Part I: Ranking global warming among present-day risks to public health.
Guest essay by Indur M. Goklany
There seems to be no limit to the hyperbole surrounding climate change – and that’s no hyperbole. Numerous politicians have informed us over the years that climate change is one of the most important problems facing mankind. In fact, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has called it the defining challenge of our age.”
But is it?
I answer this question in a paper just published in the refereed section of Energy & Environment.
A 2005 review article in Nature on the health impacts of climate change estimated that 166,000 deaths were “attributable” to climate change in 2000. This estimate was derived from a World Health Organization (WHO) sponsored study that even the study’s authors acknowledge may not “accord with the canons of empirical science” (see here). But I will accept this flawed estimate as gospel for the sake of argument.
In the year 2000, however, there were a total of 56 million deaths worldwide. Thus, climate change may be responsible for less than 0.3% of all deaths globally (based on data for the year 2000). This places climate change no higher than 13th among mortality risk factors related to food, nutrition and environment, as shown in the following table.
Specifically, climate change is easily outranked by threats such as hunger, malnutrition and other nutrition-related problems, lack of access to safe water and sanitation, indoor air pollution, malaria, urban air pollution. And had I included other risks to public health beyond environmental, food and nutritional factors (e.g., HIV/AIDS, TB, various cancers, etc.) then climate change would have ranked even lower than 13th.
With respect to biodiversity and ecosystems, today the greatest threat is what it always has been – the conversion of land and water habitat to human uses, i.e., agriculture, forestry, and human habitation and infrastructure. See, e.g., here.
Climate change, contrary to claims, is clearly not the most important environmental, let alone public health, problem facing the world today.
But is it possible that in the foreseeable future, the impact of climate change on public health could outweigh that of other factors?
I will address this question in subsequent blogs.
| Risk factor |
Ranking |
Mortality (millions) |
Mortality (%) |
| Blood pressure | 1 | 7.1 | 12.8 |
| Cholesterol | 2 | 4.4 | 7.9 |
| Underweight (hunger) | 3 | 3.7 | 6.7 |
| Low fruit & vegetables | 4 | 2.7 | 4.9 |
| Overweight | 5 | 2.6 | 4.6 |
| Unsafe water, poor sanitation | 6 | 1.7 | 3.1 |
| Indoor smoke | 7 | 1.6 | 2.9 |
| Malaria | 1.1 | 2.0 | |
| Iron deficiency | 8 | 0.8 | 1.5 |
| Urban air pollution | 9 | 0.8 | 1.4 |
| Zinc deficiency | 10 | 0.8 | 1.4 |
| Vitamin A deficiency | 11 | 0.8 | 1.4 |
| Lead exposure | 12 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
| Climate change | 13 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| Subtotal | 27.6 | 49.4 | |
| TOTAL from all causes | 55.8 | 100.0 | |
Priority ranking of food, nutritional and environmental problems, based on global mortality for 2000. Source: I.M. Goklany, Is Climate Change the “Defining Challenge of Our Age”? Energy & Environment 20(3): 279-302 (2009), based on data from the World Health Organization. Note that malaria isn’t ranked in this table because deaths due to malaria were attributed by WHO to climate change, underweight, and zinc and vitamin A deficiencies.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Climate change only hints at the defining challenge, it is not the actual challenge. The defining challenge is whether we can reclaim our lives from those who would manipulate and regulate us, whether it is the AGW crowd, financial wizards, big government or single issue fanatics in general.
Climate change fear is only a symptom; the common root cause is behind all the issues I have just named, and is a willingness to be herded when someone says “it’s too complicated for you to grasp; I can fix it; just trust me with your money and your freedoms.” The real-life consequences, sadly, remain with us, despite the smooth rhetoric of those we have entrusted with our resources.
NEWS FLASH:
As the body count continues to rise, a shaken nation is struggling to cope in the wake of the mass deaths sweeping the world population. With no concrete figures available at this early stage, experts estimate at least 250,000 U.S. citizens have died in the last month alone, with death tolls across the globe reaching into the millions.
The wave of deaths has left a brutal aftermath, rocking survivors with feelings of loss and horror, traumatizing the American cultural landscape to its core and leaving behind emotional devastation some say may take years to heal.
What’s worse, experts say, the crisis shows no signs of letting up any time soon…
FULL STORY HERE: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29456
Media (conservative or liberal, it matters little) + stupidity among the masses = control. Every single business owner depends on his or her ability to “create” a need and then market the product that fills that need. That means that the business owner will understand that there is a little bit of stupidity in all of us, quite a bit in many of us, and completely fills every nook and cranny in some of us.
Climate change is the word used to create the need. Which didn’t exist before. It is a created notion. There is no climate change. It was created as an advertising gimmick which created a bit of a worry in many, and completely believed by some. The trick is to figure out if you are one of the nook and cranny folks.
From the article: Note that malaria isn’t ranked in this table because deaths due to malaria were attributed by WHO to climate change, underweight, and zinc and vitamin A deficiencies.
This is why WHO is not to be trusted for honest information. They are liars and thieves. Over 1 million people die of malaria every year, and the murderers who outlawed DDT are responsible.
And AGW / Climate Change benefits rich industrialised countries as it stops less developed countries industrialising and becoming economic rivals. IF they can get other countries to accept the DOOMSDAY SCENARIO.
There are close to 1 billion people in this world who are, literally, starving.
How do you know? And if it were true (the number AND the definition of STARVING…which is beyond malnutrition, brink of death), then Earth’s population would be SHRINKING.
Ya see, I’m *so* skeptical, I can’t even let stuff like this fly, even in our own neighborhood.
I don’t like alarmism, from either side.
UK Sceptic;-)
You mentioned stupidity, & venality, but you left out the third quality a politician needs, that being mendacity!
Stan M;-) nice!
Dying from cold would be a direct cause (i.e., severe hypothermia). Climate change does not directly cause death. I would ask your question differently: What are the direct causes of death, related to climate change, that are included in those figures?
Graeme Rodaughan (23:38:40)
Ahhh… wrt “Who can think, who can reason, who can read” she never showed evidence of being able to read – but since that day I have never doubted that a smart dog can both think, and reason.
Your friend’s dog should apply for a job at the WHO, she sounds qualified!
First of all, I doubt a single death can be contributed to Climate Change. That being said, let’s use the assumption of the author. Seems to me that the .8 mill deaths due to indoor pollution were caused by people NOT having access to cheap energy. So if we drastically reduce our access to cheap reliable energy (read this as relying on wind and solar power), how high does this number go? Also, imagine if we spent the $50 billion building power plants for these people instead of unsuccessfully trying to prove AGW. Or even better yet, let’s take all money being spent trying to prove AGW, and use that money on the Underweight, Low Fruit/veggy, poor water, and indoor smoke. Imagine the return we would have on the $50 bill. Instead, we have computer models which still can not predict the climate 1 year ahead. What a waste!
One inescapable fact: You are going to die. Of something. Since there are no longer any natural causes, we must blame every death on man-made events or activities (I note no listing for “war”, unless “lead exposure” cover that)
Does the WHO claim if we eliminate these items/chemicals/shortages/etc. that no one will die?
Dr. Goklany — I always enjoy the way you meld prose and statistics. Thank you! [I still have an old laptop with the original Civ game on it.]
As for fruit, y’all are reminding me of Monty Python’s self-defense against fresh fruit…
The defining challenge of this age is actually the exposure and defeat of the monumental, and dangerous fraud of manmade climate change. The tragedy is that there is a human cost to hobbling economies, and denying people the use of cheap, readily available, and reliable sources of energy. Money and resources that have been and will be spent fighting an entirely innocent and benign foe now being called “pollution” could instead have been spent providing clean water, providing safer sanitation, reducing disease (including respiratory disease, from burning dirty forms of energy), etc.
We need science desperately, particularly if we are going to be going into a significant cooling period, which is looking likely. But, unfortunately, climate science has been corrupted, so while we humans are busy fighting a bogeyman, as well as hobbling ourselves energy-wise, the very real, (and far more dangerous than warming) threat of cooling is being ignored.
Heaven help us if we don’t come to our senses, and soon.
MattN said:
You didn’t seriously think that the AGW crowd would miss this opportunity did you?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gina-solomon/swine-flu-the-need-for-a_b_192182.html
Only time for a quick response without reading any responses first.
I would say “Climate Change” is pretty close to being a complete non-issue on its specific merits.
I’ll agree with Indur’s comments on how biodiversity and ecosystems are the issue.
Over the last 20 years, how many Billions have been spent on the scam of AGW?
It would be helpful to list which are the high hanging fruits and vegetables so we can eliminate that problem once and for all.
I believe high blood pressure and cholesterol are symptoms and markers of other problems so it’s hard to see how you can die from those. The “obesity epidemic” is foolishness (See the very good blog Junkfood Science article: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2009/04/does-it-really-matter-how-your-numbers.html). Indoor smoke (like second-hand smoke, a “problem” ginned up by politicians rather than scientists) and Urban Ait Pollution are non-starters as well IMHO. Climate Change needs no further comment from me on this site.
I see these are all a product of the UN under the auspices of the WHO. Color me very skeptical.
We’ve got various “environmentalists” who are part of various sub-cultures who are philosophically anything from anti-modern pagans who want to go back to wearing grass skirts, to intellectuals who want a higher aspiration than just material “progress” and who desire spiritual freedom. So they all get together and think (to put it generously) that we have too much progress and too much sprawl and we need to stop, and to do that we need to unite and impose some form of control. Unfortunately what they don’t seem to acknowledge is the tremendous complexity of humanity and ecosystems and nature and culture and psychology and the whole evolutionary drive forward by Nature herself. They think they can see the future and control the present. Sorry, that’s just not true. We are just not smart enough, and unintended consequences will occur. So, let me take a guess… they want to slow down progress and reduce population? What happens when people live more poorly? Well, people have more babies. And that is a natural biological drive. That is Nature’s answer to poverty–increase the availability of muscle power and brain power. One imagines. I mean, the whole global warming thing is so simplistic, it is a reflection of the level of their thinking. More CO2, more people, more progress, more consumption…. must mean less nature and less resources and more damage. Really? That’s as sophisticated as their analysis gets? Scientists have been very very good at dealing with small technical stuff that can be experimented on in a lab in controlled conditions. As soon as they get out into the natural world, and the world of culture and psychology and motivation and development and innovation and novelty of complex evolving socio-biological systems interacting, they are lost. But somehow they think they know what is going on… bizarre.
Forget about all this stuff for now – let’s go buzz New York city with our new 747.
Stefan (09:43:51) : Just great! We’ve got various “environmentalists” who are part of various sub-cultures who are philosophically anything from anti-modern pagans
And…that subculture (and also revolutionaries) began back in the 1968′, as a consequence of the liberal abuse of drugs, like marihuana, LSD,etc.
Stefan: Apart from agglomerations of huge masses of people, in which the individual disappears anyway, one of the chief factors responsible for psychological mass-mindedness is scientific rationalism, which robs the individual of his foundations and his dignity
C.G.Jung: “The Undiscovered Self”
In respect of that WHO table, I have to say that I’ve come to distrust the WHO since Gro Harlem Brundtland became its director general 1998-2003 and shifted its emphasis towards “lifestyle” risk factors.
A doctor, and 3-term Norwegian prime minister, she chaired the environmentally-oriented Brundtland commission which issued the 1987 Brundtland report calling for sustainable development and greater global equity.
She seems to have been involved in everything, and makes Al Gore look like a bit of a novice. A quote from her:
In 1989 she was quoted in Time as saying, “There is a very close connection between being a doctor and a politician. The doctor tries to prevent illness, then tries to treat it if it comes. It’s exactly the same as what you try to do as a politician, but with regard to society.”
Also:
Gro Harlem Brundtland, director-general of the World Health Organisation, has revealed that she would not tolerate a mobile phone near her for fear of radiation. They are banned from her Geneva office, and she warned parents against letting children become frequent mobile-phone users.
She seems to currently be a Special Envoy on Climate Change for the United Nations.
Is AGW the defining issue of our age?
Only in the sense that it is the issue that people are fixated on, and wasting incredible amounts of time and money on.
In terms of AGW’s actual impact on humanity as a climate event?
Zilch.
In terms of something that policies now or in the future will do something to mitigate?
Zilch.
John:
“In the mail today I received a packet (6 pages of inserts plus the large envelope) from Robt. Kennedy and the Natural Resources Defense Council.”
If they included a post-paid return envelope, just fold all the materials up, stuff them into their return envelope, and send it back to them. That way you aren’t cluttering a land fill, and they can use the returned materials as bio-fuel to power their green energy initiatives…
This Globar Warming and Climate change scam will surely die….from an overdoses.
While the power elite are preparing to ‘Cap and Trade’ us back into the stone age, the lemmings are being amused by the bread and circuses…
I give you the first 100 days! More to come.