This is an exemplary specimen of spin. The original research report considers many different sources of PM2.5 pollution and their contribution to additional deaths. The abstract then underline fossil fuel deaths as key finding, noting that they contribute ~27% of total deaths from PM2.5 pollution. The Arstechnica article just mentions fossil fuels and completely ignores the rest.
If anybody wonders, deaths attributed to burning biofuels (wood) are ~20% of total deaths (~800k), remaining are non-fuel sources (dust, fires, ...).
Comments
This is an exemplary specimen of spin. The original research report considers many different sources of PM2.5 pollution and their contribution to additional deaths. The abstract then underline fossil fuel deaths as key finding, noting that they contribute ~27% of total deaths from PM2.5 pollution. The Arstechnica article just mentions fossil fuels and completely ignores the rest.
If anybody wonders, deaths attributed to burning biofuels (wood) are ~20% of total deaths (~800k), remaining are non-fuel sources (dust, fires, ...).
I wonder how many it saves
A significant fraction of the global population would die without hydrocarbon energy sources.
Perfect question. How many people would die without fossil fuels.
I'm pretty sure it saves the lifes of some oil execs...