The people responsible don’t care. They will be perfectly fine letting the rest of us die. They’ll only start giving a shit once cheap labor starts getting hard to come by.
This rule is actually “an order of magnitude best estimate”, which means it’s more of a range, somewhere between 0.1 to 10 deaths per 1000 tons of carbon burned.
That leaves a lot of room for scenarios even more dire than the one outlined here.
“When climate scientists run their models and then report on them, everybody leans toward being conservative, because no one wants to sound like Doctor Doom,” explains Pierce.
“We’ve done that here too and it still doesn’t look good.”
Translation: 10 billion people will die.
2nd translation: Almost everyone will die.
Translation: 10 billion people will die.
No. Between 100 million and 10 billion deaths will be caused by anthropogenic global warming over a period of roughly 100 years.
2nd translation: Almost everyone will die.
On a long enough timeline, everyone dies.
Or it could end up being less bad than we expect.
Said every apologist ever. Look around you man. It’s already pretty bad out there. How much worse does it need to be before you stop downplaying the situation?
“Don’t Look Up” and all that…
less bad than the conservative estimates of their models… you can’t read properly can you…
It only took 250 years since the industrial revolution to utterly doom our world.
Oh, our world will be fine, it’s not the Earth’s first mass extinction event. We - and a lot of flora and fauna we depend on - are really fucked though.
It’s an interesting mass extinction event, too. Have we ever seen one species balloon to such predominance? Humans are like 80% of mammalian biomass on the planet. Definite loss of biodiversity. I wonder if it’s a loss of biomass too.
Hard to beat the dominance of archosaurs on Earth for about 180 mio years. Humans are a blink of an eye compared to that.
Generally, overpopulation by an invasive species tends to ruin any habitat. We are just specially adept at it.
“Overpopulation”? It’s infinite growth and inefficient distribution.
Where do you think does the “overpopulation” come from?
This article is bogus. It doesn’t even mention the power or thoughts and prayers once!
Wishes and spells
Well that’s fine because I have a wizard what installs programs for me
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
I cast level three eroticism
Nature knows how to solve this problem.
I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of those casualties in the USA will be in Florida and California.
Many of the major insurance companies stopped issuing new home owners policies in those states because it was no longer profitable or very risky. IIRC, increasing housing costs and frequency of these events was the main reason they pulled out
Yup. The same people who deny science start paying attention once their own money becomes involved.
In Florida, the issue is rising sea levels. If you look at one of those interactive maps showing the effects of a rising sea level, you’ll notice that all of southern Florida is at risk of major flooding.
In California, wildfires are the problem. As the atmosphere gets warmer and rainfall becomes unreliable, forests get drier. Fires will become bigger, spread faster, and be even more frequent.
Neither state will be a profitable place for home insurance companies.
And with your help we can make sure that that number includes those that need to die.
The 1000-ton rule says that a future person is killed every time humanity burns 1000 tons of fossil carbon. It is derived from a simple calculation: burning a trillion tons of fossil carbon will cause 2 °C of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) [57,58], which in turn will cause roughly a billion future premature deaths spread over a period of very roughly one century [59]. On the assumption that 2 °C of warming is either already inevitable (given the enormous political and economic difficulties of achieving a lower limit) or intended (given that the business plans of big fossil fuel industries make it inevitable), it can be concluded that burning 1000 tons of fossil carbon causes one future premature death.
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/16/6074
They’re predicting that a billion people are going to die if we burn a trillion tons of carbon, so the ratio of tons of carbon burned to predicted deaths is 1000 to 1. They don’t make any mention of how they concluded that a billion people were going to die. So the 1000 ton rule is only as good as their estimate of how many people would die due to an increase of 2 degrees centigrade due to AGW. It seems a little flimsy without knowing how they arrived at the conclusion that an increase of 2 degrees centigrade due to AGW would result in the deaths of 1 billion people. I’ll have to look at that in the morning.
Eco-fascism is not a solution to anything people, come on.
It is.
Oh no, the sun is hot! It is normal to have variations in temperature from year to year.
A billion over a century is only 10 million per year. Does that exceed the birth rate?
“… over the next century,” continues the article after the catchy headline.
Not that people dying is a good thing, but I was kind of hoping they’d be people alive right now. If 1/8th of the world treated climate change like it was personally going to kill them, we might still have a chance of turning things around. (As a bonus, can oil giants really keep their execs safe from 1 in 8 highly motivated people?)
It kills the poor. Noone care about that, not even the poor as they won’t be informed enough to know what’s going on.
Unfortunate. We’re the boiling frog fable all over again.
It doesn’t need to kill them to completely disrupt social order. There’s an estimate out there that there will be up to 1 billion climate refugees by 2050. The Global North already does not handle refugees as well, even though they consistently cause a large amount of the refugee problems.
A century isn’t that long and 1 billion people is a huge portion of the global populace.
That’s 1 billion less people contributing to climate changes! Seems like a self-correcting problem over a long enough time scale.
