July 20, 2013 at 12:48 pm Raw numbers of people killed by each type of hazard are only step 1. Now show us the steps you propose we take to alleviate each one, and be sure to show their costs per year of life expectancy saved, especially costs in lives. EPA’s clean air regulations, for instance, kill thousands every year by forcing people into smaller cars where they are more likely to die in wrecks. That dwarfs any believable number saved by the reduction in emissions.The Clean Air Act regulations controlling air pollution were introduced from 1970 onwards. Here is a chart showing deaths by motor vehicle accident in the USA, relative to the total population. (Click for larger version).
 |
| Source: Wikipedia |
I'm a bit short of time today, otherwise I'd be looking into the main article by Lomborg. It's a promo for a new book of his, and a chapter by Richard Tol. It looks as if he's arguing "either/or" on reducing air pollution vs minimising global warming. And arguing that global warming in the form of weather disasters won't (directly) kill too many people so we shouldn't do anything about it. I expect there's more in his book.
The reaction from WUWT is underwhelming. Mostly of the nature "we don't believe xyz" or "give them more air pollution by way of burning coal".
Hope to have more time later in the week. Meantime, here is a link to the Global Burden of Disease program that is quoted by Lomborg (without a link). It's a mine of information with oodles of data presented in all sorts of clever ways.
