Misuse of Science by UNEP

December 20th, 2004

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) issued a press release last week that clearly misuses science to advance a political agenda. On what basis do I make this claim? The UNEP press release contains assertions that are squarely contradicted by a substantial body of research colleagues and I have published in the peer-reviewed literature. The misuse of science here is unambiguous.

UNEP is linking the economic impacts of extreme weather in 2004 to human caused climate change and then suggesting that emissions reductions are central to reducing those impacts.

Our research (a concise introductory summary can be found here) clearly shows that a connection between emissions reductions, which may indeed be worth pursuing for other reasons, and future economic impacts related to climate is all but nonexistent. How can this be? Trends in the growth in impacts related to extreme events are dominated overwhelmingly by growing population and wealth in places exposed to weather events, and not trends in the events themselves. We simply cannot modulate future damages via emissions reductions. Instead it is necessary to focus on the reduction of damages by reducing vulnerability, a strategy long-advocated within the hazards community.

Here is what UNEP says in the press release:


“Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) … said: “Climate change is already happening with rapid melting of the Arctic and glaciers world wide. Climate scientists anticipate an increase and intensity of extreme weather events and this is what the insurance industry is experiencing resulting in year on year losses. In many developing countries the impacts of high winds and torrential rains are aggravated by a variety of factors ranging from the clearing for forests making hilly slopes more vulnerable to land slips and slides to a lack of enforcement of building codes. Reducing vulnerability and helping poorer nations cope with the ravages of climate change is vital. Some experts estimate that for every one dollar invested in disaster preparedness, you will save six dollars in reconstruction costs,” he said. “However, it cannot be an alibi for inaction on emission cut backs. In the end, many smaller countries like low-lying small island developing states and countries like Bangladesh, can only adapt for so long before they are eventually over come by the impacts of storm surges and rising sea levels,” said Mr Toepfer… Thomas Loster, a senior executive and climate expert with Munich Re which is part of UNEP’s Finance Initiatives, said: “As in 2002 and 2003, the overall balance of natural catastrophes is again clearly dominated by weather-related disasters many of them exceptional and extreme. Indeed 98 per cent of all losses for 2004 and about 100 per cent of insured losses were weather driven. We need to stop this dangerous experiment human-kind is conducting on the Earth’s atmosphere. According to our latest findings, economic losses from January to October are in the order of $ 90 billion. The average value of the last ten years has been $ 70 billion. Insured losses, driven by weather or climate-related disasters, will amount to more than $ 30 billion, making 2004 the costliest natural catastrophe year ever for the insurance industry world-wide. There are indications that the figures will further increase, “ he said. “I would urge delegates and governments here in Buenos Aires to make a strong commitment to a post Kyoto agenda otherwise the industry’s appetite to finance and insure projects under the instruments of the Kyoto Protocol, such as the Clean Development Mechanism, will be blunted,” said Mr Loster”

And here is how a Bloomberg news article reported on the release: “Hurricanes and other extreme weather caused more than $90 billion of losses in the first 10 months of the year, showing the economic cost of climate change caused by global warming, the United Nations said.”

When the head of UNEP (and the head of the IPCC, see here) insist on misusing science in support of a political agenda, it damages the overall credibility of the IPCC, UNEP and the climate science community generally. And it is made worse because the scientific community stands silently by.

5 Responses to “Misuse of Science by UNEP”

    1
  1. Sylvia Tognetti Says:

    I’m not sure that what is in the UNEP press release in any way contradicts your point – while important to make the distinction between reducing vulnerability and reducing emissions, aren’t both important? Or are you arguing that emissions have not increased the odds?

    From the UNEP press release, as quoted in your post:
    “Reducing vulnerability and helping poorer nations cope with the ravages of climate change is vital. Some experts estimate that for every one dollar invested in disaster preparedness, you will save six dollars in reconstruction costs,” he said. “However, it cannot be an alibi for inaction on emission cut backs. In the end, many smaller countries like low-lying small island developing states and countries like Bangladesh, can only adapt for so long before they are eventually over come by the impacts of storm surges and rising sea levels,” said Mr Toepfer…”

  2. 2
  3. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    Sylvia- Thanks very much for your comment. I agree that the comments on vulnerability in the UNEP release are right on target. What I strongly object to is that UNEP asserted in the press release that (a) the economic damages in 2004 are evidence of climate change (they are not) and (b) suggeted that through emissions reductions we can modulate these damages in the future. The Bloomberg article I cited, ans well as this New York Times article

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/19/science/19climate.html?oref=login

    both pick up on (a) and (b) from the UNEP release, but completely ignore the comments about vulnerability reduction. As you ask, both reducing vulnerability and reducing emissions are important, but for different reasons. My work shows clearly that if we want to affect the future consequences of extreme weather events, then vulnerability reduction must be the top priority.

    Ask me again if this doesn’t help answer your question!

    Best regards,

    Roger

  4. 3
  5. Ben Luce Says:

    I agree with Dr. Pielke that the Bloomberg quote about hurricanes is off base, because its true that the increase in economic damage due to hurricanes is still clearly due to greater economic exposure (more people living on the coasts, etc). But the UNEP excerpt does not mention hurricanes, only “extreme weather events” and “torrential rains”, which could include hurricanes but is clearly not limited to such, and I believe its pretty well supported that extreme temperatures and percipitation due to climate change ARE causing huge economic losses already. Just drop by New Mexico some time and we’ll show you! Moreover, the UNEP excerpt explicitly talks about FUTURE consequences of sea level rise (so again, its not over-reaching here). So I don’t buy Dr. Pielke’s remark that this is an “umabiguous” example of misuse of climate science. Rather it seems that the good doctor is attempting to discredit UNEP by subtly linking their remarks to a sloppy quote by Bloomberg – guilt by association.

  6. 4
  7. Roger Pielke Says:

    Ben- Thanks much for your comments! A quick reaction:

    1. I encourage you to read the entire UNEP press release.

    http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=417&ArticleID=4682&l=en

    It starts out as follows, “2004 is set to go down in the history books as the most expensive year for the insurance industry world-wide as a result of hurricanes, typhoons and other weather related natural disasters.” It then goes on for several paragraphs on hurricane imapcts, and then has this quote from Klaus Topfer, “Climate scientists anticipate an increase and intensity of extreme weather events and this is what the insurance industry is experiencing resulting in year on year losses.” Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

    2. On extreme weather events more generally, beyond hurricanes, please have a look at these papers:

    Changnon, S., R. A. Pielke, Jr., D. Changnon, D., R. T. Sylves, and R. Pulwarty, 2000: Human Factors Explain the Increased Losses from Weather and Climate Extremes. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 81(3), 437-442.
    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-50-2000.02.pdf

    Kunkel, K., R. A. Pielke Jr., S. A. Changnon, 1999: Temporal Fluctuations in Weather and Climate Extremes That Cause Economic and Human Health Impacts: A Review. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 80, 6, 1077-1098.
    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-75-1999.11.pdf

    3. And on your assertion about climate change, precipitation and economic impacts, have a look at this paper:

    Pielke, Jr., R.A., and M.W. Downton, 2000: Precipitation and Damaging Floods: Trends in the United States, 1932-97. Journal of Climate, 13(20), 3625-3637.
    http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resourse-60-2000.11.pdf

    Thanks again for your comments!

  8. 5
  9. James Bradbury Says:

    I respect what Dr. Pielke is doing here, because it is important for scientists to play watchdog over how policy makers use science to advance their causes. I also agree that the UNEP’s suggestion that an increase in extreme precipitation events, on a global scale, has been caused by increasing GHG emissions is not well supported by the data.

    However, I think that Dr. Pielke was wrong to say that “we simply cannot modulate future damages [from weather extreme events] via emissions reductions,” because this completely ignores the issue of sea level rise. I think that UNEP’s Executive Director, Mr. Toepfer, was correct to point out that, “in the end, many smaller countries like low-lying small island developing states and countries like Bangladesh, can only adapt for so long before they are eventually over come by the impacts of storm surges and rising sea levels.”

    I think Dr. Pielke’s declaration that the UNEP “issued a press release last week that clearly misuses science to advance a political agenda,” goes too far. Especially since this eye grabbing quotation is all over the CIRES web page and is making it’s rounds on the Internet (e.g., John Fleck’s weblog at the ABQ Journal).

    So, I also tend to agree with Ben Luce that Dr. Pielke was being overly critical of UNEP… at least, in part, by their association with the Bloomberg news article.