You are a killer. According to a study published in the journal Nature (“The Mortality Cost of Carbon“), you and two (and a half) other Americans produce enough carbon emissions in your lifetime to kill one person.
No, not really. According to the Nature study, “the mortality cost of carbon [MCC], that estimates the number of deaths caused by the emissions of one additional metric ton of CO2. In the baseline emissions scenario, the 2020 MCC is 2.26 × 10‒4 [low to high estimate −1.71× 10‒4 to 6.78 × 10‒4] excess deaths per metric ton of 2020 emissions. This implies that adding 4,434 metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2020—equivalent to the lifetime emissions of 3.5 average Americans—causes one excess death globally in expectation between 2020-2100.”
Let’s try not to laugh at this concept for a moment and try to understand how science is being subverted to service a political agenda. It’s another “Noble Lie” — the twisting of the truth to create a myth to save us from climate change.
According to this study, the lifetime emissions of 3.5 Americans — if it was all emitted in 2020 — would kill one person between now and 2100.
Forgive me if I don’t do the world a favor and shoot myself.
“There are a significant number of lives that can be saved if you pursue climate policies that are more aggressive than the business as usual scenario,” said Daniel Bressler, the study’s author. “I was surprised at how large the number of deaths are. There is some uncertainty over this, the number could be lower but it could also be a lot higher.”
Higher, lower–what’s the difference? As long as “climate change” can be blamed — and America’s profligate emissions — it’s all good, bra.
A Harvard study published in February proved similar results with researchers finding that more than 8 million people around the world are dying yearly as a result of poor and toxic air quality.
Researchers are hoping that the study encourages people to call on their governments to make change and implement policies that affect businesses and reduce overall international carbon emissions.
“My view is that people shouldn’t take their per-person mortality emissions too personally,” Bressler said. “Our emissions are very much a function of the technology and culture of the place that we live.”
The researchers failed to answer some questions. How many Chinese it would take to kill one unfortunate person? Or how many Russians? Personally, I’d like to see how many Canadians it would take to kill one person since our insufferably arrogant green neighbors to the north deserve to be singled out.
The “social cost of carbon” is taken as gospel by most environmentalists since it’s a metric that demonstrates how scary carbon emissions are. Now we have the “Mortality Cost of Carbon” to worry about, too.
There are no metrics that weigh the benefits of carbon emissions so I guess we have to guess about that. How many lives are saved because it’s generally warmer today than it was 150 years ago? Those climate hysterics might not acknowledge it, but cold kills. Warming up the planet a few degrees might save a few lives.