Skip to main content

Casualties as a moral measure of climate change


Climate change will cause large numbers of casualties, perhaps extending over thousands of years. Casualties have a clear moral significance that economic and other technical measures of harm tend to mask. They are, moreover, universally understood, whereas other measures of harm are not. Therefore, the harms of climate change should regularly be expressed in terms of casualties by such agencies such as IPCC’s Working Group III, in addition to whatever other measures are used. Casualty estimates should, furthermore, be used to derive estimates of casualties per emission source up to a given date. Such estimates would have wide margins of error, but they would add substantially to humanity’s grasp of the moral costs of particular greenhouse gas emissions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. Archer D et al (2009) Atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel carbon dioxide. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 37:117–134. doi:10.1146/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnesen T, Kapiriri L (2004) Can the value choices in DALYs influence global priority-setting? Health Policy 70:137–149. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2003.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barnosky A et al (2011) Has the earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471:51–57. doi:10.1038/nature09678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Broome J (2012) Climate matters: ethics in a warming world. W. W. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Development Assistance Research Associates (DARA) (2012) Climate vulnerability monitor 2nd ed. Accessed 6 November 2103

  6. Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J Econ Lit XL:351–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Global Humanitarian Forum (GHF) (2009) Climate change: the anatomy of a silent crisis. Accessed 6 November 2103

  8. Hope, C (2011) The social cost of CO2 from the PAGE09 model, Economics Discussion Papers 2011–39, Accessed 6 November 2103

  9. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change (2007) Synthesis Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  10. Matthews H, Solomon S (2013) Irreversible does not mean unavoidable. Science 340:438–439. doi:10.1126/science.1236372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mooney, C (2013) How much should you worry about an arctic methane bomb? Mother Jones, 8 August, 2013, Accessed 6 November 2103

  12. Myers T, Nisbet M, Maibach E, Leiserowitz A (2012) A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Clim Chang 113:1105–1112. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nolt J (2011a) Nonanthropocentric climate ethics. WIRES Climate Change 2:701–711. doi:10.1002/wcc.131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nolt J (2011b) How harmful are the average American’s greenhouse gas emissions? Ethics, Policy Environ 14, 1: 3–10. doi:10.1080/21550085.2011.561584

  15. Nolt J (2013) Replies to critics of ‘How harmful are the average American’s greenhouse gas emissions?’ Ethics, Policy Environ 16(1):111–119. doi:10.1080/21550085.2013.768399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Parfit D (2004) Reasons and Persons. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sagoff M (1988) The economy of the earth: philosophy, law and the environment. Cambridge University Press

  18. Silva R et al (2013) Global premature mortality due to anthropogenic outdoor air pollution and the contribution of past climate change. Environ Res Lett 8:3. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034005

    Google Scholar 

  19. Stern N (2008) The economics of climate change. American Econ Rev 98(2):1–37. doi:10.1257/aer.98.2.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stocker T (2013) The closing door of climate targets. Science 339:280–282. doi:10.1126/science.1232468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2013) 2013 Human Development Report. Human development index. Accessed 6 November 2103

  22. Vanderheiden, S (2008) Atmospheric justice: a political theory of climate change. Oxford University Press

  23. Whiteman G, Hope S, Wadhams P (2013) Vast costs of arctic change. Nature 499:401–403. doi:10.1038/499401a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. World Health Organization (WHO) (2009) Global health risks: mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks. . Accessed 6 November 2103

  25. World Health Organization (WHO) (2013) Disability weights, discounting and age weighting of DALYs. Accessed 6 November 2103

  26. Zeebe R (2013) Time-dependent climate sensitivity and the legacy of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci 110. doi:10.1073/pnas.1222843110

Download references


I wish to thank Jenna Nolt and Robert Nowell for help with the research for this paper and Klaus Keller for helpful criticisms. Three anonymous reviewers for this journal provided astute suggestions that have substantially improved this paper

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Nolt.

Additional information

This article is part of a special issue on “Multidisciplinary perspectives on climate ethics” with guest editors Marco Grasso and Ezra M. Markowitz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nolt, J. Casualties as a moral measure of climate change. Climatic Change 130, 347–358 (2015).

Download citation


  • Human Development Index
  • Cumulative Emission
  • Future People
  • Objective Welfare
  • Preference Satisfaction