Skip to main content

View Diary: New Study Predicts 6m Annual Deaths and 3% GDP Loss by 2030 - But That's Not the Real Story (30 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Great points (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau

    I think you're right, though 6 million added to 58.6 is still a 10% increase (at a time where the population increases less than that). This is exactly what studies like this are trying to get at though. They are trying to attribute deaths and losses to climate change, as appropriate, so that the signal doesn't get lost. If you see page 4 of the executive summary (https://s3.amazonaws.com/...), you'll see how they arrive at those numbers and where the deaths come from. Only 7,000 annual deaths by 2030 come from an increase in natural disasters. The rest comes from air pollution, malaria/vector-borne diseases, etc. These are exactly the kinds of things where the climate impact can be lost as fluctuation unless we really look into what causes the fluctuation.

    •  Sigh. I'll need to set aside (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      UltraAyla

      some time to really pour over the study, so thanks again for linking it.

      Just thinking (as I sometimes do, FWIW) that most people are not expecting humans who live in low-lying coastal areas to hang around watching the water rise until they finally drown, and how easy it really is to de-emphasize to the point of hiding any increases that really can be attributed to climate change.

      Those will be increases in tropical disease mortality (including malaria) as the range of vectors moves north and south from the equatorial regions. Increasing droughts and floods that lead to crop failures and starvation. Worsening storms that have higher death tolls wherever they strike. Etc., etc.

      The way things stand now - and the reason I've got links to check on this kind of stuff - CDC, WHO and other national/international recordkeepers are now firmly predicting cancer rate increases to the 2 in 3 range (or higher) by 2050 in every industrialized nation. And cancer is primarily an environmental disease - caused by carcinogens in our air, water and food supply that have been building up for longer than there has been a singularly ineffective "War On Cancer." Or perhaps more appropriately, "War on Medical Care for Those Who Need It."

      Doing something concrete about carbon emissions and farm policy stupidity could go a long way towards dampening that increase in cancer. So dealing with climate change realistically could cut even current crude mortality figures. People have been dying en masse due to our short-sighted reliance on fossil fuels and insane agricultural practices for quite a long time already.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site