CAMBRIDGE: Blaming the weather is one of mankind’s oldest excuses, but for a large part of humanity it is more serious than we realize. Because mankind is actually changing global weather patterns, the problems brought by adverse weather conditions in the future could actually multiply. What’s worse is that the rich countries may be an important cause of the increasing weather damage being suffered by the poorest countries in the world.
Last week I visited several countries in Central and South America. In addition to the usual woes of financial upheaval, every one was reeling from severe weather disturbances of the past two years. The El Nino phenomenon of 1997-98 led to massive rainfall followed by severe flooding throughout the Andean Countries, especially Ecuador and Peru. Torrential downpours destroyed crops, and wiped away billions of dollars of roads, bridges, and electricity pylons. Meanwhile, Central American countries are still cleaning up from the shock of Hurricane Mitch, the worst hurricane to hit Central America in 200 years. Nearly 10,000 lives were lost; property damage totaled billions of dollars. In both El Nino and the hurricane, increased outbreaks of infectious disease followed natural disasters.
It is probably the case that the two weather disasters were linked. El Nino occurs when warm water from the Western Pacific (near Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines) sloshes across the Pacific to the Western border of South America. Warm water off the coast of South America leads to torrential rainfall in Ecuador and Peru, and at the same time, drought in Southeast Asia. The El Nino is followed a year or so later by the so-called La Nina effect, in which the warm water bounces back across the Pacific. History has shown that years of La Nina, such as 1998, are typically characterized by fierce hurricane activity in the Caribbean, exactly what occurred with Hurricane Mitch.
Terrible destruction -- in thousands of lives, and billions of dollars of property in very poor economies -- would be bad enough without another sneaking suspicion: that the rich countries may be inadvertent factors in the severity of recent events. Most everybody has heard by now of the likelihood of long-term global warming, in which the heavy use of oil and gas by industrial economies leads to a rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Rising carbon dioxide, in turn, causes the Earth to retain more heat from the sun, increasing the earth’s temperature.
Computer models suggest that global warming may well be a factor in the increased frequency and severity of El Nino phenomena in the past 20 years, and thus also perhaps in the intensification of hurricanes in the Caribbean Basin. Weather models are too imprecise at this point to prove these linkages with certainty (weathermen and economists share a reputation for imperfect forecasts!), but a growing body of science suggests two basic facts.
$ heavy energy use in the rich economies is indeed gradually warming the earth;
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
$ it is poor countries -- mainly in the tropics -- rather than the rich countries -- mainly in the temperate economies -- who are likely to suffer the most severe damage.
So, rich countries are imposing what economists call an “externality” on poor countries: by changing the global climate they may be causing havoc in the most vulnerable places on earth.
Rich countries are often eager to tell poor countries what to do: how to run national policies, how to reconstruct themselves after a hurricane or flood, even how to cut down on energy use in the poor countries. The rich countries are much worse, of course, at taking responsibility for their own actions.
If rich countries are the major force in global climate change, and if that climate change is a major force in loss of life, loss of crops, physical destruction, and even spreading disease, among poor countries, then rich countries have a real job to do. On the one hand, they should help pay for any damages they indirectly inflict on poorer countries (scientists will be needed to establish or disprove such linkages), and on the other hand, they should take serious and long-term actions (such as reducing the use of fossil fuels) to limit the environmental costs they are imposing on themselves and the rest of the world.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
The escalating war in the Middle East must be understood in a broader context. The fact that the Iranian regime felt emboldened to risk a direct strike on Israel attests to a changing world order in which Western power is increasingly open to challenge.
considers the implications of Iran’s unprecedented decision to launch a direct strike on Israeli territory.
CAMBRIDGE: Blaming the weather is one of mankind’s oldest excuses, but for a large part of humanity it is more serious than we realize. Because mankind is actually changing global weather patterns, the problems brought by adverse weather conditions in the future could actually multiply. What’s worse is that the rich countries may be an important cause of the increasing weather damage being suffered by the poorest countries in the world.
Last week I visited several countries in Central and South America. In addition to the usual woes of financial upheaval, every one was reeling from severe weather disturbances of the past two years. The El Nino phenomenon of 1997-98 led to massive rainfall followed by severe flooding throughout the Andean Countries, especially Ecuador and Peru. Torrential downpours destroyed crops, and wiped away billions of dollars of roads, bridges, and electricity pylons. Meanwhile, Central American countries are still cleaning up from the shock of Hurricane Mitch, the worst hurricane to hit Central America in 200 years. Nearly 10,000 lives were lost; property damage totaled billions of dollars. In both El Nino and the hurricane, increased outbreaks of infectious disease followed natural disasters.
It is probably the case that the two weather disasters were linked. El Nino occurs when warm water from the Western Pacific (near Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines) sloshes across the Pacific to the Western border of South America. Warm water off the coast of South America leads to torrential rainfall in Ecuador and Peru, and at the same time, drought in Southeast Asia. The El Nino is followed a year or so later by the so-called La Nina effect, in which the warm water bounces back across the Pacific. History has shown that years of La Nina, such as 1998, are typically characterized by fierce hurricane activity in the Caribbean, exactly what occurred with Hurricane Mitch.
Terrible destruction -- in thousands of lives, and billions of dollars of property in very poor economies -- would be bad enough without another sneaking suspicion: that the rich countries may be inadvertent factors in the severity of recent events. Most everybody has heard by now of the likelihood of long-term global warming, in which the heavy use of oil and gas by industrial economies leads to a rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Rising carbon dioxide, in turn, causes the Earth to retain more heat from the sun, increasing the earth’s temperature.
Computer models suggest that global warming may well be a factor in the increased frequency and severity of El Nino phenomena in the past 20 years, and thus also perhaps in the intensification of hurricanes in the Caribbean Basin. Weather models are too imprecise at this point to prove these linkages with certainty (weathermen and economists share a reputation for imperfect forecasts!), but a growing body of science suggests two basic facts.
$ heavy energy use in the rich economies is indeed gradually warming the earth;
Subscribe to PS Digital
Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.
Subscribe Now
$ it is poor countries -- mainly in the tropics -- rather than the rich countries -- mainly in the temperate economies -- who are likely to suffer the most severe damage.
So, rich countries are imposing what economists call an “externality” on poor countries: by changing the global climate they may be causing havoc in the most vulnerable places on earth.
Rich countries are often eager to tell poor countries what to do: how to run national policies, how to reconstruct themselves after a hurricane or flood, even how to cut down on energy use in the poor countries. The rich countries are much worse, of course, at taking responsibility for their own actions.
If rich countries are the major force in global climate change, and if that climate change is a major force in loss of life, loss of crops, physical destruction, and even spreading disease, among poor countries, then rich countries have a real job to do. On the one hand, they should help pay for any damages they indirectly inflict on poorer countries (scientists will be needed to establish or disprove such linkages), and on the other hand, they should take serious and long-term actions (such as reducing the use of fossil fuels) to limit the environmental costs they are imposing on themselves and the rest of the world.