Does health go down as carbon goes up, and vice versa, per the World Health Organization’s claim?
Guest post by: Indur M. Goklany
A World Health Organization (WHO) communiqué to an International congress on climate change in Copenhagen designed to sound the alarm on climate change, states that it estimates “around 150,000 deaths now occur in low-income countries each year due to climate change from four climate-sensitive health outcomes – crop failure and malnutrition, diarrhoeal disease, malaria and flooding.” [To get an inkling of the quality of these estimates, which are based on modeling studies, see here.] Then, citing “increased risks of extreme weather events, to effects on infectious disease dynamics and sea level rise,” the comminiqué declares that “as carbon goes up health goes down.” It then claims that “a large part of the current burden of disease is linked to energy consumption and transport systems. Changing these systems to reduce climate change would have the added benefit of addressing some major public health issues, including outdoor air pollution (800 000 annual global deaths); traffic accidents (1.2 million annual deaths); physical inactivity (1.9 million deaths); and indoor air pollution (1.5 million annual deaths).” Accordingly it argues, “Reducing green house gases [sic]emissions can be beneficial to health: as carbon goes down health goes up.”
But what do empirical data show?
Figure 1: Life expectancy at birth (1960-2006) for high, medium and low income countries, global carbon emissions (1960-2004), and carbon emissions per capita for each country group (1960-2004). Source: World Bank (2009).
Figure 1, based on data from the World Bank, shows that:
- Health, as measured by life expectancy at birth, has gone up for the low, medium and high income countries even as global carbon emissions have increased.
- The higher a group’s carbon emissions per capita, the higher its life expectancy. Thus life expectancy is highest for the high income group and lowest for the low income group.
- The slowdown in the increase in life expectancy during the late 1980s and 1990s in the low income countries can be better seen in the data for Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) shown in Figure 2. This slowdown is more or less coincident with the decline in carbon emissions per capita in that region, which seems to follow declines in economic development (GDP per capita). [Note that higher levels of economic development are associated with higher carbon emissions per capita. This is to be expected. GDP per capita is one of the four multiplicative terms in the Kaya Identity used in the IPCC scenarios to estimate carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion.]
Thus empirical results are at odds with the World Health Organization’s claims that “as carbon goes up health goes down” or ” as carbon goes down health goes up.”
Figure 2: Global carbon (C) emissions (1960-2004), and life expectancy at birth (1960-2006), GDP per capita (1960-2007), and carbon emissions per capita (1960-2004) for Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Note that GDP per capita in constant 2000 US$ and PPP-adjusted 2005 International $ are on different axes and scales. Source: World Bank (2009).
In fact, increased health is, if anything, associated with both increased economic development (GDP per capita) and higher carbon emissions per capita. That is, these figures suggest that the World Health Organization has it backward!!
Of course, the reason for this is that WHO is ignoring the forest for the trees. Yes, there may be some health aspects (e.g., mortality from extreme heat events) that any warmer temperatures from higher CO2 may have exacerbated but, on the other hand, such warming would reduce deaths during the cold weather (which substantially exceed deaths during the warmer portions of the year; see also here). But more importantly, as indicated in Figure 3, higher economic development-both a major cause and effect of those carbon emissions-acting in conjunction with the mutually reinforcing forces of technological change and human capital reduces deaths and increases life expectancy via a cycle of progress (see pages 29-33, here).
Figure 3: Life expectancy at birth across countries for 1977 and 2003.The figure shows that at any point in time, life expectancy, the most comprehensive single indicator for health, improves with the level of economic development. It also shows that because of secular technological change, life expectancy for any given level of economic development improves with time. Source: Goklany, The Improving State of the World: Why We’re Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet (Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2007).
This of course raises the question whether – just as the push for biofuels may have contributed to greater hunger worldwide – WHO’s support for “strong greenhouse gas reductions (mitigation) in all sectors” might also backfire if such reductions reduce economic growth which then retards health improvements (as suggested by the economist Richard Tol and others).
It’s too bad that the World Health Organization dispenses solutions to the problems posed by climate change without undertaking a risk analysis of the problems that may result from those solutions.
Hippocrates, where art thou?
I wonder how healthy we’d all be if we could remove all carbon from our bodies?
WHO now stands for World Hysteric Organization. Further proof (as if we needed any) that in AGW fantasy land, you can spout any nonsensical bilge, it will be trumpeted worldwide by the MSM, and the Faithful will lap it up willingly and with gusto. Indeed, the level of stupidity and desperation now being displayed by the AGW/CC pseudoscientific ideologues has reached a tipping point, and now exceeds the bounds of language to describe it.
The demonization of “carbon” is, without a doubt the biggest lie ever told, and with the most dire consequences for humanity. The perpetrators of the lie will need to be held to account for their crimes against humanity, but first they need to be stopped.
I can well believe that a warmer earth has more poverty
thru the simple mechanism of an increased population
which cleverly seems to be happening as the earth warms(since 1900)
if 1/3 rd of the planet have lives of desperation ,then as the population increases the misery increases
ergo…warm earth …more people to be in poverty..
Rich countries do not WASTE lots of energy because they are rich. Rich countries are rich because the EXPLOIT lots of energy. Using energy is a good thing.
Sure, we can have intelligent discussions about mitigating pollution (real pollution, not CO2) from using energy, and it is obvious that everyone will benefit from technical advances in the use of energy and new forms of energy to replace legacy fuels. But when the conversation starts from the premise that energy use is bad then we are debating with people who are ignoring the facts.
Seriously talking, that “comuniqué” of WHO bureaucrats, is plain terrorism, it gives the perfect pretext to demolish, destroy civilization as we know it, and before that is accomplished, liberty…”Brave New World” indeed!.
Welcome to the third world, former inhabitants of the ex-first world!
The truly ironic thing is that if the greenies want fewer of us, then why do they want to improve health and increase life spans?
Because they (the extremists) also want to redefine “health” and have people aspire to socially responsible life spans.
em butler (06:56:08) :
Equality calls for all being equal, I think what greenies are planning is to equalize 1st. world countries with 3rd.world ones. Then 3rd.world countries will be able to export technologies as “how to become poor in the shortest time”…well, to tell the truth, you have already imported from us several of these political and social techniques while some of us instead have changed adopting those perverse free market methods you have just abandoned. Do not laugh, it is true.
Link: http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13244897
WHO done 2 very simple things:
1. They assumed, based on models and correlation that CO2 is the cause of everything bad and reducing it will prevent those bad things from happening
2. They assumed that you can reduce CO2 with no negative consequences.
Since one can make an argument that absence of pirates is correlated with global warming then reports calling for increase in piracy would make just as much sense.
Now this got me wondering if current cooling trend and recent increases in piracy incidents could be used as a experimental proof of the theory?
Gracias, Adolfo. Viva La Revolucion Capitalista!
rickM (18:43:46) :
I can see the fingerprint of a truly disciplined and vigorous scienctific study all over this report…ok, I’m being facetious.
Looks more like a carbon footprint to me 🙂
“ergo…warm earth …more people to be in poverty..”
Not necessarily… warmer earth = more productive earth. As capitalism and freedom have spread in the last twenty years, poverty and starvation have decreased. Every warm period including this modern warm period have been times of plenty and decreased poverty.
deadwood (22:15:37) :
Every thing I’ve read from and about this recent Copenhagen conference has been pretty far out there.
Agreed. Hansen was there, I believe. And now he has been here. The article below has a big picture of the Norwegian Environment Minister (Erik Solheim) and James Hansen smiling at each other:
http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/03/16/nyheter/miljo/innenriks/klima/regjeringen/5319845/
Solheim says to Hansen (translated): “- You have been a hero for me since the speech in 1988. Several times have you been subjected to hard criticism, but this has only inspired you to work harder, “said Environment Minister Erik Solheim (SV).”
Solheim points out that the fact that Hansen is a NASA employee, it provides extra credibility towards otherwise skeptical people, he says.
Quite depressing stuff.
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Cavemen_contradiction_Organ.gif
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (11:01:03) :
¨Solheim points out that the fact that Hansen is a NASA employee, it provides extra credibility towards otherwise skeptical people, he says.
There is something fishy in Norway...
Send all these ¨progressive¨guys to Cuba or North Korea to enjoy these paradises.
Are we all doomed, or better, our grand children, to be slaves?
About 1.5 million African children under the age of 5 die each year due to malaria. Meanwhile, the DDT nonsense put out by Rachael Carson has been disproved many times over the last 30 years as bunk, junk science. WHO allowed DDT use in late 2006, yet wide spread use is still blocked by liberals everywhere.
So where is the outrage over that, 10 times the deaths — And they are real not pseudo science deaths.
No health goes down because we’re basically eating food now that shouldn’t be fed to an animal. it’s the food!
Haven’t read the whole thread so f’give me for my post (had a hard day and have had to Killians Irsih Reds), but my love thinsk that if CO2 makes my chilly behind warmer he is all for CO2!
(I dknow Antthony, its ahard to belive that my spotst comes form the dame persnn)
Pamela Gray (17:24:41) :
I suspect that Killians is a better warmer than CO2, but your contributions are so good we can easily forgive ANYTHING from you.
As for simon lomax (14:24:25) :
Most of us eat just fine, even when its fried, cajuned or whatever. In Haiti, Mali, Chad, Niger, Sudan or Somalia they’d be happy to eat what we feed to our animals. The lack of infrastructure, the corruption, the lack of concern is what is driving H.Sapiens most genetically diverse population to extinction. Green policies are genocide.
Changing these systems to reduce climate change would have the added benefit of addressing some major public health issues,
including outdoor air pollution (800 000 annual global deaths);
traffic accidents (1.2 million annual deaths);
physical inactivity (1.9 million deaths);
and indoor air pollution (1.5 million annual deaths).”
Accordingly it argues, “Reducing green house gases [sic]emissions can be beneficial to health: as carbon goes down health goes up.
—
Let’s look at each of these ridiculous claims:
= outdoor air pollution (800 000 annual global deaths);
BETTER energy usage and HIGHER efficiencies will reduce outdoor air pollution – at a cost of building the anti-pollution hardware. They have everywhere they have have been applied. HIGHER economies CAN AFFORD to build pollution controls. LOWER economies (with higher energy costs!) CANNOT afford pollution controls. (By the way, the WHO are WAAAAY low on the number of deaths by pollution outdoors. China alone in one city may have that many in two years of black skies and grey clouds.)
= traffic accidents (1.2 million annual deaths);
Better transportation (have you seen the hundreds crammed into African and Indan and Malaysian trains and busses?) will mean MORE trucks, MORE bridges, MORE rail, MORE food, MORE fodder, MORE fertilizer, MORE growth, MORE insulation, MORE housing, MORE education.
= physical inactivity (1.9 million deaths);
Ain’t got no physical inactivity in countries where you starve to death if you don’t walk, farm, drag buckets of water from the common (polluted) well, cut firewood, ….
Oh? In the more civilized areas where more energy DOES that physical work? More people live longer. Funny.
= indoor air pollution (1.5 million annual deaths).”
Ain’t got no “indoor air pollution” where they ain’t got no decent housing. No heat. No air conditioning. No fans. No power. No water.
I guess the WHO are not considering water contaminaiton (several millions annually), better roads, better food, cleaner clothing, clean housing, walls, windows, window screens, no manure on the floors, no snimals living (and urinating!) on the floors and beds and walls and roads ….
Pamela Gray (17:24:41) :
Remainder trimmed for sake of sobriety…8<)
(I dknow Antthony, its ahard to belive that my spotst comes form the dame persnn)
—
Miss Pam. I soberly suspect that your brew is Killian’ your misstypn’ of readin’, writin’, and misspelling.
Sylvia (19:11:31) :
Response:
To the extent that biofuels are based on corn, sugarcane, soy, and oil palm, which are also food and feed crops, I would presume the equipment and inputs used would be similar if not the same. However, if jatropha or non-food or feed crops are utilized, presumably there would be changes in seeds. I don’t know enough about cropping practices to say whether equipment changes may be needed. Perhaps some reader can enlighten us.
schnurrp (19:11:43) :
Response:
Note that most of these deaths due to indoor air pollution are in the developing countries from burning of dung, coal, wood and other solid fuels indoors for heating and cooking. I am unsure as to how WHO estimated any reductions in these deaths. Did they assume these people —perhaps 25% of them? — will be able to switch to natural gas, propane, or electricity? Or did they assume they’d go without heat and cooking? Neither seem plausible in the short run.
Ben Lawson (20:46:31) :
Response:
As I noted on that thread thread, energy use did not cause, but did enable, many of the good things one ascribes to civilization by a variety of means (including greater economic development and technological prowess).
Ben Lawson (20:46:31) :
Response:
Unfortunately, AFAIK, data on life expectancy for most countries are not readily available until 1950-55 (averages). [I used the World Bank’s database which provides data from 1960 onward.] However if you don’t mind anecdotal data, check out Table 2 in Wealth,
Health and the Cycle of Progress which provides data on life expectancy (LE) going back to the Middle Ages for a few select countries. That table tells us that prior to industrialization (or more accurately the onset of modern economic growth), LE was about 25-35 yrs (regardless of when industrialization started). Since then they have risen substantially, despite – or is it because of? – carbon emissions. Here are some life expectancy data (based on that table and Maddison, The World Economy (2001) — take with a pinch of salt):
Country, pre-industrialization, 1900, 1950-55, 2003
France, ~30, 47, 66.5, 79.4
UK, ~36, 50, 69.2, 78.3
India, ~25, 24, 38.7, 63.1
China, NA, ~24, 40.8, 71.5
World, ~30, 31, 46.6, 65.4
If you want, you can plot these against fossil fuels carbon emissions from CDIAC at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview.html (available from 1751-2005). I am pretty confident that you’ll see LE increase as carbon increases just as we saw for the US from 1900-2000 in the earlier posting, U.S. Life Expectancy in an Era of Death Trains and Death Factories
By the way, Ben, I provided 40 years worth of data. Do you know how many years worth of data the WHO’s results are based upon? I somehow doubt that they have 40 years worth of data.
Finally, I hope when you look at trends of temperatures, Arctic ice melting, frequencies of droughts, etc., you insist on trends being determined for periods longer than 40 years, particularly considering that climatic measures are more variable than LE, or carbon emissions, or GDP per capita.
em butler (06:56:08) :
Response:
On the contrary, poverty has declined markedly over the long term in large part due to fossil fuel powered economic development. Based on the World Bank’s definition of “absolute poverty” (approximately $1 a day), over 80% of the world’s population was living in absolute poverty in 1820. Today, it’s below 20%. In fact, the proportion of the planet’s developing-world population living in absolute poverty has halved since 1981, from 40 percent to 20 percent.
I just didn’t realise just how badly mistaken I have been.
I will henceforth adopt a lifestyle of utter poverty and live in a filthy garbage tip, scrounging from the remains of those who are so silly as to have emitted CO2.
I will adopt this course in the certain knowledge provided by the wise people of the UN (who of course live in poverty) to improve my health, longevity and general wellbeing.
Not!
Indur Goklany (20:40:40): “Here are some life expectancy data:
Country, pre-industrialization, 1900, 1950-55, 2003
France, ~30, 47, 66.5, 79.4
UK, ~36, 50, 69.2, 78.3
India, ~25, 24, 38.7, 63.1
China, NA, ~24, 40.8, 71.5
World, ~30, 31, 46.6, 65.4
If you want, you can plot these against fossil fuels carbon emissions from CDIAC at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview.html (available from 1751-2005). I am pretty confident that you’ll see [Life Expectancy] increase as carbon increases just as we saw for the US” Of course you’ll see it, but what does it mean? All you continue to note is a correlation. I could equally say that people driving cars causes daylight because when there are the fewest cars on the road it is dark and when the most cars are on the road it is brighter.
Your implication that cutting CO2 emissions dooms us to short impoverished lives is not supported by your arguments. There are a large number of obvious and effectively energy-independent sources of the general increase in life expectancy.
“Finally, I hope when you look at trends of temperatures, Arctic ice melting, frequencies of droughts, etc., you insist on trends being determined for periods longer than 40 years” Why should I insist on something so nonsensical? Each factor has it’s own intrinsic logical time frame. In terms of climate change, the “natural variation” factors generally need to be examined over very long time periods while anthropogenic factors should be examined from their effective starting points.
Lawson:
“anthropogenic factors should be examined from their effective starting points.”
OK, let’s start the massive buildup of CO2 at 1895.
Why 1895? Two reasons: first, because the number of automobiles could be counted on your fingers and by taking off your shoes and socks. So it’s as good a starting point as any. Cherry pick your own starting point if you think you have a better one.
And second, because I have this chart, which starts at 1895 — and which falsifies certain wishful assumptions: click
Finally, the planet is laughing at the failure of AGW/CO2 arm-flappers: click
Me too.