<< < > >>

risk, and the latter is a more relevant measure

The calculations also allow for a constant

of human well-being. Thus, the published

lag time between sea level rise and initiating

analysis doesn't allow us to determine whether

protection. But one should expect that if sea

the contributions to malaria would be domi-

level continues to rise, the lag between

nated by climate change or other factors.44

upgrading protection standards and higher

GDP per capita will be reduced over time.

Nor does it tell us whether well-being (as mea-

Moreover, it is conceivable that the richer a

sured by the total population at risk for malar-

society is, the faster the adaptation. In fact, if

ia) would be greater in a richer-but-warmer

data confirms that trends in sea level rise are

world compared to poorer-but-cooler worlds.

robust, it is possible that protective measures

In order to answer these questions, I will

may be taken in advance, i.e., the lag times

use the results of an earlier version of the FTA

of the global impact of climate change.45 That

may even become negative, even in a "busi-

ness-as-usual" world.

earlier analysis used a "business-as-usual" sce-

In addition, these calculations do not allow

nario--the so-called IS92a scenario--devel-

for any deceleration in the preferential migra-

oped for the 1995 IPCC impact assessment. It

tion of the population to coastal areas, which

neither included any additional greenhouse

is not unlikely if coastal flooding becomes

gas controls nor allowed for any adaptation.

more frequent and costly. Alternatively, if

Under that scenario, the global population

migration to the coasts continues unabated, a

and average GDP per capita in 2085 were pro-

country's expenditures on coastal protection

jected at 10.7 billion and $17,700 (in 1990

$U.S.).46 The UK Meteorological Office's

might increase because its coastal population

increases relative to its total population.

HadCM2 model projected that under this sce-

Finally, the scenarios used in Table 4

nario, average global temperature would

assume that subsidence is more likely under

increase by 3.2°C between 1990 and 2085,

the A1FI world than the B1 and B2 worlds.

which approximates the temperature increase

using HadCM3 under the A2 scenario.47

That assumption contradicts real world experi-

ence which indicates that once richer countries

That study's results for malaria are sum-

are convinced of a problem, whether environ-

marized in Table 5. The study indicates that

ment or health related, they generally respond

the global population at risk of malaria

quicker to remedy the problem, spend more,

transmission in the absence of climate

and have greater environmental protection

change would double from 4,410 million in

than poorer ones, especially at the high levels of

1990 to 8,820 million in 2085, while the addi-

development that, as indicated in Table 1, are

tional population at risk due to climate

projected to exist virtually everywhere later this

change in 2085 would be between 256 mil-

century under all of the IPCC scenarios.42

lion and 323 million. In other words, climate

change would contribute only a small por-

Hence, one should expect that the richest

Efforts focused

tion (no greater than 3.5 percent) of the total

(A1FI) world would spend more and be better

on minimizing

population at risk for malaria in 2085.48

protected from subsidence than would the B1

the consequences

(and A1 and B2) worlds.

Note that the current range of malaria is

dictated less by climate than by human adapt-

of climate change

Malaria

ability. Despite any global warming that

to the exclusion

The study used in the FTA's analysis for

might have occurred so far, malaria has been

malaria provides estimates for changes in

eradicated in richer countries, although it was

of other societal

global population at risk due to climate

once prevalent there in earlier centuries, and it

objectives might

change, but not for populations at risk in the

sometimes extended into Canada and as far

absence of climate change.43 As we saw in

north as the Arctic Circle.49 This is because

actually reduce

Table 2, the scenario with the highest popula-

wealthier societies have better nutrition, better

overall human

tion at risk due to climate change does not

general health, and greater access to public

welfare.

always have the highest total population at

health measures and technologies targeted at