It would depend on how you define AGW. And then it would depend on how you apply that definition to a death. For example, is the death is 51% or more due to AGW or is it is 1% or more due to AGW? That would give pretty different numbers.
But the hardest part would be actually linking a death to AGW. For example, was a death from Hurricane Sandy due to AGW? Was Hurricane Sandy due to AGW? Was Hurricane Sandy 10% stronger due to AGW? Does that mean a death during Hurricane Sandy was 10% due to AGW?
If you see where I'm going, any statistic stating "death due to AGW" would be pretty meaningless in my own humble opinion. It would be something pulled from the region opposite your front for emotional effect and nothing more.
2.) How much money should be dedicated to its prevention?
Given my answer in 1.), I can only answer this by saying any money or resources made available for preventing death should be directed towards efforts that have clear results like stopping the spread of ebola, eradicating malaria, flu shots, reducing poverty, etc. I'm sure attacking those types of problems would use up ALL of any available monies.
AGW directly related deaths = 0
Death of people freezing to death because of high energy prices = Hundreds just last Winter.
Deaths from Malaria because of outlawing DDT = Millions each year.
Deaths of automobile accidents from lighter gas saving cars = 10,000 per year.
Deaths of people starving which could have been prevented by the money the UN sucked in for GW = Milions
Money should we spend on this sham = $0.00
How many lives are being saved by warming? That should be the questions. It is asinine to assume that AGW is going to kill people. It may have a net savings of lives. Warming will "kill" crops that are the extreme limit just as cold will kill crops at the extreme cold limit. We have to look at both sides of the issue. It would be extremely hard to link any death to our emissions of CO2, past, present or future.
Then they leave the crops in the field to die . this way they creat a shortage and raise the price anyway. trust me they are not going to lower the prices just because the farmer has more crop they would even buy it and let it rot in a warehouse if they need to.
Then it will have to be below a certain level of warming, because there are many crops that do suffer from increased temperatures, and the other climatic effects.
However, you're using bad statistics in your question, since you're presuming that the increase in crop production isn't from other activities, including simply putting more land into production.
Sorry, but you're going to have to work your own statistics out first.
However, if you want to see the clear effects of pollution, you know, the thing people want to stop, you can easily go to places like China.
Warmer weather = more crops! not less.
How much money should we spend? None. The earth warms and cools. We have no control over it.
Thank god we are growing corn for ethanol, why would we want to use it for food. couldn't ruin engines if we didn't use it for gas and why would we want cheap food anyway
right.. ask California how that is working for them
as for one person, the US is about to do just that, billions$ for saving a beheading in syria.
The planet is dead already
All of the data I have seen shows that not only has crop production been increasing over the last 50 years, but its increase has outpaced population growth. Now perhaps this simply means that AGW has not started killing crop in earnest or technology is masking the effect, BUT lets assume for a moment that AGW will not affect our ability to feed ourselves.
1.) How many deaths will AGW cause?
2.) How much money should be dedicated to its prevention?
Think about this. Do you spend a million to save one person? What if that million was normally being used to save ten people?
