More

Climate Change's Health Costs Projected To Be Enormous

Climate Change Health Effects

First Posted: 11/07/11 05:22 PM ET Updated: 11/08/11 07:47 AM ET

A tally of lost lives and health care expenditures arising from just six recent weather-related or epidemiological events suggests that the economic toll of future climate change is likely to be even more staggering than previously thought, according to a study published Monday in the journal Health Affairs.

The analysis, conducted by a team of researchers from the Natural Resources Defense Council, the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of California, San Francisco, represents one of the most ambitious attempts to establish a uniform method for putting a price tag on the health impacts of climate change. Most previous estimates have only looked at costs associated with property losses, damage to infrastructure and other resource forfeitures.

"This is a problem with a human face," said Kim Knowlton, a senior scientist in the Health and Environment Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council and the lead author of the study. "Our prior notions about climate change damage without these costs included have been vastly underestimated."

The researchers examined morbidity and mortality data -- including expenditures for hospitalization, visits to the emergency room and other medical services -- arising from a California wildfire in 2003 and a 2006 heat wave in the same state; the 2004 hurricane season in Florida; an outbreak of West Nile virus in Louisiana in 2002; a river flood two years ago in North Dakota; and nationwide ozone pollution between 2000 and 2002.

Although none of these scenarios can be definitively linked to climate change, all six were chosen as emblematic of the types of episodes that experts expect to see more of as the planet warms. They were also selected, Knowlton said, because robust health impact data for each was available in the peer-reviewed literature.

In reviewing that data, the researchers concluded that these six events resulted in 1,689 early deaths, 8,992 hospitalizations, 21,113 emergency department visits and 734,398 outpatient visits, with estimated costs totaling more than $14 billion. Almost all of that expense -- 95 percent -- arose from the foreshortening of human life. The researchers used a valuation developed by the Environmental Protection Agency that puts the health cost of each premature death at $7.9 million. Encounters with the health care system in these six scenarios accounted for as much as $740 million.

The highest health costs were associated with ozone pollution, which tallied $6.5 billion, and the California heat wave, which came in at $5.4 billion.

Differences in how cost data was tabulated in each event and other points of variability, the authors concede, may have resulted in the tally being overestimated by as much as $9.6 billion -- or underestimated by as much as $25.6 billion. But given the expected rise in the number of heat waves, flooding, and other extreme weather- and disease-related events associated with global warming -- in addition to established projections for the impact of climate change on physical infrastructure and other non-human capital -- the study suggests that the total price tag is likely to be exponentially higher than previously thought.

Other potential expenditures -- from increased rates of food- and waterborne illnesses and lost school days for children to the costs associated with climate change's disproportionate impact on poorer communities -- also have not yet been tallied, the authors note.

"These numbers are big," Knowlton said, "and it's important that we begin to think about and address these health costs and what climate change is likely to mean for people's health."

Tabulating the potential costs of climate change to society has become an increasingly important pursuit for policy planners, particularly given the lack of global agreement on measures to combat the phenomenon, as well as the inability of the United States, the world's largest per-capita emitter of greenhouse gases, to pass domestic legislation that would begin curbing such emissions.

A 2008 analysis commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council, for example, estimated that hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy and water costs associated with global warming could cost as much as $1.9 trillion annually by the end of the century. Various other studies, including one by the British economist Nicholas Stern, have put the potential cost at anywhere between 1 percent and 5 percent of the total national product of all countries, or the gross world product, which is currently estimated to be just over $63 trillion.

The authors of the current study suggested that the costs could be reduced through policies aimed at ensuring adequate preparation -- heat wave warning systems at the community and workplace level, for example, or reductions in ozone-contributing pollution.

Currently, 13 U.S. states have established specific public health measures as part of wider climate change adaptation plans. Last week, Rep. Lois Capps, a California Democrat, introduced legislation that would "direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a national strategic action plan to assist health professionals in preparing for and responding to the public health effects of climate change."

The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

A tally of lost lives and health care expenditures arising from just six recent weather-related or epidemiological events suggests that the economic toll of future climate change is likely to be even ...
A tally of lost lives and health care expenditures arising from just six recent weather-related or epidemiological events suggests that the economic toll of future climate change is likely to be even ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,473
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (30 total)
01:05 PM on 11/15/2011
What ever you do, don't ever think there's a link between extreme weather and climate change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhCY-3XnqS0

A link between climate change and extreme weather? Never.
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
02:28 PM on 11/10/2011
4.5 billion to die by 2012, only 52 days to go!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/only-52-days-left-get-on-with-the-dying-already/
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
04:44 PM on 11/12/2011
Here's a helpful hint for you, CanadaStan: stop getting your "science" from science denier blogs and others who don't understand real climate science.
05:09 PM on 11/09/2011
Tip head back, look up, breath deeply if you can find oxygen between jet trails. Climate change? Stop the corporate cool aid for a "change"! Is everyone ignorant?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
01:44 PM on 11/09/2011
Frank Luchan claimed

"The world's TOP hurricane scientists all agree that global warming has NOTHING to do with hurricanes and hence NOTHING to do with healthcare costs stemming from Hurricanes."

Prove it, Frank.

Prove they "all agree."
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
02:29 PM on 11/10/2011
You mean you didn't know that?
You should look at both sides of the issue.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
04:46 PM on 11/12/2011
You mean that like Frank Luchan you were deluded into thinking that?

You should look at the actual science of the issue.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
05:23 PM on 11/17/2011
That you think there are two sides to thermodynamics is really telling.
05:48 PM on 11/12/2011
As always FrankLuchan claim is utterly bogus.

As just one illustrious example, here's MIT's Dr. Kerry Emanuel, a staunch political conservative, and also a world-renowned hurricane expert with many research accolades to his credit, saying that he now concedes not only that global warming is real,

http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/15/kerry-emanuel-boston-globe-opinion-climate-changes-are-proven-fact/

but also that he has come to believe lately (2011) that it's making hurricanes more severe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/us/28climate.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
01:40 PM on 11/09/2011
New IEA report says we need to act now to avoid a major increase in the cost of fixing our problem:

http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change?cat=environment
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
11:15 AM on 11/09/2011
Hillary Clinton
“We decided Global Warming needed a name change and an ambassador,†continued Clinton, “Too many people were pointing out that the world has been cooling off in recent years and that we’re in the midst of the planet’s usual climatic cycle. I’ll let Global Warm… er, Climate Change expert Al Gore address that.â€
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverwolf13
I know that I do not know.
11:52 PM on 11/10/2011
Your source, please.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
07:16 AM on 11/11/2011
It was a satire. Quite a few "skeptics" didn't get it. They think it was real. These people are permitted to vote. God help us.
11:17 AM on 11/11/2011
I could go on but I suppose this will be called satire also.
(CNSNews.com) - John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, says that the term "global warming" is "a dangerous misnomer†that should be replaced with “global climate disruption."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
07:11 AM on 11/11/2011
I see that you're unable to recognize satire when you see it.
11:47 AM on 11/11/2011
By the way the satire included a video.
03:56 AM on 11/09/2011
Cost of Climate Change is a very tricky and increasingly worrying issue. What all nation can expect - the cost will increase if we don't do anything to meet the problems. The most important decision is to act with actions that bring down the GHG. The EU have in this years budget put 27 Billion Euros in the field of Climate Change. The Climate Group estimated that the IT sector could save 800 Billion Euro with energy and efficiency savings program until 2020. The Low Carbon Market is one of the few markets thats growing today. Why wait? Read more about Climate Change at http://bit.ly/qHRqyI
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
02:31 PM on 11/10/2011
I'll say it's worrying!
52 days to go till 4.5 billion people die from it!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/only-52-days-left-get-on-with-the-dying-already/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
07:30 PM on 11/08/2011
Mioffe:

"If scientists of tobacco company will make case, that tobacco is good for health, reasonable case of course, we must listen them".

Jumping the shark.
08:08 PM on 11/08/2011
"Wernher Magnus Maximilian, Freiherr von Braun (March 23, 1912 – June 16, 1977) was a German rocket scientist, aerospace engineer, space architect, and one of the leading figures in the development of rocket technology in Nazi Germany during World War II and in the United States after that.

A former member of the Nazi party, commissioned Sturmbannführer of the paramilitary SS and decorated Nazi war hero, von Braun would later be regarded as the preeminent rocket engineer of the 20th century in his role with the United States civilian space agency NASA."

We used this kind of shark, what is wrong with good scientists from tobacco or other type of companies?
09:14 PM on 11/08/2011
If Freiherr von Braun were living today, he would not be peddling prattle on HP.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
09:18 PM on 11/08/2011
What?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
08:21 PM on 11/08/2011
I finally figured out what mioffe's water vapor obsession reminds me of: Chester Gould. His thing was magnetism. The Dick Tracy strips had all these wondrous magnetic devices, always with "The nation that controls magnetism will control the universe" next to them. It had the same "I'm the only one who gets this" tone.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
09:19 PM on 11/08/2011
Engineering professors cringe when some crank approaches with a box of magnets. The guy can make perpetual motion work, if only the professor can arrange the magnets in the right way. Or some such, it happens a lot to professors.
10:20 PM on 11/08/2011
It is all (ALL) properties of water, not only water vapor are real magnetism to understand what is wrong in today science of climate change.
GHG are not enough to explain reasons for climate change. It is simple Physics and even you could understand it, if you will push yourself in "understanding" tone, but, sorry here you are fail.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
breakingpoint
War is a Racket - Smedley Butler
06:34 PM on 11/08/2011
secede
06:10 PM on 11/08/2011
When I was young, I worked as teacher of Physics in High School. At that time some students were forced to repeat the same grade next year, if they show poor knowledge of few subjects during previous year.
Working with them, I found that they nod heads almost on everything, what I told, but when I asked them to explain to me, what they understand from my lesson, they were confused.
Some recognition from what they hear in previous year stopped their active involvement in understanding of new material. In this case repetition work against them. I spoke with them individually and explained how dangerous for them this kind of half knowledge.
Something like this we have in our brain, when we are reading, or listening all kind of information.
We haven’t time to try completely understood problem, but some previous knowledge push us to nod, because we know something or believe to authors.
In my opinion, science of climate change creates the same attitude of nodding in minds of millions, or even, billions of people.
ubrew12
that crazy uncle from Amarcord
06:39 PM on 11/08/2011
1. CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas. Take its trace amount out of the atmosphere, and Earth would freeze over solid.
2. CO2 is not where its been for all of human evolution. Its now 50% higher than that. In 2 decades, it'll be 100% higher than its natural level (250ppm). By centuries end, it could be 4 times higher.
3. CO2 doesn't stop being a greenhouse gas just because it rose above its natural level of 250ppm.

Items 1 and 2 are clear and measured facts. Item 3 should strike you as common sense. It makes as much sense as saying if you eat twice as much food as you usually do, you'll gain weight. I think the term is Occam's Razor: simplest explanation wins. This may be one of those topics for which your physics education is working against you.
07:55 PM on 11/08/2011
Imagine earth without water, what forces will mix air:
It will be convection forces, which will stopped on height around 500 m (look on smoke from power plants on pictures, if you do not living close to them)
It will be Brownian motion, very slow process.

Only water vapor bring all gases including GHG UP TO CLOUDS LEVEL and very fast.

Why?
They are lighter than most gases in air.
Condensation of some water vapor release energy, heat surrounding gas and recreate convection forces, which step by step moving parcels of these heated air close to upper troposphere, where all gases released their kinetic energy, energy of trapped IR radiation, and latent heat of evaporation easy, than from oceans level.
All properties of water actually cooling air, despite water vapor is GHG.

Droplets of rain clean air from black carbon and others particles in air, which heated by direct sun radiation.
Droplets of rain bring GHG back to land.

What you could say against this part of Physics?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
07:33 PM on 11/08/2011
All that you have illustrated is that most people agree with whatever an authority figure puts in front of them without reflection, or really understanding it.

This is not unique to climate science. It is universal. Once again, you have made an observation that is irrelevant.
07:56 PM on 11/08/2011
Please look up in my answer to ubrew12, maybe it will make sense for you.

If you can answer on my questin there.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
06:02 PM on 11/08/2011
Frank Luchan claimed "The world's TOP hurricane scientists all agree that global warming has NOTHING to do with hurricanes and hence NOTHING to do with healthcare costs stemming from Hurricanes­."

Prove it, Frank.

Prove they "all agree".

Be sure to include Kerry Emanuel.

And check out his graphs here: http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/Papers_data_graphics.htm
07:58 PM on 11/08/2011
Your site is under construction.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
09:20 PM on 11/08/2011
It's not the only thing here under construction.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
11:06 PM on 11/08/2011
"Your site is under constructi­on"

No, it isn't. You just need to understand how to deal with HP's messed-up links. Try; I think that even you can do it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
08:30 PM on 11/08/2011
Another way to get to the link I posted:

First: http://tinyurl.com/y7zfrvc and then go to the section on Papers, Data, and Graphics
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
02:33 PM on 11/10/2011
Sure, send us to a porn site...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
04:35 PM on 11/08/2011
It site do not research role of water in climate change.
Tyndal, Arrhenius, Hansen, Dessler do not look on all properties of water, but promote that water vapor is playing positive feedback in climate change.
Show me, please, site, if you can, where on scientific base we could see all properties of water and their role in climate change.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
09:43 PM on 11/08/2011
Yeah, what would the discoverer of CO2 and H2O absorption of heat, a Nobel prize winner, and the NASA director of GISS know about the properties of water. But you do of course.

Got it.
photo
canuckhoser
Don't mind the man behind the curtain
09:59 PM on 11/08/2011
What is the life span of WV....?

Now, what is the life span of co2?

uhoh!
ubrew12
that crazy uncle from Amarcord
04:42 PM on 11/08/2011
But, but, but, Medieval Warm Period...
03:40 PM on 11/08/2011
Suggested reading:

“Solar energy covers earth’s needs thousands of times over,†Lars J. Nilsson, Lund University, Nov 1, 2011

To access this informative article, go to: http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/o.o.i.s?news_item=5720&id=24890
04:38 PM on 11/08/2011
If we suggest, that properties of water actually cooling air, despite water vapor is GHG, your site is useless.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Joffan
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
05:21 PM on 11/08/2011
Which was that country where solar generates 80% of their electricity?

Oh, yeah. There isn't one. There isn't a country that generates 80% electricity from wind either, or from the two combined.

On the other hand, there is a country where nuclear power generates 80% of the electricity, and they achieved that status in less than 20 years. Let's start getting serious about tackling greenhouse gas emissions and start pushing for more nuclear power more quickly, as well as anything else we can throw at the problem.

And if you don't know which country I'm talking about, isn't it time you found out?
06:17 PM on 11/08/2011
To produce uranium ore for France Australia is firing a lot of coal.
From climate change point of view, it is no difference, where are you fire coal.

Please found out, that solar cells, nuclear power plant, windmills are the same disaster for environment as coal, oil, natural gas power plants.
They are also disaster for economy.
photo
Hitchcockcameo
In the shadows, directing your every move.
06:34 PM on 11/08/2011
Why so coy? It's France.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Transitteer
and another thing . . .
01:54 PM on 11/08/2011
Exxon and the Koch brothers will never believe this ... . . . . .. (surprise) . . .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
03:17 PM on 11/08/2011
They believe it. They just don't care or want us to.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Louis Bernardi
I live in a treehouse!
01:44 PM on 11/08/2011
"Damnit, Gore is catching on" - George W. Bush
"The environment? haahhahahaah" - Rick Perry
"Everybody needs Toucan stubs" - Herman Cain