Carbon Dioxide Pollution: Silent but Deadly?
Sun, Jan 6, 2008
A Stanford University study has linked carbon dioxide emissions with hundreds of premature deaths in the US every year.
Photo from the Climatic Research Unit
The 700 to 800 deaths which study author Mark Jacobson, a Civil and Environmental Engineering Professor at Stanford, attributed to carbon dioxide pollution were lung and heart ailments linked to polluting particles and ozone in the air, themselves generally thought to be the result of human produced CO2.
Jacobson also predicted a rise in carbon dioxide pollution related deaths as the world’s carbon emissions continue to rise. A death toll of 1000 people per year in the US due to carbon dioxide pollution is predicted if global temperatures rise 1.8°F. Jacobson said the worldwide death toll would be over 20,000 should the planet reach that temperature, which is predicted within 100 years by some climate change scientists.
This is the first study specifically linking human produced greenhouse gases to human deaths. Jacobson’s study employed a computer model using data from the Environmental Protection Agency and found that the impact of carbon dioxide pollution was far greater in densely populated and polluted areas.
Jacobson said his research had important implications for California in the wake of the EPA’s decision to reject the state’s bid to pass more stringent regulations on car manufacturers. He said: “Of the additional … deaths per year due to ozone and particles … about 30 percent of those occurred in California, which has 12 percent of the (U.S.) population [and six of the ten most polluted cities in the country]. So it was pretty clear … that climate change was affecting Californians’ health disproportionately to its population.”
Jacobson’s research was not available for the EPA to review before it rejected California’s bid, but he said he makes many points in the study that address issues the EPA raised in denying the bid.
Although the report could be interpreted, and doubtless will be by some, as climate change fear mongering, Jacobson displayed a sense of perspective seen more and more rarely in the scientific community these days when he releasing his work. He pointed out that the deaths caused by CO2 related pollution are a tiny percentage of worldwide premature deaths, and even pale in comparison to the number of premature deaths caused by air pollution in general. Air pollution is thought to result in between 50,000 and 100,000 early deaths in America every year and between 1.5 and 2 million throughout the world.
Jacobson’s study has not yet been published, but will appear in the next publication of Geophysical Research Letters. You can view the study in PDF form on the Stanford website here or via Jacobson’s Stanford web page.
If you want to keep up with the growing list of things scientists are saying will kill you, why not subcribe to our RSS feed, we’ll even throw in a free album.
1 Trackbacks For This Post
-
Carbon Dioxide Pollution: Silent but Deadly? | The Head-On Radio Network America's Liberal Voice! Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 8:36 am[...] Although the report could be interpreted, and doubtless will be by some, as climate change fear mongering, Jacobson displayed a sense of perspective seen more and more rarely in the scientific community these days when he releasing his work. He pointed out that the deaths caused by CO2 related pollution are a tiny percentage of worldwide premature deaths, and even pale in comparison to the number of premature deaths caused by air pollution in general. Air pollution is thought to result in between 50,000 and 100,000 early deaths in America every year and between 1.5 and 2 million throughout the world. -More> [...]
Popular Posts
| Russian restaurants London Read up on Russian restaurants in London and see which ones are worth trying out... |
January 6th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
This is just another example of the silliness surrounding climate change.
Lets give a run down of the insane claims that are being made in the name of clmate change science.
Warmer, temperatures, colder temperatures, droubt, floods, increased hurricanes, less hurricanes, more earthquakes, less earthquakes, melting of icecaps, increases in icecaps, more volcanic eruptions, less volcanic eruptions, less deaths, more deaths, increased crop yields, decreased crop yeilds.
Where does the nonsense end?
January 8th, 2008 at 12:11 am
January 8th, 2008 at 12:16 am
GlowWarmingSkeptic, I agree with you that there is a lot of silliness on both sides, but right now current evidence suggests that Climate Change is a fact be it mainly Man Made, nature or both. We have to do something about it, and not be like the bible belt nutters and hope that a modern Noah will come along. We are the Noah’s and we have to do something about it. From turning off electricity when its not been used/needed through to changing our lifestyles.
Otherwise its hope that we grow fins, and lots of blubber… that is if we don’t poison the seas.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:26 am
This is laughable. I challenge the Mark Jacobson to produce a chain of reasoning linking atmospheric CO2 to health ailments. This link is claimed but unsupported.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:20 am
I fear this article gives entirely the wrong impression about the study. Jacobson’s study says an increase in carbon dioxide is hazardous not because CO2 is toxic, as some might interpret the article and headline, but because of the effect carbon dioxide has on the weather: the greenhouse effect. More CO2 means an increase in temperature and water vapor. This, he has determined in his study, causes an increase in ozone low in the atmosphere and other particulate matter (both natural and industrial) which is hazardous to health. Simply put, he found that global warming, caused by CO2, makes air quality worse. Anyone who has been outside in a city on a hot, muggy, day has experienced this themselves.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:53 am
“GlowWarmingSkeptic”, Claiming that humans do not have an effect on the environment is foolish and naive. The Earth is a closed system- we are having an effect on it. The only question is how much?
Personally, I don’t think definitive evidence/proof of climate change is necessary, relevant or important. What reason do we have NOT to hold ourselves to a higher standard where systems are designed and engineered to be efficient and green?
January 8th, 2008 at 11:28 am
The article is only a news-oriented layman’s summary of the results. The actual study can be found via the links at the end of the article. It has a lot of facts to back up the statements. Tens of thousands of scientists, a few of whom I know, have reviewed climate models and predictions carefully for years now. It is hard for the non-professional to graps the mathematics let alone the meteorology and climate science, but it seems to me to be a good idea to listen to 20,000 scientists. They did not set out to create a problem, it was the facts, including a few visible to the public, that thrust the scientific community into the analyses like this one, to determine how exactly we are affecting our home, Planet Earth.
January 8th, 2008 at 11:46 am
All types of co2 making machines must be turned off to save the world there can be no carbon trading between countries that is just moving the carbon around to make it look less but is not all co2 making machines must be shut down all around the world an must happen now not in 5 years time it will be to late you can’t try to slow it down it is beyond that now our greed will not let this happen ask yourself can you stop wanting the latest hot item not many will be able to .
January 8th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Turn off all CO2 emmitters? I’d like to see you try turning off all the volcanoes and cows. Humans account for a small percentage of global CO2. If you want to work on pollution, that’s fine. Let’s start with China and India. Chinese sulfur dioxide is causing acid rain to fall here in the Pacific NW.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
i have to agree with techwoman. I don’t actually think banning co2 emissions, from any source much less all sources, is feasible or even a good idea.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Climate change and global warming are facts that we can’t stop but may be we can slow them down a little bit. We
can’t just get rid of all co2 sources over night. Cars and factories are the main co2 sources, the search for cleaner fuel other than fossil fuel is still going and one day we will see our vehicles running with no co2 emission.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
I have to agree with the fact that we cannot discuss about climate change, CO2 emissions, global warming without even knowing what is climate. The problem is more complex than some people want to admit. The climate is influenced by so many factors that we cannot say for sure if we influence climate in any way, or if our influence is important in the general context.
I have to admit that human CO2 emissions has a negative influence on the health but i am not really sure about climate. We have to change our way of living, creating more energy efficient machines and CO2 free but this is technological evolution.
You should have a look at http://www.whatisclimate.com to learn more about climate.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:18 am
I think we all need to read information and take it with a grain of salt but realize that there’s probably some truth to it. No doubt Global Warming is real and when it comes to our children and their health it is more real. That’s why we should all be using green cleaners and caring about the our health and the earth.
http://www.greenandcleanmom.blogspot.com
January 31st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Did anyone notice that Mark Jacobson made a subble shift between carbon dioxide and co2. Carbon dioxide is deadly and co2 is not. His majic play on words with the implication that co2 is the kill will not hold up to scientific peer review. It is time that everyone looks for the real science and ask if such information will hold up with real scientific review. If all of these alarmist claims are not chalenged we are headed down the road to the latest form of fascism where the “greens” who have the agenda of destroying modern civilization and reducing the world population drastically will be in control.