Some comments have pointed out that this doesn't actually mention a difference from the base rate of violent deaths in the relevant countries. Sure, fine.
I think the other significant missing numbers are those who die from human-driven environmental disaster. One estimate on climate change deaths in the recent decades is 2M, and the WHO has estimated 250k/yr in 2030-2050.
Since we collectively have known about climate change as a concern for decades, and have known that large numbers of civilian deaths, disease, displacement, etc are predictable results, and have nevertheless chosen to pump carbon in to the atmosphere at ever-increasing rates (except a single dip in 2020), then under a consequentialist framework, these un-targeted victims ought to count just as much as intentionally-targeted activists.
If those who benefit from the pro-emissions status quo may kill you whether you protest or not, either through neglectful inattention to the consequences their own actions, or through hostile retribution, but they can only possibly be confronted with any direct responsibility for their _intended_ victims, perhaps it's best to protest.
As an ethics note, I am aware there are those who say, "we're not responsible for the 250k/yr who die from climate change in the near future merely because we emit above a sustainable level; our _goals_ were merely to heat our houses and fly to Europe on vacation, whereas the _goal_ of someone who murders an activist is clearly to cause death." And I think this _can_ be part of a coherent ethical vision, but I would ask that they revisit Anscombe's critique of Truman's decision to use fission weapons on civilian targets. If you believe that it was "good" to drop the bombs and hasten the end of the war because it resulted in fewer total deaths, and the hypothetical deaths averted in a long conventional war have the same moral weight and standing as the civilians killed by the atomic bombs, then why would you not believe that targeted and untargeted climate deaths have the same ethical weight? Or from the converse side, if you believe we are not responsible for deaths caused as predictable effects of actions which are motivated by heating/transporting/building etc, i.e. you believe an important ethical factor is the presence or absence of an _intention_ to kill innocent people (as versus merely knowing they will be killed as an effect of an action initiated with some other intention), then do you also believe that Truman, who chose to drop the bomb on cities, is a mass murderer?
Since we collectively have known about climate change as a concern for decades, and have known that large numbers of civilian deaths, disease, displacement, etc are predictable results, and have nevertheless chosen to pump carbon in to the atmosphere at ever-increasing rates (except a single dip in 2020), then under a consequentialist framework, these un-targeted victims ought to count just as much as intentionally-targeted activists.
If those who benefit from the pro-emissions status quo may kill you whether you protest or not, either through neglectful inattention to the consequences their own actions, or through hostile retribution, but they can only possibly be confronted with any direct responsibility for their _intended_ victims, perhaps it's best to protest.
As an ethics note, I am aware there are those who say, "we're not responsible for the 250k/yr who die from climate change in the near future merely because we emit above a sustainable level; our _goals_ were merely to heat our houses and fly to Europe on vacation, whereas the _goal_ of someone who murders an activist is clearly to cause death." And I think this _can_ be part of a coherent ethical vision, but I would ask that they revisit Anscombe's critique of Truman's decision to use fission weapons on civilian targets. If you believe that it was "good" to drop the bombs and hasten the end of the war because it resulted in fewer total deaths, and the hypothetical deaths averted in a long conventional war have the same moral weight and standing as the civilians killed by the atomic bombs, then why would you not believe that targeted and untargeted climate deaths have the same ethical weight? Or from the converse side, if you believe we are not responsible for deaths caused as predictable effects of actions which are motivated by heating/transporting/building etc, i.e. you believe an important ethical factor is the presence or absence of an _intention_ to kill innocent people (as versus merely knowing they will be killed as an effect of an action initiated with some other intention), then do you also believe that Truman, who chose to drop the bomb on cities, is a mass murderer?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/22/climate-change-caus...
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-cha...