Climate Change Experts Say No One Wins as Temperatures Rise

By John Kennedy
As the world’s climate warms, some assume that while some parts of the Earth will lose, others will win, and that the planet will continue to be able to sustain the human race.
This is not the case, said Merrill Singer, a professor of anthropology, and Brenda Shaw, associate professor of chemistry, both from the University of Connecticut.
Singer and Shaw recently participated in a panel discussion at the Storrs campus about climate change and other environmental crises.
Shaw said that even though facts about climate change have been known for at least 40 years, we continue to make negative environmental choices in favor of becoming more profitable.
As populations around the world continue to grow, especially in Asia, not much, if anything, is being done to control it, Shaw said. She suggested that many believe that with more people, more goods will be available to sell.
“We tacitly support explosive population growth because it’s good for the [national profit],” Shaw said.
Many of these Asian countries, where people are often crowded near bodies of water, putting them at risk of flooding from rising sea levels, are commonly cited among the “losers” in global warming, Singer said. Drought-prone African countries and arid regions of central Asia are also considered to be “losers.” If the climate in these places continues to warm – up to 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) in some areas – these regions will receive even less water and there will be widespread famine.
Most of the “winners” in global warming, according to Singer, include the higher latitudes in both hemispheres – areas like the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Argentina, as well as Canada and most of the contiguous United States. These parts of the world are predicted to benefit from global warming because it will extend their growing seasons.
However, Singer said, global warming is not a one-dimensional problem, and disasters in one place could have an impact elsewhere. Countries that are expected to be better off in the warmer climate might be inundated with environmental refugees from the places that are hit with famine and drought. Diseases, like malaria and certain water-borne pathogens, will begin to move with the changing climate, infecting areas that are not used to dealing with them.
“These things interact,” Singer said. “They accelerate each other in certain ways.”
Even crops that are slated to benefit from a warmer climate and extended growing season may face new problems, Singer said. Areas that anticipate spring runoff from melting snowfall will no longer receive it, since the winter snows will have turned to rain. Insects that were previously controlled by a colder climate will begin to flourish, posing a threat to crops and other vegetation.
Singer gave the example of some West Coast forests that once, when viewed from the air, resembled solid green carpets and are now dotted with the brown of dead and dying trees. The culprit? Bark beetles. In warmer temperatures, their metabolism speeds up, increasing the number of times they can reproduce, and the warmer winters don’t kill as many of their larvae. With higher numbers of these beetles attacking trees for a longer period of time, these forests are showing signs of deterioration.
It would appear, Shaw said, that the current model for meeting human needs, where profit is of the utmost importance, has failed.
Instead, Shaw suggests we adopt a new model, one that sets standards for meeting human needs while keeping sustainability for health, the environment, society and the economy.
Singer also said that the problem is not understood enough to accurately predict all of the consequences. By 2100, Singer said, Minnesota – one of the projected “winners” in global warming – could have the climate of either Arkansas and Missouri or the Mojave Desert, no one knows for sure.
Plus, Singer said, “If there is rampant starvation in many parts of the world, will milder winters in Minnesota feel like winning?”