Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
In a recent op-ed in the Guardian that WUWT commented on, James Hansen of global warming fame, argued for closing coal fired power plants asserting that “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
So what’s happened to US life expectancy as the number of coal fired death factories have multiplied and as the climate has gotten warmer?
Figure 1: Data are plotted for every ten years from 1900-1940, 1945, and each year from 1949 onward. Data sources: life expectancy from Statistical Abstract of the United States 2009, and earlier editions; coal usage from Goklany (2007) for 1900-1945, and EIA (2008) for 1949-2007; carbon dioxide emissions for 1900-2005 from Marland et al (2008).
As the above figure shows, US life expectancy at birth increased by 30.5 years, from 47.3 years to 77.8 years, between 1900 and 2005, while coal usage more than tripled. Carbon dioxide emissions in 2005 were nearly nine times the 1900 levels. And, of course, the climate has also gotten warmer (not shown). To appreciate the magnitude of this improvement in life expectancy, consider that the approximate life expectancy in pre-industrial societies varied from 25-35 years.
While the increase in life expectancy is not directly due to greater coal use or CO2 emissions, much of it was enabled in one way or another by the prosperity fueled in large part by coal and fossil fuel consumption, as I have noted in my book, The Improving State of the World: Why We’re Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet. Also recalling the IPCC’s temperature trends from 1900 onward, according to my eyeball analyzer there seems to be a better correlation between life expectancy and coal use (and CO2 emissions) or their logarithms than that between temperature increase (either for the US or the world) on the one hand and, on the other hand, coal use (and CO2 emissions) or their logarithms.
It may be argued that Hansen’s comments pertain to the future, not to the past or present. But to this I would respond that the above figure is based on real data whereas Hansen’s declaration is based on some unknown projection about the future based on unknown, unvalidated and unverified models.
Giving up fossil fuel energy use and, with that, compromising the real improvements in life expectancy and other indicators of human well-being that have accompanied that energy use, would be like giving up a real bird in hand to avoid being attacked by a monster that may or may not exist in the bush, that is, a monster that may only exist in the virtual world.
This doesn’t seem like a rational trade-off.
Bill Junga (07:25:39) :
But in the Naugatuck Valley they didn’t build far from the river, until the flood in 1955 washed them all down stream into the Housatonic…
The “tiny” cost that DJ speaks about is built on a LOT of assumptions.
The reason the cost is small is because supposedly we could make a heck of a lot of per person/building changes that will reduce emissions and also save us moneyover time (assumes with a $50 ton carbon tax as an incentive to make these changes).
The amount of savings is relatively minor per person and the up front costs are relatively high, but these barriers to adoption are essentially ignored, and the assumption is that virtually everyone makes these changes.
Then, these projected savings from increases in efficiency are used to offset the costs of CO2 savings activities which have increased costs over current methods (Wind, PV, CCS etc)
See page 20 of:
http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/US_ghg_final_report.pdf
Note the big savers are Commercial Electronics, Residential Electronics, Residential lighting, Commercial Lighting, Automotive Fuel Economy, and improvements in Shell construction for houses and businesses.
The NET of this is that virtually every sector of the economy would have to focus most, if not all, of their free available capital spending over the next 20 or so years on replacing old appliances, lighting or other forms of energy efficiency to make a scenario like this come true.
Arthur
No matter how good things are, there will always be miserble wretches who can see nothing but doom gloom.
Talk about being spoiled to the core.
So, on balance, why do it?
Why indeed.
Mark
“As for a cost benefit analysis – real analysis using scientific methods shows the costs of reducing CO2 are tiny . . . In the Australian context amounting to just $6 per household per week….”
My apologies if I missed any intended sarcasm, but such claims are based on incredibly poor analysis. These analyses miss the concept of carbon leakage and ignore the fact that jobs are lost as well as gained when government imposes widespread policies. They assume unrealistic efficiencies and responses and disregard the impact of higher costs and unintended consequences.
I would not be surprised if Kyoto-inspired legislation and regulations have already increased costs by $6 per household, and I believe we could agree that the Kyoto Accord has had minimal impact and has even been counter-productive in many instances.
Duke Power (a supporter of Cap & Trade) recently revealed that its electric rates would increase by more than 13% in the first phase of Obama’s plan with more increases to come. Though electricity is important in our lives, it is not the major part of our energy expenditures so that $6 figure is laughable.
Implicit in Obama’s long term goal is the calculation that per capita CO2 emissions must be below 1870 levels – when my grandfather emigrated to the U.S. Those were the days before automobiles, refrigeration, air conditioning, warm houses, medical uses of energy, and so forth – and many people typically never traveled beyond 50 miles from their homes. If you can show me how to reduce my CO2 emissions to such levels, I gladly will sign up! Recently, I installed a ground source heat pump to heat my house. My consumption of energy went down little, but upfront cost was over $12,000.
One final point: at least initially, many CO2-inspired rules will increase our dependence on foreign oil. That is really unfortunate policy and has costs many times bigger than what you think is the cost of CO2 reduction.
Rossa (00:13:07) :
“If the EPA can categorize CO2 as a pollutant then in this virtual world that Hansen lives in we would all have to apply for licenses to breath out. So every year you could buy your right to breathe for whatever the current carbon credit exchange rate is.”
And consider for a moment the warning labels on every beer and soda container:
“Warning, the EPA has determined that carbon dioxide is a hazardous material. Ingesting this product which contains CO2 may cause life threatening symptoms including but not limited to effervescence in nasal passages and noisome expelling of gastric air.”
Mary Hinge refuses to acknowledge that global temperatures have been dropping since 2003 – no matter which temperature monitoring organisation you look at.
Now we are told by the AGWists that warming has been put off 30 years or so!
Last year, their models did not tell us that.
No matter what, the Mary Hinges of our planet will continue to keep their heads deep in the sand hoping for the end of the world.
It’s what I call Jim Jones psychology.
Mary Hinge,
I am one of those “new people”. I visit this site daily and I enjoy it immensely. I enjoy the science and the politics. I even enjoy the condescending views of some of the more arrogant posters. I am not a scientist, but I do have enough of a scientific mind to administer anesthesia to healthy and sick patients almost every day. As an anesthetist who deals with c02 during every anesthetic I find alot of the science and politics of c02 very interesting.
Anthony,
Can you give us a preview of what to expect at the NIPCC convention coming up?
– Any media outlets planning to report?
– Will it be possible to see some presentations via live streaming?
– Any special guests to appear?
etc.
Hope to start hearing some buzz about this event.
Ah, now I see, this is what tipping points are about. A thousand years ago, while we scandinavians were still vikings, there existed something called “ättestupa”, a steep slope where old folks in a family jumped out and ended their lives. Much cheeper than todays retirement plans. Just think of the huge savings those tipping points will generate! So from nowon tipping point = “ättestupa”.
And what measurable effect on global climate would this have? Show me the peer-reviewed literature which shows, unequivocally how we can control the climate. I won’t hold my breath.
[Snip – ad hom ]
[Hansen’s] statements especially about coal trains as death carriers; however, there are many other variables to consider when addressing life expectancy such as a much higher death rate in infancy in the early 20th Century, the introduction of antibiotics, and other advances in medicine.
If we assume that more coal = more energy = better lifestyle (health care, sanitation, etc) -> longer life expectancy,
then cutting back and shutting down “death trains” and all the other evil sources of CO2 should mean shorter life expectancy. (getting back to ‘old people have an obligation to die’)
As someone rapidly approaching ‘old’, I’m not overly thrilled.
It would solve the Social Security problem.
Life expectancy, the most efficient energy sources, and wide spread access to the affluence efficient energy can bring are all inextricably intertwined. Coal remains essential as does oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy. We should continue their development in technologically cleaner versions as we invest in more efficient forms of renewables.
An important historical memory — and today in China and elsewhere — are that those living close to the production of energy in all its forms — mining, transportation, industrial and manufacturing transformations — have had to pay a price of shortened life spans for others’ longevity. Government can be very helpful not only by protecting citizens from private industry abuses, but also by helping to maintain a relatively equal playing field through regulations (if only our U.S. financial industry had been required to keep their regulations), testing the education of students so citizens can identify successful schools, providing access to health care in public-private partnership so that no one is left out, and investing in a society’s necessary infrastructure. (The military is a given for longevity in any society.) I guess these ideals show that I am a liberal — but one who wants science and representative democracy. I don’t see many, if any, liberals running government today. I cringe at “conservatives'” ideas of what went wrong with their ascendancy.
Regarding population decrease, I have no objection to this idea. I do believe that all societies and the earth’s flora and fauna would fare better. What no one has mentioned so far that is one key to a more reasonable population is the education, social protection, and access to resources of girls and women in every society. (At the same time I am not slighting boys and men.) If the developed world had used its affluence to support those societies that furthered these goals (and worked to influence or exclude from “humanitarian aid” those who did not), we would be in much different place today. And science rather than propaganda might be our ideal.
To Sam the Skeptic: Birth rates will not necessarily drop just because a society has more wealth. You must ask the questions: who owns the wealth; who owns women’s bodies; and is reproduction being put at the service of “increase-and-take-over-the-world” propaganda. Science is important in these matters as well.
To the DJs and Mary Hinges: Investigations of who wants what for which purposes are also in the service of scientific inquiry. Even more so when debate is squelched, data are manipulated, historical data are changed, and false — and easily proven false — theories are put forward as “settled science”.
Yes, cheap energy is the cornerstone of any developing industrial base. If anyone cares to look it up, there are charts available online showing countries by development and countries by life expectancy. Basically industrialization = longer life.
Gore prattles on about how “billions will die due to climate change” in the developing world. Well I’ve got news for him, they’re already dying early deaths because of poor conditions…essentially 100% of them. This is not like the poorly supported, increased possibility proposed by the AGW camp. Denying developing nations cheap power is an outright death sentence for all affected.
RE: “The decline of this site continues.” Mr. Jones, I think you might be mistaken by virtue of your secular views. See this:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/wuwt-vs-rc-cp-stats.png
This is the new “divergence problem”.
Cheers, Anthony
(SOYbean + LENtil) = LotsaTrips(Bathroom^2)
😉
It’s similar to evolutionary paths from total vegetarian to omnivore. Eating meat provides more calories and protein, meaning the organism spends less time foraging for food and can pursue other matters.
Stefano (05:56:43) :
Gaia had us evolve because the earth was running out of CO2 and needed us to dig it all up again.
Life expectancy in the U.S. is irrelevant. We’re rich.
I would like to see a graph of life expectancy in impoverished areas dependent on food aid from the US and the UN.
On the same graph plot the global cost of grain and the percent of grain used globally used to make ethanol.
Global starvation is today’s reality, and the believers in AGW are just making it worse.
Pamela Gray (06:48:41) :
Would love to know which sites you visit for your checks!
Stefano (05:56:43) :
Well, a multi-cellular species, anyway! 😉
/Mr Lynn
Pamela Gray (06:48:41) :
Yes, but do you check the oil, water and fuel before going on a long drive?
Stephen Wilde
Don´t worry about us, third world countrymen. You know, nature is by far wiser than any of us, and it will take care of the population issue by reducing the amount of people in the NH.
E.M.Smith,
Most energy statistics one could want are at eia.doe.gov…
Roger