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.

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!

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

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…”