Veille 2.1

When attempting to quantify future harms caused by carbon emissions and to set appropriate energy policies, it has been argued that the most important metric is the number of human deaths caused by climate change. Several studies have attempted to overcome the uncertainties associated with such forecasting. In this article, approaches to estimating future human death tolls from climate change relevant at any scale or location are compared and synthesized, and implications for energy policy are considered. Several studies are consistent with the “1000-ton rule,” according to which a future person is killed every time 1000 tons of fossil carbon are burned (order-of-magnitude estimate). If warming reaches or exceeds 2 °C this century, mainly richer humans will be responsible for killing roughly 1 billion mainly poorer humans through anthropogenic global warming, which is comparable with involuntary or negligent manslaughter. On this basis, relatively aggressive energy policies are summarized that would enable im

f global warming reaches or exceeds two degrees Celsius by 2100, University of Western Ontario's Joshua Pearce says it is likely that mainly richer humans will be responsible for the death of roughly one billion mainly poorer humans over the next century. The oil and gas industry, which includes many of the most profitable and powerful businesses in the world, is directly and indirectly responsible for more than 40% of carbon emissions—impacting the lives of billions of people, many living in the world's most remote and low-resourced communities. A new study proposes aggressive energy policies that would enable immediate and substantive decreases to carbon emissions and recommends a heightened level of government, corporate and citizen action to accelerate the decarbonization of the global economy, aiming to minimize the number of projected human deaths.

The 21-year-old Iraqi, who lived by a smoke-choked oilfield, died of cancer. His message must be heard, says journalist Jess Kelly

Nuclear Winter or a Climate-Change-Induced Nuclear Summer? Let’s not be shy. If there’s one word that comes to mind (mine anyway) at the moment, it’s madness.

When people talk about ways to slow climate change, they often mention trees, and for good reason. Forests take up a large amount of the planet-warming carbon dioxide that people put into the atmosphere when they burn fossil fuels. But will trees keep up that pace as global temperatures rise? With companies increasingly investing in forests as offsets, saying it cancels out their continuing greenhouse gas emissions, that’s a multibillion-dollar question.

Le mouvement Extinction Rebellion a mené une action dans la nuit de jeudi à vendredi en placardant des affiches rappelant le message du secrétaire général de l’ONU Antonio Guterrres à propos du climat, "Delay means Death" ("Postposer c’est mourir"), sur les façades de plusieurs institutions et sièges de partis à Bruxelles, Charleroi, et Gand.

Several terms have been used to describe the negative mental health implications of environmental degradation, including ecological grief, solastalgia, climate and eco-anxiety. The American Psychological Association defines eco-anxiety as a “chronic fear of environmental doom”. Some psychiatrists describe this as an anticipated trauma or a “pre-traumatic stress disorder”.

Across the world, resting places for the dearly departed are running out of space: and it’s spelling bad news for the environment. In many countries, splashing the cash to secure a traditional grave in commercial cemeteries and columbaria (urn storage buildings) can be something of a status symbol, not least because of the increasingly limited real estate available for grave sites.

Every metric ton of carbon dioxide humans emit comes at a cost—not only in terms of the financial toll of the damage wrought by floods, heat waves and droughts but also the price in human lives. Substantially curtailing emissions today could prevent tens of millions of premature deaths over the course of the 21st century, according to a new study that calculated this “mortality cost of carbon.”

Current methods to calculate the so-called social cost of carbon largely leave out how many future people our emissions will kill. This study tries to correct that.

The scientist who has borne the full brunt of attacks by climate change deniers, including death threats and accusations of misappropriating funds, is set to hit back.

The scientist who has borne the full brunt of attacks by climate change deniers, including death threats and accusations of misappropriating funds, is set to hit back.