The people responsible don’t care. They will be perfectly fine letting the rest of us die. They’ll only start giving a shit once cheap labor starts getting hard to come by.

This rule is actually "an order of magnitude best estimate", which means it's more of a range, somewhere between 0.1 to 10 deaths per 1000 tons of carbon burned.

That leaves a lot of room for scenarios even more dire than the one outlined here.

"When climate scientists run their models and then report on them, everybody leans toward being conservative, because no one wants to sound like Doctor Doom," explains Pierce.

"We've done that here too and it still doesn't look good."

Translation: 10 billion people will die.

2nd translation: Almost everyone will die.

It's OK, they're just billion poorest people.

/S

I wish I could be an optimist, too.

There are some real disgusting people here. Anyone who thinks that the solution to climate change is to kill a lot of humans should consider going first.

This article is bogus. It doesn't even mention the power or thoughts and prayers once!

It only took 250 years since the industrial revolution to utterly doom our world.

Nature knows how to solve this problem.

Is the earth is getting a fever to kill the viruses that are infecting it?

I wouldn’t be surprised if a majority of those casualties in the USA will be in Florida and California.

Many of the major insurance companies stopped issuing new home owners policies in those states because it was no longer profitable or very risky. IIRC, increasing housing costs and frequency of these events was the main reason they pulled out

Me first.

"1 billion people on track to die"... I guess we're doing an empirical test of the trolley problem.

We have a choice between inconveniencing some people (especially some very rich people); vs saving billions of lives by switching tracks. And apparently the empirical choice is to equivocate and delay so that we stay on the path of death and ruin. ... It isn't the solution I would have chosen personally.

There is quite a lot of extra discussion regarding the 1000-ton rule in the artual report itself (link can ne found in the article). Here are some excerpts:

it is likely more than 300 million (“likely best case”) and less than 3 billion (“likely worst case”) will die as a result of AGW of 2 °C.

A more recent attempt at quantifying future deaths in connection with specific amounts of carbon was published by Bressler [69]. Coining an economically oriented term “mortality cost of carbon”, he claimed that “for every 4434 metric tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere beyond the 2020 rate of emissions, one person globally will die prematurely from the increased temperature”. His predictions were confined to deaths from extreme heat when wet-bulb temperature exceeds skin temperature (35 °C).

Some interesting stuff in there.

I would've added more but holy shit the mdpi.com mobile website is atrocious to copy stuff from. It keeps throwing me at the end of the entire article, highlighting everything.

And with your help we can make sure that that number includes those that need to die.