NPR’s special series, “The Undercount: The invisible death toll from climate change,” aims to answer this question. When climate and health reporter Alejandra Borunda asked doctors what important topics she should focus on, she heard the same thing over and over: Climate change is hurting a lot of people, but we aren’t doing a good job of keeping track of how many. “We’re undercounting the damage by an enormous amount,” Borunda says.
The answer to the basic question here is no; it’s impossible to provide even a good guess as to this figure, if only because there is no way to ascribe a certain catastrophic event, say a hurricane or a wildfire, to climate change. It’s really not a matter of doing a good or a bad job at keeping track.
Consider what appears to be a far more black-and-white situation, deaths from COVID-19. As discussed in this paper, it’s not a straightforward task to say that a certain victim died “with” COVID or “of” COVID.
As unsatisfying as it may be, I’m afraid that the community of climate scientists will eventually give up on the task of counting the deaths due to global warming.
NPR: Is it Possible to Know How Many People Have Died Because of Climate Change?
Renewable Energy
ExxonMobil Lowering Carbon Emissions? Sure.
Exxon: We’re investing in innovative technologies to reduce carbon emissions while supporting the needs of heavy industry.
As a marketing consultant, here’s my advice to Exxon:
Keep your money in your pockets. There is no conceivable investment in public relations that will convince us, as stupid as we may be as a nation, that you care a damn about the health of our planet’s environment, or about the wellbeing of life on Earth.
Renewable Energy
Gallup Disappears into Ignominy
Until this announcement, I think anyone would have said that Gallup, Inc., founded in 1935, had a solid reputation for honesty and integrity.
Yesterday, all that vanished in the blink of an eye.
Imagine you’re one of about 2000 employees located in one of about 35 offices around the world, including New York City, London, Berlin, Sydney, Singapore, and Abu Dhabi. How sickened would you be?
Renewable Energy
Trump Digs Coal
From “The Other 98”
Trump now wants Americans to believe that greenhouse gases don’t endanger human life, a claim that flies in the face of virtually every scientist on Earth. His administration just erased the EPA’s longstanding “endangerment finding,” the scientific and legal cornerstone that said carbon pollution warms the planet and harms human health. Without it, the EPA can no longer regulate greenhouse gases from factories, cars, or power plants, effectively stripping the federal government of its ability to combat climate change.
Trump is nothing if not predictable and consistent in his policies that fly into the teeth of science and cause grievous harm to our health.
Since science recognize vacci nations as safe and effective, why not appoint an anti-vaxxer to head up the Department of Health and Human Services?
Coal is by far the most toxic source of energy, so guess what Trump supports.
-
Climate Change6 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases6 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
