Even if we counted it as subsidies, the calculation would still be complete bogus, or "controversial" as the paper puts it. It goes like this: Take the "excess

Even if we counted it as subsidies, the calculation would still be complete bogus, or "controversial" as the paper puts it. It goes like this: Take the "excess death" figure from the WHO (already a questionable number) and multiply it by the "economic value" of that person. That would be two million dollars for an Australian, $300,000 for a Chinese person and still about a $100,000 for someone from Tanzania. In other words, we're not assuming those excess deaths are the old and sickly who eventually succumb to a lifetime of pollution, but the young and healthy who have decades worth of earnings ahead of them.