Massive Estimates of Death are in vogue for Copenhagen
The successor to the Kyoto Protocol will be negotiated in large part at the United Nations Climate Change Conference hosted in Copenhagen this December, and as such the lobbying, horsetrading and politicking has already begun in earnest. Judging by the early entries, the theme seems to be Massive Estimates of Death.
The St James's Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium last week compared global warming to all-out nuclear war. Meanwhile, the Global Humanitarian Forum, headed by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, released a 103-page report ('Anatomy of a Silent Crisis') estimating that 'every year climate change leaves over 300,000 people dead, 325 million people seriously affected, and economic losses of US $125 billion.'
These are genuinely alarming, sit-up-and-pay attention sort of figures. The problem is that once you've sat up and paid attention enough to examine them a bit more closely, you find that the means by which the figures were arrived at isn't very compelling.
Referring to the 300,000 souls, page 1 of the reports states: 'These figures represent averages based on projected trends over many years and carry a significant margin of error. The real numbers could be lower or higher...' before going on to say, 'These already alarming figures may prove too conservative.' Or not, as the case may be.
Later, in the section entitled 'Attribution of weather-related disasters to climate change', it says 'there is not yet any widely accepted global estimate of the share of weather-related disasters that are attributable to climate change' before going on to make one up by the unusual expedient of using earthquake disasters as a proxy for the weather. (See page 86 for the full explanation.)
This is just a snapshot, but it's fairly representative. The report contains so many extrapolations derived from guesswork based on estimates inferred from unsuitable data sets that you have to ask some serious questions about the methodology.
Cryptically, Mr Annan states in the introduction: 'Humanity is facing a rare challenge. But it is a common challenge.' Like the report itself, you know what he's driving at, but have to ask yourself if there wasn't a better way of putting it.
Related blog: Thermonuclear armageddon and climate change: a fair likeness?
Related blog: Major rivers aren't drying up (or how alarmism doesn't help)
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~48~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Figures should only be quoted if there is means of demonstrating how they have been arrived at; otherwise guesstimates are simply that.
Attribution of extreme weather events to climate change, or if changes to regional climates are occurring, will remain a much argued topic as will any attribution of casualties.
But there are some regions it may be worth keeping an eye on over the next few decades in order to see if a trend towards an increase in droughts and water shortages is emerging; amongst them north-eastern Africa, the Mediterranean basin, the Middle East and central Asia.
Two other regions worth keeping a watch on to see if long term climate trends are changing are:
Western USA
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/02/drying-west/kunzig-text/1
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Brazil:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gi-OzRnWSM7SeBY4o-3xPXVPaaNw
Complain about this comment
I posted some critical comments about this report on one or other of the four (!) articles devoted to it on Guardian Environment, but soon gave up. Its past parody. Theres a howler or an incomprehensibly garbled sentence on every page. Its a powerpoint presentation put together by green marketing men, and one wonders what the likes of Oxfam and the IPCC are doing lending their authority to it
Complain about this comment
'These figures represent averages based on projected trends over many years and carry a significant margin of error. The real numbers could be lower or higher...
in other words, we really don't have a clue
doesn't mention the 1.5 million people who die each year, because they don't have clean drinking water, but i guess that can't be attributed to man made global warming or can it .....
cleaning up drinking water and providing sanitation would cost a lot less and would have a positive impact
Complain about this comment
I like the disclaimer at the end:
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Temperatures may go down or up or stay the same. You are advised to consult a doctor if you start to feel unwell.
Complain about this comment
Finally the message is breaking through and these "genuinely alarming, sit-up-and-pay attention sort of figures" are helping those with international clout to give people a fighting chance.
Climate change hurts poor people first and worst. It is already impacting the work Oxfam do today. If we are to end poverty and suffering for all people we must fight for real change in the actions of our governments.
Oxfam are committed to fighting the impacts of climate change looking for a more practical, positive and direct approach.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear - more comment spam about oxfam.
I followed the oxfam link and looked round their website. I noticed 2 odd things:
1) They have no idea at all of their worldwide carbon footprint. Nothing - no measure, no plans. Zilch.
2) They do not have a diversity policy.
I was shocked that such a right-on organisation would fail to walk the talk.
Complain about this comment
@thepastymuncher
Climate change hurts poor people first and worst
I'd be really interested to hear your views on trying to solve a problem that may happen in 100 years time deserves prioty over doing something now that could benefit millions of people the world over at a fraction of the cost i.e. clean drinking water for the millions that die every year
Complain about this comment
The new figure of 300,000 deaths from climate change follows the 2002 Word Health Report which estimated 150,000 deaths a year. Both statistics have been used by the WHO, UN, GHF, and many other NGOs and agencies as headlines to create a basis for political action on climate change.
There are caveats in the research, yet the figure operates within arguments as though it were an empirical fact. Consequently, any sense of proportion is lost.
The old figure of 150,000 deaths represented just 0.5% of male deaths, and 0.6% of female deaths in 'high mortality developing countries'. Surprisingly, being overweight is a greater risk factor, accounting for 1.1% of deaths for men, and 2% of deaths for women. (404,418 deaths in total). Even more surprising is that physical inactivity is given as the reason for 2.3% of deaths of men and women in the same regions. (607,476 deaths in total).
The new figure of 300,000 barely changes things. These deaths can only be used to make an argument for action against climate change if we accept that, as Nth order effects of climate change, we can do nothing about them as first order effects, i.e. preventing malaria, ensuring food security, &c &c.
But focussing on the 42,157,155 deaths - every single one of them preventable as a first order effect - that the WHO attributed to non-climate causes in the developing world in 2000, rather than the 300/150 thousand, would undermine the primacy of the climate issue in contemporary politics.
If it is true that "climate change hurts poor people first and worst", it is trivially true, and almost entirely inconsequential. There would be no deaths attributable to climate change if we took seriously the real, first-order problems that the developing world faces.
NGOs and agencies that use the plight of the poor in the developing world to make arguments for climate policies ought to hang their heads in shame. Climate change is at the bottom of the list of problems that the developing world needs to address.
The way that the WHO/GHF statistics plays out in moral and political arguments is discussed at http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/06/the-age-of-the-age-of-stupid.html .
Complain about this comment
@BenPile
Good post
The interesting part of your link is the WHO themselves place climate change deaths way down on the list of attributable deaths by factor.
Complain about this comment
@BenPile
Fantastic post. Thanks for the hard data.
I think the death estimates are the result of environmental issues now competing with the economy as the biggest issue facing the globe. Fatalism sells and big death estimates grab headlines...
http://tinyurl.com/lzm6al
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS