Where More People Will Die -- and Live -- Because of Climate Change (washingtonpost.com) 131
An anonymous reader shares this thought-provoking article by a graphics reporter at The Washington Post who was part of its Pulitzer Prize-winning Explanatory Reporting team:
The scientific paper published in the June 2021 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change was alarming. Between 1991 and 2018, the peer-reviewed study reported, more than one-third of deaths from heat exposure were linked to global warming. Hundreds of news outlets covered the findings. The message was clear: climate change is here, and it's already killing people. But that wasn't all that was happening. A month later, the same research group, which is based out of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine but includes scientists from dozens of countries, released another peer-reviewed study that told a fuller, more complex story about the link between climate change, temperature and human mortality. The two papers' authors were mostly the same, and they used similar data and statistical methods.
Published in Lancet Planetary Health, the second paper reported that between 2000 and 2019, annual deaths from heat exposure increased. But deaths from cold exposure, which were far more common, fell by an even larger amount. All told, during those two decades the world warmed by about 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit, and some 650,000 fewer people died from temperature exposure....
But whose lives? Projections indicate milder temperatures may indeed spare people in the globe's wealthy north, where it's already colder and people can buy protection against the weather. Yet heat will punish people in warmer, less wealthy parts of the world, where each extra degree of temperature can kill and air conditioning will often remain a fantasy....
What about the long term? A groundbreaking peer-reviewed study, published in November in Harvard's Quarterly Journal of Economics, gives us a glimpse. In the study, a team of researchers projected how mortality from temperature would change in the future. The worldwide temperature-linked mortality rate is projected to stay about the same, but you can see enormous geographic variation: colder, wealthier countries do well, while hotter, poorer countries suffer.
Published in Lancet Planetary Health, the second paper reported that between 2000 and 2019, annual deaths from heat exposure increased. But deaths from cold exposure, which were far more common, fell by an even larger amount. All told, during those two decades the world warmed by about 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit, and some 650,000 fewer people died from temperature exposure....
But whose lives? Projections indicate milder temperatures may indeed spare people in the globe's wealthy north, where it's already colder and people can buy protection against the weather. Yet heat will punish people in warmer, less wealthy parts of the world, where each extra degree of temperature can kill and air conditioning will often remain a fantasy....
What about the long term? A groundbreaking peer-reviewed study, published in November in Harvard's Quarterly Journal of Economics, gives us a glimpse. In the study, a team of researchers projected how mortality from temperature would change in the future. The worldwide temperature-linked mortality rate is projected to stay about the same, but you can see enormous geographic variation: colder, wealthier countries do well, while hotter, poorer countries suffer.
So- racism? (Score:1, Troll)
Re:So- racism? (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure if it's "racism" per se, but it is true that when the temperature hits 120F, rich people in rich countries turn on the air conditioning, while poor people in poor countries die.
But that's true regardless of race.
Re: So- racism? (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So- racism? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you actually cared about human lives you would let them use cheap fossil fuels until they become rich enough to care about the environment.
Why would you need to use fossil fuels to become rich? It's not the 1800s. Developing nations aren't out there inventing the steam engine or automobiles either. Use today's solutions to solve today's problems and learn from those who came before you.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you need to use fossil fuels to become rich? It's not the 1800s. Developing nations aren't out there inventing the steam engine or automobiles either. Use today's solutions to solve today's problems and learn from those who came before you.
I am not trying to support the previous poster's assertions here; however, it will appear that way:
Developing nations either need to invent the stuff themselves, or they need to "purchase" said technology from someone that has already invented it. What is the asking price of modern technology?
Let's be real here. If the technology is American, the price is going to be everything you own or more. Indentured servitude is frequently acceptable as a price as well.
What do you think a developing country is going t
Re: (Score:2)
The article fails to mention that the percentage of people dying from heat has also been going down. The more developed countries become the less vulnerable they are to the weather. If you actually cared about human lives you would let them use cheap fossil fuels until they become rich enough to care about the environment.
Wrong on many accounts.
First, cold is easy to compensate for even with low levels of technology. You just burn something. Heat is easily generated, but more difficult to get rid of. In fact, especially with cheap fuels of all kinds (fossil, wood, whatever) it's easy to heat something, but cooling requires something else.
Second, most of the cultures living in hot climates have aeons-old techniques for cooling, at least to a livable temperature. But these techniques don't mix well with high-density urbanism.
T
Re: (Score:3)
That's not unfounded. In general, during difficult times when times are hard, you get some kind of discrimination. Racism is one obvious example, but also all anti-*, and nationalism too (which is a form of discrimination). Look at covid, it spawned anti-asian racism, and waves of nationalism even though it should have helped get people together (in spirit at least, not physically). And Nazism was a direct consequence of Germany's ruin following WW1.
If resource are limited because of climate change (or anyt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So- racism? (Score:5, Informative)
No, but global warming comes from the same dominionist mentality as racism.
Looking at the article, any idea that AGW effects are racist or even dominionist is a serious stretch.
It is just an effect of population distribution and geography. Yes, the wealthier and colder North is wealthier in large part because it is colder. There is also a lot more area to put people. So it gets a bit dicey to start making accusations about people in the North based on wealth.
Indeed the article referenced how the Seattle area endured high heat last summer, but kind of handwaved that as a wealthy area, they could just open up Air conditioned cooling centers. So compassionate. As well, if the Seattlites think it was bad there, they might try living among the Amazon Rainforest people, who appear to be thriving if having to deal with the so called civilized world's encroachment.
This shit is real, it's happening now, and it is destabilizing. If we're going to retreat to the standard memes, we're just going to destabilize it more. And yes, we will.
mostly an illusion [Re:So- racism?] (Score:2)
Yes, the wealthier and colder North is wealthier in large part because it is colder. There is also a lot more area to put people.
Mostly an illusion based on the use of Mercator projections.
in the western hemisphere, North America has 60.7 people per square mile, South America, 61.3 people per square mile. No significant difference. In the old world, Europe has 187.7 people per square mile, Africa, 103.7 people per square mile.
The wild card is India and China, which have much lower population than Siberia, lying to their north. If global warming improves the climate of Siberia, that could pose an immigration problem.
Re: (Score:2)
If global warming raises the temperature of Siberia, it will be a stinking marsh emitting more glorious methane. There will be no stampede of immigration to Siberia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the wealthier and colder North is wealthier in large part because it is colder. There is also a lot more area to put people.
Mostly an illusion based on the use of Mercator projections.
in the western hemisphere, North America has 60.7 people per square mile, South America, 61.3 people per square mile. No significant difference. In the old world, Europe has 187.7 people per square mile, Africa, 103.7 people per square mile.
The wild card is India and China, which have much lower population than Siberia, lying to their north. If global warming improves the climate of Siberia, that could pose an immigration problem.
Is that a typo? Siberia has about 38 million people China 1.5 billion, and India around 1.4 billion.
Also as far as land mass goes, it is around 68 percent in the Northern Hemisphere, 32 percent southern. https://www.worldatlas.com/art... [worldatlas.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a typo? Siberia has about 38 million people China 1.5 billion, and India around 1.4 billion.
Oops. Strike that; reverse. Should be:
The wild card is India and China, which have much higher population than Siberia, lying to their north.
Also as far as land mass goes, it is around 68 percent in the Northern Hemisphere, 32 percent southern. https://www.worldatlas.com/art... [worldatlas.com]
True enough, but in context, the word "north" was a northern-hemisphere bias. The discussion was really comparing areas nearer the equator with ones farther from the equator.
Re: (Score:2)
"True enough, but in context, the word "north" was a northern-hemisphere bias. The discussion was really comparing areas nearer the equator with ones farther from the equator."
But there isn't much land in the southern hemisphere, south of 45 degrees, apart from Antarctica and even with global warming its going to take a while for that to become habitable and arable.
Re: (Score:2)
Seattle is used to a weather pattern that ranges from 40 to about 80 F. If it drops to freezing they whine, and they also whine at 90.
On the other side of the mountains the temperatures run from zero (F) to 105. If the sky is clear a 40 degree swing between night and day is typical.
Just ignore anything that references Seattle in regard to whining about the weather.
The article does mention that more people die of cold than heat, but somehow that is a good thing to be continued. I'm missing the logic on that
Re: So- racism? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're saying people in cold areas can just put more clothes on, as if already having "warm clothes" does fuck-all when you're homeless and an arctic system puts the high temp at -10(F) for a week.
That's why there are so many homeless in warmer areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What a load of horseshit.
I invite you to make a rebuttal more compelling than "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the article, any idea that AGW effects are racist or even dominionist is a serious stretch.
wat
Yeah. Just because you might think that racism is a northern Hemisphere thing - and dominionist? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. The theory or doctrine that Christians have a divine mandate to assume positions of power and influence over all aspects of society and government is what dominionist is.
There are a number of Muslim, atheist and downright antagonistic towards religion countries in the northern hemisphere.
But I think you are using the term incorrect
Re: (Score:2)
Population distribution is affected by dominionism. Those in control take the best spots for themselves. You should not have to have this spelled out for you.
That is nonsense people from the north just happen to be from the north even from the summary:
But deaths from cold exposure, which were far more common, fell by an even larger amount.
If the rich countries where taking all the good spots why didn't they move to hotter climates.
OK it its far more complicated than that there are lots of advantages and disadvantages to living in different places than just temperature exposure. Global warming was caused by greed not buy racism, people want more and more without limits, its because we evolved in an environment with scare resources.
And of course rich
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the article, any idea that AGW effects are racist or even dominionist is a serious stretch.
wat
It is just an effect of population distribution and geography.
wow
Population distribution is affected by dominionism. Those in control take the best spots for themselves. You should not have to have this spelled out for you.
the wealthier and colder North is wealthier in large part because it is colder. There is also a lot more area to put people.
There are also people sitting there preventing other people from moving in.
Bullshit. Most of nicest places on Earth, you know, the ones with pristine beaches, palm trees and year-long summer are controlled by locals. Europe or USA is only moderately nice place to live (you could do a lot worse, but also a lot better) by itself, we MADE it great because of the civilization we built there. People fight to immigrate there for the welfare, not for the nice climate.
Re: (Score:2)
wow
Population distribution is affected by dominionism. Those in control take the best spots for themselves. You should not have to have this spelled out for you.
Ok,
#1, you keep saying "dominionism", you mean this [wikipedia.org]? That has more to do with instituting a theocratic state (Handmaid's Tale) than population distribution.
#2. It's true that wealthy folks take the best spots, but that plays out at the scale of communities and countries, not across trans-national borders. Look at Jamaica vs Hawaii, both tropical islands except that Jamaica is arguable better off being closer to major landmasses, yet Hawaii has more than 10x the per-capita income of Jamaica. It's not the loc
Re: (Score:2)
"Population distribution is affected by dominionism. Those in control take the best spots for themselves."
This may be true of that sweet spot on south beach but if anything that guy is screwed along with these other mass poor populations of people who live in climates much like it. That has nothing to do with global population distribution and the wealthy folks are SEEKING the most impacted climates.
These places aren't poor because they are hot (directly) or because of other people. They are poor because of
Re: (Score:2)
There are also people sitting there preventing other people from moving in.
If people from the north were moving into someplace south, like perhaps Niger and India, would not there be complaints around the world of "colonization" and/or "invasion"?
British empire in India.
Re: So- racism? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya that ended in 1947.
That's my point. The colonization of India is an example of things not to do any more.
Re: (Score:3)
If people from the north were moving into someplace south, like perhaps Niger and India, would not there be complaints around the world of "colonization" and/or "invasion"? I'm quite certain that would be the case.
Yep. I'm sure it would.
I will hold that every nation has a right to defend their borders
Might makes right, and the world burns.
Re: (Score:3)
If people from the north were moving into someplace south, like perhaps Niger and India, would not there be complaints around the world of "colonization" and/or "invasion"?
Canyon wide difference between "colonization" and "immigration". Conflating the two is not good. No one has said countries don't have a right to maintain their borders but many poorer nation welcome and desire wealthy foreigners to immigrate. They would probably not like to be forcefully colonzed though.
Just because conservatives use "invasion" to describe immigration into the US does not make that idea true.
There is no such thing as a peaceful multicultural nation.
USA and also I would say the nebulous matter of what is "American culture" actually makes the US
Re:So- racism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to speak in a common language is important, the number one priority is for people to understand each other, I would be happy if there was only one world language. I think verbal English is OK, but written English is just a mess I would not wish it on anyone. Just because it exists doesn't make it efficient or right. Most medical terms are derived form Latin yet I think the main effect of that is to make it harder for the lay person to understand.
Time and resources must placed into teaching multip
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So- racism? (Score:2)
Wales is a poor example of multilingual harmony. Sure, it might "officially" have at least two languages... but in reality, 99.997% of Welsh Britons speak English as their first and most proficient language.
If Welsh parents decided to raise their children speaking only Welsh, and demanded that the kids NOT be taught English once they started school, the authorities would either politely ignore the parents' demands, or would have them declared unfit and take the kids away... ESPECIALLY if the parents themsel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"while the Africans bringing their culture to Europe is rarely spoken about"
Which is rather ironic because by far the most historically significant import into European culture from Africa is the slave trade.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure slaves were known in Europe long before there was any kind of slave trade with Africa. The word "slave" has the same root as "Slovak", as in the region of Europe now known as Slovakia. So many Slovaks were taken as slaves that to be from Slovakia became synonymous with being forced into unpaid labor throughout much of Europe. When people were taken from Africa into indentured servitude within Europe they were called something akin to "like the Slovaks", which evolved into the word "slave"
Re: (Score:2)
The etymology of the word is interesting but the origin of the term doesn't coincide with the practice. It is telling because chattel slavery had largely died out throughout most of Europe by 1200 A.D, so much so that it was unusual and notable that the slavs had this practice. The infamous slave trade connected with the Americas was a largely rekindled practice as sailors coming from a Europe wherein the practice had mostly died out began to hit ports in Africa and discovered slaves sold there as trade goo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the wealthier and colder North is wealthier in large part because it is colder.
If cold weather makes for a great economy as you claim, then what went wrong in Russia?
Russians.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As I sit here eating popcorn reading all of this I reach over and turn the air conditioner on and set it to 68f.
Yeah, I was wondering if my hot tub is hot enough. Time for a good long soak.
I think we are way too many humans already (Score:3)
I have no idea how everything will continue but it is becoming more and more clear we are way too many humans on this planet already. And it cannot be a solution for all those poorer to storm the beaches and borders of the richer nations, it simply will not work to increase the concentrations even more.
Re:I think we are way too many humans already (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no idea how everything will continue but it is becoming more and more clear we are way too many humans on this planet already.
That problem is in the process being solved already; global fertility rates are dropping. The global average fertility rate is around 2.3 children per woman today, and there are no signs that it won't continue to drop. The key element in this drop was simply access to birth control, but decreases in global poverty also helped (poor people have more children than rich people.)
https://ourworldindata.org/fer... [ourworldindata.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. But this is going wayyy too slow. The real decreases will come from people dying off due to lack of water and food.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. But this is going wayyy too slow.
Not at all clear. I think it may be going about the right speed; too fast population decline can be very disruptive.
The real decreases will come from people dying off due to lack of water and food.
This is, of course, what we are trying to avoid.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. But this is going wayyy too slow.
Not at all clear. I think it may be going about the right speed; too fast population decline can be very disruptive.
You need to have a look at the climate change projections.
The real decreases will come from people dying off due to lack of water and food.
This is, of course, what we are trying to avoid.
Oh? I see no evidence of that. Sure, a lot of pretending to do things, but CO2 emissions are still raising.
Too slow [Re:I think we are way too many...] (Score:2)
Yep. But this is going wayyy too slow.
Not at all clear. I think it may be going about the right speed; too fast population decline can be very disruptive.
You need to have a look at the climate change projections.
I do. The problem with climate change is not actually the change per se; it is rate of change. High rates of change are disruptive.
Slow change can be adapted to.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Current planet, with current technology can support at least 12 billion people (conservative estimate, in reality it's probably somewhere between 15 and 18 at this point). And this efficiency has been going up about 3-5% yearly for several decades. At least in part because food ultimately comes from photosynthesis, which is optimized for around 1500ppm CO2 air content. That's what it was when green cells in plants evolved.
Ours is around 430ppm right now. As it goes up, plant yields will continue to improve
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. And seriously, this does not even need any debate at this point. You are deep in denial.
Maximize human biomass [Re:I think we are way t... (Score:2)
Current planet, with current technology can support at least 12 billion people
You seem to be answering the question "what is the maximum number of people that the planet can feed" and not the question "can we prevent ecosystem collapse and mass disruptions of society due to global warming."
I disagree with your assertion that the optimum number of people on the planet is "the maximum number that the planet can hold without mass starvation."
Re: (Score:2)
Not even close and really the population is widely predicted to peak and then start falling within the next 40-50 years I believe? Everyone who has predicted this pretty much has gotten it wrong, especially the "Population Bomb" guy whose book is not just wrong but widely discredited for it's flawed methodology.
No, we can fight climate change without radical degrowth or loss in population and I have not been presented with anything to the contrary, more just the veiled opinion of "i'd rather just have less
Re: (Score:2)
No, we can fight climate change without radical degrowth or loss in population
From currently available evidence, we cannot fight climate change at all. The massive dying off will come as a consequence.
Re:I think we are way too many humans already (Score:5, Informative)
From IPCC reports (rather than the shit that politicians spew), climate change is a normal event that is supposed to be happening in the wake of ice age we just exited. The problem is that CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere in the wake of technological revolution accelerated it too much, resulting in rapidity of change that means that normal dying off is slightly accelerated, seemingly outpacing emergence of new species better adapted for changing environment. Data is inconclusive, because we don't have good data on amount of new, better adapted species and subvariants, and this judgement cannot be made without understanding both parts of the fomula.
I.e. your doomsaying is both anti-factual and anti-scientific. But it's very popular in popular culture circles. As an example of lack of "dying off", in general as planet warmed and became more saturated with CO2 in atmopshere, total amount of organic life increased. I.e. the opposite of "dying off" happened. We are currently observing this with our satellites. As observed from space, planet is greenest it's ever been. As greenery is the basis for almost all calories that organic life on this planet consumes to power its existence, it's also reasonable to assume that there has never been more organic life on this planet since we started observing it from space.
are you intentionally lying or misinterpreting ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The great "dying off" which is talked about is about diversity, especially species which can't adapt to climate change, NOT about total biomass. In fact if you had an explosion of algae killing all species in the ocean but having twice the biomass, it would not be "good" it would be terrible and a great dying off.
The vast majority of the 'greening' is happening in arid areas, where the higher concentrations of co2 allow plants to acquire co2 with less loss of water.
Increased co2 is also increasing crop yields with no additional labor or use of fertilizers.
It has also revealed an unexpected counter-balance, as plants with access to more co2 put more growth into roots. As plants decay, generally the parts above the ground go back to the air, and the parts below the ground stay to enrich the soil. As such, the more c
Interesting point (Score:2, Troll)
Interesting analysis.
Take away point is that in fact, not all effects of global warming are bad in all regions; it will have both good and bad effects in different places.
From that, I'd expect a lot of migration (or attempted migration) of refugees from near-equatorial to temperate regions. This will be disruptive.
But personally, I'd be more worried about effects on the global food supply, not on simple heat-related deaths and cold-related deaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Take away point is that in fact, not all effects of global warming are bad in all regions; it will have both good and bad effects in different places.
The most important effect of GW will be the same in all regions, increased chaos and deviation from historical norms. Both are problems for lots of obvious reasons. It doesn't necessarily help yields for your zonation to become more favorable if weather events are more unexpected and severe.
Re: (Score:2)
Or if flooding in spring removes all your topsoil and you do not have enough water in summer to grow anything ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting point (Score:4, Informative)
Death cult fantasy vs reality check: Many of the most fertile lands on which we raise crops are flood planes. Flood is what recharges the top soil with nutrients.
Do they never teach any human history any more and only focus on identity politics and how much you need to hate you fellow man for you not to even know what flood plain is and what it's role to human agriculture was historically?
Re: (Score:2)
Flood plains would be better taught in geography, being as it is a product of geography and not a product of history.
Re: (Score:2)
And actual reality: This is not about flood plains. This is about floods in places that did not have them before because water that used to be stored as snow now melts too early. Former flood plains will typically become too dry to grow anything there.
Well, I guess assholes like you will just switch to "How could we have known?" when things become too obvious to ignore.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why Green ideology is a death cult. It's anti-factual by definition.
Because this is the second or third year that we have actually began having enough data to make analyses of what AGW does regionally, and we now understand that it's completely different.
For example recent data made it clear that relative humidity of air has a massive impact on what global warming does. Regions with high relative humidity appear to be gaining a massive boost in quality of life, as water vapor is capable of dampening
Re: (Score:2)
It is a minor aspect and pretty meaningless. The real questions are food and water. And crops cannot simply made to grow when the temperature is right...
Re: (Score:2)
Take away point is that in fact, not all effects of global warming are bad in all regions; it will have both good and bad effects in different places.
It's kind of an unusual viewpoint.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Interesting point (Score:2)
I know it is unfair to check out, but my plan is to move to the top of a mountain, in the tropics, and live on mantis yucca and what ever vegetables I can get. 60 degrees year round. Let the others burn because they wonâ(TM)t make tailback changes.
Re: (Score:2)
A warmer northern climate should mean more agricultural output overall.
Re: (Score:2)
A warmer northern climate should mean more agricultural output overall.
Increased CO2 helps with that as well.
Secondary effects (Score:5, Insightful)
But what of the other environmental effects of climate change: drought, floods, famine, disease?
Re: (Score:2)
The study covers a minor effect only. That makes it interesting, but not very important. The real killers will be, as you nicely list, drought, floods, famine, disease. Add "war" because billions of people suddenly wanting to be were other billions already are is not going to be peaceful.
Re:Secondary effects (Score:4, Insightful)
The study seems to only consider prima-face deaths. Due directly to people being too hot (10%) or too cold (90% of heat-related deaths).
But what of the other environmental effects of climate change: drought, floods, famine, disease?
Also, refugee crises and even war, caused by people fleeing drought, floods, famine & disease.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong way to look at things (Score:2)
Let's assume for a second that the objective is to maximize human lives. (Yes I know, a lot of people here want fewer humans... come on, lead the way, start with yourself, if you truly believe what you say.).
What I read in the linked papers is that 10x more people die from excess cold than from excess heat. Does that mean that we should welcome global warming as reducing deaths from extreme temperatures? Or (crazy idea) does it mean that the problem is more complex than counting casualties in that manner?
Re: (Score:2)
The study covers a minor effect only. That is scientifically valid, but otherwise not very relevant. What is a lot worse is that crops will stop to grow in many areas and not start to grow elsewhere, because crops are actually a lot more demanding in the environment they need than people, at least as far as climate and soil is concerned. For example, all that nice permafrost that is thawing? You cannot actually grow anything useful on it. Now, if this was a change over 10'000 years, things would adjust. But
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I know, a lot of people here want fewer humans... come on, lead the way, start with yourself, if you truly believe what you say
Beside obvious trolls or irrelevant nazis, I never heard this. Controlling birth rate yes, killing people no. Like many things relating to climate change, it should have been done decades ago but now we are not that far from the peak anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Controlling whose birth rate? Which country, which population? How do we agree on this and who's going to enforce it?
Assuming this is a desirable goal, it seems a difficult and unrealistic one to attain. The best way to attain it is probably not to try to decree it, but make people wealthier. And as you say it's happening anyway, as people have been lifted out of poverty in the last couple decades. Hell, the Chinese population decreased last year, and the one child policy is long gone. So population peaking
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A physical system is definitely limited, although when it comes to the Earth, it's difficult to say exactly how much is too much. People used to think 2 billions humans would starve the planet. Who knows that the true limit is. If we had 100% nuclear/electric energy and much less environmental pollution, it's difficult to say that the Earth could not house say 2x as many humans as now. Again, who knows.
As for economic growth, it's a popular misconception that it has to be bound as well. Economic growth is a
Peer-reviewed ... does that mean anything? (Score:2)
Just wondering given this recent slashdot [slashdot.org] article. Really, it's already known so many studies are not reproducible and it only gets found out _if_ someone gets interested for some reason eg. political. So pointing out that a study or article is "peer-reviewed" is kind of meaningless.
Re:Additionally (Score:2)
If you wonder, have a look at the first few paragraphs of this Guardian article [theguardian.com]. The machinations of any body are mostly political and you see it manifest especially in fields that achieve public prominence and/or where funding is important. Right now, playing on the fear of the "climate change emergency/crisis" gets you money and street cred. So more than ever take every story with a grain of salt ... "peer-reviewed" or not.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worthwhile in that it is a second step. It would be great if the study got replicated and confirmed or disproved but peer reviewed is a step up from nont-reviewed or worse, pre-print.
It's a sliding scale, this is just telling us where on the scale it is while is just past center imo. Good but not great.
Re:Peer-reviewed ... does that mean anything? (Score:5, Informative)
You should not see peer review as a kind of verification that papers are correct or accurate. That's not what peer review does.
indeed (Score:2)
Graphics reporter? (Score:2)
Whew! (Score:2, Troll)
ALL people die. Life is the cause of death. (Score:2)
What remains is when and how.
A single vector ? (Score:2)
So, this article is entirely based on that fact that more people die from cold than heat and therefore concludes you'd be better off in a place where the climate is cooler or cold already.
This is ridiculously simplistic.
There's a planet sized elephant in the room here - agriculture.
Climate change has already made significant impacts on food production globally - and it is only set to get worse.
Whilst humans are adaptable, we cannot just "up sticks" and move entire agricultural regions - there's only so much
Re: (Score:2)
It is a minor effect. Global warming will not really save any people.
Re: (Score:2)
Except they point out that 10x the people die to cold-related than to heat-related deaths. Meaning ANY increase in warmth saves 10x the people that it kills.
I wouldn't call that trivial.
Sounds like you're basing your opinion on dogma.
Follow the science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this isn't even RTFA. They have pictures, and this is the very first one.
Deaths from extreme cold, which are explicitly greater, go down, while deaths from extreme heat, explicitly lower, go up.
But don't bother looking at what anyone says, there was an opportunity to call someone from another tribe wrong, and the OP took it as quickly as possible. They have initiative.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you look at the whole picture. Have fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Never look at the whole picture. It will just depress you.