Archive for ‘Economic Costs’

The annual floods in UK, which currently cause a 0.1% loss of GDP could intensify costing 0.2%-0.4% as global temperature increases by 3-4 degrees Celsius

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

Rising sea levels will increase the risk of damages to coastal infrastructure and accelerate capital depreciation. Costs of flood defences on the coast will rise, along with insurance premiums. The annual floods in UK, which currently cause a 0.1% loss of GDP could intensify costing 0.2%-0.4% as global temperature increases by 3-4 degrees Celsius.

Similarly, annual flood losses in Europe could rise from $10 billion today to $120 – 150 billion (€100 – 120 billion) by the end of the century.

Source: Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change (Chapter 5) – HM Treasury (PDF)

Date: 2006

Source: Stern Team – Office of Climate Change (OCC)

Date: NA

A 5-10% increase in storm severity and hurricane wind speed could double the annual damages average of 0.13% of GDP in the USA

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

The costs of extreme weather events, such as storms, floods, droughts, and heatwaves, will increase rapidly at higher temperatures, which alone could reach 0.5 – 1% of world GDP by the middle of the century, and will keep rising as the world warms. Damage from hurricanes and typhoons will increase substantially from even small increases in storm severity, because they scale as the cube of windspeed or more. A 5 – 10% increase in hurricane windspeed is predicted to approximately double annual damages, resulting in total losses of 0.13% of GDP each year on average in the USA alone.

Source: Stern Review final report (Chapter 5) – HM Treasury (PDF)

Date: 2006

Source: Stern Team – Office of Climate Change

Date: NA

Cost of inaction could reach US$176 billion annually by 2100 for Japan

Thursday, March 18th, 2010

If no action is taken now, the economic cost of climate change for Japan could amount to US$176 billion annually by end of century. A four-year collaboration between 14 research institutions led by Prof. Nobuo Mimura, Director of the Institute for Global Change Adaptation Science at Ibaraki University, found that climate change can affect the food supply, in particular, rice, increase natural disasters, change natural ecosystems, place pressure on health systems, and cause more deaths from heat-waves and communicable diseases.

Source: Japan to suffer huge climate costs – OurWorld 2.0

Date: 30 June 2009

Average annual costs to cut GHG estimated at 0.5%-1% of GDP

Sunday, March 14th, 2010

“Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.

In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.”

Source: Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change – Summary of Conclusions – HM Treasury (PDF)

Date: 2006

Source: Office of Climate Change (OCC) – Stern Team

Date: NA

Factory Farms, Deforestation, Subsidies and Soy: UK Campaign Connects the Dots

Sunday, November 8th, 2009

From Meatless Mondays to Weekday Vegetarianism to going raw food vegan to adopting the 100-Mile Diet, there are plenty of individual actions we can take to reduce the impact of our meals. But personal action is not enough, and with the complex, interrelated clusterf**k that our food system has become, individuals can feel powerless to make positive change on a systemic level. Luckily, a new campaign from Friends of the Earth UK is connecting the dots for you.

Having already brought us singing cows and politicians, the Fix the Food Chain campaign is stepping up its efforts for a fundamental shift in how the UK Government treats the food system. Among the campaign’s demands are:

1. Stop spending taxpayers’ money on subsidizing intensive livestock farming and invest in research on alternatives.

2. Introduce new legislation to ensure public money is not spent on environmentally damaging, unhealthy food for schools, hospitals, care homes, the armed
forces and prisons.

3. Address the climate change impacts of livestock production, including the worldwide impacts of the global food chain.

4. Change global investment policy and stop spending taxpayers’ money on finance for damaging intensive livestock schemes via the World Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and other forms of bilateral finance.

5. Fund research and development into sustainable farming, including suitable breeds, crop varieties and cropping systems.

6. Make UK companies, including supermarkets, accountable for the impact on people and the environment abroad.

7. Revise the Sustainable Consumption and Production Strategy so that it addresses
the full impacts of livestock production.

8. Review European Trade Policy and ensure greater priority is given to the environmental and social impacts of global trade.

Check out the summary of FOE’s report on the environmental impact of livestock (PDF download), and check out the organization’s campaign guidelines if you want to do more.

Source: Factory Farms, Deforestation, Subsidies and Soy: UK Campaign Connects the Dots – Tree Hugger

Date: 08 November 2009

Georgetown joins campaign to bring a healthier menu to nation’s hospitals

Monday, March 23rd, 2009

At Georgetown University Hospital, the cafe’s lunch specials have generally consisted of two meat dishes and one vegetarian offering. In the refrigerated case, sandwiches made with roast beef or ham and cheese were kept on shelves at eye level, for easy grabbing.

In early March, however, the cafe began offering more vegetarian specials, and the meat sandwiches were moved to the bottom shelf. On prominent display are pasta- and grain-based cold salads, vegetable wraps and fresh fruit.

“It used to be that the meat sandwiches were the first thing people would see,” said Leigh-Anne Wooten, the hospital’s clinical nutrition manager. “We’re experimenting to see if customers will try alternatives.”

Georgetown is the first hospital in Washington to sign on to the Balanced Menus Challenge, an initiative of the advocacy group Health Care Without Harm that calls on health-care institutions to reduce meat purchases by 20 percent over a 12-month period.

Twenty-nine other health-care institutions in the United States have made that commitment, including eight in Maryland. The effort is part of the group’s Healthy Food in Health Care campaign, in which close to 300 hospitals have agreed to incorporate sustainable foods into their menus.

Reducing meat consumption in hospitals, according to Health Care Without Harm — a Reston-based coalition of about 500 organizations, including the American Hospital Association, the American Nurses Association and Physicians for Social Responsibility — not only encourages better nutrition but also reduces exposure to the growth hormones and antibiotics routinely used in industrial meat production. In addition, hospitals “can substantially reduce their carbon footprints” by cutting back on meat and buying foods from local producers, said Anna Gilmore Hall, the group’s executive director.

“It’s about changing market dynamics through purchasing and procurement patterns,” said Lena Brook, coordinator of the balanced-menu challenge.

Hospitals are major players in the food service industry: Nationwide, they spend about $10 billion each year, with about 45 percent sold in cafeterias and 40 percent served on patient trays, according to the research firm Technomic. (Hospital catering and room service account for the balance.) Nearly half of hospitals contract with such companies as Aramark, Sodexo and Morrison Foods, which design menus and recipes at the corporate level.

Hospitals with independent food programs have more autonomy and make changes more quickly, noted Louise Mitchell of Maryland Hospitals for a Healthy Environment, a program of University of Maryland School of Nursing. “For those that contract out their food services, change can be much more challenging.”

Chris DeRocco, a Morrison employee who manages food service at Baltimore’s Good Samaritan Hospital, said Balanced Menus offerings at the 325-bed hospital “have gone over pretty well.”

Patients, he said, are easier to convert than cafeteria customers, who still congregate around the burger grill.

“But there are definitely those who say they like the idea of eating something that was dug up three days ago not far from here,” he said. “More people these days are in tune with the local-food movement.”

Along with the “flexitarian” — semi-vegetarian — menus that the company drew up last year, Morrison has begun “Ag in the Middle,” a program to identify local farms large enough to supply the volumes that hospitals require.

“At the peak of the season in D.C., we don’t want our hospitals to be getting corn from California,” said Marc Zammit, vice president of sustainability for Morrison’s parent company, the Compass Group. “Our first choice would be to buy from local markets, but the infrastructure wasn’t there.”

Sodexo has contracts with 600 farmers across the country, mostly for produce, said Nita Gupta, a vice president for the company’s health-care group. Menus are designed with seasonal produce in mind, she said, and food service managers can use the company’s intranet to match recipes to what’s available locally.

Some hospitals signing up for these programs are essentially affirming or expanding changes they were already making.

“We’ve created a framework,” said Jamie Harvie, a coordinator for Health Care Without Harm. “Hospitals were already working on improving the food, but mostly from a nutrition standpoint. Four or five years ago, hospitals weren’t really demanding local produce.”

Some criticism of the menu changes has come from meat producers. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association issued a statement warning that “the unintended consequences of eliminating high-quality animal protein, such as lean beef, from the diet can have a serious impact on public health.” The National Pork Board reiterates that warning and challenges claims about the risks of antibiotic use in industrial meats. Its statement cites studies showing that “95 percent of antibiotic resistance concerns in human medicine are unrelated to animal uses of antibiotics.”

Brook said the Balanced Menus Challenge is not an anti-meat campaign. “Nowhere does it say, ‘Don’t serve meat,’ ” she said. She says the challenge is intended “to bring healthier food into health-care institutions.” In fact, the program grew from environmental concerns and efforts to support sustainable and grass-fed meat production in the San Francisco area, where Brook is on the staff of the local chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Brook has been tracking four Bay Area hospitals that reduced their meat purchases more than a year ago. Initial results show that the hospitals’ combined contributions to greenhouse gas emissions dropped by nearly 85 tons per month, she said. Moreover, the hospitals saved an average of nearly $9,000 per month in food costs by buying less meat. Brook said that some of that money might be reinvested in sustainably produced meat, which is generally more expensive.

For Hall, an important result is the impact an in-hospital program can have on behavior outside the hospital. A former nurse, she recalls embracing the so-called “teachable moments,” when she was able to talk with a patient or family about diet and nutrition. “As health-care workers, we don’t always take advantage of the influence we have.”

Source: Georgetown joins campaign to bring a healthier menu to nation’s hospitals – The Washington Post

Date: 23 March 2009

Results 41-46 of overall 46
REPORTS see all

Livestock Production and Shorter-Lived Climate Forcers

Download

Plant-Based Diets - A solution to our public health crisis

Download

Leaders Preserving Our Future - Insights Paper - WPF - November 2010

Download

Maintaining a Climate of Life - Summary Report

Download

Livestock's Climate Impact

Download

Livestock & Sustainable Food

Download

Reducing Shorter-Lived Climate Forcers Through Dietary Change

Download

The global cost of biodiversity loss: 14 trillion Euros? - EU Commission (2008)

Download

Forests, Fisheries, Agriculture: A Vision for Sustainability (2009)

Download

Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 - United Nations (2010)

Download

  • LATEST NEWS

  • Categories