Experiencing extreme weather predicts support for policies to mitigate effects of climate change

Policy support crosses political parties, but differences remain

ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

 

IMAGE: 

HOW OFTEN EXTREME WEATHER AFFECTED RESPONDENTS' TYPICAL DAILY ACTIVITIES IN THE PAST YEAR. FROM THE ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER'S ASAPH SURVEY WAVE 17, NOV. 14-20, 2023.

view more 

CREDIT: ANNENBERG PUBLIC POLICY CENTER

Most Americans report having personally experienced the effects of extreme weather, according to new survey data from the Annenberg Public Policy Center that finds support for pro-environmental government policies meant to lessen the effects of climate change.

More than 6 in 10 people favor increased investment in energy-efficient public transit and an equal number support providing tax credits to families who install rooftop solar or battery storage, according to the nationally representative panel survey, fielded in November 2023 with over 1,500 U.S. adults.

Two-thirds of U.S. adults say that in the past year their typical daily activities were affected either sometimes, often, or frequently by extreme outdoor heat, and half say that their typical daily activities were affected sometimes, often, or frequently by poor air quality resulting from wildfire smoke.

Importantly, an analysis finds a connection between these reported experiences and policy support: exposure to extreme weather is associated with support for a half-dozen policies intended to mitigate the effects of climate change, policies that are contained in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Annenberg opens new Climate Communication division

The findings were released at an opening session of the Society of Environmental Journalists’ (SEJ) 33rd annual conference, #SEJ2024, which was held at the University of Pennsylvania. Penn’s Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) hosted the group in celebration of the Penn Center for Science, Sustainability, and the Media. APPC director Kathleen Hall Jamieson released the findings at the SEJ conference on April 3, 2024.

“We’ve traditionally assumed that experiencing a threat will affect policy preferences,” Jamieson said. “In this polarized time, on this polarized topic, that assumption holds true. People who report exposure to extreme weather are more supportive of measures to help address climate change.”

Jamieson also announced that APPC, now celebrating its 30th anniversary, is marking the occasion with the creation of a Climate Communication division, led by Annenberg School for Communication vice dean and professor Emily Falk, who heads a communication neuroscience lab at Penn. The new climate division joins APPC’s Communication Science and Institutions of Democracy divisions, which are headed, respectively, by Penn Integrates Knowledge Professor Dolores Albarracín and political science Professor Matt Levendusky.

“This moves the policy center into an important new area in which communication plays a crucial role,” Jamieson said.

Experiencing extreme weather

APPC’s survey, the 17th wave of a nationally representative panel of 1,538 U.S. adults, finds that millions of Americans report that extreme weather has affected their daily lives over the past year (subtotals may not add due to rounding):

• Temperature: Over 4 in 10 (45%) say temperatures in their local area were warmer than usual last summer.
• Heat: Two-thirds (68%) say extreme outdoor heat either sometimes (34%), often (19%), or frequently (16%) affected their typical daily activities.
• Smoke: Half (50%) say poor air quality resulting from wildfire smoke either sometimes (31%), often (12%), or frequently (7%) affected their typical daily activities.
• Flooding: 29% say flooding produced by unusual levels of rain either sometimes (20%), often (6%), or frequently (3%) affected their typical daily activities.
• Tornado/hurricane: 19% said a tornado or hurricane either sometimes (13%), often (4%), or frequently (1%), affected their typical daily activities.

Support for pro-environment measures

More than half of Americans strongly or somewhat favor a series of government steps designed to mitigate the effects of climate change. Although these steps were not identified as such in the survey, these measures are contained in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which was passed by the 117th Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden on Aug. 16, 2022.

Support for these government initiatives varied widely by party affiliation and was driven by Democrats, who expressed strong support for all. Support by Republicans was much weaker.

In these findings, “favor” includes strongly favor and somewhat favor. The survey found that:

• 62% favor increased investment in energy-efficient public transit.
  • 86% Democrats, 44% independents, 42% Republicans
• 62% favor tax credits for rooftop solar or battery storage.
  • 80% Democrats, 52% independents, 46% Republicans
• 60% favor community grants to protect against impacts of climate change.
  • 85% Democrats, 50% independents, 36% Republicans
• 57% favor forgivable loans for rural communities improving energy efficiency.
  • 78% Democrats, 43% independents, 38% Republicans
• 56% favor taxing corporations based on carbon emissions to reduce climate change.
  • 81% Democrats, 41% independents, 33% Republicans
• 46% favor tax credits for electric cars.
  • 71% Democrats, 29% independents, 26% Republicans

The initiative that garnered the most support (“strongly favor”) was community grants to protect against impacts of climate change (27%). The initiative that had the greatest opposition (“strongly oppose”) was tax credits for electric cars (18%). The policy with the strongest Democratic support was energy-efficient public transit (86%), while the one with the strongest Republican support was tax credits for rooftop solar or battery storage (46%).

Extreme weather exposure associated with policy support

A regression analysis of the survey data by APPC research analyst Shawn Patterson Jr. finds that reported exposure to extreme weather is associated with greater support for policies that address the effects of climate change. This support extends to both parties – Republicans who report experiencing extreme weather are more supportive of these policies than those who do not, and the same holds true for Democrats.

APPC’s ASAPH survey

The survey data come from the 17th wave of a nationally representative panel of 1,538 U.S. adults, first empaneled in April 2021, conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent market research company. This wave of the Annenberg Science and Public Health Knowledge (ASAPH) survey was fielded November 14-20, 2023, and has a margin of sampling error (MOE) of ± 3.3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add to 100%. Combined subcategories may not add to totals in the topline and text due to rounding.

Download the topline and the methodology statement.

The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, maternal health, climate change, and other consequential health issues through this survey panel for nearly three years. In addition to Jamieson and Patterson, the APPC team behind this survey includes Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute, who developed the questions, and Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research, who supervised the fielding of the survey.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

Support for policies in the Inflation Reduction Act 

Support for six policies intended to mitigate the effects of climate change that are contained in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. From the Annenberg Public Policy Center's ASAPH survey Wave 17, Nov. 14-20, 2023.

Exposure to extreme weather associated with support for climate policies

An analysis of survey data finds that reported exposure to extreme weather was associated with support for policies intended to mitigate the effects of climate change. From the Annenberg Public Policy Center's ASAPH survey Wave 17, Nov. 14-20, 2023.

CREDIT

Annenberg Public Policy Center

---

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Survey

 

Demand for critical minerals puts African Great Apes at risk

More than a third of Africa’s great ape population faces risks related to mining

GERMAN CENTRE FOR INTEGRATIVE BIODIVERSITY RESEARCH (IDIV) HALLE-JENA-LEIPZIG

 

IMAGE: 

TRUCKS TRANSPORTING BAUXITE ALONG A MINING HAULING ROAD IN GUINEA.

view more 

CREDIT: GENEVIEVE CAMPBELL

A recent study led by researchers from the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), the Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (MLU) and the non-profit conservation organization Re:wild shows that the threat of mining to the great ape population in Africa has been greatly underestimated. Their results have been published in Science Advances.

The rising demand for critical minerals, such as copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, and other rare earth elements required for the large-scale transition to cleaner energy is causing a surge of mining in Africa, where a large share of those mineral resources is still unexploited. This is driving deforestation of tropical rainforests, which are home to many species, including humans’ closest living relatives, the great apes. The study estimates that the threat of mining to great apes in Africa has been greatly underestimated and that more than one-third of the entire population - nearly 180,000 gorillas, bonobos and chimpanzees - are at risk. The researchers also highlight that because mining companies are not required to make biodiversity data publicly available, the true impact of mining on biodiversity and great apes, in particular, may be even higher.

In their study, the team used data on operational and preoperational mining sites in 17 African nations and defined 10 km buffer zones to account for direct impacts, such as habitat destruction and light and noise pollution. They also defined 50 km buffer zones for indirect impacts linked to increased human activity near mining sites: New roads and infrastructure are built to access these once-remote areas, and many people migrate to these areas looking for employment. This in turn, increases pressures on great apes and their habitat through increased hunting, habitat loss, and higher risk of disease transmission. By integrating data on the density distribution of great apes, the researchers investigated how many African apes could potentially be negatively impacted by mining and mapped areas where frequent mining and high ape densities overlapped.

Great apes in West Africa are most severely affected

In the West African countries of Liberia, Sierra Leone, Mali, and Guinea, overlaps of high ape density and mining areas – including the 10 km and 50 km buffer zones – were the largest. The most significant overlap of mining and chimpanzee density - both in terms of proportion of population and overall numbers - was found in Guinea. Here, more than 23,000 chimpanzees, or up to 83% of Guinea’s ape population, could be directly or indirectly impacted by mining activities. In general, the most sensitive areas - those with relatively high ape and mining densities - are not protected.

“Currently, studies on other species suggest that mining harms apes through pollution, habitat loss, increased hunting pressure, and disease, but this is an incomplete picture,” says first author Dr Jessica Junker, researcher at Re:wild and former postdoctoral researcher at iDiv and MLU. “The lack of data sharing by mining projects hampers our scientific understanding of its true impact on great apes and their habitat.”

The researchers also explored how mining areas intersect with what is considered 'Critical Habitat'—regions crucial for their unique biodiversity, unrelated to apes. They found a noteworthy 20% overlap between the two. Critical Habitat designation entails strict environmental regulations, especially for mining projects seeking funding from entities like the International Finance Corporation (IFC) – a branch of the World Bank which lends funds to the private sector – or other lenders adhering to similar standards, and aiming to operate within these zones. Previous efforts to map ‘Critical Habitat’ in Africa have overlooked significant portions of ape habitats that would qualify under international benchmarks such as the IFC Performance Standard 6. “Companies operating in these areas should have adequate mitigation and compensation schemes in place to minimize their impact, which seems unlikely, given that most companies lack robust species baseline data that are required to inform these actions,” says Dr Tenekwetche Sop, manager of the IUCN SSC A.P.E.S. Database at the Senckenberg Museum of Natural History, a repository of all great ape population data. “Encouraging these companies to share their invaluable ape survey data with our database serves as a pivotal step towards transparency in their operations. Only through such collaborative efforts can we comprehensively gauge the true extent of mining activities' effects on great apes and their habitats.”

Direct and indirect impacts of mining on great apes in Africa.

CREDIT

Gabriele Rada / iDiv

Short-term offset plans fail to compensate for the long-term impacts of mining

Even though the indirect and long-term impacts of mining are difficult to quantify, they often extend well beyond the boundaries of the actual mining project. Currently, these risks are rarely considered and mitigated by mining companies. Compensation or offset is then based on an approximation of impacts, which the researchers suggest is often inaccurate, and underestimated. Furthermore, current offset schemes are developed to last as long as mining projects are active (usually c.20 years), whereas most mining impacts on great apes are permanent.

”Mining companies need to focus on avoiding their impacts on great apes as much as possible and use offsetting as a last resort as there is currently no example of a great ape offset that has been successful”, explains Dr Genevieve Campbell, lead of the IUCN SSC PSG SGA/SSA ARRC Task Force and senior researcher at Re:wild. ‘’Avoidance needs to take place already during the exploration phase, but unfortunately, this phase is poorly regulated and ‘baseline data’ are collected by companies after many years of exploration and habitat destruction have taken place. These data then do not accurately reflect the original state of the great ape populations in the area before mining impacts.’’

“A shift away from fossil fuels is good for the climate but must be done in a way that does not jeopardize biodiversity. In its current iteration it may even be going against the very environmental goals we’re aiming for”, says Jessica Junker. “Companies, lenders and nations need to recognize that it may sometimes be of greater value to leave some regions untouched to mitigate climate change and help prevent future epidemics.”

---

JOURNAL

Science Advances

DOI

10.1126/sciadv.adl0335 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Data/statistical analysis

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

Threat of mining to African great apes

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

3-Apr-2024

 

Tourism to Yellowstone National Park produces more than a billion kilos of CO2 emissions annually

PLOS

 

IMAGE: 

VISITORS WALKING ON A BOARDWALK IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK.

view more 

CREDIT: EMILY WILKINS, CC-BY 4.0

Tourism to Yellowstone National Park produces more than a billion kilos of CO2 emissions annually, with 90% arising through travel to and from the park, especially from visitors arriving by plane.

####

Article URL: https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000391

Article Title: Quantifying and evaluating strategies to decrease carbon dioxide emissions generated from tourism to Yellowstone National Park

Author Countries: United States

Funding: This work was supported by the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station (Project #1490 to JWS). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

---

JOURNAL

PLOS Climate

DOI

10.1371/journal.pclm.0000391 

ARTICLE TITLE

Quantifying and evaluating strategies to decrease carbon dioxide emissions generated from tourism to Yellowstone National Park

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

3-Apr-2024

Out of the park: new research tallies total carbon impact of tourism at Yellowstone

S.J. & JESSIE E. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF NATURAL RESOURCES, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

 

IMAGE: 

VISITORS WALK THE BOARDWALK AT THE GRAND PRISMATIC SPRING IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK.

view more 

CREDIT: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

People depend on natural ecosystems of trees, grasses and shrubs to capture carbon from the atmosphere and pull it underground to slow the decline toward climate-change disaster. Ironically, these same protected spaces also tend to be highly photogenic hot-spots for tourism.

New research from the Quinney College of Natural Resources and the Institute of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism makes a case study of one such place — Yellowstone National Park — to calculate surplus carbon visitors from across the world add to the atmosphere each year as a direct result of a park visit.

Emily Wilkins and Jordan Smith from the Department of Environment and Society and colleagues leveraged existing data to create a tally of carbon emissions generated by one year of tourist visits to Yellowstone National Park, a popular destination that can receive over 4 million visitors per year. They estimated that recreation visits to the park produce just over one megaton of carbon emissions per year, an average of 479 kilograms attributable to each visitor (about the weight of a grand piano).

The bulk of those emissions occur before a visitor even spies a geyser or a wandering wolf pack. Travel to and from the park entrance accounts for almost 90 percent of the total. Another 5 percent is produced as visitors move from place to place within park boundaries and four percent is sourced in overnight accommodations. Just 1 percent of the total comes from park operations such as visitor centers, museums, shops and restaurants.

Just over one-third of visits to Yellowstone involve someone taking a flight, but those particular trips accounted for a whopping 72 percent of the emissions for out-of-park transit.

“As the tourism industry explores strategies to reduce their carbon impact, this could be low-hanging fruit,” said Wilkins, who now works with the U.S. Geological Survey. “Future campaigns to encourage a greater proportion of visitors from nearby locations rather than Europe or Asia, or encouraging driving over flying, have potential for big impacts on reducing these emission numbers.”

But it seems that carbon accounting for Yellowstone National Park is still in the black.

“Interestingly, ecosystems within the park boundary pull around 1.5 megatons of carbon from the atmosphere each year,” Smith said. “So, even accounting for the significant impact of tourism, there is a net benefit in the system as a carbon sink.”

This is almost certainly not the case for smaller parks with high visitation numbers, he said.

This new method for calculating the carbon impact of tourism for national parks is designed to be adaptable for application to other parks and protected areas, Smith said, to help decision makers evaluate the effectiveness of potential emission reduction strategies.

Tourism is no lightweight player in the world’s total carbon tally. By one account, tourism accounted for 8 percent of annual global carbon emissions, with the U.S. earning the dubious honor of the highest total tourism carbon footprint in the world. And that number is expected to grow.

It’s important to note that this research was not a comprehensive policy analysis, according to the authors. Ecotourism has other costs and benefits that weren’t under consideration in this particular research. For example, while tourism does contribute significantly to carbon emissions globally, positive experiences and education at parks like Yellowstone have potential to lead to indirect environmental benefits, such as encouraging pro-environmental behaviors back at home.

“We really need more research on both the effect of tourism on climate change, and the effect of climate change on tourism,” Wilkins said. “These topics both have major economic and environmental repercussions. Managers and decision makers need a more complete perspective for how tourism to parks is contributing to a vulnerable global climate system.”

---

JOURNAL

PLOS Climate

DOI

10.1371/journal.pclm.0000391 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Case study

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

Quantifying and evaluating strategies to decrease carbon dioxide emissions generated from tourism to Yellowstone National Park

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

3-Apr-2024

 

Life expectancy increased as world addressed major killers including diarrhea, lower respiratory infections, and stroke

Poor management of pandemic curtailed progress in many places

INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH METRICS AND EVALUATION

Global life expectancy increased by 6.2 years since 1990 according to a new study published in The Lancet. Over the past three decades, reductions in death from leading killers fueled this progress, including diarrhea and lower respiratory infections, as well as stroke and ischemic heart disease. When the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in 2020, however, it derailed progress in many locations. This is the first study to compare deaths from COVID-19 to deaths from other causes globally. 

Despite the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers found that the super-region of Southeast Asia, East Asia, and Oceania had the largest net gain in life expectancy between 1990 and 2021 (8.3 years), largely due to reductions in mortality from chronic respiratory diseases, stroke, lower respiratory infections, and cancer. The super-region’s strong management of the COVID-19 pandemic helped preserve these gains. South Asia had the second-largest net increase in life expectancy among super-regions between 1990 and 2021 (7.8 years), primarily thanks to steep declines in deaths from diarrheal diseases.  

“Our study presents a nuanced picture of the world’s health,” said Dr. Liane Ong, co-first author of the study and a Lead Research Scientist at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). “On one hand, we see countries’ monumental achievements in preventing deaths from diarrhea and stroke,” she said. “At the same time, we see how much the COVID-19 pandemic has set us back.” 

The study also highlights how COVID-19 radically altered the top five causes of death for the first time in 30 years. COVID-19 displaced a long-dominant killer – stroke – to become the second-leading cause of death globally. The research presents updated estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2021. The authors found that the super-regions where the COVID-19 pandemic hit hardest were Latin America and the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa, which lost the most years of life expectancy due to COVID-19 in 2021. While documenting the enormous loss of life caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the researchers also pinpointed the reasons behind the improvements in life expectancy in every super-region. Looking across different causes of death, the study reveals sharp drops in deaths from enteric diseases – a class of diseases that includes diarrhea and typhoid. These improvements increased life expectancy worldwide by 1.1 years between 1990 and 2021. Reductions in deaths from lower respiratory infections added 0.9 years to global life expectancy during this period. Progress in preventing deaths from other causes also drove up life expectancy around the world, including stroke, neonatal disorders, ischemic heart disease, and cancer. For each disease, reductions in deaths were most pronounced between 1990 and 2019. 

At the regional level, Eastern sub-Saharan Africa experienced the largest increase in life expectancy, which jumped by 10.7 years between 1990 and 2021. Control of diarrheal diseases was the leading force behind improvements in this region. East Asia had the second-largest gain in life expectancy; the region’s success in slashing deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease played a key role. 

The GBD 2021 study measures mortality by cause of death and years of life lost at global, regional, national, and subnational levels. The analysis links specific causes of death to changes in life expectancy.  

The study illuminates not only the diseases that have driven increases and decreases in life expectancy, but also looks at how patterns of disease have shifted across locations over time, presenting, as the authors write, an “opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies…[which] might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented.”   

GBD 2021 highlights places that have made huge strides in preventing deaths from major diseases and injuries. It also emphasizes how some of the most burdensome diseases are now concentrated in certain locations, underscoring opportunities for intervention. For example, in 2021, deaths from enteric diseases were largely concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. For another disease, malaria, the researchers found that 90% of deaths occurred in an area inhabited by just 12% of the world’s population in a stretch of land ranging from Western sub-Saharan Africa through Central Africa to Mozambique.  

“We already know how to save children from dying from enteric infections including diarrheal diseases, and progress in fighting this disease has been tremendous,” said Professor Mohsen Naghavi, the study’s co-first author and the Director of Subnational Burden of Disease Estimation at IHME. “Now, we need to focus on preventing and treating these diseases, strengthening and expanding immunization programs, and developing brand-new vaccines against E. coli, norovirus, and Shigella,” he added.  

In addition to providing new insights on COVID-19, the study reveals growing threats from non-communicable diseases, such as diabetes and kidney diseases, which are increasing in every country. The researchers also point to uneven progress against conditions such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, and cancer. High-income countries have driven down deaths from many types of non-communicable diseases, but many low-income countries have not. 

“The global community must ensure that the lifesaving tools that have cut deaths from ischemic heart disease, stroke, and other non-communicable diseases in most high-income countries are available to people in all countries, even where resources are limited,” said Eve Wool, senior author of the study and a Senior Research Manager at IHME. 

For interview requests, journalists may contact media@healthdata.org. For full study results, including the paper and related tables, finalized PDFs are available at https://bit.ly/2021CoD, embargoed until 23.30 UK, 6:30 p.m. EDT on April 3, 2024. The post-embargo link for the paper is  https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)00367-2/fulltext. An infographic summarizing the study’s findings can be found at https://bit.ly/3TDwsce. 

 

About the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation 

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) is an independent research organization at the University of Washington (UW). Its mission is to deliver to the world timely, relevant, and scientifically valid evidence to improve health policy and practice. IHME carries out its mission through a range of projects within different research areas including the Global Burden of Diseases (GBD), Injuries, and Risk Factors; Future Health Scenarios; Cost Effectiveness and Efficiency; Resource Tracking; and Impact Evaluations. 

IHME is committed to providing the evidence base necessary to help solve the world’s most important health problems. This requires creativity and innovation, which are cultivated by an inclusive, diverse, and equitable environment that respects and appreciates differences, embraces collaboration, and invites the voices of all IHME team members. 

About the Global Burden of Disease Study 

The Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) is the largest and most comprehensive effort to quantify health loss across places and over time. It draws on the work of more than 11,000 collaborators across more than 160 countries and territories. GBD 2021 — the newly published most recent round of GBD results — includes more than 607 billion estimates of 371 diseases and injuries and 88 risk factors in 204 countries and territories. The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation coordinates the study. 

 

Tables 

Table 1: Leading causes of death, global, 1990 

Cause	Rank	Age-standardized rate per 100,000
Ischemic heart disease	1	158.9
Stroke	2	144.3
COPD	3	71.9
Lower respiratory infections	4	61.8
Diarrheal diseases	5	60.6
Neonatal disorders	6	46.0
Tuberculosis	7	40.0
Tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer	8	27.6
Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias	9	25.1
Cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases	10	24.4
Stomach cancer	11	22.0
Road injuries	12	21.8
Hypertensive heart disease	13	20.9
Diabetes mellitus	14	18.2
Colon and rectum cancer	15	15.6
Congenital birth defects	16	15.2
Self-harm	17	14.9
Chronic kidney disease	18	14.9
Malaria	19	12.5
Measles	20	11.0
Falls	21	10.9
*HIV/AIDS	34	5.9

*Cause shown to display changes over time. 

Table 2: Leading causes of death, global, 2019 

Cause	Rank	Age-standardized rate per 100,000
Ischemic heart disease	1	110.9
Stroke	2	89.3
COPD	3	46.1
Lower respiratory infections	4	34.7
Neonatal disorders	5	30.7
Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias	6	25.0
Tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer	7	23.7
Diabetes mellitus	8	19.8
Chronic kidney disease	9	18.6
Diarrheal diseases	10	17.1
Cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases	11	17.1
Hypertensive heart disease	12	16.9
Road injuries	13	15.1
Tuberculosis	14	14.9
Colon and rectum cancer	15	12.6
Stomach cancer	16	11.5
Falls	17	10.3
HIV/AIDS	18	9.8
Malaria	19	9.3
Self-harm	20	9.2
Congenital birth defects	21	8.9
*Measles	67	1.4

*Cause shown to display change over time. 

 

Table 3: Leading causes of death, global, 2021 

Cause	Rank	Age-standardized rate per 100,000
Ischemic heart disease	1	108.7
COVID-19	2	94.0
Stroke	3	87.4
COPD	4	45.2
Other COVID outcomes	5	32.3
Neonatal disorders	6	29.6
Lower respiratory infections	7	28.7
Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias	8	25.2
Tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer	9	23.5
Diabetes mellitus	10	19.6
Chronic kidney disease	11	18.5
Cirrhosis and other chronic liver diseases	12	16.6
Hypertensive heart disease	13	16.3
Diarrheal diseases	14	15.4
Road injuries	15	14.6
Tuberculosis	16	14.0
Colon and rectum cancer	17	12.4
Stomach cancer	18	11.2
Malaria	19	10.5
Falls	20	9.9
Self-harm	21	9.0
HIV/AIDS	22	8.7

 

 

 

 

---

JOURNAL

The Lancet

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

3-Apr-2024