Climate change is a serious environmental hazard that affects communities and economies worldwide. Many of the impacts of climate change are already in place with even more in number and severity expected in the future, seriously jeopardizing and comprom
ClimatechangeasenvironmentalandeconomichazardGuestEditor: Boris PorfirievClimate change as environmentaland economic hazardGuest Editor Boris Porfiriev Russian Academy of SciencesClimate change as environmentaland economic hazard■ The current policy for climate change prioritizes mitigation over adaptation. The collected papers of Climate Change as Environmental and Economic Hazard argue that although effortsto reduce greenhouse gas emissions are still vital, the new policy paradigm should shift thepriority to adaptation, with a special focus on disaster risk reduction. It should also considerclimate change not purely as a hazard and a challenge, but rather as an opportunity to shift to a new sustainable development policy model, a model designed to stress the particular importance of communities’ resilience. ■ The papers in this special issue of the Environmental Hazards journal explore the key issueslinked to this shift, including:●Increasing research into the earth sciences, climate reconstruction and forecasting inorder to decrease the degree of uncertainty about the origin, development and implications of climate change●The introduction of more binding and comprehensive regulation of both greenhouse gasemissions and adaptation measures, like that in the United Kingdom●Matching climate policy with that for disasters and introducing it into mainstreamdevelopment strategiesThis volume is a valuable addition to previous climate change research and considers a newpolicy approach to this new global challenge.■ Professor Boris Porfiriev is Director of the Risk and Crisis Research Center at the Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia.publishing for a sustainable future9 781849 710893ISBN 978-1-84971-089-3www.earthscan.co.ukEarthscan strives to minimize its impact on the environmentEconomics/Environment Environmental Hazards 8(3) September 2009.Published by Earthscan: Dunstan House,14a St Cross Street, London EC1N 8XA, UK.# 2009 EarthscanAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may bereproduced, stored in retrieval systems or transmitted inany form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without writtenpermission from the publisher.ISSN: 1747-7891 (print), 1878-0059 (online)ISBN: 978-1-84971-089-3Responsibility for statements made in the articles printedherein rests solely with the contributors. The viewsexpressed by individual authors are not necessarily thoseof the editors or the publisher.SUBSCRIPTIONSSubscription prices for Volume 8:InstitutionsOnline only: £247 $494 E323Online & print: £260 $520 E340 (airmail extra)PersonalOnline only: £99 $199 E130Print only: £99 $199 E130 (airmail extra)Orders can be placed online at www.earthscan.co.uk/journals/ehaz or sent to the journal’s distributors,Portland Customer Services, using the contact detailsbelow.Post: Portland Customer Services, Commerce Way,Colchester, CO2 8HP, UKFax: þ44 (0)1206 799331Tel: þ44 (0)1206 796351Email: sales@portland-services.comAbstracting services which cover this title includeElsevier Scopus and GeoRefPrinted in the UK by MPG Books Ltd on FSC certifiedpaper.Environmental Hazards is published quarterly. PeriodicalsPostage Paid at Rahway, NJ. US agent: MercuryInternational, 365 Blair Road, Avenel, NJ 07001.POSTMASTER: Address changes to ENVIRONMENTALHAZARDS, 365 Blair Road, Avenel, NJ 07001.www.earthscan.co.ukGUEST EDITORIAL167-170Climate change: A hazard or an opportunity?BORIS PORFIRIEVRESEARCH171-186Strengthening socio-ecological resilience through disaster riskreduction and climate change adaptation: Identifying gapsin an uncertain worldWILLIAM M. COLLIER, KASEY R. JACOBS, ALARK SAXENA, JULIANNEBAKER-GALLEGOS, MATTHEW CARROLL and GARY W. YOHE187-200United States hurricane landfalls and damages: Can one- tofive-year predictions beat climatology?ROGER A. PIELKE JR201-208Building a low-carbon economy: The inaugural report of theUK Committee on Climate ChangeSAMUEL FANKHAUSER, DAVID KENNEDY and JIM SKEA209-225Managing natural disaster risks in a changing climateW. J. W. BOTZEN and J. C. J. M. VAN DEN BERGH226-240Responsibility framing in a `climate change induced' compoundedcrisis: Facing tragic choices in the Murray-Darling BasinEVA-KARIN OLSSONVOLUME 8 ISSUE 3 2009SPECIAL ISSUESpecial issue: Climate change as environmental and economic hazard Climate change: A hazard or an opportunity?Boris Porfiriev*Guest Editor, Risk and Crisis Research Center at the Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences,Novocheriomushkinskaia, 42a, 117418 Moscow, RussiaClimate change is a serious environmental hazard thataffects communities and economies worldwide. Many ofthe impacts of climate change are already in place witheven more in number and severity expected in the future,seriously jeopardizing and compromising global econ-omic development goals. Although the agents of theimpact are diverse and involve significant fluctuations inthe amount of precipitation, severity of the winds andrising sea levels, to name a few, rising temperatures arementioned elsewhere in research literature and media asa major driver (and effect) of climate change and of globalwarming in particular.Indeed, since the Industrial Revolution the mean sur-face temperature of Earth has increased by an averageof 28C with most of this change occurring in the past30–40 years, and the rate of increase appears to be accel-erating. The leaders of the major G8 economies at the July2009 Summit in Italy declared their recognition of thebroad scientific view that the increase in global averagetemperature above pre-industrial levels ought not toexceed 28C. It was also acknowledged that meetingsuch a challenge requires a global response with allcountries sharing the ambitious goal of achieving at leasta 50 per cent reduction in total global ‘greenhouse gas’CO2emissions by 2050, and recognizing the differencein implementation capacity between developed and devel-oping countries. The former are expected to reduce emis-sions of greenhouse gases in aggregate by 80 per cent ormore by 2050 compared to 1990 (or more recent years).Major emerging economies need to undertake quantifi-able actions collectively to reduce emissions significantlybelow business-as-usual by a specified year (Major Econ-omies Forum, 2009).However, such joint and spectacular declarations can-not conceal two types of persisting discrepancy. One setof doubts and disagreements exists within the researchcommunity and concerns the major drivers of climatechange. The mainstream, headed by the IPCC with a‘more than 90 per cent’ confidence range, maintains thatanthropogenic impact is key. Basing this crucial judgementon the consensus between some 2,500 experts involved inthe IPCC process, the panel’s leaders are supported bymany top politicians including the UN General Secretary.Some past and present leaders in the USA and Europeimply such a consensus has been reached within thewhole research community. However, opponents doexist. These opponents pinpoint the weaknesses of theclimate models used by the IPCC. They argue that muchevidence points to natural factors as a major driver ofclimate fluctuations in the long-term retrospective(measured in centuries rather than decades) and at leastas an important agent of recent change.The point here is not to step on the shaky soil of disput-ing who is more correct in physical terms – as I am not aclimatologist it is not worth even trying this – but rather toemphasize the issue of degree of uncertainty whichis paramount in political and economic respects. Indeed,following the mainstream interpretation of climate change,assuming the human contribution to this change amountsto as much as two-thirds of the total with the confidencerange of this assessment reaching 0.91,1would producean expectancy value of 60 per cent. However high andsalient from an ecological perspective, such a valuecould hardly be perceived as a sufficient condition forthe decision to give priority to the unequivocal investmentof political and/or monetary capital in the reduction ofhuman impact on climate. At least, within the frameworkof economic theory, mainstream or neoclassic economicswould regard this value as complying much more withventure – or even speculation – rather than with ‘normal’capital investment.This adds to other predicaments of policy decisionmaking, including consideration of the major risks andchallenges to development and security other than climateeditorialB *E-mail: b_porfiriev@mail.ruENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 8 (2009) 167–170doi:10.3763/ehaz.2009.0026 # 2009 Earthscan ISSN: 1747-7891 (print), 1878-0059 (online) www.earthscanjournals.com change, in particular those associated with the currenteconomic crisis. As a result, one more set of disputesand controversies persists within business and politicalcommunities concerning the most efficient policy strategyfor coping with climate change implications for theenvironment, the economy and society as a whole.These involve cleavages between both the advocatesand antagonists of ‘greening’ economic policy in specificnations and between nations, in particular the countriesof Annex I and non-Annex I of the Kyoto Protocol. Withinthe latter, disagreements between the USA, EU andmajor emerging economies led by China proved to bemost important to the development of international climatepolicy, including the success or failure of the forthcomingsummit in Copenhagen in December 2009.Reducing the political, social and economic impli-cations of climate change and the risks associated withfuture climate policy requires concentration of efforts ontwo interrelated policy areas or directions. The firstinvolves decreasing the degree of uncertainty about theabove-mentioned implications of climate change andclimate change itself. This calls for more investment ofhuman and pecuniary resources in Earth scienceresearch – a unique source of data enrichment and knowl-edge bases as well as better understanding of the yetpoorly or insufficiently recognized laws of nature thatdrive climate change. In turn, this should facilitate develop-ment of real scientific fundamentals of coping policy,devoid of current ‘militaristic’ conceptualization asrevealed by the titles of international and national pro-gramme documents full of ‘fight’, ‘combat’ and otheroffensive and defensive operations ‘against’ climatechange (for example, see UNDP, 2007). Whatever the dis-putes about the specific amount of natural variability inputinto global climate change, none of the IPCC scholars –let alone their opponents – doubt its conspicuous contri-bution; throughout its history mankind has accumulatedtoo much experience of the consequences of ‘conquering’or ‘struggling against’ nature. New research findings willbring more evidence and substantiation of genuine effi-cient climate policy which seriously considers and adaptsto – rather than fights against – nature.The second policy area or direction focuses on what isknown as mainstreaming climate policy into the overalldevelopment strategy. This initially implies the conceptual-ization of the multiplicity and salience of major challengesto development and security, all of which require politicaland public awareness and economic resources for timelyand efficient policy treatment. In particular – and of no lesssignificance than climate change – natural and human-made hazards should be considered and contrastedagainst climate change and its implications. Such a com-parison should involve weighing the full gamut of risks,costs and benefits of handling these hazards using a multi-criteria and systems approach towards the setting ofpolicy priorities and resource sharing.In addition to and developing from these conceptualissues, several implementation measures should beemployed. At the microeconomic level these range fromspecific energy-saving and energy-efficient measures forreducing carbon emissions to comprehensive risk man-agement systems built into the corporate managementstructures for handling all kinds of risks, from financial toenvironmental. At the macroeconomic level these includethe state providing institutional support to businesses andhouseholds to help them cut down emissions, and inte-gration of both climate change and disaster risk reductionpolicies into national and international development strat-egies. This should include the incorporation of ‘green’or ‘low-carbon’ economy development programmes intonational anti-hazard policy packages.In relation to the latter, it is worth mentioning that 30OECD member countries together with five candidatesfor accession (Chile, Estonia, Israel, Russia and Slovenia)and five Enhanced Engagement Partner countries (Brazil,China, India, Indonesia and South Africa) will implementthe packages above worth more than US$2.3 trillionbetween 2008 and 2010. These are the largest global fiscalstimuli in history and at the same time could be considered‘the greatest opportunity ever had for “greening” nationaleconomies’ (Gurria, 2009). Already the governmentshave allocated more than US$430 billion in fiscal stimulusto key climate change investment issues alone, or almost16 per cent of the total amount of these packages. Chinaand the USA, the major contributors to greenhouse gasemissions, lead the way in absolute terms of resourcesto be spent, while South Korea, the EU and France areat the top of the list in terms of the percentage of thetotal stimulus in relation to the sizes of the economies(81, 59 and 21 per cent, respectively). Key sectoral bene-ficiaries include rail transportation, water infrastructure,grid expansion including ‘smart grid’ development andimproved building efficiency. Renewable energy hasreceived limited support in present packages, except inthe USA (Robins et al., 2009, pp. 2–3).However, the most important aspect of the above com-mitments is that one should perceive them as but the firstinstalment of further efforts by governments to use‘green’ growth as a master key lever for both economicrecovery (inclusive of G20 recovery talks) and to strengthenthe policy of reducing climate change hazards –including the Copenhagen climate negotiations – instead168 PorfirievENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS of using the excuse of the current economic recessionto decelerate this policy. One could cite the GreenGrowth Declaration recently endorsed by OECD membersand some non-member countries in evidence of thistendency.The above illuminates the perspective that climatechange is not only a hazard and a challenge but also abifurcation point marking an opportunity to shift to a newsustainable development policy. The latter suggests think-ing ‘out of the box’ and drifting away from mainstreamclimate and economic theories that constitute the basisof modern development. From a natural science perspec-tive such a shift implies a new paradigm which considersclimate change a phenomenon fraught with an increasingnumber and severity of abrupt fluctuations in environ-mental conditions, driven by natural variability and anthro-pogenic – primarily technological – factors with thespecific contribution of each remaining uncertain.From a social science (particularly economic) perspec-tive, the characteristics above assume resource allocationmarrying with a multi-hazard approach, on the one hand,with in dubio mitius or precautionary principle. Thisinvolves consideration of the ‘long tail’ and intergenera-tional modes of climate change impact and thus impliesspecial monetary and/or insurance funds to cover respect-ive costs and expected damage. On the other hand, look-ing at the principle of impact differentiation andconsidering the controversial effect of climate change onregions, communities and industries, it is clear that somepeople will lose in economic and life terms while otherswill benefit or gain from altering environmental conditions.Finally, from a national and global policy perspectivethe new conceptualization of climate change and climatepolicy implies transition to matching mitigation and adap-tation policies with the priority shifting towards adaptationpolicy. The latter in no way assumes depreciation of miti-gation efforts to reduce CO2and other greenhouse gasemissions. It rather aims to improve existing climate policy,which is inefficient in two important ways.First, one must seriously consider the salience of theresponsible international and national agencies’ issue ofresidual risk, i.e. climate change impact after the best miti-gation measures possible have been implemented. Asmentioned elsewhere in earlier research literature, eventotal suspension of current and future greenhouse gasemissions would not mean a resolution of the problem,given the remaining hazard precipitated by the hugeamount of such gases accumulated in the past. Such anoption is only pure theory.Second, the significance of the natural variability com-ponent of climate change must be taken into account,underestimated or shadowed as it is now by the dominantanthropogenic theory of global warming. In-depth analysisof world disaster statistics proves that, if the recurrence ofmeteorological hazards is assumed to be constant, thedamage inflicted by disaster agents would increase dra-matically given the proportionate increase of the vulner-ability of communities and industrial assets driven byaccelerated urbanization and economic growth.This special issue of Environmental Hazards was con-ceived as an attempt to focus the reader’s attention on pro-blems mentioned above that need more coverage anddeeper investigation. The issue starts with discussionabout the paradigm shift, signs of which are already vis-ible. However, much still needs to be done in order todevelop a comprehensive framework embedding theimproved climate policy into a sustainable developmentstrategy. For such a framework, the paper by a group ofscholars from Yale and Wesleyan Universities in the USAsuggests a holistic and dynamic systems approach,focusing on socio-ecological resilience as a means oftackling the inherent uncertainty associated with climatechange and hazard events and the primary objectivesfor adaptation and risk reduction. Two specific mechan-isms for transformative change in these fields involve:iterative risk management as a primary instrument foradaptive decision making; and institutional changes –particularly the establishment of ‘boundary organizations’ –to increase the transfer of knowledge between science,policy and practice.The next pair of contributions address the risk reductionor mitigation issue. Pielke’s paper concerns predicamentsof forecasting hazards associated with climate changeand the damage it produces. In particular, it considersthe incremental efficiency of one- to five-year predictionsof US hurricane landfalls and damages, added to a base-line expectation derived from the long-term climatologicalrecord. It is argued that the large diversity of available pre-dictions means that some predictions will improve uponclimatology, but for decades if not longer it will be imposs-ible to know whether the improvement was due to chanceor actual forecasting skill. An important recommendationfor decision makers here is to use climatology as a base-line expectation and clearly to identify hedges away fromthis baseline, in order clearly to distinguish betweenempirical and non-empirical substantiations of climaterisk assessment.The paper by Fankhauser, Kennedy and Skea tacklesmitigation from a different – an institutional – perspective,using the UK 2008 Climate Change Act as a case study.This normative document, the first of its kind in the world,legally binds the national level greenhouse emissions to aIntroduction 169ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS tough target for 2050: at least 80 per cent, relative to 1990.It also establishes a new institutional architecture to ensurethis long-term objective is achieved, including a series ofstatutory five-year carbon budgets. The first three ofthese (for the years 2008 –2022) were set in spring 2009and assume an emissions cut of 34 per cent. Recom-mending the targets and overseeing compliance withthem is a new independent body, the Committee on Cli-mate Change. This paper summarizes the 2008 inauguralreport published by the Committee and explains theanalytical basis behind its recommendations.Finally, the last two contributions contemplate the issueof adaptation to climate change and its implications oncommunities and the economy, also in two respects. Thepaper by Botzen and van den Bergh concerns managingdisasters, the bulk of which have been provoked bymeteorological agents. It stresses a high probability ofthe augmentation of disaster damage trends in the futuredue to a combination of climate and socio-economicchange impact. This requires a more sophisticated disas-ter risk management policy based on the concept of com-munity resilience, comprising a package of measuresfocused on disaster risk prevention, damage mitigationand arrangements for efficient risk sharing. Especiallyemphasized is the salient role of financial systems andtools such as insurance in the adaptation to climatechange aimed at reducing the damage and facilitatingrecovery from meteorological disasters.Olsson’s paper analyses the issue of adaptation toclimate change from a different perspective, namely a crisismanagement framework with a particular emphasis oncrisis communication. Crises associated with or amplifiedby climate change impact involve a broad range of econ-omic, environmental and social issues that require specificand comprehensive policies capable of efficiently addres-sing different groups of actors. Building upon earlierresearch findings on political crisis communication, theauthor contemplates these actors’ framing strategies inconnection with the crises above and the way these areaffected by the media, using the case study of the droughtin the Murray –Darling Basin in Australia and its coveragein the local press.The contributors to this special issue – and the GuestEditor – hope that contemplation of the points above willadd a valuable grain to the ‘goldfield’ of earlier findingsin climate change research. They might just catalyse anew turn of the discussion spiral on the ‘hazard–opportu-nity’ duality of this new global challenge.Note1. Both of these assumptions fully comply with the IPCCnotion of anthropogenic factor being ‘very likely’ (i.e.with confidence rate over 90 per cent) to be the‘major cause’ of climate change.ReferencesGurria, A., 2009. From grim to green: towards a low-carbon future. Remarks delivered by the OECD GeneralSecretary at the International Economic Forum ofthe Americas (Conference of Montreal), 9 June. Mon-treal, Canada. www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343,en_2649_34487_43031674_1_1_1_1,00.html.Major Economies Forum, 2009. Declaration of the MajorEconomies Forum on Energy and Climate, 8 –10 July.l’Aquila, Italy. www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Allegato/MEF_Declarationl.pdf.Robins, N., Clover, R. and Singh, C., 2009. Climate forRecovery: The Color of Stimulus Goes Green. HSBCGlobal Research, London.UNDP, 2007. Human Development Report 2007/2008.Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a DividedWorld. UNDP, New York.170 PorfirievENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS Strengthening socio-ecological resilience through disaster riskreduction and climate change adaptation: Identifying gapsin an uncertain worldWILLIAM M. COLLIER1,*, KASEY R. JACOBS1, ALARK SAXENA1, JULIANNE BAKER-GALLEGOS1,MATTHEW CARROLL1AND GARY W. YOHE21School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA2Department of Economics, Wesleyan University, 238 Church Street, Middletown, CT 06459, USAGlobal environmental change and climate change are rapidly altering the world’s socio-ecological systems and affecting humanpopulations at multiple scales. Important manifestations of these changes are hazard and disaster events. The emerging fields ofclimate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction provide significant opportunities to avoid and/or reduce many of thenegative consequences associated with such events. Reviewing current attempts to link these two fields, we suggest an urgentneed for a holistic and dynamic systems approach, focusing on socio-ecological resilience as a primary objective for adaptationand risk reduction. Furthermore, we propose two mechanisms for transformative change in these fields: (1) the use of iterativerisk management as a primary instrument for adaptive decision making, and (2) the establishment of ‘boundary organizations’and institutional changes that increase the transfer of knowledge between not only science and policy, but also science, policyand practice. There is immediate demand for participatory scholarly research to address the needs and concerns of practitionerson the ground. As a framework for these concepts, we see a dynamic systems approach to socio-ecological resilience as ameans to deal with the inherent uncertainty associated with climate change and hazard events.Keywords: adaptive management; boundary organizations; dynamic systems theory; knowledge networks; uncertainty; vulnerability1. IntroductionGlobal environmental change is occurring at ratesunprecedented in human history, challenging theresilience and adaptability of communities world-wide. This change can largely be attributed toenvironmental degradation from the exploitationof natural resources (e.g. Meyer and Turner, 1992;Dobson et al., 1997; Coleman and Williams,2002) and the alteration of the earth’s climatesystem through unnatural amounts of greenhousegas (GHG) emissions into the atmosphere (e.g.IPCC, 2001; 2007). Focus on global climatechange and its attributed environmental andsocio-economic consequences over past decades,particularly over the last several years, has led toa growing body of literature and increasingconcern about climate change impacts on humanpopulations (e.g. Adger et al., 2003; IPCC, 2007;van Aalst et al., 2008).Highly uncertain risks are expected to affectmany dimensions of societies (i.e. agriculture,fisheries, energy, tourism, forestry, water resources,etc.) that are essential to the livelihoods of humanpopulations, particularly in developing countries.For societies already vulnerable and sensitiveto external stresses, climate change risks mayexacerbate the social and economic conditionsresearch articleB *Corresponding author. E-mail: william.collier@yale.eduENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 8 (2009) 171–186doi:10.3763/ehaz.2009.0021 # 2009 Earthscan ISSN: 1747-7891 (print), 1878-0059 (online) www.earthscanjournals.com . ClimatechangeasenvironmentalandeconomichazardGuestEditor: Boris PorfirievClimate change as environmentaland economic hazardGuest Editor. william.collier@yale.eduENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 8 (2009) 17 1 18 6doi :10 .3763/ehaz.2009.00 21 # 2009 Earthscan ISSN: 17 4 7-7 8 91 (print), 18 7 8-0 059 (online) www.earthscanjournals.com