The Disproportionate Effects of Climate Change

The Disproportionate Effects of Climate Change

By Saumya Vishnoi

               Climate Change undoubtedly affects the entire world, furthering the necessity for global legislative action such as the Paris Climate Agreement rather than only national action. However, there are some countries that are disproportionately affected by climate change: the developing ones. In fact, according to the United Nations Development Program, a developing country is 79 times more likely to suffer from a climate-related disaster than a developed country. This reveals an extreme unfairness; developed countries are the main reason for the rapid acceleration of climate change but poorer countries suffer the most from it.

           In the past decade, 8 out of the 10 countries that were most affected by extreme weather events were developing nations.  Specifically, a 2015 study projects that by 2100, incomes in poorer countries will decline by 75% compared to a world with no warming. In contrast, developed countries are projected to see their incomes increase. Another study reveals that Bangladesh's GDP per capita is 12% lower due to global warming than what it could have been - Brazil's is 25% and India's is 30%.

            Statistics evidently show that these poorer nations will suffer the blunt of climate change. But why? There are several explanations but the primary factor is simply that these countries lack the resources to currently combat climate change. For example, Miami beach is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to prepare for climate change by installing pumps and raising the elevation of their streets. However, poorer countries don't have resources to prepare for any climate-related disasters. This, however, is an example of a positive feedback loop. The developing nations are hurt the most by climate change which hurts their economy by reducing the amount of food crops and destroying homes, which then leads the country to go further into poverty. 

    

           It is not fair to hold developing nations accountable for climate change when developed nations account for a vast majority of the amount of fossil fuels in the air. Therefore, developed nations must actually help their poorer counterparts to solve both problems: poverty and climate change. One important way this can happen is with richer countries building sustainable power grids in there poorer countries. This way, these countries can gain access to energy and alleviate themselves out of poverty in a clean way. Developed nations need to help solve the problem that they have exacerbated.

Sources:

https://time.com/5575523/climate-change-inequality/

https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-reinforces-inequalities-even-in-developed-countries/a-50596957

https://www.intechopen.com/books/greenhouse-gases/energy-for-sustainable-development-the-energy-poverty-climate-nexus

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-climate-change-global-warming-part-2-story.html

Questions:

What do you think developed nations can do to help developing countries combat climate change?

What other factors contribute to this climate change inequality?

What surprised you the most about this climate change inequality?

Actic v.s Antarctic

By Sophia Villavicencio  

Melting polar ice caps has become a contentious issue impacting all nations. While NASA studies have shown that the amount of ice in Antarctica is actually increasing, these rises only amount to a third of what is being lost in the Arctic. As a result of global warming, the ice caps in the Arctic do not regenerate during winter months and the water remains in the ocean. 

 

Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles. On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center

 

With the melting of Arctic ice caps being a major contributor, sea levels can be seen rising globally. Over time, this could lead to extensive flooding, contamination of drinking water and major changes in ecosystems. 

 

Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of seawater as it warms. The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites.

In the United States, almost 40 percent of the population lives in relatively high population-density coastal areas, where sea level plays a role in flooding, shoreline erosion, and 

hazards from storms. Globally, 8 of the world’s 10 largest cities are near the coast, according to the U.N. Atlas of the Oceans. With increased sea levels, these cities may find themselves in need to relocate and in turn will cause massive displacement, property value loss, and loss of jobs. 

If the melting of Arctic ice caps continues to increase, not only will we lose our primary cooling system for the northern hemisphere, and see major habitat lost. But the lives of people will be directly impacted with elevated sea levels and economies around the globe will deteriorate. 

How would the melting of ice caps affect your life and those around you ?

What are some ways people are discrediting this issue?

What other environmental impacts could be a result of the melting ice caps?

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

The Overpopulation Myth (and how it has impacted Environmentalism) - Faith Tshiyoyo

Environmental Science is a topic that breaches varying subjects together. Chemistry, Economics, Law and other topics come together to bring a sense of immediacy to out rapidly depleting Earth. While many people on this blog have tackled true topics that environmentally affect our planet - I will talk about  something that does not. Because this false claim is something that is being given serious consideration in academic fields with money being donated to prevent it from happening, when we could be investing our time and energy into something into problems that are exacerbating climate change.



The idea of overpopulation was first developed by political economist Thomas Malthus. In his 1798 treatise “An Essay on the Principle of Population” Malthus predicted that population grows at a geometric rate while food production increases at an arithmetic rate, so unless birth rates decreased and dealt with the world would face mass famine and substandard quality of life. However, as you can see, Malthus' predictions have yet to come true. As the population has increased from around 800 million in 1798 to approximately 7.7 billion in 2019.

However Malthus’ philosophy hasn’t been banished from intellectual sphere, The man who was responsible for bringing Malthus’ theory into environmentalism was Paul Ehrlich when he released the “Population Bomb”.  In his book Ehrlich predicts mass environmental degradation and worldwide famine due to overpopulation. While environmental degradation is occurring overpopulation is nowhere near a main factor.

Malthus’ argument that there is not enough agriculture to sustain our population is untrue. Due to modern agriculture techniques and high yield crops the earth can produce enough food for at least 11 billion people (without even increasing the amount of agricultural land we use). Considering the UN is predicting a decline of the global population growth rate, the world population is approximated to reach a peak of about 8.1 billion people, followed by a decline. Ehrlich’s overall connection between the environment is also untrue. While people who live in developed nations — and are wealthy — have lower fertility rates, they emit more carbon dioxide than the poorest 50% due to their lifestyle. We should also bring up that while developed countries are some of the main propagators of overpopulation, they should remember that the United States is one of the highest-emitting countries in the world as they consume more resources.

Overpopulation in the way it has been framed is simply a harmful myth.  To save the environment we have to look at factors such as class, economics systems, gender, race, and nationality to save humanity from ourselves. 

Why do you think Overpopulation is seen as an environmental problem?

Why do you think fertility rates and consumption are often correlated with each other?

What are some ways that we can combat things such as famine nowadays?

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change-world-population

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/what-goes-up-population-crisis-wrong-fertility-rates-decline

https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/climate/

https://www.livescience.com/16493-people-planet-earth-support.html

https://grist.org/article/humans-cause-climate-change-do-we-just-need-fewer-humans/