5 ms·

How many people per year would you estimate ISIS kills? Is it more than 150,000 people [1]? Because that's how many people the WHO estimates currently die righ

by moyix 11y ago

How many people per year would you estimate ISIS kills? Is it more than 150,000 people [1]? Because that's how many people the WHO estimates currently die right now as a result of climate change. And the number is expected to go up to 250,000 by 2030-2050 [2]. Other estimates have been even higher, e.g. [3] which came up with 400,000 extra deaths due to climate change per year already. [1] http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/ http://www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange/en/ [2] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/ [3] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/27/climate-change-kills-400-000-a-year-new-report-reveals.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/27/climate-cha...

hjhgjtyhgdfi8 11y ago
And yet, with the record levels of climate emissions, billions of people are living longer and healthier due to cheaper energy costs that keep them warm and fed at low cost. Why is the global world living longer despite its ever increasing usage of fossil fuels? Just to take one example, China's life expectancy has grown increasingly despite having record levels of pollution. You would think that more and more people would die as fossil fuels increase. Something doesn't connect here. Care to explain the conundrum for me? ISIS having their hands on a nuke would be catastrophic.
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  Isis getting a nuke is quite far fetched. What is a bigger danger is one of the terrorist groups in Pakistan (which actually has nuclear weapons) getting a nuke. Or India & Pakistan having a nuclear exchange. Or one of the wars in the Middle East leading to Israel or the USA to use the nuclear weapons they have ready there (which they continually threaten). Nuclear war is one of the scariest things we face and could destroy us instantly, it's a small chance but a possibility. However climate change is definitely already happening and is potentially also devastating for the survival of the species. It could itself ignite a number of conflicts, we have no idea what will happen, but we know it could be very bad.
  - aryehof 11y ago
    >>> ... "which they continually threaten" Can you cite an instance in any reputable broadsheet where Israel has officially threatened to use nuclear weapons? Misstatements not challenged quickly, too often become the "truth".
    - Synaesthesia 11y ago
      Actually since Israel's nuclear weapons are a secret they are not continually threatening to use them, however the US is a different story. There are US nuclear weapons present in every war and the threats are made with statements like, "no option is off the table", and by looking at official policy, which maintains the option of a first nuclear strike.
eggy 11y ago
Thanks for the links. I'll read them later in full. Off the bat: “That estimate includes deaths as a result of extreme weather conditions, which may be occurring with increased frequency.” May being the keyword there. Also, if the argument is more rainfall and temperatures contributing to spread of disease, does it estimate the ability to harvest more, or for longer periods in cooler climates? Not to belittle the warnings and data presented, but to look for the positive in the negative.
- eatmyshorts 11y ago
  The GP poster is right--the threat to the average person from terrorism, from all sources, is tiny compared to, say, the risk due to extreme weather....or getting hit by a bus when crossing the street. Humans don't tend to respond rationally to fear, and tend to over exaggerate the risks of shocking things like death from terrorism. It is so common that some people came up with the idea of micromorts, so that one can reliably compare risks of unrelated items. Terrorism results in pretty tiny micromorts compared to, say, getting stuck by lightening. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort
webXL 11y ago
250k and 400k would still be a long way off the current top 10: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/ The places most affected by climate change already have terrible health: http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/ncd/mortality/total/atlas.html http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/ncd/mortal...

by moyix 11y ago

hjhgjtyhgdfi8 11y ago

And yet, with the record levels of climate emissions, billions of people are living longer and healthier due to cheaper energy costs that keep them warm and fed at low cost. Why is the global world living longer despite its ever increasing usage of fossil fuels? Just to take one example, China's life expectancy has grown increasingly despite having record levels of pollution. You would think that more and more people would die as fossil fuels increase. Something doesn't connect here. Care to explain the conundrum for me? ISIS having their hands on a nuke would be catastrophic.

Synaesthesia 11y ago
Isis getting a nuke is quite far fetched. What is a bigger danger is one of the terrorist groups in Pakistan (which actually has nuclear weapons) getting a nuke. Or India & Pakistan having a nuclear exchange. Or one of the wars in the Middle East leading to Israel or the USA to use the nuclear weapons they have ready there (which they continually threaten). Nuclear war is one of the scariest things we face and could destroy us instantly, it's a small chance but a possibility. However climate change is definitely already happening and is potentially also devastating for the survival of the species. It could itself ignite a number of conflicts, we have no idea what will happen, but we know it could be very bad.
- aryehof 11y ago
  >>> ... "which they continually threaten" Can you cite an instance in any reputable broadsheet where Israel has officially threatened to use nuclear weapons? Misstatements not challenged quickly, too often become the "truth".
  - Synaesthesia 11y ago
    Actually since Israel's nuclear weapons are a secret they are not continually threatening to use them, however the US is a different story. There are US nuclear weapons present in every war and the threats are made with statements like, "no option is off the table", and by looking at official policy, which maintains the option of a first nuclear strike.

eggy 11y ago

Thanks for the links. I'll read them later in full. Off the bat: “That estimate includes deaths as a result of extreme weather conditions, which may be occurring with increased frequency.” May being the keyword there. Also, if the argument is more rainfall and temperatures contributing to spread of disease, does it estimate the ability to harvest more, or for longer periods in cooler climates? Not to belittle the warnings and data presented, but to look for the positive in the negative.

eatmyshorts 11y ago
The GP poster is right--the threat to the average person from terrorism, from all sources, is tiny compared to, say, the risk due to extreme weather....or getting hit by a bus when crossing the street. Humans don't tend to respond rationally to fear, and tend to over exaggerate the risks of shocking things like death from terrorism. It is so common that some people came up with the idea of micromorts, so that one can reliably compare risks of unrelated items. Terrorism results in pretty tiny micromorts compared to, say, getting stuck by lightening. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort

webXL 11y ago

250k and 400k would still be a long way off the current top 10: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/ The places most affected by climate change already have terrible health: http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/ncd/mortality/total/atlas.html http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/ncd/mortal...