Back to blog

Climate change will affect developing countries more than rich ones

See blog

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.


While the rich nations have all the wealth and facilities to counter the effect of global warming and thus trying to slow it down, the poor nations (notably those in tropical regions) are the sitting duck of devastation to be brought about by rise in temperature consequently. Don't expect the rich to help out, they are more interested in consuming and wasting more and more energy to warm up the planet faster. Farcically ludicrous.


Without diminishing the importance of the information here about changes in the variability of temperatures in different parts of the world, it does for me beg the question of how the variability now and in 2100 compares in these different places. My intuitive guess is that variability is presently much lower in the tropics than in temperate regions and that this change might make variability more similar in temperate and tropical regions (reducing the variation in variability?)

Of course, that doesn't diminish the impact that a dramatic change in temperature variation may have on tropical ecosystems or the productivity of tropical crops. But it would be interesting to know how these changes compare to the absolute level of temperature variability in these different climatic regions.


Good to know
But it seems that the way things have happened over the last few years, we don't have any control over this massive change


The lack of common sense from your Data Team is just appalling. The Amazon basis has probably more water than any other place on Earth. We know that it is pretty warm down there and "what goes up, must come down" (water vapor).
So, how come that it will "probably" go drier than other places? What kind of "science" is that? Then we see the veiled political criticism of wealthier countries about possibly having less problems.

This is a typical case of publishing studies to reinforce a green agenda and political beliefs. Not good!

Romel Bezerra

This is science, hence the 'probable'. Except for mathematics (perhaps), science doesn't deal in absolute certainty. For that, try religion.
But if you are really interested in why scientists think the Amazon is likely to dry out, you might want to read the article. You can find it here:
In the abstract, the authors write: "We show that climate models consistently project increases in temperature variability in tropical countries over the coming decades, with the Amazon as a particular hotspot of concern. During the season with maximum insolation, temperature variability increases by ~15% per degree of global warming in Amazonia and Southern Africa and by up to 10%°C−1 in the Sahel, India, and Southeast Asia. Mechanisms include drying soils and shifts in atmospheric structure."

dcp123 in reply to guest-56f30bdacf119

The data team is reporting on the research of climate scientists. They are presenting this information. They are not the source of it. If you want to argue that the climate is such a fabulously complex system that these predictions have a high level of uncertainty, have at it, but to think that your "what goes up must come down" analysis is more reliable than that of those who have devoted their lives (and enormous computing power) to these issues is the height of misguided hubris.

Also, you might do well to notice that the predictions here are of changes between 1850 and 2100. In other words, much of the change being discussed has probably already taken place and been measured and recorded.

Like you, I haven't read the research this chart is based on. If you want to understand it better and why they think their analysis is better than your "what goes up must come down" theory, you might do well to read the article before launching your critique.

California Man

Funny how it works. First it's GLOBAL WARMING. Then it's CLIMATE CHANGE. Finally, we have to prove that (once again) rich countries are both the source of the calamity and we are the villains in this farce.
Except it's not true. Any of it.
Too bad, too. This piece of fiction had an evil-doer (rich countries), a victim (poor countries) and a motive (doing bad).


Few years ago we were told that the Western Europe and the U.S. East Coast will drown due to sea level rise. I remember lots of scary graphics of skyscrapers flooded half-way up. Somebody should make a nostalgy trip of all the different and contradictiory 'scentific predictions of climate change'.

Geoff Cannon in reply to guest-amjawmnm

Apparently you have trouble coping with detailed concepts. This article is focused on temperature fluctuation, not sea level. Climate change has multiple components, each of which affects different areas in different amounts.

Sea level rise is ALSO happening. Yes, most coastal cities will be inundated in a few generations.|map


Climate change means that few years ago climate was becoming hotter, now climate is becoming more variable. This way anything can be put as climate change.


Absurd proposition to allocate "guilt" to climate change as if somehow 200 years ago people who were freezing and hungry had some sort of choice.

Sense Seeker in reply to Pitman_gee

Neglected responsibilities can result in feelings of guilt, of course. Perhaps that's why you read 'guilt', not being freezing and hungry but still a consumer of copious quantities of fossil fuels?
I can relate to that. I feel like that a bit when I board my flight. I try to minimise my fossil fuel use, but total avoidance is near-impossible with today's infrastructure.

Pitman_gee in reply to J.A. Hall

Eh? Measurable change in the gaseous composition of the atmosphere due to human activity probably kicked off with industrialisation at what the end of the 18th Century - probably. . . .in I speculate Northern Europe. We discussed the issue in chemistry class in 1970. I would agree that China, India and the US contribute significantly to this process which is perhaps not unassociated with the size of their populations - but they are not "responsible" in that it is a deliberate act. There's just too many people on the place.

There's nothing that can be done about it now I'm afraid until one or other of the major powers percieves an existential threat and a big barney ensues.


Global warming will impact big polluters such as America, Europe, China, India most. Big polluters are located in the zone affected by global warming. More severe drought and hurricanes in America. Stronger Typhoons and flooding in China. More cyclones and flooding and drought in India. Flooding in Europe.
Only Russia and Canada will benefit.

esuttor in reply to sikko6

I disagree with the idea that Canada will benefit from global warming because it fails to account for the complexity of the changes underway. As the temperate zone migrates north, Canada's current agricultural area will suffer, while the newly warmed zones lack soil appropriate for agriculture. Rising seas will be a huge headache for Canada because it has more coastline than any other nation. Significant warming will burn our forests (the Ft McMurray fire was a preview) and decimate northern infrastructure. Last but not least, while Canada has 6% of the world's land, it has 0.5% of the world's people to pay for the damage to it's land, and zero chance of help from others.


As to responsibility for causing changes weather patterns, that depends upon whether global warming/climate change is a man-made phenomenon or a normal variation in the earth's weather patterns.
Show me the unadulterated evidence for either, not some reporter's paranoid conspiracy theories?

umghhh in reply to ashbird

Original poster asked for a proof that global warming, as experienced today, is caused by humanity.
There are two things there.
One is global warming - original poster did not ask for proof of that so I assume your evidence (or some other related) is accepted. The q. whether that is man made is another and one can argue whether human influence is enough to justify the changes we see.
Personally I have hard time believing all of it is of our making. OC: 7.5b humans cutting forest and burning anything they can find to produce food and improve own living conditions can make a difference. This argument can be made yet claims in media are often hysterical as well as faked (sick polar bear as a proof of how conditions change in polar regions, that made the news last year for instance) and in any case too oversimplified to be taken w/o questioning.

ashbird in reply to umghhh

Excellent point. Certainly there are 2 things there. And the Q you raised does need to be answered for any further dissemination of information.
I am glad at least the discussion gets to this point of differentiation. My satirical remark had to do with climate change deniers who'd say things like a certain female scientist whose field of study was climate change ought to have been "strangled in her cradle". I don't make this up. It is on TE archive. Does not give Trump supporters a good name.
On the Q you raised, I don't know the answer, and I don't know enough about the subject to venture an answer.
I do agree there is a bit of hysteria on the subject in the media. I don't like media for the same reason. I don't trust 75% of the things I read in "media". And frankly, I don't understand why people read secondary, tertiary, quadruary.... sources for important information, whether the information pertains to medicine, law, nutrition, birth control, abortion (facts about), biology, geography, history.... . Never understood that, when all one has to do is go to an authenticated source for accurate information. Not an entertainment channel. But such appears not to be the "habit" of folks who call anybody who knows anything about anything whatsoever a loathsome "elite". I don't see how that attitude helps in the effort to ascertain anything.
Thanks for your reply.

guest-amjawmnm in reply to ashbird

What I don't understand is how people overlook a big difference between 'climate patterns change', which is rather inexact science, and 'this will affect economy badly' which is uncertain economic prediction, and and 'strangling the economy now is the best response' which is pure politology and social studies.

ashbird in reply to guest-amjawmnm

That I do understand and have no quarrels with.
I defer to Cal Tech and Nasa for what exact science is. You can write them for detailed explanation.
I also see the change has impact on economy.
Each unto what he sees.

Geoff Cannon

Russia knows this. Siberian tundra will thaw into arable land. Arctic sea ice will melt into trade routes and oil fields. Convincing the USA to ignore climate change is smart and strategic foreign policy. Lost the cold war past, planning to win the global warm future.

guest-amjawmnm in reply to Geoff Cannon

Alaska, Canada and Rockies will supposedly become much warmer, too. Yet climate change believers are scaring how WORSE people in the Arctic will be. There is also no boom in buying land there. Which shows that nobody wants to put money behind the predictions of climatologists.