A report shows climate change kills 400,000 people yearly. Since lives are at stake and there is scientific consensus, is denial of climate change ethically defensible?

Climate change is a problem which is too vast for any single individual. I personally feel very strongly that society should change drastically in an effort to preserve our natural resources. My own personal feelings about climate change can't fix the money-driven oil industry though. We will not see any significant changes until the consequences of inaction are so extreme that even the greediest corporations must concede to the urgency of the situation. The real question is, will there be anything left to preserve? And will we be able to repair our biosphere once we've destroyed it to the point of disaster?

The 400,000 deaths figure does not even mention the other damage done by climate change, such as hunger, thirst, loss of homes and other property, spread of disease, loss of species other than human, and so on. I would say that denying climate change ranks with denying the holocaust, except that denying climate change is actually allowing it to continue and get worse, while denying the holocaust was after the fact and therefore (while offensive) is not actually causing more deaths. Considering that climate change may well escalate into the worst prolonged catastrophe in human history, denying climate change is absolutely morally indefensible.

The report in question does not show that climate change kills people. It has a lot of pretty pictures and tables, some assumptions and nothing else.

Climate change denial is indefensible; there is more than enough scientific evidence out there to demonstrate that climate change is occurring and that it is due to anthropogenic effects. It is somewhat justifiable for individuals to decide to do nothing about it. The reality is that our personal actions have ZERO impact upon climate change. Want to drive a Prius? Go ahead! The difference in collective gas use won't make a difference in the billion+ of tons of CO2 emitted annually.  Want to get your energy from renewable sources? Sure knock yourself out! Won't make any difference since it's basically a kind of accounting trick the energy companies use that I still don't understand...your energy is not directly coming from a windmill when you decide to pay more for electricity. We have these feel good messages about "doing our part"...companies use that as marketing...Poland spring advertises their smaller bottle cap to make you feel better about your choice to still buy bottled water! The reality is that none of us are willing to turn off all our lights, sleep through cold/stifling hot nights or stop driving our cars. We expect that when we flick the switch our tv will turn on...which means power plants have to run 24-7 to make sure we have 100% consistent power. The reality is that unless the developed world, primarily the US and China, find ways to develop alternative fuel sources, build the infrastructure and invent batteries that will store our energy so that we can get our 100% reliable power that we demand then we will not ever switch from the fossil fuels.  In other words this is a problem that isn't going to be solved by the people. It's not a problem that can just be solved by "the market". Its not even a problem that can be solved by US government policy (although that will go a hell of a long way). This problem can only be solved by a collective action of the market and governments recognizing the problem and taking steps to eliminate the energy source that creates the problem... So when we dbag brother in law drives his SUV to the grocery store...I grimace...but I don't try and talk him out of it because it doesn't actually make things that much worse...

The dominating legal system exists to protect rich sociopaths. So either denial of such obvious facts or lack of action in the face of those facts won't become a criminal charge for anyone. Even if it were possible, and we were to punish someone for non-recognition or for non rsistance, we'd have to centence to forced labour at least 30% of world population (mostly urban population would have to participate in learning and implementing permaculture). This culture won't abandon abuse until all the resourses are gone. So only violent UG actions against industrial infrastructure will resolve the issue. Nothing else will help. Legal perspective is useless. Those who are supposed to publicly admit the perils we're in are well paid and protected.

I hope not to be one of the 400.000 deaths per year caused by the climate change. or one of the 100 million to die because of climate change until the end of next decade. It's easy try to bring other numbers like air pollution kills, and so on. Except that nobody here believes they will die of any of these causes, that's why these numbers of dead people are so easily raised to counter another number of dead people.

"This report estimates that climate change causes 400,000 deaths on average each year today, mainly due to hunger and communicable diseases that affect above all children in developing countries" Are you sure we are taking about deaths due a "climate change" and not due to a climate being, well, a climate? How many death have been occurring before climate change started? In percent and absolute numbers in the same countries? By the way what date was that when the climate change started? How many were dying from cancer prior to that. As David Hahana rightly noted here we do need a baseline for comparison...

Why focus only on climate change?  Pollution in general may kill us all much quicker.  Why allow society to feel that it is enough to reduce carbon dioxide production while ignoring other pollutants and resource waste? Are we focused on the climate change/carbon dioxide argument because there we can safely rail against someone else?  Are we focusing on what we are personally doing?  Is it ethical to rail against polluters while continuing to pollute?

If I deny climate change, do my innermost thoughts kill someone? I have taken no action to cause anyone harm. Should I grant you the power to do whatever you believe to "fix" climate change? If your actions cause one death, are your actions ethical?   Do you really expect me to buy into the statement that 400,000 people die each year due to climate change? An average 2 million people died each year in the 20th century from war. That we can do something about. Can't we?   Climate is a ponderous beast that cannot be stopped.  Species adjust to climate to survive. Mankind will adjust to climate and survive. Some individuals who don't adapt will die. They will die anyway.   Mankind has, apparently, caused a change in our worldwide climate. Our population has increased five fold since 1950. There's no doubt that mankind, a species that habitually alters our environment to thrive, has changed the global environment. Can we recover the past environment? Can we slow down our impact on environmental change?   The various components to climate, such as weather, will likely kill some of the members of our species. Weather, not climate, is the hammer of God. We can design for weather by changing our environment. Should we? Is it unethical not to?   To review the ethical dilemma: the premise that climate change is killing people is questionable. Many people in the world are living on a knife edge of survival. If you change their opportunities you will condemn them. The environment is changing. Any change we make to the environment, no matter how small, impacts someone.   Ethically, any change we make will kill someone. In fact, doing nothing will result in people dying.