More carbon emissions will kill more people. How much is this.

More carbon emissions will kill more people. How much is this.

New indicators of future climate-related deaths may greatly increase the “social cost of carbon”

A newly published study created a new indicator: “the death cost of carbon.” In other words, how many future lives will be lost or saved—depending on whether we increase or decrease current carbon emissions. If the numbers remain the same, they are quite high.The research is published in the journal today Natural communication.

Study author R. Daniel Bressler, Ph.D.candidate Researchers at Columbia University’s Earth Institute and the University’s School of Public and International Affairs have found that there is a major gap in current estimates The social cost of carbon-Economists add dollar figures based on the estimated losses per ton of emissions. The social cost of carbon is a complex and highly plastic figure that supports the way governments around the world formulate climate policies by showing how much we should be willing to pay today to avoid future damage. However, while recent studies predict that climate change will cause millions of premature deaths, current estimates of the social cost of carbon rely on outdated studies that do not include these predictions. Bressler tries to add new data.

“Based on a decision made by an individual, business or government, this will tell you how many lives will be lost or saved,” Bresler said. “It quantifies the impact of these decisions on mortality. It reduces the problem to a more personal and understandable level.”

First of all, matters needing attention. Bresler did not claim that his numbers are certain. He estimated the impact of climate change on mortality based on several important public health studies. However, there are many uncertainties in these studies. Bressler’s main findings are based on their central estimates. On the other hand, Bressler’s study only considers direct temperature-related mortality, such as heat stroke; it excludes possible deaths from storms, floods, crop failures, infectious diseases, or wars—all of which are widely predicted threats. But it is more difficult to quantify. He admitted that his estimate may actually be “greatly underestimated.”

Assuming that emissions continue to increase on the current high path, he came up with a number: 2.26×10^-4In other words, for every carbon dioxide emitted in this century that exceeds the current rate of emissions, 0.000226 people will die.

Even Bressler had trouble understanding the true meaning of this number, so he found another way to express it. That is to say: For every 4,434 metric tons of carbon dioxide that exceeds 2020 emissions, we will kill a person. This 4,434 tons is equivalent to the current lifetime emissions of 3.5 Americans; or, to put it more personally, if we continue our current path and add an American’s current lifetime emissions, theoretically an additional 0.29 people will be killed. . This does not mean that every living American is currently expected to kill 0.29 people-it means that an increase of 1,276 tons of carbon dioxide in 2020, which is equivalent to an American’s lifetime emissions, will kill this century to this century. 0.29 people. Impact on temperature-related mortality.

It is estimated that by 2100, an increase of 4,434 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions beyond the 2020 benchmark rate will result in one death. This 4,434 tons is equivalent to the lifetime emissions of 3.5 Americans, while the opposite is true for 15.6 Mexicans or 146.2 Nigerians. (Adapted from Bressler, Nature Communications, 2021)

This number is unfavorable compared to most other parts of the world. On a global average, 4,434 tons is equivalent to 12.8 life-time emissions (in theory, only 0.08 deaths per capita). Even in the relatively affluent Britain, the current emissions of 9.4 citizens are required to generate the same amount of excess mortality (0.11 deaths per capita). It requires 25.8 Brazilians (0.04 deaths per capita); or 146.2 Nigerians (only 0.01 deaths per capita). A few countries look worse than the United States, including oil-intensive Saudi Arabia (0.33 deaths per capita). Also on that short list: Australia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates.

In larger, less personal terms: adding 1 million tons to the 2020 baseline emissions will result in 226 deaths. This 1 million tons is equivalent to the annual emissions of 216,000 passenger cars; or 115,000 households; or 35 commercial airliners; or 0.24 coal-fired power plants. )

The study assumes that on our current emission path, by 2050, the average temperature will be 2.1 degrees Celsius (3.8 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than in the pre-industrial period-this is the generally agreed limit, after which climate change will be the worst The consequences will begin. After that, things will get worse quickly, and the temperature will rise by 4.1 degrees Celsius (7.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100. Bresler predicts that, under such circumstances, by 2100, climate change will cause 83 million deaths.

Since temperatures will begin to reach truly severe levels in 2050 in this situation, most premature deaths will occur after that. The study did not explicitly examine the geographical distribution, but Bresler said that most deaths will occur in the already hottest and poorest regions: Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.

How does this affect the social cost of carbon? If you accept the numbers from this study, it will soar.

Since the founding of Nobel Laureate in Economics by William Nordhaus in the 1990s, the social cost of carbon has undergone many changes, especially as people’s understanding of the impact of climate change on mankind continues to deepen, as well as the future Estimates of temperature and degree are constantly changing. We may be able to adapt to them. There are also competitive models that can add all the different factors into a single currency number.

Nordhaus Common DICE modelsBased on this, Bressler currently sets the social carbon cost in 2020 at US$37 per metric ton. The model shows that in order to achieve the best balance between climate-related damage and abatement costs, we should stop emissions now and gradually reduce them from 2050. This will result in a warming of 3.4 degrees Celsius (6.1 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.

However, by including the mortality rate in the model, Bresler set this figure at $258 per ton—seven times higher. This means that we must now reduce emissions significantly and achieve complete decarbonization by 2050. As a result, it will only increase by 2.4 degrees by 2100. Therefore, according to Bresler’s calculations, by 2100, the number of excess deaths will fall to 9 million-74 million lives have been saved. He said that this is not necessarily a prescription for the best climate policy—just an update of DICE’s best policy.

All these figures are politically fabricated. In 2009, the Obama administration asked scientists for the first time to calculate the cost of carbon in the United States. By 2017, the figure was $52. The Trump administration stopped most of the scientific work on this issue, and later estimates ranged from US$15 to US$1 per ton. After Joseph Biden took office, the scientists regrouped.One Interim report released in February The 2020 price will rise back to US$51 per ton; the more official estimate will expire in January 2022.

“My view is that people should not over personalize their per capita mortality emissions,” Bresler said. “Our emissions depend to a large extent on the technology and culture of where we live.” He said that of course individuals, companies and communities should work hard to reduce their own emissions. But he said the more effective answer would be “large-scale policies such as carbon pricing, caps and transactions, and investment in low-carbon technologies and energy storage.”