Global environmental vulnerability and the survival period of all living beings on earth

  • Md. F. HossainEmail author
Original Paper


A mathematical comparison between global carbon emissions and sequestration rate has been performed, which demonstrated that global environment is currently experiencing severe vulnerability to survive all living being on earth. The annual global carbon emission rate has been calculated, considering all forms of carbon dioxide emission from burning fossil fuel, misuse of terrestrial land use along with other sources. Consequently, the global carbon sequestrations by all sources of ocean sink, terrestrial absorption, and the earth sink, and associated factors have also been calculated. This was performed in order to determine the atmospheric CO2 concentration level increasing comparing several years of data. The mathematical calculation revealed that presently atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing at the rate of 2.11% ppm for that past several years. The 60,000 ppm CO2 concentration into the atmosphere is the toxic level at which all living beings to cause die in 30 minutes. Since atmospheric CO2 is increasing rapidly, thus, I have calculated the survival period of all living being on earth by expressing a simple equation: \(\int \nolimits_{{400^{{( {2.11\% })}} }}^{60,000} ( {2017}) = 121{,}017{,}711.2\) which revealed that all living beings on earth will become extinct in 121,017,712 years if we do not reduce the current level of CO2 emission.


CO2 emission Carbon sequestration Atmospheric CO2 concentration Environmental vulnerability Survival period of life on earth 



This research was supported by Green Globe Technology under grant RD-02017-04. Any findings, predictions, and conclusions described in this article are solely those of the author. The author confirms that he has no conflicts of interest to get publish in a suitable journal.


  1. Achard F et al (2014) Determination of tropical deforestation rates and related carbon losses from 1990 to 2010. Glob Change Biol 20:2540–2554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andres RJ, Boden TA, Higdon D (2014) A new evaluation of the uncertainty associated with CDIAC estimates of fossil fuel carbon dioxide emission. Tellus B Chem Phys Meteorol 66:23616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arnell N et al. (1996) Climate change 1995: impacts, adaptations, and mitigation of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 325–363Google Scholar
  4. Ballantyne AP, Alden CB, Miller JB, Tans PP, White JWC (2012) Increase in observed net carbon dioxide uptake by land and oceans during the past 50 years. Nature 488:70–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ballantyne AP et al (2015) Audit of the global carbon budget: estimate errors and their impact on uptake uncertainty. Biogeosciences 12:2565–2584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bauer JE et al (2013) The changing carbon cycle of the coastal ocean. Nature 504:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Betts RA, Jones CD, Knight JR, Keeling RF, El Kennedy JJ (2016) Nino and a record CO2 rise. Nat Clim Change 6:806–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boden TA, Andres RJ (2016) Global regional, and national fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of EnergyGoogle Scholar
  9. Canadell JG et al (2007) Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:18866–18870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chevallier F (2015) On the statistical optimality of CO2 atmospheric inversions assimilating CO2 column retrievals. Atmos Chem Phys 15:11133–11145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ciais P, Sabine C (2013) Carbon and other biogeochemical cycles. In: Stocker T, Qin D, Platner GK (eds) Climate change 2013 the physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis SJ, Caldeira K (2010) Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:5687–5692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Denman KL et al (2007) Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Dietzenbacher E, Pei J, Yang C (2012) Trade, production fragmentation, and China’s carbon dioxide emissions. J Environ Econ Manag 64:88–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dlugokencky E, Tans P (1974) Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Earth System Research Laboratory (NOAA/ESRL), pp 445–457Google Scholar
  16. Duce RA et al (2008) Impacts of atmospheric anthropogenic nitrogen on the open ocean. Science 320:893–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erb K-H et al (2013) Bias in the attribution of forest carbon sinks. Nat Clim Change 3:854–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gonzalez-Gaya B et al (2016) High atmosphere-ocean exchange of semivolatile aromatic hydrocarbons. Nat Geosci 9:438–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Houghton R (2007) Balancing the global carbon budget. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 35:313–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Karl DM, Church MJ (2014) Microbial oceanography and the Hawaii Ocean Time-series programme. Nat Rev Microbiol 12:699–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Le Quéré C et al (2016) Global carbon budget 2016. Earth Syst Sci Data 8:605–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li W et al (2016) Reducing uncertainties in decadal variability of the global carbon budget with multiple datasets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:13104–13108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu Z et al (2015) Reduced carbon emission estimates from fossil fuel combustion and cement production in China. Nature 524:335–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mason Earles J, Yeh S, Skog KE (2012) Timing of carbon emissions from global forest clearance. Nat Clim Change 2:682–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Milliman J, Mei-e R (1995) Climate change: impact on coastal habitation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 57–83Google Scholar
  26. Postel SL, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR (1996) Human appropriation of renewable fresh water. Science 271:785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Prietzel J, Zimmermann L, Schubert A, Christophel D (2016) Organic matter losses in German Alps forest soils since the 1970s most likely caused by warming. Nat Geosci 9:543–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schwietzke S et al (2016) Upward revision of global fossil fuel methane emissions based on isotope database. Nature 538:88–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stephens BB et al (2007) Weak northern and strong tropical land carbon uptake from vertical profiles of atmospheric CO2 science. Science 316:1732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Dam JC (1999) Impacts of climate change and climate variability on hydrological regimes. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. van der Werf GR et al (2008) Climate regulation of fire emissions and deforestation in equatorial Asia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:20350–20355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vörösmarty C, Fekete B, Meybeck M, Lammers R (2000) Global system of rivers: its role in organizing continental land mass and defining land to ocean linkages. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 14:599–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yin Y et al (2016) Variability of fire carbon emissions in equatorial Asia and its nonlinear sensitivity to El Niño. Geophys Res Lett 43:10472–10479CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Urban EngineeringNew York UniversityBrooklynUSA
  2. 2.Green Globe TechnologyFlushingUSA

Personalised recommendations