A post by Steve Milloy of Junkscience has turned up some interesting figures about the ‘Population Bomb’. Here they are:
Per capita global food production has […] increased by 26.5 percent between 1968 and 2005, according to the World Resources Institute. The number of people who starve to death daily declined from 41,000 in 1977 to 24,000 today, according to The Hunger Project, an organization combating global hunger
http://junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/2008082108.html
If you multiply 24,000 by the number of days in a year, this works out at about 8.7 million deaths from starvation per annum; a million more than the whole population of Greater London.
Later in his article, Milloy mentions that:
According to U.N. statistics, the number of people in the developing world who were considered to be undernourished in 1968 was estimated at about 900 million. That estimate is on track to be reduced by more than 50 per cent by 2015, according to the U.N.
The United Nations is an organisation that loves to take credit for any improvement in the human condition, and it has no shame about self-administered pats on the back. But looking more closely at these figures, we find some rather nasty facts that we should all be ashamed about.
If the number of undernourished people in the developing world has almost halved in the last forty years, that still leaves nearly 450 million people today – almost half a billion out of a global population of about 6 billion – who do not get enough to eat. And of course malnutrition increases mortality rates from numerous causes other than starvation.
The downward trend is encouraging, but it should not be used to disguise the fact that in the first decade of the 21st century, more than one in 13 of the world’s population are deprived of the most fundamental necessity of existence; they are not getting enough to eat.
If these figures applied equally to both the first world and the developing world, then what would the reaction of European and North American governments – and the electorates that have voted them into office – be? Just imagine what our priorities would be if 13 out of every 100 people in the UK were undernourished? What would the headlines in the media say?
At the moment there is much hand-ringing among world leaders about the ‘world food crisis’,which has been caused, in part at least, by demand for biofuels. And until quite recently, biofuels were hailed as one of the alternative sources of energy that could stop climate change. The organisation that has done more than any other to spread alarm about possible global warming is, of course, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a UN agency.
I only saw the starvation and malnutrition figures because I happened to get an email notification about Steve Milloy’s article. So far as I know the press and the rest of the mass media made nothing of the story. Contrast this lack of reaction with the following, which comes from a lead story in the Washington Post in 2005:
Climate Shift Tied To 150,000 Fatalities
Most Victims Are Poor, Study Says
By Juliet Eilperin
Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year, according to the World Health Organization, [another UN agency] a toll that could double by 2030.
The data, being published today in the journal Nature, indicate that climate change is driving up rates of malaria, malnutrition and diarrhea throughout the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602197.html
Not surprisingly, this story was the subject of worldwide headlines within hours, and the mantra ‘climate change is killing 150,000 people a year’ has remained popular with global warming advocates ever since.
Whether or not the small rise in global temperatures that we saw during the 20th century was caused by human activity, and can therefor be controlled, has yet to be decided. What is certain is that it is well within our capabilities to make sure that people get enough to eat, provided that the political will exists to give this matter priority.
I have no opinion on the validity of the WHO’s research, which was carried out by the University of Wisconsin; it is the public attitude that interests me. The figure for supposed climate change induced deaths is one-three-thousandth of that for malnutrition. There is a body of research that shows that mortality anomalies are higher when temperatures fall than when they rise, and it is common ground that natural variation in temperature has always been a characteristic of Earth’s climate. One thing that we can be sure of is that global temperatures are not, and never have been, constant. There will always be a trend either up or down, and there will always be some people who suffer as a result.
Many climate change sceptics consider that the present concerns about global warming now amount to hysteria, and our assessment of the scientific evidence is no longer rational. If this is the case, then millions in the developing world are going hungry unnecessarily while the eyes of the first world are focused on efforts to control the climate.
This kind of hysteria kills.
The figure for supposed climate change induced deaths is one three thousandth of that for malnutrition.
150,000 x 3000 = 450 million
But haven’t you’ve also quoted a figure of “8.7 million deaths from starvation per annum” ?
Whichever figure is correct, where is the evidence that increased spending on combating AGW is worsening the problem?
Peter
Try reading it again. Malnutrition and starvation are a little bit different.
Political and financial rescources are finite. If you prioratise one issue, others are bound to suffer.
Incidentally the BBC broadcast a piece on the UN’s 2015 target at lunchtime today. Apparently they now admit that it wil not be met.
For statistics on global deaths and death rates due to climate-related disasters see:
http://members.cox.net/goklany/Extreme%20Events%20Note%20Hohenkammer.pdf
The record shows that these have come down significantly over the past century, and also over the past 30 years of “global warming”.
Max
Max,
Thanks for the link to the Goklany paper.
The fact that even the UN claim a halving in the malnutrition figures during the part of the 20th century when AGW was supposed to be at its hight intreagued me, but the post was getting too long already. I wonder if they would be missing their 2015 target if the IPCC had never existed? And how will anyone ever know?
TonyN,
Ah yes I see . You are comparing deaths on one hand with malnourishment on the other, but you have to look very closely to see that. That’s a bit sneaky. I’d expect that of Max but not you.
I’d like to know how combating climate change can possibly harm anyone in the third world. It is quite misleading to add up the sums of money involved in carbon taxation and argue that it would have been better spent on fixing world poverty.
For example, the price of petrol in the UK has always been much higher than in US, largely because of government imposed taxation. It’s never been referred to as a carbon tax, except perhaps recently, but in effect that is what it has been. It has meant that Britons choose cars which are much more fuel efficient. It is one of the reasons why CO2 emissions per capita in the UK are much less than in the US.
Now, you could add up all the extra taxation that Britons have paid over the years and arrive at a huge sum. Billions of pounds. Twice as many dollars. But is it a realistic argument to suggest that this sort of revenue raising by the UK government has in any way worsened world poverty?
It is fair enough to suggest that the UK government should have used the raised revenue differently. More on foreign aid , for example, and less on nuclear missiles. But that is not quite the same argument. Or is it? Is that the point you are really making?
It’s interesting to compare the 2005 Washington Post article with the WHO’s website (which I presume is updated regularly.)
On the subject of dengue fever, Juliet Eilperin states in 2005: “Just this week, WHO officials reported that warmer temperatures and heavy rain in South Asia have led to the worst outbreak of dengue fever there in years. The mosquito-borne illness, which is now beginning to subside, has infected 120,000 South Asians this year and killed at least 1,000, WHO said.”
Compare this with the WHO’s website here, where there’s quite a bit of information about dengue fever:
“Dengue and dengue haemorrhagic fever are present in urban and suburban areas in the Americas, South-East Asia, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Western Pacific and dengue fever is present mainly in rural areas in Africa. Several factors have combined to produce epidemiological conditions in developing countries in the tropics and subtropics that favour viral transmission by the main mosquito vector, Aedes aegypti: rapid population growth, rural-urban migration, inadequate basic urban infrastructure (eg. unreliable water supply leading householders to store water in containers close to homes) and increase in volume of solid waste, such as discarded plastic containers and other abandoned items which provide larval habitats in urban areas. Geographical expansion of the mosquito has been aided by international commercial trade particularly in used tyres which easily accumulate rainwater. Increased air travel and breakdown of vector control measures have also contributed greatly to the global burden of dengue and DHF.”
Maybe I’m missing something obvious, but I cannot find anything here that links the rise of dengue fever with climate change.
TonyN,
Is is acceptable to address the likely future effects of climate change on this thread too?
What about changing the title to something like “How many people has ‘climate change’ killed and how many will it kill in future years?
Or, more succinctly, we could have something much more general and neutral, in the form of: “Climate Change (or Global Warming if you prefer) : Effects past, present and future”
The last reliable figure I saw for deaths from starvation was an estimated 30,000 per day or some 10,950,000 per year, not too different from the 8.5 million stated above. Its very difficult to sort out the cause of death. As identified above, malnutrition leads to all kinds of diseases which could easily kill someone who is starving.
But these deaths have been happening for decades, long before global warming became fashionable. As the Milloy article says, malnutrition and starvation have been on the decline, which is a good thing. The media only reports bad things, so it gets omitted.
The current rate of malnutrition and deaths from starvation are still alarmingly high. There is no shortage of food, there is no shortage to transportation. There is a major shortage of leadership, both globally through the UN and nationally in the more affluent nations. Compounding this lack of leadership are 3rd world governments that deny their people the basics of life. Food, clean water, and energy.
Re: #8, jnicklin
It would be astonishing if deaths from malnutrition had not fallen over the last few decades. My point is that for as long as we prioritize the ‘campaign against climate change’, mortality from preventable causes are likely fall more slowly than otherwise as resources are diverted elsewhere.
The consequences of malnutrition are known, understood, and preventable. Concern about global warming is based on speculation.
We need to ask ourselves whether we are getting our priorities right.
Peter Martin says:
Whichever figure is correct, where is the evidence that increased spending on combating AGW is worsening the problem?
Err, subsidies for biofuels, which are causing the destruction of the rain forest at a far greater rate than ever before, subsidies which also reduces the supply of wheat for food to the third world causing millions of deaths and the billions spent on AGW which reduces the amount of Dollars available for aid to the third world.
Peter, show any evidence of actual benefit gained to the human race from the billions that have already been spent(wasted) in the name of saving the planet.
Peter, take a months holiday in Darfur and live on what those poor sods live on, you might then change your mind on whether AGW is actually important to your or anyone else’s life and whether any more dollars should be spent(wasted)on it.
Welcome back, BobClive – with a bang!
The bushfires just north of Melbourne have just killed at least 108. That’s the figure at the time of writing. There are many badly burned victims who may not survive and some who have yet to be found.
I’m sure that Melbourne has its fair share of climate sceptics, but it will be some time before they can use the sort of pathetic argument along the lines of ‘we’ve got 3 feet of snow here today in place X therefore AGW is all a big hoax. And Al Gore is a big fat liar too!’
The only sensible reply is to advise these writers to look at the long term figures and no doubt that is what climate sceptics will be telling us now, about the recent Melbourne heatwave which broke all previous records with recorded temperatures of 46.4 deg C or 115.5 deg F.
However the long term figures, don’t support a contrarian argument either, with a warming for Melbourne of 0.3 degC/decade since 1950
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/fire-down-below/#comment-28428. Temperatures are now, on average, some 1.5 degC higher than they were then.
Neither is this much out of line with global land temperature changes:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A4.lrg.gif
So while no-one can say, with absolute certainty, that AGW caused the Melbourne fires, we can say that increased temperatures have increased the likelihood of these fires breaking out and have contributed to their being more dangerous and harder to control when they do.
BobClive,
I’ve only just noticed your comment about Darfur.
Incidentally, the region just south of the Sahara is suffering more than most from climatic problems. Billions wasted on climatic mitigation? So how many would that be? You are right about bio-fuels. That’s happened as a result of lobbying by agri-business interests who are more concerned with their profit margins than the state of the climate.
But, even if you include their subsidies as part of climate mitigation efforts, which I, of course, would strongly object to, the total figure is really neither here nor there, in comparison to the trillions of dollars which are wasted on unnecessary armament spending.
Hi Peter,
To my amazement (and amusement) you wrote (12), “I’m sure that Melbourne has its fair share of climate sceptics, but it will be some time before they can use the sort of pathetic argument along the lines of ‘we’ve got 3 feet of snow here today in place X therefore AGW is all a big hoax. And Al Gore is a big fat liar too!”
So while no-one can say, with absolute certainty, that AGW caused the Melbourne fires, we can say that increased temperatures have increased the likelihood of these fires breaking out and have contributed to their being more dangerous and harder to control when they do.”
Correct, Peter. “No-one can say” with any kind of certainty “that we’ve got a lot of fires here today in place X (Melbourne) therefore AGW caused or contributed to these fires”.
And, yes, quite independently from these fires, Nobel-Prize winner, Al Gore is a certified “big liar” (which certainly has nothing to do with the Melbourne area fires). Looks like some idiot arsonist may have caused them.
But, Peter, it is absolutely certain that AGW had nothing to do with it.
Or do you maybe have another opinion on this?
If so, please elaborate.
Regards,
Max
Hi Peter,
To my amazement (and amusement) you wrote in your #7, “What about changing the title to something like “How many people has ‘climate change’ killed and how many will it kill in future years?”
Then you added (#12), “I’m sure that Melbourne has its fair share of climate sceptics, but it will be some time before they can use the sort of pathetic argument along the lines of ‘we’ve got 3 feet of snow here today in place X therefore AGW is all a big hoax. And Al Gore is a big fat liar too!”
So while no-one can say, with absolute certainty, that AGW caused the Melbourne fires, we can say that increased temperatures have increased the likelihood of these fires breaking out and have contributed to their being more dangerous and harder to control when they do.”
Absolutely correct, Peter. “No-one can say” with any kind of certainty “that we’ve got a lot of fires here today in place X (Melbourne) therefore AGW caused these fires”. In fact, to say so would be absurd.
And, yes, quite independently from these fires, Nobel-Prize winner, Al Gore is a certified “big liar” (which certainly has nothing to do with the Melbourne area fires). Looks like some idiot arsonist caused them.
But, Peter, it is absolutely certain that AGW had nothing to do with these fires.
You really stepped into a hornets’ nest with your silly statement “What about changing the title to something like “How many people has ‘climate change’ killed and how many will it kill in future years?”
Indur Goklany has made a study of annual death rates from extreme weather events over the period 1990-2004, as compared to the period 1900-1989.
http://members.cox.net/goklany/Extreme%20Events%20Note%20Hohenkammer.pdf
For droughts the report shows (annual related deaths):
1900-1980: 111,185 deaths per year
1990-2004: 126 deaths per year
On p.18 Goklany states “Aggregate annual mortality rates owing to extreme weather events have declined between 95 and 99 percent, respectively, since the 1920s regardless of whether the frequencies, intensities and/or durations of extreme weather events have increased (or not) due to human-induced or natural climate change.”
No clear link between deaths and AGW here, Peter. Just a lot of BS and hype.
To try to link the current Melbourne heat wave and fire problem to AGW is absurd, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Max,
There’s nothing much to be amused about. The death toll is now 131 and expected to rise higher.
If you can argue that there is no connection between CO2 levels and global warming, I suppose its just another step to argue that, in turn there is no connection between higher temperatures and the outbreak of bushfires.
The real point is that Melbourne’s climate has warmed by 1.5 deg C between 1950 and the present time. Notwithstanding arguments about arsonists, who certainly do deserve whatever the legal system might dish out to them, the disaster in Victoria does underscore the objections to letting climate change just happen.
There are those who can’t see beyond the desirability of having slightly warmer weather in their locality. I would suggest that, instead, they might want to think about moving to somewhere like Victoria, Australia.
Peter:
What has happened in the Melbourne area over the last few days is a tragedy, and I am sure that we all feel sympathy for the victims, and for all Australians at a time of national shock and grief.
The immediate aftermath of such events is not the time to attempt to make rational judgements about their wider implications.
In July 2007, the English West Country experienced serious flooding that was generally hailed, by those who have an interest in such things, as incontrovertible evidence of AGW. Some commentators did look at the problem more rationally, but their voices were, of course, ignored in the general welter of hype as the MSM pursued a very big story. In the following March, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), not a body that is in any way associated with climate scepticism or donations from Exxon, produced a report that showed that there was no reason to suppose that there was any connection between these events and climate change, either anthropogenic or natural.
The conclusions that you are jumping to are very obvious ones, but I doubt whether they will stand the test of time.
Peter: you say (#16) “the disaster in Victoria does underscore the objections to letting climate change just happen”. But climate change has been happening for billions of years and – shades of Canute – it would be absurdly arrogant of mankind to think he can stop that process now. No, it seems to me that, as so much Australian woodland consists of species such as eucalypts that need fire for their reproductive cycle – therefore shedding highly combustible material – it’s letting fire “just happen” that probably the real problem. I believe that Captain Cook noted the way aboriginal peoples managed fire and that those running your national parks fully understand the need for regular controlled burning: as this dreadful experience demonstrates, unburned brush and woodland is appallingly dangerous. I suspect it will prove to be the failure of the authorities to fully recognise and act on this – not arsonists and certainly not AGW – that is the root cause of this (not unprecedented) disaster.
You may recall how the warmists rushed to blame New Orleans’s Katrina disaster on AGW when the real culprit turned out to be failure to provide adequate protection from a well-understood natural event. And TonyN provides a similar example (#17) from the UK.
Hi Peter,
You opined, “the disaster in Victoria does underscore the objections to letting climate change just happen”.
Climate change has been “just happening” since this planet got an atmosphere.
It will continue to “just happen”, locally, regionally and globally no matter what we do to try to stop it.
Human CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with the Melbourne heat wave or the fires there.
In this case, it looks like arson is suspected as the cause for at least some of the fires.
If you can show me a reasoned “cause and effect” argument that quantitatively and irrevocably shows that human CO2 emissions caused the Victoria fires, please bring it.
Otherwise, I would advise against making such silly statements.
Regards,
Max
It’s interesting to consider what would be happening now if by some kind of magic, CO2 levels had been stuck at around 280 ppm since 1700. Would there still be hurricanes and heat waves happening in the world? Common sense suggests there would, also that people would still be dying in climate-related tragedies (although this is obviously impossible to quantify.)
Taking a look at Europe in the 18th century, for instance, we have the Great Storm of 1703, which appears to have killed thousands in England alone, to the “Hot Tuesday” heat wave in England in 1707, when both humans and animals are said to have died from heat stroke, to the Great Frost of 1709, which was said to have been the coldest winter for 500 years and caused famine in France, to the record European heat wave of 1757.
In terms of extreme climate events, and at 280 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, would the 20th and early 21st centuries have been some sort of “Goldilocks Climatic Optimum” (never too hot, too cold, too rainy, etc.) or would they have more closely resembled their historical selves? I suspect the latter, although obviously this cannot be proved.
By the way, slightly OT maybe, but I was in Asda at the weekend and glanced through New Scientist mag; found an article about extreme climate events of the past, which may be of interest & have now located it online here (note Dennis Wheeler’s comments near the end.)
Hi Peter,
You brought up an interesting suggestion that the tragedy occurring over the last few days in the Melbourne area is somehow related to AGW. Let’s analyze this suggestion more closely.
Observations:
1. Victoria is experiencing devastating fires with record loss of lives and property.
2. Melbourne has registered an all-time record high temperature of around 46C.
Premise: These two local events are a direct result of global warming caused by human CO2 emissions.
In order to test this premise, we must first establish that there has been a recent trend of increased record high temperatures on a global scale.
IPCC refers to the period beginning around 1976 as the time frame within which anthropogenic global warming really began to accelerate, so let’s use 1976 as the break point for testing the premise.
If the premise is valid, there would have to be more record high temperatures on a global scale after 1976 than there were before.
The highest recorded temperatures for the entire world and by geographical regions all occurred before 1976. With the exception of Antarctica (1974) they all occurred before 1943.
The longest recorded hot spell in the world (38C or more for 162 consecutive days) occurred at Marble Bar, W. Australia from 30 October 1923 to 7 April 1924.
So the actual facts do not support the premise that the record high temperature in Victoria (or even less, the current fires) are a direct result of global warming, let alone that these are caused by human CO2 emissions.
Sorry, Peter.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/MichaelLevin.shtml
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001375.html
Despite these facts, researchers at the UK Meteorological (Met) Office’s Hadley Centre in Exeter, England, are “predicting a succession of record-breaking high temperatures in the most detailed forecast of global warming’s impact on weather around the world”.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/08/11/int8.htm
Hadley continues its abysmal “actual versus forecast hit rate”.
The statement by Professor Phil Jones, director of the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia, England, shows just how far the Hadley climatologists are removed from reality: “A number of the sceptics are saying there’s no warming because they look at the temperature record and see a peak in 1998 and cooler years after that. But we know the peak was because of an El Nino event and that comes out in this forecast.”
It’s the old “my forecast was correct, except for…(i.e. what really happened)” line.
Peter, don’t confuse hype that is published in Hadley press releases with actual facts. The two have nothing to do with one another.
And the current tragedy in Victoria has nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.
Regards,
Max
There will be a Royal Commission of investigation into the recent fires in Victoria, apparently with a remit to investigate every possible aspect which may have contributed to the large loss of life. Lets see what their report is.
I think Brute had a go at making a similar argument to Max about record temperatures in general. The accuracy of many of these older records is questionable for several reasons. For instance they were carried out manually and at irregular intervals. The calibration of thermometers wasn’t as accurate. There was little or no standardisation of specifications on the ventilation, shading and location of equipment housings.
It really isn’t surprising that many of the claimed records for both high and low temperatures date from the earlier years of the 20th century.
That isn’t to say that all data from the early 20th century is totally useless as some would like to disingenuously claim. Nevertheless the larger error margins associated with them, do have to be taken into account.
Hi Peter,
You make a good point about pre-1976 temperature records being slightly more suspect than those after 1976.
But the statistic is so overwhelming (i.e. NO global or regional record highs after 1976), that it gives a good indication that there has NOT been a higher incidence of record highs after 1976 than before.
And that was my point.
And that is also why it is unlikely that the all-time record high local temperature at Melbourne has nothing to do with global warming or human CO2 emissions.
Regards,
Max
Sorry for typo: sentence should read “unlikely that the all-time record high local temperature at Melbourne has anything to do with global warming or human CO2 emissions”.
Max
Peter asked for evidence that increased spending on combating AGW is worsening the problem of human deaths from disease, hunger and other preventable causes.
TonyN made the point “as long as we prioritize the ‘campaign against climate change’, mortality from preventable causes are likely fall more slowly than otherwise as resources are diverted elsewhere”.
Bjorn Lomborg has been stating this for some time in his books and articles. In an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal last July, he picked some of the major campaigns requiring large-scale funding and prioritized these based on return on investment.
Global warming mitigation came out the most expensive with the lowest return on investment.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1171/3267841408_4e92614aed_b.jpg
(Lomborg reiterated this point in a recent debate with Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute on CNN, which some of you may have seen.)
Had Lomborg compared only “human lives saved per $ invested” his chart would still have looked the same, but with an even lower “return on investment” for global warming mitigation.
Max