The Carbon Paradox: Understanding the 1000-Ton Rule

The combustion of carbon has historically improved life expectancy and quality of life. The UN projects that global life expectancy will climb from 46 years in 1960 to 83 by 2100, primarily due to energy-driven advancements across sectors such as agriculture, heating, transportation, and construction.

However, our dependence on carbon is simultaneously eroding future life expectancy. The fossil fuels we utilize today are essentially future death sentences.

A recent review of 180 studies on climate change-related mortality revealed a distressing possibility: over one billion people might perish from climate-related disasters over the next century. This staggering loss would represent the greatest tragedy in human history, dwarfing the approximately 75 million fatalities from World War II—potentially 26 times greater. This scenario implies that roughly one in every three families worldwide could experience the loss of a member due to climate change.

This prediction is grounded in the established "1000-ton rule," which posits that approximately one premature death occurs for every 1,000 (ranging from 300 to 3,000) tons of carbon burned. Consequently, any fossil fuel project that combusts millions of tons of carbon is likely to indirectly cause thousands of future fatalities. The rule suggests these deaths will occur within the next one to two centuries, likely in developing nations, but it does not specify the time or location of each death.

An average American generates 1,840 tons of CO2 equivalent by burning 500 tons of carbon throughout their lifetime, effectively leading to the premature death of half a future individual. Additionally, each long-haul flight results in the loss of one future life.

To illustrate, global fossil carbon emissions in 2023 were estimated at 36.8 billion tons of CO2 equivalent from about 10 billion tons of carbon. This level of emissions equates to erasing the entire population of Portugal, approximately 10 million people. Currently, carbon emissions are ten times higher than during the last period of elevated global mean surface temperatures, which occurred 56 million years ago during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).

The "1000-ton rule" relies on several assumptions regarding future temperature increases.

If current trends persist and temperatures rise by 2°C above preindustrial levels in the coming decades, the consequences will be dire. Each additional 0.1°C increase could result in an estimated 100 million deaths.

Nevertheless, estimating the death toll from climate change is fraught with complexities. Crop failures, droughts, floods, extreme weather, wildfires, and rising sea levels all influence human life in intricate ways. Moreover, the significant lack of mortality data in low- and middle-income countries complicates these calculations.

Despite the difficulties, quantifying future casualties is essential: framing emissions in terms of lost human lives rather than economic losses simplifies the figures for public understanding and emphasizes the urgency for action.

To illustrate this necessity, Pierce and Parncutt, the authors of the "1000-ton rule," applied it to the controversial Adani Carmichael coalmine in Australia. The total combustion of its reserves could lead to an estimated 3 million premature deaths, disproportionately affecting children in the Global South.

It is crucial to note that the "1000-ton rule" does not incorporate potential climate feedback loops that could exacerbate environmental impacts beyond current projections. This guideline is regarded as a "best estimate" with a range of 0.1 to 10 deaths per 1,000 tons of carbon burned, leaving room for even graver outcomes.

> “When climate scientists run their models and report their findings, they typically err on the side of caution to avoid sounding alarmist. We’ve done the same here, yet the outlook remains grim,” stated Pierce.

The Climate Domino Effect

Greenhouse gas emissions indirectly lead to future deaths through various mechanisms. Here’s a summary of widely accepted forecasts regarding the climate crisis:

1. Rising sea levels will jeopardize coastal communities and render agricultural lands useless due to salinization.
2. Arid regions will face increased dryness, prolonged droughts, depleting groundwater, and melting glaciers, severely impacting agriculture.
3. More frequent and severe storms, such as hurricanes and cyclones, will destroy crops and infrastructure, leading to floods and health crises, as evidenced by recent dengue outbreaks in Brazil and Argentina.
4. Heatwaves will become more intense, posing lethal risks as wet-bulb temperatures approach human body temperature, impairing the body's ability to cool through sweating.
5. The current extinction rate, already 100 to 1,000 times higher due to human activity, will continue to rise, potentially resulting in the sixth mass extinction event.

Each of these factors will disrupt food and freshwater supplies, heightening mortality rates linked to hunger, malnutrition, and disease. The interplay of these threats could trigger ecological cascades and co-extinction events while exacerbating international tensions, including the potential for water conflicts.

Moreover, there is a looming threat of runaway anthropogenic global warming, wherein global temperatures might continue to rise even after human emissions cease, driven by positive feedback loops:

1. Melting ice reduces the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, leading to increased heat absorption and further ice melt.
2. Carbon-saturated oceans and soils become less effective at absorbing CO2.
3. Thawing permafrost releases significant quantities of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide, intensifying warming.
4. Forests, increasingly vulnerable to drought and wildfires due to climate change, risk shifting from carbon sinks to carbon sources.
5. Extreme temperatures driven by climate change will escalate human energy consumption for heating and cooling, further increasing emissions.

Considering these feedback loops, the global carbon budget necessary to prevent anthropogenic global warming is far smaller than previously estimated. Does the continued reliance on fossil fuels make sense when comparing present-day health benefits with future health losses?

The Villains Behind the Rule

In recent years, major oil corporations have made bold promises regarding climate action.

BP pledged to cut fossil fuel investments by 35 to 40%. Shell aimed for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Exxon proposed significant emissions reductions and investments in potential carbon-free fuels. Chevron sought to achieve net-zero upstream emissions by 2050. Numerous oil companies joined initiatives to decrease their methane emissions.

However, 2023, which has become the hottest year on record, revealed a different reality. These companies retreated from their commitments and accelerated their fossil fuel operations, undermining their climate pledges.

BP reduced its emissions targets, Exxon quietly withdrew funding for algae-based biofuels, and Shell opted against increasing investments in renewable energy. In fact, the U.S. extracted more oil and gas than ever before in 2023, and globally, fossil fuel companies invested double the amount deemed necessary in oil and gas, according to the International Energy Agency.

The catalyst for this reversal? A lucrative market. Soaring gas prices, driven by geopolitical tensions stemming from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, led to record profits for these companies.

Indeed, the five largest publicly listed oil companies have amassed over $281 billion in profits since the war began in February 2022, according to Global Witness. Regardless of the situation on the ground, fossil fuel giants have once again emerged as the undeniable beneficiaries of conflict.

Despite these enormous profits, the fossil fuel industry has a long history of deceit. Internal documents dating back to 1954 reveal that these companies were aware of the climate impacts of their products, as evidenced by the “Keeling curve,” which tracks the steady increase of atmospheric carbon. Nevertheless, they chose to deny this science for over 70 years, funding efforts to delay meaningful action on the climate crisis.

This pattern of deception continues today, as Exxon’s CEO Darren Woods claims that "the world is off track to meet its climate goals, and the public is to blame," arguing that big oil is not primarily responsible for the climate crisis. However, a 2021 analysis revealed that Exxon has downplayed its own role in the climate crisis in public communications for decades, akin to a drug lord shifting blame.

Oil companies are adept at deception. They have spent years obscuring their destructive past while minimizing the catastrophic risks they have created. When the inevitable consequences are revealed, who do they blame? The very consumers they have misled.

We must enter a new era of accountability.

Trusting these corporations to be part of the solution is naive. It is essential to eliminate energy subsidies benefiting these companies and redirect those funds to more effective investments that reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and enhance social services. Despite international commitments made at major summits, fossil fuel subsidies reached an all-time high of over $1 trillion in 2022, largely due to geopolitical upheavals like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The International Monetary Fund provides an even grimmer perspective, estimating that fossil-fuel subsidies soared to a record $7 trillion in 2022, representing 7.1% of global GDP and exceeding global spending on education, nearly matching worldwide healthcare expenditures.

Ending these subsidies could save 1.6 million lives each year, generate $4.4 trillion in revenue, and accelerate progress toward global climate targets. Continuing these subsidies merely prolongs our reliance on fossil fuels.

The goal here is not to pinpoint a specific number or name but to highlight the enormity of the challenge. Sadly, many people remain unaware of these critical facts. The UN Secretary-General frames climate change as a choice between collective suicide and collective action.

If the magnitude of this challenge remains unknown, justifications for inaction become easier to find. A lack of awareness leads to stagnation and even regression.

Our world stands at a crossroads where every decision related to climate change is crucial, and time is running out. Action is imperative, regardless of personal preferences. It is vital for everyone to understand the stakes we face, rather than being misled. How else can we make informed choices?

Mortality statistics may seem heartless, but they influence policy, and more policies are essential to counter the ongoing deadly trend.

As McMichael wrote in an open letter before his passing in 2014, “Our mismanagement of the world’s climate and environment is weakening the foundations of health and longevity.” What would happen if people comprehended the true extent of the risks we face?

As the effects of climate change intensify, it is increasingly clear that disregarding the severe consequences of our fossil fuel dependency is no longer an option. Each instance of inaction only fuels the crisis and adds to the grim predictions of the "1000-ton rule."

Be vocal.

Thank you for taking the time to read this piece! Please consider subscribing for immediate insights and join the growing community of over 400 readers for weekly thought-provoking content.