A chilling new study from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry has quantified the devastating human toll of climate change, projecting that 30 million people could die by the end of the century due to air pollution and extreme temperatures. Using advanced numerical simulations, researchers assessed the mortality impacts of these interconnected threats, painting a stark picture of a future where the consequences of inaction could become insurmountable.  

 

"In 2000, around 1.6 million people died each year due to extreme temperatures, both cold and heat," explained Dr. Andrea Pozzer, the study’s lead researcher. "By the end of the century, in the most probable scenario, this figure climbs to 10.8 million, roughly a seven-fold increase."  

 

Air pollution, another deadly byproduct of climate change, also presents a grim trajectory. "In 2000, annual deaths from air pollution were about 4.1 million," Dr. Pozzer added. "By the century's close, this number rises to 19.5 million, a five-fold increase."  

 

These findings arrive in the wake of a United Nations report warning that the planet is on track for a catastrophic 3.1°C of warming by the century's end unless urgent action is taken. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute analyzed data spanning from 2000 to 2090 in 10-year intervals, revealing that the global death toll will vary significantly by region.  

 

South and East Asia are expected to bear the brunt of these mortality rates, driven by aging populations and the persistent impact of air pollution. However, high-income regions, including Western Europe, North America, and Australasia, face a different risk profile. In these areas, deaths linked to extreme temperatures are predicted to surpass those caused by air pollution, a shift already visible in countries like the United States, England, France, Japan, and New Zealand.  

 

This trend is also expected to extend to Central and Eastern Europe, particularly in countries like Poland and Romania, as well as parts of South America, including Argentina and Chile. By 2100, extreme temperatures are projected to pose a greater health risk than air pollution for a fifth of the global population.  

 

"Climate change is not just an environmental issue; it is a direct threat to public health," emphasized Dr. Pozzer. His sentiment was echoed by Jean Sciare, director of the Climate and Atmosphere Research Center at The Cyprus Institute, who warned, "These findings highlight the critical importance of implementing decisive mitigation measures now to prevent future loss of life."  

 

The UN's recent emissions report further underscores the urgency of the situation. According to the report, the world is teetering on a dangerous precipice, with temperature increases of 2.6°C to 3.1°C likely if nations fail to fulfill their climate action promises.  

 

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres painted a stark picture of humanity’s precarious position, stating, "The world is teetering on a planetary tightrope. Either leaders bridge the emissions gap, or we plunge headlong into climate disaster – with the poorest and most vulnerable suffering the most."  

 

The sobering message from scientists and policymakers alike is clear: without swift and comprehensive action, the toll of climate change on human lives will only continue to grow, demanding an unprecedented global mobilization to avert catastrophe.  

 

Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-11-23

 

 

 

Good. To much people on this planet.

1 minute ago, chipperPDU said:

Good. To much people on this planet.

 

Never bred children?

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres painted a stark picture of humanity’s precarious position, stating, "The world is teetering on a planetary tightrope. Either leaders bridge the emissions gap, or we plunge headlong into climate disaster – with the poorest and most vulnerable suffering the most."  

 

Plugging the woke propaganda. The big conference in Brazil just ended with the usual suspects complaining that "rich" nations only pledged 250 billion $ and not the trillion they wanted. IMO it's all a huge scam intended to make wealthy nations give ( no conditions ) lotsacash which would IMO end up in certain pockets.

So far, they have been a bit lacking in exactly how they want the money to be spent. Perhaps that is because they have no idea.

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Plugging the woke propaganda. The big conference in Brazil just ended with the usual suspects complaining that "rich" nations only pledged 250 billion $ and not the trillion they wanted. IMO it's all a huge scam intended to make wealthy nations give ( no conditions ) lotsacash which would IMO end up in certain pockets.

So far, they have been a bit lacking in exactly how they want the money to be spent. Perhaps that is because they have no idea.

 

Sure it is. I heard they were going to buy heroin with the money and distribute it to poor countries. See how this works?

Edited November 22, 20241 yr by pattayasan

3 minutes ago, chipperPDU said:

Good. To much people on this planet.

Agree. Strangely ( not really ), the usual suspects never bring up overpopulation as a major driver of man made pollution.

 

IMO it's just Gaia culling a species that has been very bad for the planet.

All this "renewable energy" talk is only rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it slips beneath the icy waters.

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Agree. Strangely ( not really ), the usual suspects never bring up overpopulation as a major driver of man made pollution.

 

IMO it's just Gaia culling a species that has been very bad for the planet.

All this "renewable energy" talk is only rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it slips beneath the icy waters.

 

Overpopulation is always acknowledged as a main drive of pollution. What is also acknowledged (and understood) is that burning fossil fuels and the release of methane is the overwhelming driver of climate change.

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

The sobering message from scientists and policymakers alike is clear: without swift and comprehensive action, the toll of climate change on human lives will only continue to grow, demanding an unprecedented global mobilization to avert catastrophe.  

 

As usual, nothing about WHAT should be done. I suspect they have discovered they have a cushy job that every so often they get to junket around the world and gob at each other in some exotic location, all at taxpayer expense, and all they have to do is put out a statement without any specifics, demanding loadsacash without any indication of why they need so much or what it would be spent on. Who wouldn't want a job like that?

 

At the Brazil conference, one of the highlights for myself was the spectacle of a man from India no less ( one of the most polluting countries on the planet ) complaining that 250 billion $ wasn't enough  for "rich nations" to cough up for the scam. Hand over a trillion $ and hey presto, wave a wand and the weather would go back to 1950s, or something like that.

 

For the benefit of the humour bereft, there is a liberal dose of sarcasm in that.

17 minutes ago, pattayasan said:

 

Never bred children?

Don't know about him, but I happily avoided having brats children. Never a regret for it either.

Oh no.

Were all gonna die thread. yawn,  

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

"By the end of the century,

Not need to wait that long ... it is accelerating every year ...

 

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

the consequences of inaction could become insurmountable.  

 

Radical action should have been taken at least 20 years ago .

At that time , there was still hope that the worst could be avoided by immediately reducing pollution and waste .

Now , it is too late .

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

Either leaders bridge the emissions gap, or we plunge headlong into climate disaster – with the poorest and most vulnerable suffering the most."

 

The " Leaders " have proven being incapable .

Money and power is what motivates them , the rest is just blabla ...

Climate change, AKA weather!

Don't think any humans will be around by 2100.

10 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Radical action should have been taken at least 20 years ago .

well, better late than never.

some radical measures appear to be on the horizon.

 

according to this prediction, self-driving cars may reduce the number of cars on the road by as much as 90%.

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/driverless-cars-urban-mobility-and-toronto-s-gardiner-expressway/1070806/

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

Air pollution, another deadly byproduct of climate change, also presents a grim trajectory. "In 2000, annual deaths from air pollution were about 4.1 million," Dr. Pozzer added. "By the century's close, this number rises to 19.5 million, a five-fold increase."  

Chances are there will be 2 billion more people on the planet by then, maybe climate change should be connected to population control and the banning of people having more than 2 children in a family. That would help far more

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

A chilling new study from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry has quantified the devastating human toll of climate change, projecting that 30 million people could die by the end of the century due to air pollution and extreme temperatures.

 

30 million? Is that all?  Come on fear propagandists you can do so much better than that.   Take a leaf out of the Neil Ferguson book of fear propaganda for examples such as this classic.  

 

"Bird flu pandemic 'could kill 150m'

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/30/birdflu.jamessturcke

 

Actual number it killed....282 people worldwide.  

Good!

too many people on the planet anyway.

I acknowledge that climate change may be an issue. What i dont agree with is shaming westerners when our countries are already green

Note that Germany has reopened power stations burning lignite, or brown coal, the fuel that produces the most carbon dioxide, as a result of that country’s successful campaign by anti nuclear green activists to shut down Germany’s nuclear power plants.

Deadly Forecast: How Climate Change Could Claim 30 Million Lives by 2100.

 

More like a Deathly Scam to get Trillions of Dollars to  Line some pockets and fight a Natural Phenomenon . 

One can't fight Nature . 

Stop Scare Mongering .

Some people  must get paid to Scare Monger  the public.

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

well, better late than never.

some radical measures appear to be on the horizon.

 

according to this prediction, self-driving cars may reduce the number of cars on the road by as much as 90%.

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/driverless-cars-urban-mobility-and-toronto-s-gardiner-expressway/1070806/

 

Another fake article. What has driverless to do with this?

 

In the first scenario, they combined their TaxiBots and AutoVots with public transit (light rail) and discovered that the same number of people could be moved around with only 10% of the cars currently on the road. That’s a 90% reduction!

 

You don't need driverless cars for that, the exact same is possible with the cars today

7 hours ago, chipperPDU said:

Good. To much people on this planet.

 

But it is often the Poorest and Most Vulnerable that are hit first and worst while they are consuming much less energy and other resources than those in the first world.

 

Those who are guilty for the cause of the drastic climatic changes are usually better protected by their location and available options to reduce its impact, due to their size of economy.

 

In other words, the responsible often survives while the innocent dies.

 

12 hours ago, Social Media said:

projecting that 30 million people could die by the end of the century

 

That won't be nearly enough to solve the planet's over population crisis. 

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Don't know about him, but I happily avoided having brats children. Never a regret for it either.

You probably couldn't find a partner willing to bear your child.

You seem to be doing all the far right heavy lifting since your tag partner Yadada or whatever her moniker is seems to have suffered burnout.

On subject, I understand the hypocrisy in hundreds of luxury aircraft landing at beautiful destinations around the world to discuss climate change and pollution when the technology is available for conferencing in their own countries on line in real time thereby reducing their carbon footprints.

 

Man-made thermo-nuclear global warming (then a mini-ice age) will happen well before 2100.

Could, but won't. 😉

 

 

Like we know how anything will be in 2030 let alone 2100. They really need to just stop doing this. 

The world economics are in trouble, and yet some countries are

taking in refugees that have to be housed, fed and taken care of,

as they do not talk the language of the country and cannot work to

earn their own money. This puts a strain on the country and its population.

  Then some rich countries are taking their tax payer money to send it

to some climate organization to help poor countries, when the rich country has its own homeless 

people as well as refugees and immigrants. IMO 

Ok. some data.

 

CO2 levels have risen by about 60 ppm in the last 25 years, or about 17%. At the current rate, that means 600 ppm by 2100 and 1000 ppm ppm before 2200.  At  1,000 ppm breathing starts getting difficult and strenuous activity becomes difficult.  

 

Methane (CH4) - the second greatest cause of warming - this tends to increase somewhat erratically - average of about 10 ppb per year, but sometimes goes down, or up by as much as 20 ppb. At the beginning of this millennium , it hardly changed over 5 years but then shot up again. 40% of methane comes from natural sources (typically wetlands) and 60% is caused by man. Agriculture is responsible for 50% of man made methane, but in reality reducing such emissions is problematic - lower productivity and if land is returned to nature it would still emit some methane, The main non-agricultural source is fossil fuel extraction - and fracking is a big source. The Obama administration made cutting methane releases a legal requirement, but the fossil fuel industry in USA objected - and legal requirements were reduced or scrapped under Trump. Fracking and lack of methane emission controls may be behind the current surge.

Finally, the genie in the bottle - methane release from frozen Tundra and methane clathrate could rise rapidly as the arctic warms up. If all the methane was released, we would see temperatures rocket to levels which would cause a global extinction event (think Permian extinction).

 

Climate change (i.e. weather). The world is already experiencing more extreme weather events - category 5 Hurricanes, more intense rainfall (Spain recently experienced this, over 200 people dead and massive damage to infrastructure), droughts and heatwaves. This will damage agriculture, infrastructure and cost lives. These events are already causing billions of dollars in losses every year, maybe one trillion will be peanuts in the future.

 

So no complacency please.

 

Sea level rise - ok, only about 3 mm a year - doesn't sound like much. As water warms it expands, and of course ice sheets and glaciers melt faster. But slowly it increases rates of coastal erosion - we need more coast defences, or managed retreat - both cost money.

 

These are just direct effects. The synergy between the different elements may cause unexpected, or shall we say undesired outcomes - mass migration, war, new or growing disease outbreaks.