Climate Change is the Big 2020 Issue

[Jamie in Chile]

Total Deaths
So far in 2020 we tragically have 340,000 reported COVID-19 deaths, and could reach 1 million. Some people are dying of COVID-19 without being tested so it could be more like 2 million.
According to the DARA intergovernmental body (in the report Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of a Hot Planet), the number of people that died because of climate change was 400,000 in 2010, mostly from hunger and disease. Two other reports in the last few years (one was a UN report) came to very similar conclusions.

However, the effect of 2020 emissions is largely deferred to future years. Keeping annual climate change related deaths to the same level as 2010 is the very optimistic, best case.

The worst case would be if most (say 7 billion) people die. This is a high emission scenario where we don’t cut current emissions, and emit 4 trillion tonnes of CO2e from 2020 to 2100, on top of the about 2 trillion we have already emitted (total 6 trillion). 2020’s share of that is about 40 or 50 billion tonnes of CO2e (1%). 1% of 7 billion is 70 million, so 70 million is the worst case of how many people will die from 2020’s emissions.

So the number of people killed by our greenhouse gases in 2020 will probably be between 400,000 – 70 million. Most likely perhaps 1 million to 10 million based on the science and modelling I’ve read about various impacts including disease, famine, war, countries becoming inhabitable etc.
Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, our 2020 greenhouse gases will likely kill more people (maybe 1-10 million) than COVID-19 will in 2020 (maybe 2 million).

Unfair Comparison
However, had COVID-19 been mostly ignored in the same way we are mostly ignoring climate change, the number of deaths might have been tens of millions.
So, allowing for that, we can say that in 2020 our greenhouse emissions and COVID-19 had/have a similar threat level.

Years of Live Lost
Climate change kills people of all ages more evenly while COVID-19 kills mostly older people. While every death is tragic, it is reasonable to say that every death from climate change will likely cause on average several times more years of life lost than a death from COVID-19. So if we estimate overall death risk from our 2020 emissions to be similar to COVID-19, then the number of years of lives lost due to our emissions is higher.

Animal Lives
The number of wild animals killed by climate change is much higher than COVID-19. One rough estimate is that 1 billion animals died in a single fire season in Australia (it cannot be said whether climate change “caused” Australia to have a very severe 2019/2020 fire season or not, only that it makes fires like this more common and/or more severe). Many other billions of animal lives will likely be lost from climate-change related ecosystem change and habitat loss.
As far as I know, COVID-19 is not having as a big effect on animal lives.

The Ocean
Our CO2 emissions are also causing ocean acidification (a hugely ignored issue) which will damage and destroy much life there. COVID-19 is only a land issue.

Collapse of Civilization
Climate change has a low to moderate risk of the total collapse of civilization (my guess is 10% or higher having reviewed opinions/predictions of climate policy experts and scientists) whereas the chance of COVID-19 causing that looks much lower to me (I think under 1%). While the possibility of the collapse of civilization has already been factored into my death estimates from climate change, the collapse of civilization would also make life much more unpleasant for the people still alive.

Extinction Risk
Climate change also has some risk of the total extinction of humanity (my guess is around 1%). This is important in the analysis of overall life lost because that means a 1% chance that all the people that would have lived in future generations (which could be trillions) would no longer do so. The death risk analysis above only includes the deaths of people that are born, not the missed opportunity to live of people who were never born, so this risk is in addition to that. A 1% risk of extinction may be at a similar level of risk to years of life lost as everyone alive today dying.
COVID-19 has no or negligible risk to cause human extinction.

Other Effects
Climate change is already destroying tropical forests, coral reefs, and polar ice caps (and may yet destroy most or all of these) which in my view have intrinsic value in their own right. COVID-19 does not have other direct effects beyond causing sickness and death.

Conclusion
Looking specifically at 2020, climate change is more serious than COVID-19 (although both are obviously very serious).

Implications
Given this, specifically in 2020:
1. Politicians should be spending more time talking about and preventing climate change than COVID-19.
2. There should be a greater amount of media coverage of climate change than COVID-19.
3. People in general should talk more about climate change than COVID-19.
4. Whatever level of restrictions (of freedoms, business, travel), personal sacrifice or lifestyle change you are willing to accept to fight COVID-19 should be just as high or higher for climate change.

[Jebus]

Excellent post.

As far as I know, COVID-19 is not having as a big effect on animal lives.

I'd say Covid-19 has had a positive effect on animal lives.

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm skeptical of climate change's large effects on wild animals (in terms of suffering), because most of their natural lifespans are measures in years or tens of years meaning a large part of change is displacement of one animal by another over generations due to disproportional reproductive success. I'd be interested in seeing an analysis of this that takes that into account.

I'd say Covid-19 has had a positive effect on animal lives.

We have had many animals killed in even more cruel ways than normal, like ventilation shutdown. Because of that, this year has seen a level of gross animal suffering probably greater than any time since the mass extinction event that killed the dinosaurs. I think humanity just broke a record held for 66 million years.

[Jamie in Chile]

I suppose there are two different thing here, wild animal lives (getting better) and farm animal lives (could be worse this year).

I see your point Brimstone Salad. I think it's a bit of both. When fires caused by climate change devastate forests, that will cause immediate suffering. If the whole Amazon goes up in flames at some stage, that will cause immediate suffering. Climate change may also mean that at some stage ecosystems need to be destroyed rapidly in order to grow more food.

But also you have the temperature increases that steadily move the habitable zones, that might be more to what you are talking about. However for animals that live decades rather than years there are often substantial changes in their lifetimes.

But some animals live longer. Polar bears are probably suffering as the ice steadily melts.

[Jebus]

We have had many animals killed in even more cruel ways than normal, like ventilation shutdown.

Good point, but I still think 2020 has been overall positive.

The animals you alluded to live miserable lives and they are doomed to die anyway.

The animals in the wild who are not harmed by traffic or pollution are likely to enjoy many additional years (of relative happiness).

Also, the added human death toll means millions fewer farm animals will suffer in the future.

[brimstoneSalad]

Agreed on fires and humans clearing land due to climate change forcing us to.

Regarding habitable zones etc. I don't think it's really even an issue for animals living decades, because there's nothing stopping them from moving into other areas which we have already found they do. If all of the zones just shift *up* then nobody really gets displaced, and they're not typically shifting that fast. It could be an issue on islands and for polar bears with nowhere to go, but these make up an extremely small fraction of animals on the planet.

@Jebus they're doomed to die, yes, but there's a terrible death and then there's an unimaginably terrible death. Starving, overheating, and suffocating are above and beyond the normal horror of slaughterhouses.

I don't think this is positively affecting many wild animals. The "nature is healing" memes really only apply to a tiny fraction of animals living on the boundaries of cities, and mostly just exploration for a few macrofauna.

Also, most of the people dying are old and so would have died in a few years anyway. Plus lack of grandparents to cook and watch children may mean more fast food which very often means a larger percentage of meat which may quickly overwhelm the reduced consumption from dead people. This may end up being sustained, too, because the younger generation may not learn how to cook making sustenance on fast food unavoidable and even making transition to vegetarianism or veganism more difficult for them.

[Jamie in Chile]

Regarding habitable zones etc. I don't think it's really even an issue for animals living decades, because there's nothing stopping them from moving into other areas which we have already found they do. If all of the zones just shift *up* then nobody really gets displaced, and they're not typically shifting that fast. It could be an issue on islands and for polar bears with nowhere to go, but these make up an extremely small fraction of animals on the planet.

I think it's worse than this, according to the books I've read on climate change, including We Are the Weather Makers.

One key thing to understand is that to human beings 1-2C change as we sit in our air conditioned houses (or at least out of direct sunlight) isn't a big deal. But to animals that sit in the open sun all day, that could be enough to throw the ecosystem out of whack and be quite unpleasant.

If animals are being pushed north or south, then their habitat zones can move into an area that is currently a city, so that's not going to work out. A large portion of the habitable area of the earth is covered by cities, towns, farms, areas to grow our food and so on. So when an area that is more natural wildlife, such as a national park needs to move, it can't.

Another case is highland/lowland areas of mountains. As animals are pushed up the mountain slopes by heating, the amount of area at a given altitude diminishes, reducing the habitat. In an extreme case, the heating could cause the habitat could disappear completely.

If animals are gathered near a river or lake and that is vital to their ecosystem or just needed for a drink(or if they live in the river or lake), movement north/south isn't an option there because then they lose the lake or river access. This is doubly bad if climate change dries up lakes and rivers.

Forests can sometimes be an important part of natural ecoystems, but trees can take decades to grow. That might be too slow to react to climate change. The ecosystems just get lost.

There are also some more subtle effects regarding disease and invasive species (I can't remember the details). According to what I've read, it tends to work out always worse than you think. Nature doesn't seem to like change, and the current level of heating change is rapid compared to evolutionary time scales.

Of course, sometimes it will work out. Maybe some of the animals (at least the birds) are smart enough to work out that instead of going higher up the mountain they should head a few hundreds miles north/south and onto a bigger mountain. But these positive cases seem to be a minority.

[brimstoneSalad]

One key thing to understand is that to human beings 1-2C change as we sit in our air conditioned houses (or at least out of direct sunlight) isn't a big deal. But to animals that sit in the open sun all day, that could be enough to throw the ecosystem out of whack and be quite unpleasant.

I think you're overestimating how much time wild animals spend in the sun, or underestimating their regulation mechanisms.
Animals take shelter in forest and undergrowth where transpiration can drastically lower peak daytime temperatures, and most are primarily active in the morning and evening anyway; what warmer temperatures would do is move that active time earlier a few minutes in the morning and later in the evening. This would mean in theory a little less light for foraging, but I don't think that's the chief limiting factor (most animals have much better night vision than they need for foraging anyway for avoiding predators etc.).
In areas outside of forest (and in forests too for smaller animals), most animals have other mechanisms for regulating temperatures, such as digging burrows. Everything from rabbits to dogs do it, hooved animals seem like a rare exception. When it comes to aquatic animals, temperature varies by depth in the water and they all seem pretty good at regulating.

The oceans on the other hand I'm not sure.

If animals are being pushed north or south, then their habitat zones can move into an area that is currently a city, so that's not going to work out.

Most cities and towns are pretty small, I think it's pretty easy to move around them for the most part. Pushed into pasture where farmers will shoot them is another matter.

So when an area that is more natural wildlife, such as a national park needs to move, it can't.

I think these are outliers. You could do some statistical analysis on that looking at maps I guess.

Another case is highland/lowland areas of mountains. As animals are pushed up the mountain slopes by heating, the amount of area at a given altitude diminishes, reducing the habitat. In an extreme case, the heating could cause the habitat could disappear completely.

I think these are rare cases, and most animals aren't that altitude sensitive. An increase in altitude also means a cooler environment, so they don't have to move as far or as fast.

If animals are gathered near a river or lake and that is vital to their ecosystem or just needed for a drink(or if they live in the river or lake), movement north/south isn't an option there because then they lose the lake or river access.

Most rivers don't run perfectly East-West, and I think river animals are also going to be less sensitive because they have more opportunity to cool off and get water.

This is doubly bad if climate change dries up lakes and rivers.

That could be a problem.

Of course, sometimes it will work out. Maybe some of the animals (at least the birds) are smart enough to work out that instead of going higher up the mountain they should head a few hundreds miles north/south and onto a bigger mountain. But these positive cases seem to be a minority.

Remember we're mostly talking about long lived animals where differential reproduction isn't going to fix it.
I'm not really convinced there are that many cases where these animals would run into dead-ends. Aside from roads there's a lot of uninterrupted or barely interrupted wild space, and I don't think the amount of temperature shift is going to be as unmanageable for wildlife as you do.

I think it's humans who are going to be pretty fucked.

[PhilRisk]

Agreed on fires and humans clearing land due to climate change forcing us to.

Regarding habitable zones etc. I don't think it's really even an issue for animals living decades, because there's nothing stopping them from moving into other areas which we have already found they do. If all of the zones just shift *up* then nobody really gets displaced, and they're not typically shifting that fast. It could be an issue on islands and for polar bears with nowhere to go, but these make up an extremely small fraction of animals on the planet.

The problematic assumption you make is, that moving into another area is unproblematic and the changes are continuous. The movement speed of nature is not universal, especially for plant species. Whole ecosystems are not able to move with the speed of shifting zones. This could have quite a big impact on wildlife, because of mutual dependence in ecosystems. This is not just a problem for same small fraction, because all animals species depends upon specific ecosystems. Some can find new functional ecosystems, estimates are 20-50% of all species (animals and plants) who are endangered.

Furthermore, not only zones are shifting in a continual manner, but there could be abrupt changes on the local level e. g. by increasing extreme weather (drought, heat, precipitation, storms).

See the following reference and linked sources:
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/cons ... ion-limits
especially the linked study:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/1 ... 2158-6.pdf

[teo123]

And why do you presuppose it's reasonable to believe our CO2 emissions are what's mostly responsible for global warming? To me it seems like an unfounded assumption.
I mean, the only way we can claim that is to assume that there is a large positive feedback loop between the level of water in the atmosphere and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere that magnifies the effects of CO2 by around three times.
But the only evidence we have of that are the climate computer models, which we know are inaccurate. The vast majority of climate models predict the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the Earth will decrease over time, when satellite measurements show it has increased. If they are wrong about the role of CO2 in determining the infrared radiation from the Earth, why assume they are right about the role of CO2 in determining the temperature of the Earth?
Furthermore, the warming is basically indiscernible when you look at the temperature records, it gets lost in the noise. See this diagram, for example.
How can anybody think warming that's indiscernible when you look at the diagrams (without using statistical methods, if it would be discernable even then without satellite and far-away-sea temperature data) is going to have serious impact on the ecology?
To me it seems the only thing discussing global warming does is fueling bad policies and making people forget the real problems that are facing ecology, such as super-bacteria.