What If Global Warming Is the Path Toward Better Living Standards?

I am neither a global warming denier nor a global warming alarmist. I think it is possible for humanity to face global threats that require global solutions. But before sacrificing sovereignty and freedom for a perceived threat such as global warming, there are four conditions that must be met: 1) show that the earth is warming, 2) show that the primary cause of warming is due to mankind, 3) show that warming is a bad thing, and 4) show that the cost of solving global warming is lower than the cost of the warming.

The first two items on the list are a matter of science. The second two are matters of economics and values. Even if the science is settled as some claim, two questions remain.

One question not settled is whether global warming is a bad thing. Back in the 1970's when the fear was a coming ice age, the news reported the negative impacts that global cooling would cause. This included shorter life expectancy, more illness and less food production. If global cooling causes these problems, then an argument can be made that warming should lead to longer life, less illness, and more food production.

Even if global warming is shown to be a negative change, the most difficult question to answer is the balance between the cost of global warming and the cost of the solution. If the cost involves losing economic freedom by restricting energy availability in developing countries, then the human costs become extremely high. If you plot life expectancy by country vs. the per capita CO2 emissions (data from gapminder.org), there is a clear relationship as shown in the graph below. The circles show the population size of the countries along with the average life expectancy and per capita CO2 emissions.

Per capita CO2 emissions are related to life expectancy because cheap energy impacts so many conditions which affect economic growth, income and quality of life. Historically, the availability of cheap energy in combination with economic freedom has lifted nations out of poverty. Energy is required for clean drinking water, modern farm equipment, refrigeration to prevent food contamination, transportation of goods to markets, modern medical equipment operation, and sanitation. While people in rich countries often take these things for granted, people in poor countries still suffer and die daily from the lack of these things.

India and China have seen tremendous improvement in life expectancy since 1950 as they have greatly increased per capita CO2 emissions from their economic growth. The average life expectancy in India has risen from 35 years in 1950 to 66 years (+31 years) in 2012 as per capita CO2 emissions have increased by over 800%. China has done even better with life expectancy increasing from 42 years to 75 years (+33 years) since 1950 as per capita CO2 emissions increased by over 4000%. While many global warming alarmists are horrified by such an increase in CO2 emissions, I am thankful for such an improvement in the human condition in these countries.

Based on the relationship between life expectancy and CO2 emissions, artificially reducing energy availability to reduce CO2 emissions will reduce life expectancy. A 20% reduction in global per capita CO2, would lead to a reduction in life expectancy of around 1.2 years. On a global basis, this represents a population reduction of over 100 million people. Many of these 100 million people would be those in poverty dying from preventable causes. Could someone tell me how many deaths are acceptable to reduce CO2 emissions?

Charles Musick is a chemical engineer in research and development.  He can be reached at musickcd@bellsouth.net.