More carbon emissions will kill more people; here's how many
Research News Release
EurekAlert! provides eligible reporters with free access to embargoed and breaking news releases.Eligibility Guidelines
EurekAlert! offers eligible public information officers paid access to a reliable news release distribution service.Eligibility Guidelines
EurekAlert! is a service of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
A just-published study coins a new metric: the "mortality cost of carbon." That is, how many future lives will be lost--or saved--depending on whether we increase or decrease our current carbon emissions. If the numbers hold up, they are quite high.
Climate change is exacerbating human-wildlife conflicts by straining ecosystems and altering behaviors, both of which can deepen the contacts -- and potential competition -- between people and animals. In an article published July 30 in the journal Science, Briana Abrahms, a University of Washington assistant professor of biology, calls for expanding research into the many ways that climate change will impact the complex interplay between human activities and wildlife populations.
Hundreds of thousands of people around the world die too soon every year because of exposure to air pollution caused by our daily use of chemical products and fuels, including paints, pesticides, charcoal and gases from vehicle tailpipes, according to a new University of Colorado Boulder-led study.
In 2019, a coalition of more than 11,000 scientists from across the globe declared a climate emergency and established a set of vital signs for the Earth in order to measure effective climate action. Now, twenty months later, a new study published today in BioScience finds that those indicators -- including ice and forest loss, ocean acidity, and global temperatures -- reflect the consequences of unrelenting "business-as-usual" on climate change.
In a year marked by unprecedented flooding, deadly avalanches, and scorching heat waves and wildfires, the climate emergency's enormous cost--whether measured in lost resources or human lives--is all too apparent. Writing in BioScience, a group led by William J. Ripple and Christopher Wolf, both with Oregon State University, update their striking 2019 "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency" with new data on the climate's health. The news is not good.
Twenty months after declaring a climate emergency and establishing a set of vital signs for the Earth, a coalition headed by two Oregon State University researchers says the updated vital signs "largely reflect the consequences of unrelenting business as usual."
A study by researchers at the Texas A&M University School of Public Health shows that inexpensive and convenient devices such as silicone wristbands can be used to yield quantitative air quality data, which is particularly appealing for periods of susceptibility such as pregnancy.
Similar to the election needle and the stock market index, scientists have developed a new tracking system to detect danger to rainforests around the world. The data to build the index was culled from advanced satellite measurements of climate and vegetation of each tropical region on Earth.
Many species within Kenya's Tana River Basin will be unable to survive if global temperatures continue to rise as they are on track to do - according to new research from the University of East Anglia. A new study published in the journal PLOS ONE outlines how remaining within the goals of the Paris Agreement would save many species. The research also identifies places that could be restored to better protect biodiversity and contribute towards global ecosystem restoration targets.
About six gigatons -- roughly 12 times the mass of all living humans -- of carbon appears to be emitted over land every year, according to data from the Chinese Global Carbon Dioxide Monitoring Scientific Experimental Satellite (TanSat).