbied state legislators to introduce two resolutions (H.R. 379 & S. 278) opposing the new EPA proposed protections. The G lobal Climate Coalition (GCC) is a coalition o f fossil fuel corporations, power companies, and automobile manufacturers whose main goal is to stall action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The G CC conducts public relations campaigns aimed at confusing the public by denying the broad scientific consensus on the threat o f climate change. The G lobal Climate Inform ation Project, which was sponsored by The Southern Company and other oil, auto and utility companies, paid over $13 million dollars for advertisements opposing the Kyoto Protocol on global warming even before the Protocol had been signed. The ads falsely claimed "It’ s Not Global and It Won't Work." This scare tactic also claimed that "Americans will pay the price ... 50 cents more for every gallon o f gasoline." Ironically, there was no treaty at that point, and no federal proposals, then or now, have suggested a "50 cent" per gallon gas tax to curb global warming. The Southern Company, through Georgia Power, is conducting a campaign o f denial , simultaneously working to convince the public that individual sacrifices arc needed to clean up our air, while blocking any action that would require effective clean up o f coal-fired power plants. The company has been placing the blame for our dirty air everywhere but in its own backyard. Instead o f investing in cleaning up its old plants at home, it has spent nearly $5 billion overseas on electric utility takeovers. Southern Company's actions conflict with its "claimed" philosophy o f respect for the environment and concern for public health.
1700 Connecticut Avenue, NW •Washington, DC 20009-1143 •(202)265-6738 •Fax (202)986-6041 •www.ozone.org
O pfinleaon 100: re:.ci?dpapers £»■-
action
The Leipzig Declaration, How can over 100 climate “ scien tists ”be wrong?
" I sorta consider m yself u scientist, I had two or three years o f training in the scientific area." R ic h a r d F. G r o e b e r L e ip z ig D e c la r a tio n s ig n a to r y T h e L e ip z ig D eclaration is a statem ent a ssertin g that there is no scien tific co n se n su s abou t the d an gers o f g lo b a l w arm ing. T h is declaration w as first circulated in 1996 by w ell-kn ow n clim ate sk ep tic Dr. S. Fred Singer. Dr. S in ger cla im s that the declaration "critiqu es the scie n tific basis o f g lo b a l w arm in g th eory and w arns against hasty and ill-con sidered p o licie s to restrict e m issio n s o f carbon d io x id e by c o n tro llin g the burning o f coal, o il and g a s” ( Washington Times, 11/13/96). H e further reports that the declaration w as sign ed by "m o re than 100 European and A m erican clim a te scien tists” ( Washington Times, 11/13/96) A s with other such “unprecedented scientific out cries”the cred ibility o f Dr. S in g e r ’ s declaration d is s o lv e s under scrutiny. In d epen den t in vestiga tion s have show n that several o f th ese cla im s rega rd in g the L e ip z ig D eclaration bord er on b e in g spurious. First, s o m e o f the sign a tories to the D eclaration "... are scien tists by anyone's definition, and so m e are scientists by their ow n d efin itio n ” (St. Petersburg Times, 6/29/96). D eclaration sign atories include several weathermen, scien tists w ithout clim ate-related expertise, and ev en scien tists w h o did not person a lly sign the d o cu m e n t in the first place. F or exam ple, declaration sign atory R o y L eep a Tam pa, Florida Channel 13 weatherman, has n o c o lle g e d e g r e e and "doesn't co n sid e r advan ced a ca d e m ic training n ecessa ry to qu alify as a scien tist” (St. Petersburg Times, 6/29/96).
Some names on the Leipzig list baffle climate researchers. Even scientists in the same town can't place them. For example, Boulder, CO is the headquarters of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a leading institution of global climate research. It's also the home of two signers of the Leipzig declaration - John E. Gaynor and J.P. Lodge. A third, George E. McVehil, is in nearby Englewood. Kevin Trenberth, the climate analysis chief at the Boulder center, doesn't recognize any of them. "None of them is known professionally at all in climate research," he said. "They are nonentities." (St. Petersburg Times, 6/29/96) When Danish Broadcasting tried to track down the European signatories, reporters discovered that more than one third of the European signatories said that they never signed the declaration (Danish Broadcasting, 2/26/97). For example, Mr. Erich Korber a retired Professor of Dentistry in Germany, Dr. Ulrich Zwiener, a physician, and Dr. Leslaw Badura, a microbiologist, stated that they did not sign the declaration and were greatly concerned to learn that their names were associated with the declaration. The investigators also found that the document contained 80 signatories, rather than the 100 claimed by Dr. Singer (Danish Broadcasting, 2/26/97). From this number, investigators determined that only 20 of the signatories could be counted as legitimate climate scientists. The remaining 60 signatories included dentists, lab assistants, civil engineers, and people who could not be located. Although Dr. Singer has been informed of these findings, he has issued no response. Last u p d a ted N ovem ber 12. 1998
1700 Connecticut Avenue, NW •Washington, DC 20009-1143 •(202)265-6738 •Fax (202)986-6041 •www.ozone.org
O p rsnlejen iC '-j rec.ciecpaperuiin
X
oz on e action
Regional Impacts of Global Warming in the United States
Global warming will affect human health, ecosystems, agriculture, water systems, forests, and coastal communities throughout the United States. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts an average global temperature increase of 1.8 to 6.3°F by the year 2100. Scientists know that rising temperatures, increased rainfall and droughts, flooding and heat waves can have a wide range o f negative impacts on the earth, but it is difficult for them to pinpoint exactly where these changes will take place. Following are some of their early predictions for different regions of the country: East Sea level, water supply and irrigation.
• Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic and Gulf coasts are expected to lose large wetlands if sea- level rise increases, and Louisiana is expected to have the greatest loss. • Shorelines are currently eroding at a rate o f 0.25-0.5 meters a year, but it is estimated that a one centimeter rise in sea level will cause beaches from New England to Maryland to erode 0.5-1 meter. The Carolina beaches are expected to erode 2 meters. • Rising sea levels would also increase the amount of salt in the water supply in New York, Pennsylvania, Camden and central New Jersey. • Some islands in the Chesapeake Bay will likely be entirely submerged. • In Florida, it is likely that sea level will rise 45-51 cm by 2100 and coastal areas along the Gulf and Atlantic could be inundated. • Dry land, including low forests and farmlands in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast, could be flooded if the sea rises 50 cm. Sea level has already risen 10-15 cm in the past century. Major low-lying port cities that could be affected include Boston, New York, Charleston, Miami, and New Orleans. • The increase in precipitation will increase flood levels in Portland, Philadelphia, and Florida. • Flooding could lead to more contamination o f drinking water. Water supplies could also be reduced because higher temperatures increase evaporation. • A large part of New Jersey’ s coastline is especially vulnerable to erosion, and sea-level rise could significantly damage its coastal real estate and recreational beaches. Agriculture
• Cotton yields could decrease by 9 to 17 percent. • Fewer grain crops will be grown because o f increased heat and moisture.
• In the South and Southeast maize and soybean yields would decrease, although those crops might be replaced by fruits and vegetables. • There will be a longer period without frost in the North.
West Sea level, water supply and irrigation.
• The average temperature in Fresno, California has increased from 61.9-63.5°F over the last century, and precipitation has decreased by up to 20 percent in much o f the state. • Sea-level is already rising 3-8 inches a century and is expected to rise an additional 13-19 inches by 2100. The salinity o f water supplies in California’ s Central Valley will increase with sea level rise. • Port cities with low-lying areas affected by rising seas include Texas City, San Jose, and Long Beach, California. • An increase in the winter runoff from San Francisco’ s reservoirs could increase flooding risk and endanger the Bay’ s delta islands.
1700 Connecticut Avenue, NW •Washington, DC 20009-1143 •(202)265-6738 •Fax (202)986-6041 •www.ozone.org
O Cfinl?d 01 1 Gj : : f£C/(
• Animals that live in cold water, such as mountain whitefish and brook trout in California, could lose their habitat because o f climate change. Agriculture
• Wheat yields could decrease 44 to 68 percent. • Hotter, drier weather could increase the intensity and frequency o f forest fires and change the makeup o f the forests. • A significant increase in the extent o f grasslands is possible. • Hay, orange and tomato yields could increase in the warmer climate. O z o n e C o n c e n t r a tio n s
• Ground-level ozone in New York could increase by four percent with a 7.2°F warming • This increase could also be a problem in New Jersey, which is already classified as an “extreme and severe”area for ozone. • In Atlanta, where ozone concentrations already exceed national health standards, ozone levels could increase because o f higher temperatures, strong sunlight, and stagnant air masses. • In the San Francisco Bay area the maximum ozone concentrations could increase 20 percent with a 7.2°F wanning. H ealth • R ight now, 28 p e o p le d ie from heat-related causes every summer in Tampa, Florida. A 3°F warming co u ld brin g that num ber to 68 heat-related deaths a year. • A study estim ates that a 3°F warming in Seattle would increase winter-related deaths from 15 to about 40 beca u se o f the increase in severe weather. • A study in Dallas, Texas predicts that by 2050 annual summer heat-related deaths could increase from 36 to 107. However, this summer 101 people have already died from the heat in Texas. • In Los Angeles the number o f heat-related deaths during the summer could increase from 68 in 1997 to 116 deaths in 2050.
Sources: The Regional Impacts o f Climate Change: An Assessment o f Variabilin: Robert T. Watson, Marufu C. Zinyowera, Richard H. Moss. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1994. “An evaluation o f climate/mortality relationships in large U.S. cities and the possible impacts o f climate change.” L.S. Kalkstein and J.S. Greene. Environmental Health Perspectives, 105(1) :84-93, 1997. Climate Chanse and the Global Harvest. Cynthia Rosenzweig and Daniel Hillel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. “Climate Change and California. " The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. “Climate Change and New Jersey. ” The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. “Climate Change and Georgia. ”The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. “Climate Change and Florida. " The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. “Climate Change and Washington. " The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997.
Sources' Working Group Two of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: McMichael. A. ./., Hanes. A.. SIoof R.. Kovals. S.. editors. Climate Change and Human Health. 1996
1700 Connecticut Avenue, NW •Washington, DC 20009-1143 •(202)265-6738 •Fax (202)986-6041 •www.ozone.org
O
primed on 1G]: : recycled paper
i
action Global Warming and Agriculture Agriculture is highly dependent upon a relatively stable climate. Crops are very sensitive to changes in soil moisture, temperature, precipitation, water availability, erosion, pests, and carbon dioxide. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) composed o f more than 2,500 world experts, has concluded with “high confidence”that the pattern o f agriculture production is likely to change in a number o f regions because o f climate change. There will be winners and losers depending on several factors. The agriculture sector could provide many o f the solutions to prevent major climate change through wind farms and bio fuels. Global climate change, bought on by the burning o f fossil fuels, is expected to raise temperatures, increase the frequency and severity o f extreme weather events (floods and downpours), raise sea-levels, increase the spread o f insects and pests, and require entire ecosystems to shift. Agriculture will be impacted by all o f these changes. • Warmer temperatures can exacerbate droughts in some regions while increasing aridity in others. Temperature extremes could severely affect plant functioning. • Sea-level rise can inundate coastal agriculture plains and cause saltwater intrusion o f ground water. Storm surges will also have greater reach inland which could increase crop damage. • With recent El Nino, we have seen that crops and soils can be devastated by heavy rain, flooding, high winds and hail. • Projected changes in the geographical distribution o f crop pests and their vigor will affect productivity. For example, the potato leafhopper, black catworm, sunflower moth and the green cloverworm may extend their ranges northward in the US due to increased overwintering capability. For farmers, negative pest impacts from climate change will be felt both in terms o f reduced crop productivity and the higher costs o f additional control measures as necessary. • As ecosystems attempt to shift poleward in order to remain within their climatic requirements, weeds will also migrate posing an additional stress on farmers. Many o f the worst weeds in temperate regions originated in tropical and the lower latitudes. Currently, low temperatures and frosts limit these weeds distribution. If they are no longer contained, these weeds could becom e problematic in the Corn Belt. • It is important to note that the pressure on increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been modeled to be generally beneficial to plants because plants breathe in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. This may have a mitigating effect.
(Sources: Pg. 429 IPCC Working Group II, 1995, Second Assessment Report: and Climate Change and the Global Harvest, by C. Rosensweig and Daniel Hi Ilei, 1998.)
1700 Connecticut Avenue, NW •Washington, DC 20009-1143 •(202)265-6738 . Fax (202)986-6041 ■www.ozone.org
f r priii'.:3 cn 100: : lecjCi;! caper v r ^
o z on e action
Global Warming and Sea Level Rise
Sea level rise is a major impact o f global warming. As atmospheric temperatures warm, the sea rises due to thermal expansion o f the oceans and melting glaciers. The sea level has already risen globally 4-6 inches during the past 100 years. It is expected to rise another 6 inches to three feet by 2100. People living in low-lying areas are most at risk from sea level rise. Although hurricanes are not currently projected to increase in number from global climate change, the damage from hurricanes and tropical storms will be exacerbated by sea level rise because higher sea levels will result in stronger storm surges. For instance, a 3-foot rise in sea level could turn a 20 year storm into a 100 year flood. A 19 inch sea level rise would put approximately 92 million people at risk o f flooding due to stronger storm surges. Estimated land losses range from 0.05% for Uruguay to about 80% for the Majuro Atoll in the Marshall Islands. Other economic impacts include potential loss o f tourism, increased insurance costs, increased dredging, increased property loss, and decreased fisheries yield. From a financial standpoint, travel and tourism is the largest industry in the world with world wide revenues o f $2.9 trillion. Travel and tourism contribute $746 billion to GNP in the United States. Beaches are the leading tourist destination in the U.S., with 85% o f tourist revenues spent in coastal states. Due to beach erosion, the federal government has spent $30 million annually over the last 10 years on beach nourishment. These costs will only increase as the sea continues to rise at accelerated rates along US coasts. There are many ecological impacts as well that include beach erosion, increased flooding, saltwater intrusion in agriculture and estuaries, diminished fresh water supplies, wetland destruction, risk o f water-borne disease, increased pollutants in coastal waters, eroding shorelines, altered tidal ranges in rivers and bays, altered sediment depositional pa' .and coastal biodiversity. In Massachusetts, a relative sea level rise o f 1.57 feet would submerge 10,000 acres of land at roughly $1,000,000 per acre. In New York, a three-foot rise during a major storm could flood Wall Street, along the Hudson and East Rivers and Battery Park, endangering the underground subway system. A three-foot rise in Washington, D C would allow the Potomac to flood a large portion o f the Capitol Mall area during only a 50 year event. A recent study in California concluded that a two foot sea level rise in Ventura County by 2040 could swamp hotels, power plants, the Point Mugu military base, roads, railroads, recreational facilities and as many as 4,100 low-lying houses. In Louisiana, the state’ s coastal wetlands are vanishing at a rate o f about 35square miles each year due to relative sea level rise.
Sources: Dr. Stephen P. Leatherman ; 1995 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report; Dept, o f Natural Resources Protection, Broward County
1700 Connecticut Avenue, NW •Washington, DC 20009-1143 •(202)265-6738 •Fax (202)986-6041 •www.ozone.org
G W in!?;!cr. MB--, «:.cte
action
Economic Impacts of Global Warming
In 1997 over 2,500 economists signed a statement saying “...sound economic analysis shows that there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American-living standards, and these measures may in fact improve U.S. productivity in the longer run.”In December of 1997, the United States adopted an international protocol that will require America to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in order to combat global warming. Following are some of the reasons it would be economically beneficial for the United States to reduce its emissions: The effects of pollution today are extremely costly. Burning fossil fuels has many indirect effects— including ill health, premature death, and reduced productivity o f agriculture, forestry and aquatic ecosystems—because of the pollution it causes. The combined damages from these effects may comprise anywhere from two to five percent of our gross domestic product (GDP). Am erica’ s dependence on fossil fuels threatens national security. The United States is dependent on foreign oil imports, and that means our oil supply needs to be defended abroad. Every year we spend about $69 billion, one-fourth of our defense funds, on fossil fuel security. Current methods of regulating pollution are expensive. The combined costs of regulating and enforcing fossil fuel pollution laws along with the cost to the consumer of meeting the requirements is estimated to be about $130 billion a year, or 2% of GDP. The predicted costs of climate change are significant. If the temperature increases just 3.6°F by the year 2050, the combined harmful effects on agriculture, disease, housing, the insurance industiy, and the damages produced by a 0.5 meter rise in sea-level could be enormous. Estimates range form $12 to $100 billion a year, with a best estimate of about $47 billion in total cost. Reducing emissions could cause an increase in GDP. Models that use the best-case scenarios to predict the effects of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels find a 2.4 % increase in GDP by 2020. However, even models that assume no air pollution or climate change damages are avoided predict about a 1 percent increase in GDP*. T h is is the CGE Model in The Costs o f Climate Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed. The assumptions are efficient economic responses, non-carbon backstop fuel available, joint implementation adopted, revenues (from a carbon tax?) recycled effectively. Fossil fuel data: Comprehensive Estimate o f Combined Costs o f Fossil Fuel Emissions. Orie Louks. Miami University: Center for Sustainable Systems Studies. A congressional seminar presentation sponsored by U.S. Global Change Research Program, April 1998. Sources: The Costs o f Climate Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed. Robert Repetto and Duncan Austin. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1997.
The Economists' Statement on Climate Change. San Francisco, California: Redefining Progress, 1997.
1700 Connecticut Avenue, NW < Washington, DC 20009-1143- (202)265-6738* Fax (202)986-6041 - www.ozone.org
O
Pr|n!*j or.
action Impacts of Global Warming G lo b a l w arm in g is a term that d escrib es the “g re e n h o u se ”effect. H eat from the sun enters the Earth’ s a tm osp h ere and is trapped b y certain g a s e s like carbon dioxide. T h e se g a se s a b sorb heat from the sun that w ou ld oth erw ise eventually e sca p e from the Earth’ s atm osphere. E m issio n s o f th ese green h ou se g a se s have been g r o w in g sin ce the industrial revolu tion d u e to the burning o f fo ssil fu els like coal, o il and gas. T herefore, an unnatural am ount o f heat has been trapped w h ich has ca u sed the Earth’ s su rface to warm. In 1995, the Intergovernm ental Panel on C lim a te C h a n ge co n v e n e d a panel o f 2,500 scien tists w h o c o n c lu d e d that the “balan ce o f e v id en ce su g g e sts a d iscern ib le human in flu ence on glo b a l clim ate.” F o llo w in g are so m e o f the k ey im pacts o f g lo b a l w an n in g: T e m p e r a t u r e C h a n g e : G lo b a l m ean su rface air tem perature has in creased b y betw een 0.54 and 1.08 d e g r e es Fahrenheit. T h e IP C C p ro jects that the a v erage g lo b a l tem perature w ill rise b y 1.8 to 6.3 d eg re es Fahrenheit b y 2100. R e g io n a l tem peratures m ay vary substantially w ith p ron ou n ced w arm in g in so m e areas and c o o lin g in others. T h e average rate o f w arm in g w ou ld proba bly b e greater than ever seen du rin g the last 10,000 years. S e a L e v e l R ise: S ea level has risen 4-6 in ch es du ring the past 100 years. E xpa n sion o f the o ce a n s and m eltin g m ountain gla ciers and ic e sheets cau se sea level rise. S ea level is e x p e cte d to rise another 6 in ch es to three feet b y 2100. B eca u se w ater takes a lo n g tim e to a b sorb and resp on d to heat, o n ly 50 to 90 percen t o f the sea lev el rise w ill be c o m p le te d b y 2100. A 19 inch sea lev el rise w o u ld put a pp roxim ately 92 m illion p e o p le at risk o f flood in g. E stim ated land lo ss e s range from 0.05% fo r U ruguay to abou t 80% fo r the M ajuro A toll in the M arshall Islands. E x tr e m e W ea th er: W arm er tem peratures w ill cau se a m o re v ig o r o u s h y d ro lo g ica l cycle. T h is m eans there w ill be stronger precipitation and in creased flo o d in g in s o m e region s, and m o re sev ere d rou gh ts in other areas. H igh tem peratures are lik ely to b e c o m e m o re extrem e, and b eca u se n igh t tem peratures w ill in crease as well, heat w a v es sh ou ld b e c o m e m ore serious. H u m a n H ea lth : A c c o r d in g to the IP C C , "C lim a te ch a n ge is lik ely to have w ide-ran gin g and m o stly a dv erse im pacts on hum an health w ith sign ifica n t lo s s o f life." H ealth e ffects in clu d e illn esses and deaths du e to p rojected in creases in the intensity and duration o f heat w aves. Tem perature ch a n g e s m ay a lso a ffect the tran sm ission o f in fectiou s d ise a se s like malaria, dengue, y e llo w fever and encephalitis. F o r e sts: T h e IP C C reports that entire forest ty p es m ay disappear and that boreal (or northern) forests are lik ely to ex p erien ce large sca le lo ss e s o f liv in g trees. C o a s ts : M any coastal e c o sy ste m s are at risk in clu d in g saltwater marshes, m an groves, wetlands, coral reefs and river deltas. G la c ie r s a n d S n ow : M o d e ls predict that betw een one-third and on e-h a lf o f ex istin g m ountain gla cier m ass co u ld disappear du ring the next 100 years. T h e redu ced extent o f gla ciers and depth o f sn ow co v e r a lso w o u ld affect the season al distribution o f river flo w and w ater su pply fo r h y d roelectric generation and agriculture.
Source: Working Group Two o f the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Second Assessment Report, 1995.
1700 Connecticut Avenue, N W . Washington, DC 20009-1143 •(202)265-6738 •Fax (202)986-6041 •www.ozone.org
O pratedon10G--recycledcaperrani
action The Southern Company: A Campaign O f Denial "R espect for the environment is part o f what we call the Southern Style — our written philosophy o f how we do business." — A.W. D ahlberg - Southern C om pany Chairman, President and CEO, April 1996 The actions o f The Southern Company, the parent company o f Georgia Power, stand in stark contrast to this philosophy. The company has ignored the conclusions o f the world's best scientists that actions are required now to improve our air quality and stop global warming. With membership in industry-funded front groups. The Southern Company participates in multimillion dollar advertising and public relations campaigns that confuse the public's understanding o f clean air issues and climate change. These groups are listed below. The Air Quality Standards Coalition (AQSC) was created as a joint project o f the American Petroleum Institute and the National Association o f Manufacturers. The AQSC was formed to wrongly convince the Clinton Administration that current air quality standards are adequate and that the science does not support improved public health protections. G eorgia Clean Air G roup is an industry coalition created to undermine and block the U.S. EPA's proposal to strengthen national air quality protections for sm og and air particulates. They successfully lobbied state legislators to introduce two resolutions (H.R. 379 & S. 278) opposing the new EPA proposed protections. The G lobal Climate Coalition (GCC) is a coalition o f fossil fuel corporations, power companies, and automobile manufacturers whose main goal is to stall action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The G CC conducts public relations campaigns aimed at confusing the public by denying the broad scientific consensus on the threat o f climate change. The G lobal Climate Inform ation Project, which was sponsored by The Southern Company and other oil, auto and utility companies, paid over $13 million dollars for advertisements opposing the Kyoto Protocol on global warming even before the Protocol had been signed. The ads falsely claimed "It’ s Not Global and It Won't Work." This scare tactic also claimed that "Americans will pay the price ... 50 cents more for every gallon o f gasoline." Ironically, there was no treaty at that point, and no federal proposals, then or now, have suggested a "50 cent" per gallon gas tax to curb global warming. The Southern Company, through Georgia Power, is conducting a campaign o f denial , simultaneously working to convince the public that individual sacrifices arc needed to clean up our air, while blocking any action that would require effective clean up o f coal-fired power plants. The company has been placing the blame for our dirty air everywhere but in its own backyard. Instead o f investing in cleaning up its old plants at home, it has spent nearly $5 billion overseas on electric utility takeovers. Southern Company's actions conflict with its "claimed" philosophy o f respect for the environment and concern for public health.
1700 Connecticut Avenue, NW •Washington, DC 20009-1143 •(202)265-6738 •Fax (202)986-6041 •www.ozone.org
O pfinleaon 100: re:.ci?dpapers £»■-
action
The Leipzig Declaration, How can over 100 climate “ scien tists ”be wrong?
" I sorta consider m yself u scientist, I had two or three years o f training in the scientific area." R ic h a r d F. G r o e b e r L e ip z ig D e c la r a tio n s ig n a to r y T h e L e ip z ig D eclaration is a statem ent a ssertin g that there is no scien tific co n se n su s abou t the d an gers o f g lo b a l w arm ing. T h is declaration w as first circulated in 1996 by w ell-kn ow n clim ate sk ep tic Dr. S. Fred Singer. Dr. S in ger cla im s that the declaration "critiqu es the scie n tific basis o f g lo b a l w arm in g th eory and w arns against hasty and ill-con sidered p o licie s to restrict e m issio n s o f carbon d io x id e by c o n tro llin g the burning o f coal, o il and g a s” ( Washington Times, 11/13/96). H e further reports that the declaration w as sign ed by "m o re than 100 European and A m erican clim a te scien tists” ( Washington Times, 11/13/96) A s with other such “unprecedented scientific out cries”the cred ibility o f Dr. S in g e r ’ s declaration d is s o lv e s under scrutiny. In d epen den t in vestiga tion s have show n that several o f th ese cla im s rega rd in g the L e ip z ig D eclaration bord er on b e in g spurious. First, s o m e o f the sign a tories to the D eclaration "... are scien tists by anyone's definition, and so m e are scientists by their ow n d efin itio n ” (St. Petersburg Times, 6/29/96). D eclaration sign atories include several weathermen, scien tists w ithout clim ate-related expertise, and ev en scien tists w h o did not person a lly sign the d o cu m e n t in the first place. F or exam ple, declaration sign atory R o y L eep a Tam pa, Florida Channel 13 weatherman, has n o c o lle g e d e g r e e and "doesn't co n sid e r advan ced a ca d e m ic training n ecessa ry to qu alify as a scien tist” (St. Petersburg Times, 6/29/96).
Some names on the Leipzig list baffle climate researchers. Even scientists in the same town can't place them. For example, Boulder, CO is the headquarters of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a leading institution of global climate research. It's also the home of two signers of the Leipzig declaration - John E. Gaynor and J.P. Lodge. A third, George E. McVehil, is in nearby Englewood. Kevin Trenberth, the climate analysis chief at the Boulder center, doesn't recognize any of them. "None of them is known professionally at all in climate research," he said. "They are nonentities." (St. Petersburg Times, 6/29/96) When Danish Broadcasting tried to track down the European signatories, reporters discovered that more than one third of the European signatories said that they never signed the declaration (Danish Broadcasting, 2/26/97). For example, Mr. Erich Korber a retired Professor of Dentistry in Germany, Dr. Ulrich Zwiener, a physician, and Dr. Leslaw Badura, a microbiologist, stated that they did not sign the declaration and were greatly concerned to learn that their names were associated with the declaration. The investigators also found that the document contained 80 signatories, rather than the 100 claimed by Dr. Singer (Danish Broadcasting, 2/26/97). From this number, investigators determined that only 20 of the signatories could be counted as legitimate climate scientists. The remaining 60 signatories included dentists, lab assistants, civil engineers, and people who could not be located. Although Dr. Singer has been informed of these findings, he has issued no response. Last u p d a ted N ovem ber 12. 1998
1700 Connecticut Avenue, NW •Washington, DC 20009-1143 •(202)265-6738 •Fax (202)986-6041 •www.ozone.org
O p rsnlejen iC '-j rec.ciecpaperuiin
X
oz on e action
Regional Impacts of Global Warming in the United States
Global warming will affect human health, ecosystems, agriculture, water systems, forests, and coastal communities throughout the United States. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts an average global temperature increase of 1.8 to 6.3°F by the year 2100. Scientists know that rising temperatures, increased rainfall and droughts, flooding and heat waves can have a wide range o f negative impacts on the earth, but it is difficult for them to pinpoint exactly where these changes will take place. Following are some of their early predictions for different regions of the country: East Sea level, water supply and irrigation.
• Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic and Gulf coasts are expected to lose large wetlands if sea- level rise increases, and Louisiana is expected to have the greatest loss. • Shorelines are currently eroding at a rate o f 0.25-0.5 meters a year, but it is estimated that a one centimeter rise in sea level will cause beaches from New England to Maryland to erode 0.5-1 meter. The Carolina beaches are expected to erode 2 meters. • Rising sea levels would also increase the amount of salt in the water supply in New York, Pennsylvania, Camden and central New Jersey. • Some islands in the Chesapeake Bay will likely be entirely submerged. • In Florida, it is likely that sea level will rise 45-51 cm by 2100 and coastal areas along the Gulf and Atlantic could be inundated. • Dry land, including low forests and farmlands in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast, could be flooded if the sea rises 50 cm. Sea level has already risen 10-15 cm in the past century. Major low-lying port cities that could be affected include Boston, New York, Charleston, Miami, and New Orleans. • The increase in precipitation will increase flood levels in Portland, Philadelphia, and Florida. • Flooding could lead to more contamination o f drinking water. Water supplies could also be reduced because higher temperatures increase evaporation. • A large part of New Jersey’ s coastline is especially vulnerable to erosion, and sea-level rise could significantly damage its coastal real estate and recreational beaches. Agriculture
• Cotton yields could decrease by 9 to 17 percent. • Fewer grain crops will be grown because o f increased heat and moisture.
• In the South and Southeast maize and soybean yields would decrease, although those crops might be replaced by fruits and vegetables. • There will be a longer period without frost in the North.
West Sea level, water supply and irrigation.
• The average temperature in Fresno, California has increased from 61.9-63.5°F over the last century, and precipitation has decreased by up to 20 percent in much o f the state. • Sea-level is already rising 3-8 inches a century and is expected to rise an additional 13-19 inches by 2100. The salinity o f water supplies in California’ s Central Valley will increase with sea level rise. • Port cities with low-lying areas affected by rising seas include Texas City, San Jose, and Long Beach, California. • An increase in the winter runoff from San Francisco’ s reservoirs could increase flooding risk and endanger the Bay’ s delta islands.
1700 Connecticut Avenue, NW •Washington, DC 20009-1143 •(202)265-6738 •Fax (202)986-6041 •www.ozone.org
O Cfinl?d 01 1 Gj : : f£C/(
• Animals that live in cold water, such as mountain whitefish and brook trout in California, could lose their habitat because o f climate change. Agriculture
• Wheat yields could decrease 44 to 68 percent. • Hotter, drier weather could increase the intensity and frequency o f forest fires and change the makeup o f the forests. • A significant increase in the extent o f grasslands is possible. • Hay, orange and tomato yields could increase in the warmer climate. O z o n e C o n c e n t r a tio n s
• Ground-level ozone in New York could increase by four percent with a 7.2°F warming • This increase could also be a problem in New Jersey, which is already classified as an “extreme and severe”area for ozone. • In Atlanta, where ozone concentrations already exceed national health standards, ozone levels could increase because o f higher temperatures, strong sunlight, and stagnant air masses. • In the San Francisco Bay area the maximum ozone concentrations could increase 20 percent with a 7.2°F wanning. H ealth • R ight now, 28 p e o p le d ie from heat-related causes every summer in Tampa, Florida. A 3°F warming co u ld brin g that num ber to 68 heat-related deaths a year. • A study estim ates that a 3°F warming in Seattle would increase winter-related deaths from 15 to about 40 beca u se o f the increase in severe weather. • A study in Dallas, Texas predicts that by 2050 annual summer heat-related deaths could increase from 36 to 107. However, this summer 101 people have already died from the heat in Texas. • In Los Angeles the number o f heat-related deaths during the summer could increase from 68 in 1997 to 116 deaths in 2050.
Sources: The Regional Impacts o f Climate Change: An Assessment o f Variabilin: Robert T. Watson, Marufu C. Zinyowera, Richard H. Moss. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1994. “An evaluation o f climate/mortality relationships in large U.S. cities and the possible impacts o f climate change.” L.S. Kalkstein and J.S. Greene. Environmental Health Perspectives, 105(1) :84-93, 1997. Climate Chanse and the Global Harvest. Cynthia Rosenzweig and Daniel Hillel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. “Climate Change and California. " The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. “Climate Change and New Jersey. ” The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. “Climate Change and Georgia. ”The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. “Climate Change and Florida. " The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997. “Climate Change and Washington. " The United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1997.
