More

Rajendra Pachauri, UN Scientist, Says Fighting Climate Change Saves Costs

By ARTHUR MAX   11/30/11 07:56 AM ET   AP

DURBAN, South Africa -- The U.N.'s top climate scientist cautioned climate negotiators Wednesday that global warming is leading to human dangers and soaring financial costs, but containing carbon emissions will have a host of benefits.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, summarized a litany of potential disasters at a U.N. climate conference in the South African city of Durban. Although he gave no explicit deadlines, the implication was that time is running out for greenhouse gas emissions to level off and begin to decline.

Heat waves currently experienced once every 20 years will happen every other year by the end of this century, he said.

Coastal areas and islands are threatened with inundation by global warming, rain-reliant agriculture in Africa will shrink by half and many species will disappear. Within a decade, up to 250 million more people will face the stress of scarce water.

Increasingly frequent weather disasters have imposed heavy financial burdens, with some poor countries running up 90 percent of their national debt to deal with the aftermath of storms, droughts and floods, he said.

But the Indian scientist said "many impacts can be avoided, reduced or delayed" by reducing emissions.

To stabilize carbon concentrations in the atmosphere would slow economic growth by 0.12 percent per year, he said, but those costs would be offset by improved health, greater energy security and more secure food supplies.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

DURBAN, South Africa -- The U.N.'s top climate scientist cautioned climate negotiators Wednesday that global warming is leading to human dangers and soaring financial costs, but containing carbon emis...
DURBAN, South Africa -- The U.N.'s top climate scientist cautioned climate negotiators Wednesday that global warming is leading to human dangers and soaring financial costs, but containing carbon emis...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 129
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael D Ballantine
Former Presidential Candidate - Amer Elect 2012
03:52 AM on 12/02/2011
This statement lacks believability "To stabilize carbon concentrations in the atmosphere would slow economic growth by 0.12 percent per year, he said, but those costs would be offset by improved health, greater energy security and more secure food supplies."

It will cost dramatically more than that to stabilize carbon at sufficient levels to maintain levels below 450 ppm. In fact, it will cost closer to 2% of global GDP until the change is made. For me that is an acceptable cost until the economy can adjust to the new level but telling a story to make it seem that changes will be insignificant only provides ammunition to our opponents. There is enough nonsense floating around by both groups, more nonsense will only turn the electorate off.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
The Knocker
a mind is a terrible thing to waste
09:54 PM on 12/01/2011
Its ironic how some deniers here has been selective in choosing a controversial IPCC report back in 2007 and ignore a much recent affirmative findings on the rise of earth's temperature:

"World temperatures keep rising, and are heading for a threshold that could lead to irreversible changes of the Earth, the United Nations weather office said Tuesday.

2011 is tied for the 10th-hottest year since records began in 1850, the office said in its annual assessment of average global temperatures. Arctic sea ice has also shrunk to record-low volumes this year, it said. The 13 hottest years on the books all have occurred in the last 15 years.

"The science is solid and proves unequivocally that the world is warming," said R.D.J. Lengoasa, deputy director of the World Meteorological Organization, and human activity is a significant contributor."
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/story/2011-11-29/global-temperatures-rising-climate-change-conference-durban/51464574/1
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beckjr2000
been there done that & tired of it
03:11 PM on 12/01/2011
Washington Times Tuesday 29 Nov. 2011

"EDITORIAL: A climate of fraud"

New emails shed light on the global warming racket

"noting in another email that “the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” Those who disagreed with the warmist agenda were systematically excluded from high-level documents like the now-discredited 2007 report by the United Nations‘ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This and other “evidence” have been seized by popularizers like former Vice President Al Gore to foist distorted doomsday scenarios on innocent schoolchildren, panicky liberals and other credulous people."

Oh! Those pesty emails!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
The Knocker
a mind is a terrible thing to waste
09:34 PM on 12/01/2011
Quoting a report from the Washington Times serve only to further promotes the right-wing propaganda machine on climate change.
Now if you would give us something from an establish scientific community, we could start have a real grown up debate on global warming.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
beckjr2000
been there done that & tired of it
10:12 AM on 12/02/2011
Since this article from the IPCC is nothing more than AGW propaganda by it's chairman who has many different financial interests requiring him to promote the scam, your argument is weak.

But how about David Appell? He definitely in the AGW Camp. Based on the second email release known as Climategate 2.0, he recently said "it does raise questions about how much purported unanimity has been artificially created by IPCC reports, and whether the full state of uncertainty is being communicated...The would-be policy makers need to stop getting ahead of the science"
08:57 PM on 11/30/2011
The IPCC makes the Bernie Madoff fraud look like a girl scout hiding $15 in cookie money.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
02:16 AM on 12/01/2011
Really? About the only valid criticism of the IPCC is that their projections are probably too conservative.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Counterintuitive
We'll steer by the beacon of our 100 year forecast
10:07 AM on 12/01/2011
So your next aspersion is that even the girl guides are in for the money?

Diagnosis: Paranoia
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
07:51 PM on 11/30/2011
More climte doom from the rent seekers at the IPCC! Next.
08:57 PM on 11/30/2011
F&F!!!!!!
photo
maninal2
Without knowledge action is useless
11:21 AM on 12/01/2011
I'm hoping you and your family live very near the beach. You've been in the gene pool too long.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Sunwyn Ravenwood
Farewell my friends, time to go...
05:52 PM on 11/30/2011
What I don't understand is why all the science-deniers keep coming to Huff-Post and reading about climate change. Why don't they just mind their own business? Surely Faux News has some kind of comment column they can write on and tell each other any sort of nonsense they please. They know that people who actually understand the science of climatology are not going to do anything but laugh at them, so why do they set them selves up for it? Is is masochism?

Between the tin-hat crowd and their kooky ideas about water and their faux science and the ones who are simply brainwashed by the major polluting companies and their faux news, there sure is a lot of time and energy being wasted here.
photo
BluePhantom2
The Blacksmith & the Artist reflected in their art
07:50 PM on 11/30/2011
Actually it's interesting reading peoples thoughts, if I agree or disagree is irrevelant it's supposed to be a discussion. What you really don't understand is that there is more than one point of view and all are just that plus usually a list of solutions.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Sunwyn Ravenwood
Farewell my friends, time to go...
08:32 PM on 11/30/2011
In order to have a fruitful discussion with people you have to agree on the same reality. There is no point in talking to people who can't distinguish between reality and fantasy.

On a post about dinosaurs there was a man who said he thought that triceratops and similar animals were mammals because they looked more like rhinos than they did the bipedal dinosaurs. I tried to tell him about the criteria that scientists use to distinguish mammals from birds and dinosaurs, but I don't think he got the picture.

It's the same thing with climate change. People who don't even understand the most basic facts about the atmospheric cycle, who don't know a Hadley cell from a cancer cell, cannot have an intelligent discussion on climate change because they don't know anything about it. They just make up things that they want to believe.

You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts. Reality exists regardless of any what anyone thinks. Not "believing" in climate change will not save you from the consequences of catastrophic changes to the atmosphere.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
darth geekboy
04:10 PM on 11/30/2011
so deniers don't like being called "deniers" as it is an insult to them.

guess what, calling them DENIER's is actually being kind.

if anything, i'd prefer calling them self-absorbed unsympathetic narcissists, whose only concern is their own little safe bubble of non-culpability. any truth or idea that informs them of their responsibility to the rest of mankind and to nature itself is anathema to them.

anything that curbs their current lifestyle, that prevents them from driving that boorish HUMMER or whatnot, is evil to them.

tell them how climate change is affecting the rest of the world, those especially in third world countries and equatorial areas, and they'll ignore it, just like they would ignore the "hired help". they are the very definition of elitists.
09:03 PM on 11/30/2011
Funny, that warming in equatorial regions hasn't happened. Yet another failure of the not so awesome climate models.

But then hey, maybe Phil Jones was wrong when he CONFIRMED the missing warming and his hopes that warming returns before 2020.

Naaahhhh. Phil Jones told the truth. No warming for a decade. .61C over 160 years is not abnormal and is nothing to go all suicidal over.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roadrun
Question Authority
07:37 AM on 12/01/2011
That paper said exactly the opposite of what you just said. Why do you lie when it is easy to prove that's what you are doing?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Counterintuitive
We'll steer by the beacon of our 100 year forecast
10:15 AM on 12/01/2011
Phil Jones (add text), Phil Jones (add text), Phil Jones (add text)

All work and no play makes Frank a dull dull boy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Willisearlray
03:13 PM on 11/30/2011
As the sea level rises we will have less water. Maybe with all the warming, evaporation will stop which would mean we would have less storms.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Trepasky
Sanity is neither free nor easy
04:12 PM on 11/30/2011
HOw does rising sea levels (increasing the amount of water) mean we will have less water?

My only interpretation is that your posting is meant as sarcasm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roadrun
Question Authority
06:21 PM on 11/30/2011
Warming will cause certain areas to experience extreme drought and that will mean water scarcity. At the same time, warmer means the ocean will evaporate, making more clouds, making certain places experience massive flooding. Global Chaos is a better name, or you could say Global Inhospitability, or you could say Tough Luck Humans, You Were Warned.
09:05 PM on 11/30/2011
Oh my gosh. Thank goodness we built all those damns to handle 100 years floods over the last 100 years.

Ooops, sorry, we aren't supposed to know that we've been planning for things like 100 years floods for centuries.

Yet another mistake by the 'climate chaos' crowd.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
racebaiter
Yellow Black or White WWJD
02:35 PM on 11/30/2011
In 2009 the leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering. However, if there is such a thing as global warming I hope I'm still alive to watch humans react to drought famine and pestulence. I am an anti-greenie and I approve of this message.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Trepasky
Sanity is neither free nor easy
04:13 PM on 11/30/2011
If you are under 40 years of age and healthy you will probably be alive when the effects impact your children and their children
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
racebaiter
Yellow Black or White WWJD
04:39 PM on 11/30/2011
I'm praying for quicker.
09:06 PM on 11/30/2011
The only effects will be from chra-zies like you who manage to re-reoute trillions of dollars chasing a fraud.

The results of which will be trillions that AREN'T spend advancing REAL science and improving the human condition.

You and your friends are worse than 1930 germans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Katmandu01
04:13 PM on 11/30/2011
"In 2009 the leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unpreceden­ted disasters were nothing more than scare-mong­ering." Where on earth did come across this nonsense? The sources that I'm citing make it very clear what the position of the Vatican is concerning anthropogenic global warming:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/glaciers19.pdf
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/05/11/will-the-vatican%E2%80%99s-declaration-on-global-warming-have-an-impact-on-the-overall-climate-debate/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
racebaiter
Yellow Black or White WWJD
04:40 PM on 11/30/2011
He's like a politician...always changing their minds. Going with the flow etc. etc.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Willisearlray
02:26 PM on 11/30/2011
Now the melting of the ice caps is going to lead to less water?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
darth geekboy
03:46 PM on 11/30/2011
i guess if you're gonna make inane comments, you're welcome to it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Katmandu01
04:09 PM on 11/30/2011
Are you suggesting that you can drink sea water and use it for irrigation?
01:31 PM on 11/30/2011
Will it hopefully lead to the loss of the UN? Half of our troubles are garnered in poppy fillled producers back rooms.
12:50 PM on 11/30/2011
The endless world population growth makes every problem harder to solve.

We have a food crisis, a water crisis, an oil crisis, a financial crisis, a jobs crisis, a global warming crisis and an over population crisis.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hans Bickel
Visionary
08:41 PM on 11/30/2011
It's not the size of the population, it's the quality: meat eaters, short-sighted, greedy, and stingy.
That will only get better when people raise their consciousness, preferably to God (Krishna) consciousness. As they say, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, but it is movement none the less. Dr. Hans
09:09 PM on 11/30/2011
Maybe we should consider enforcing a one world law of only 1 child per couple.

Would that make you happy?
photo
maninal2
Without knowledge action is useless
11:26 AM on 12/01/2011
The release of methane once global temperatures are high enough will accomplish that automatically. You won't have to think then either.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:36 PM on 11/30/2011
It's completely obvious that we should reduce emissions, whether we "believe" in AGW or not because cleaning, decentralizing and reducing the environmental and economic costs of power production is simply a no-brainer across the political spectrum.

That said, because the deniers are so paranoid and hypocritical (coal jobs are excellent! solar jobs are socialist!), Big Energy is dominating the transition and disenfranchising ALL of us!

Chevron, BP, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley - THEY have gobbled up tens of BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of taxpayer acres to monopolize solar and wind power while we are getting NOTHING!

What Big Energy and Big Banks (and their lackeys in Big Government and Big Enviros) don't want us to recognize is that WE could own the renewable revolution, WE could see enormous economic upside from it and WE could finally free ourselves from their mercenary domination of our lives, economy and planet.

But we need to work together to implement German style FITs (hugely popular with German conservatives!!), and PACE loans (no risk!), so that WE can afford to retrofit our homes and businesses for efficiency, passive heating/cooling and solar/microwind power and be paid fairly for the clean, non deadly power we produce.

This will improve employment, property values, local economies, air and water quality, recreational spaces, and grid reliability - a complete win/win whatever your politics. Stop being distracted by stupid arguments and start working in everyone's best interests, people!
photo
poetryislife
always look at the big picture
12:51 PM on 11/30/2011
F & F'ed
photo
julieintx
Everybody blog Brett Kimberlin
01:37 PM on 11/30/2011
Tip: if you want to persuade people, don't call them names like "denier", which derives from the term "H0loc@ust denier", and "paranoid".

You make some good points, and it is good to decrease emissions where feasible.

I became "paranoid" about CAGW when I realized that GS and sc am artists like Franklin Raines has set up the CCX, and owned most of it. These same people were pushing for the Waxman-Markey bill, which would have been a huge transfer of wealth from ordinary people to Wall Street, without reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. The president was GS's biggest donation recipient in decades. He also helped set up the CCX.

The tea party helped save the nation from that sca m. If you are not paranoid about things like that, you are naive.
03:14 PM on 11/30/2011
If you are in denial of science, you are a denier.

How do you distinguish between skepticism and denial?

They are actually opposites. Skepticism is about looking for the truth, denial is about hiding from it. All scientists should be skeptics, but when you get an overwhelming ‘preponderance of evidence’ from many different types of research, a true scientist will accept it – a denier won’t.

Many climate change deniers call themselves ‘skeptics’ and say the word ‘denier’ is an insult, as if they are ‘holocaust deniers’. However, people can deny anything, but when people deny the fact that every Academy of Science and 97% of practicing climate scientists say human-caused climate change is happening and very serious – it is important to call these people by their true name. They are deniers.

- Dr Haydn Washington
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:23 PM on 11/30/2011
Well, I'm totally and loudly against cap and trade, and i believe it's sensible informed people like me who defeated it because we exposed it as Big Polluter/Big Bank collusion that would hurt the planet and the economy.

Your point about using "deniers" is taken, but my point about them constantly diverting the discussion away from solutions like those I listed is absolutely true. They simply will not work towards meaningful energy independence as long as they are obsessed with irrelevant strawmen showdowns between Al Gore and Lord Monkton while the simple, affordable, clean and democratic energy solutions we need to be pushing for are once again, ignored. It may be accidental, but its hugely destructive all the same.

We ALL need to stop looking where Big Energy, Big Banks and Big Government keep pointing to distract us (ooh, shiny! ooh, controversy!), and keep working for solutions that benefit US - NOBODY ELSE IS GONNA DO THIS.
photo
julieintx
Everybody blog Brett Kimberlin
11:46 AM on 11/30/2011
There is no good data set that indicates that weather disasters have become more frequent.
12:15 PM on 11/30/2011
Ah, the ever present Pro-Pollution for Profit Lobby (Big Oil, Natural Gas, Coal and Nuclear). They are the Oedipus of our times, raping their mother (earth) for power and profit. They only care about power and profit and to that end they will say and do ANYTHING. They have ripped out their own eyes. They are blind.

How about hurricane data?
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes-figures#fig1
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

Oh, that can't be right. It's another government agency and therefore socialist!! If it's not a capitalist, we can't trust data from them! You know, BP, Exxon, Massy - you can always trust those capitalists! No one is correct unless they agree with me!

LOL! No good data? Stop pretending that you even understand science, let alone care about it.

Want to how the Pro-Pollution for Profit gluttons decide whether or not scientific theories or conclusions are correct? They ask one simple question: Does the science potentially threaten our profits? If the answer is yes, then the science is wrong at best, a fraud and a conspiracy at worse. If the answer is no, then the science is all good. LOL!
photo
julieintx
Everybody blog Brett Kimberlin
12:57 PM on 11/30/2011
Those papers only go back 50 years--thats less than two cycles, since 30 years is the minimum time needed to see a trend in cycles.

Hurricanes hit the US coast more frequently in the 1880s, when Indianola, TX was destroyed twice.
photo
julieintx
Everybody blog Brett Kimberlin
12:58 PM on 11/30/2011
I have a BS degree, and I hate to see science being distorted and misused, as many people with agendas tend to do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
James Swick
Gopher it !
12:26 PM on 11/30/2011
Weather, which is what you are talking about is a different area of study called Meteorology that deals with day to day weather.
Climatology deals with long term permanent atmospheric and environmental conditions such as Florida's sub tropical climate is different than Canada's sub arctic climate.
photo
julieintx
Everybody blog Brett Kimberlin
12:52 PM on 11/30/2011
The article said that weather disasters have become more frequent. I was disputing that statement.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
James Swick
Gopher it !
11:44 AM on 11/30/2011
Our leaders will not listen because the incredibly irresponsible energy profiteers have convinced the American public that global warming is an evil scientist conspiracy hoax.

And it worked. The scientists won the Nobel Prize. They fooled everybody including the Noble science committee and all the other scientists except the ones working for the Koch Brothers or other major energy companies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roadrun
Question Authority
06:44 PM on 11/30/2011
Nobody told them they live on the same planet.
09:14 PM on 11/30/2011
No, the energy companies haven't convinced anybody.

Fraudulent America hating groups like the IPCC and the money grubbing scientists feeding off of the government tit. Now those folks are the hucksters who have ZERO credibility.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roadrun
Question Authority
07:43 AM on 12/01/2011
So you wanna explain this "money grubbing" thing to us? Post a link to data?