homehome Home chatchat Notifications


How many people will carbon dioxide kill? A lot

Meet a horrifying new metric: the "mortality cost of carbon".

Mihai Andrei
September 8, 2021 @ 10:26 am

share Share

Oftentimes, when we talk about climate change, it seems like something abstract and hard to quantify, and in some ways, it is. But climate change, in addition to all the damage it will cause, will kill people — a lot of them, according to a new study.

Study author R. Daniel Bressler, a PhD candidate at Columbia University’s Earth Institute and the university’s School of Public and International Affairs looked at how we calculate the cost of carbon and saw a gap. There wasn’t a clear way of translating the extra carbon in the atmosphere to human lives. He moved to address that.

“Based on the decisions made by individuals, businesses or governments, this tells you how many lives will be lost, or saved,” says Bressler. “It quantifies the mortality impact of those decisions. It brings this question down to a more personal, understandable level.”

Some estimates do exist. However, according to Bressler, they tend to rely on outdated research and don’t include sufficient ramifications.

For economists and policymakers, having access to such a number would be very useful, particularly in the context of a carbon tax — something which is discussed more and more as a way to tackle the ongoing climate crisis. Of course, the social cost of carbon is a highly complex number, it varies from country to country, and can be improved upon.

Bressler calculated that for every metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted beyond the current rate, there will be .000226. That doesn’t seem like a lot until you consider just how much carbon the world emits.

Look at it this way. For every 4,434 metric tons of CO2 we add beyond the current rate of emission, we kill one person — and 4,434 metric tons of CO2 is not really that much, either: that’s how much 3.5 Americans emit in their lifetime.

Still a wild underestimation

Bressler himself doesn’t claim his number is definitive and mentions that his estimate only considers direct temperature-related mortality, such as heat stroke. This leaves out possible deaths from storms, floods, crop failures, infectious diseases, or wars — all of which are very likely to accompany climate change, but much harder to quantify

So it’s quite likely that Bressel’s number is still a major underestimation.

The study also notes that if we stay on the current path, average temperatures will increase slowly to 2.1 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, after which the situation degenerates quickly, with temperatures reaching 4.1 degrees higher by 2100. Bressler estimates that if this turns out to be the case, we’d end up with 83 million excess deaths by 2100.

So what does this mean for a carbon tax?

The accurate price of carbon has been one of the main challenges in this type of discussion. Nobel-winning laureate William Nordhaus introduced the concept of a social cost of carbon. Nordhaus’s commonly used model, which Bressler builds on, proposes a cost of $37 per metric ton of carbon. But if we add the mortality cost of carbon, that price skyrockets to $258

There’s also another way of looking at this: it’s an opportunity to save millions or maybe tens of millions of lives. By cutting carbon pollution quickly, we could save around 74 million lives by the end of the century, the study concluded.

Ultimately, though, scientists can do their best, but it’s up to politicians to implement such policies — and politicians vary wildly in their opinions on climate (although climate and its very tangible effects are not themselves subject to opinion). In 2009, the Obama administration first mandated that scientists calculate the U.S. cost of carbon, and the figure at which government scientists arrived at was $51. Trump stopped almost all work on that front (and on climate science in general), later coming out with figures as low as $1 per ton. Now, an interim report from the Biden administration puts the price back at $52.

But even without these political biases, the odds of passing a real carbon tax are very slim at the moment. Whether or not adding people’s lives into the equation will make a difference remains to be seen.

share Share

Coolness Isn’t About Looks or Money. It’s About These Six Things, According to Science

New global study reveals the six traits that define coolness around the world.

Ancient Roman Pompeii had way more erotic art than you'd think

Unfortunately, there are few images we can respectably share here.

Wild Orcas Are Offering Fish to Humans and Scientists Say They May Be Trying to Bond with Us

Scientists recorded 34 times orcas offered prey to humans over 20 years.

No Mercury, No Cyanide: This is the Safest and Greenest Way to Recover Gold from E-waste

A pool cleaner and a spongy polymer can turn used and discarded electronic items into a treasure trove of gold.

This $10 Hack Can Transform Old Smartphones Into a Tiny Data Center

The throwaway culture is harming our planet. One solution is repurposing billions of used smartphones.

Doctors Discover 48th Known Blood Group and Only One Person on Earth Has It

A genetic mystery leads to the discovery of a new blood group: “Gwada negative.”

More Than Half of Intersection Crashes Involve Left Turns. Is It Time To Finally Ban Them?

Even though research supports the change, most cities have been slow to ban left turns at even the most congested intersections.

A London Dentist Just Cracked a Geometric Code in Leonardo’s Vitruvian Man

A hidden triangle in the vitruvian man could finally explain one of da Vinci's greatest works.

The Story Behind This Female Pharaoh's Broken Statues Is Way Weirder Than We Thought

New study reveals the ancient Egyptian's odd way of retiring a pharaoh.

China Resurrected an Abandoned Soviet 'Sea Monster' That's Part Airplane, Part Hovercraft

The Soviet Union's wildest aircraft just got a second life in China.