By Bjørn Lomborg (via his Facebook page)
About a quarter of all deaths in the developing world comes from mostly easily curable, infectious diseases.
The biggest environment problem, by far measured in human deaths, is air pollution.
Global warming, which creates a lot of attention, is on an entirely different and smaller level. The World Health Organization estimate (a very maximal estimate) is about one-fortieth of the deaths from air pollution. Even if you assume all deaths from floods, droughts and storms, the number is an even smaller two-hundredth of air pollution.
And no, the number of deaths from global warming won’t increase, but more likely decrease over time, as many infectious deaths will disappear because of increasing wealth, and because fewer cold deaths will increasingly outweigh increasing heat deaths.
Source: Communicable deaths and air pollution deaths from Global Burden of Disease, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8.
Infectious diseases are about 10m of 52.6m global deaths, and 9.2m of 39.7m developing world deaths.
Air pollution lies between 3.5m and 6.9m (indoor and outdoor air pollution is somewhat overlapping, because indoor air pollution contributes 16% to global outdoor air pollution, and because there is no good estimate of how close most people stay to homes when outside). Here, just using the mean, which is likely an underestimate.
WHO global warming estimate is 141,000 deaths (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/). Lower estimate is just 28,266/year for the past decade , using estimates of deaths from flooding, droughts, heatwaves and storms, and assume they’re all from climate change, (http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_23.pdf).
Long-term development of deaths from Richard Tol’s chapter for my upcoming book, How Much have Global Problems Cost the World? A Scorecard from 1900 to 2050 (http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/economics/economic-development-and-growth/how-much-have-global-problems-cost-world-scorecard-1900-2050).
For now, see the estimates from Bosello et al. for 2050 showing global warming *saving* about 850,000 lives (1.76m saved from cold, vs 820,000 more dead from heat), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800905003423.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Show us the bodies. Even if they include those killed by Sarin in the air pollution category, that won’t make 5.2M.
CACCA’s goal is not to save lives but to reduce the number of humans & bring the cowering, impoverished, powerless survivors to bay as craven subjects of the global bureaucratic class.
SANITATION!!!!!!! There is nothing like clean water to drink/cook and excrement handled intelligently to fix that first column or at least most of it.
This sounds more like an attempt to switch tactics since the AGW scare is not working. So let’s revisit an oldie but goodie, air pollution.
I’m sorry, maybe those knowledgeable on this topic take it for granted, but I didn’t realize there was a relationship between air pollution and easily curable infectious diseases. I think the article could be improved by explaining some of the basics of this, if this is in fact so.
Or, if there isn’t, then why are we talking about both air pollution and easily curable infectious diseases in the same breath? I’m a little confused.
What about deaths from starvation exacerbated by subsidized biofuel production pushing out food production?
I hate to bring this up, but Global Warming and Air Pollution aren’t exactly independent. Particularly after Pres. Obama has taken on the slogan, “Carbon Pollution” and using the Clean Air Act to conduct his War on Coal.
So, from Obama’s point of view, he does have his priorities right by equating Climate Change = Global Warming = Carbon Pollution = Air Pollution. More is the pity for the Developed and Developing World’s people.
and because fewer cold deaths will increasingly outweigh increasing heat deaths
====
I say we can easily correct that….
…let’s raise energy prices
As we are cooling, or at least have not warmed in 15 to 21 years, it might be safe to say that deaths due to global warming are very low, looking a lot like ZERO.
These numbers are literally dreamed up around a table as they make guesses at attribution. The WHO even admitted so a while back. They pose a question asking how many people do you think die per million people due to global warming. As no one can show any direct effects of a tiny bit of non-existent warming, they make up a number and then use the world population to figure out how many people that would be. Then, they elevate this dreamed up number to a statistic and publish it.
The exact same method is used on air pollution and, recently in the US, on particulates.
Bjørn Lomborg makes an excellent point, but alarmists have proven time and time again that they have no sense of scale, perspective, or decency.
I understand accepting the higher climate related deaths for arguments sake; but, really, if one thinks about it, one would have to be pretty inadaptable to actually die from climate change.
This particular “article” by Lomborg (not particularly well written) must be read, I believe, with an understanding of his macro view that indoor air pollution deaths in the developing world can best be reduced by providing access to inexpensive fossil fuels or fossil fuel generated electricity, global warming concerns being almost totally inconsequential in comparison to the benefits. Further, access to clean, inexpensive fossil fuel based energy reduces the negative environmental pressure of scavenging for primitive sources of energy, primarily wood.
Lonborg, an economist, is a realist in that he believes that adaptation to “global warming” is far preferable to the misguided strategies of mitigation through “green energy” initiatives which are having disastously negative effects on the world poorest. His more formal writings are quite worthy of reading and consideration.
‘the number is an even smaller two-hundredth of air pollution’, well there is nothing like being economical with the truth!
‘There were supposed to be 50 million climate refugees by the end of last year, so where are they?…was it all a myth? ,…a New Scientist investigation reveals how international agencies failed to make even the most cursory calculations…we found that while there are undoubtedly millions of people…who have had to abandon their homes due to factors linked to climate…’
www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028104.600-searching-for-the-climate-refugees.html
Because if the climate refugees are not been counted correctly then it’s 1 will get you10 that deaths are not either! And the deaths from air pollution? Would that be coal fired power stations,,fumes from internal combustion engines, etc, etc.
@ur momisugly Mark Bofill
The common denominator is that they both (air pollution and diseases) kill people in great numbers unlike climate change which is really just an inconvenience.
John West –
Thank you, I see now.
Clean water trumps clean air. Every day of the week.
Where is the big money in providing sanitation and basic health care to poorer countries? Until someone finds a way to blame the people in rich countries for causing treatable disease (and not be related to another so-called crisis, i.e. AGW causes more disease) then nothing will happen. And then when something happens it will be only to enrich certain individuals and make the chosen few more powerful while those that need help still suffer.
Let me be clear: Warmists’ priorities are not preventing preventable disease deaths but climate scare tax, spending, the destruction of industrial infrastructure and an end to modern levels of consumption. Their priorities are to ignore deaths from preventable disease hoping they will kill even more poor people and reduce poor peoples’ pressure on the world’s resources while not affecting them. Co2 is just a means to this end.
Read the lines and between the lines.
http://www.green-agenda.com/
http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html
Deliver first world Fossil-fueled, prosperity to the “developing” world – problem solved.
How have they differentiated climate deaths as opposed to weather deaths?
Trying to ameliorate negligible to non-existent man-made global warming has indeed killed at least thousands of people.
Joe Public
I suspect that “CLEAN WATER”comes under easily cured infectious diseases along with malaria.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
It often strikes me how many people here immediately attack any numbers etc in a post like this, even when the message is quite clearly that, even allowing the alarmists’ numbers there are far higher priorities out there.
I’d normally find that sort of knee-jerk mindset amusing, except that in this case it simply hands evidence to the alarmists about how unthinking all us sceptics are 🙁
In order to make a meaningful reduction in health consequences of indoor air pollution exposure must be reduced by 90% or more. This is no mean feat because fuel switching is almost invariably expensive. For the worst cases, which are caused by indoor cooking smoke, it is particularly difficult to accomplish while retaining the same fuels because of habits, resistance and unjustifiable optimism about the performance of alternative technologies.
One positive experience is the MCC funded domestic stove programme in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia which has reduced outdoor air pollution 30% in 18 months. The WB and UB City government will continue this programme with the tender process for the next 45,000 stoves in a few weeks. Air quality can be dramatically improved for reasonable sums, but it is not nearly as simple as waving a wand or pledge of good intentions.
Improved health is a worthy goal. It should not be an either / or choice in a “climate change” contest.
Jimbo says:
July 20, 2013 at 10:27 am
How have they differentiated climate deaths as opposed to weather deaths?
Fortunately they don’t have to, as the climatological cognoscenti have now determined that weather = climate.