In the meantime I have had to put the main part of my blog on hold until after I complete this course - it is so interesting that it is taking up all my spare time. Lots of info and links over at my Exclimate page)
I'm also now following a further FutureLearn course on Climate Change Leadership from Uppsala University but expect to be back here by the summer - a little older, but hopefully much wiser. :-)
Chilean Wildfires
Chile suffered the worst wildfires in its history during January. The link between global warming and wildfires is very intuitive (unlike some other types of extreme weather) and as such does not require much explanation. Extended periods of drought coupled with high temperatures and earlier snowmelt mean out of control fires are increasing across many parts of the globe - they burn more than twice the area they did in 1970. The Canadian coal tar region and Tennessee also suffered in 2016
Here's an excellent article from Climate Central if you want to learn more.
Discussion Point - The Economics of Climate Change
"Since 2000, 10 forest fires in the United States have caused at least $1 billion in damages each, mainly from the loss of homes and infrastructure, along with firefighting costs." (Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions)
The economics of climate change seems to me to be a particularly opaque subject. There is the argument that we may be doing more harm than good by spending on aggressively reducing carbon emissions (especially by developing nations) rather than spending on mitigating the effects and raising the general living standards of the world's poorer citizens. The problem with this is that the consequences of continuing along the path we are following now carries such a high risk for future generations. In any case do the calculations regarding the cost of switching to renewables include all the costs for putting right the damage done by extreme events (unlikely as there would be bound to be much dispute over which weather events and their effects could be directly attributed to climate change) and the cost we are currently paying in subsidising carbon?
"Fossil fuel companies are benefiting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund." (Guardian 2015)
One for more research I think.
CNNThe economics of climate change seems to me to be a particularly opaque subject. There is the argument that we may be doing more harm than good by spending on aggressively reducing carbon emissions (especially by developing nations) rather than spending on mitigating the effects and raising the general living standards of the world's poorer citizens. The problem with this is that the consequences of continuing along the path we are following now carries such a high risk for future generations. In any case do the calculations regarding the cost of switching to renewables include all the costs for putting right the damage done by extreme events (unlikely as there would be bound to be much dispute over which weather events and their effects could be directly attributed to climate change) and the cost we are currently paying in subsidising carbon?
"Fossil fuel companies are benefiting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund." (Guardian 2015)
One for more research I think.
Further Reading
GuardianRobert Scribbler - Chilean Wildfires are the Worst to ever strike the country
Wildfires Today
Wikipedia on the economics of climate change
