I mean, that's bad, but those numbers aren't anything compared to what climate change is going to do. If the population of Earth drops by a billion over the next hundred years, that's 10M a year, on average. (I recognize that I'm not differentiating between premature deaths and a lack of replacement births, but still.)

Why do you think climate change will kill a billion people over the next century? Not saying you're wrong, just bewildered that you are able to make any kind of prediction on this at all.

Not sure where they got the number from, but every year the climates have become a tad more warmer with summer temperatures routinely being closer to 50C in India.

I've been hearing nearly all my life that coastal areas like Bangladesh, Mumbai, Kolkata, orissa etc are at a severe risk of drowning due to rising sea levels.

I've experienced first hand water scarcity in many parts of the country, but more prominently near the Deccan plateau due to rainfall failures and lakes, rivers drying up as a consequence of exploitation leading to crop failures.

Their 1 billion number doesn't seem too far off though if we take into account not many hospitable places have measures controlling resource usage and exploitation.

I mean we should also recognize the effect it's currently having. Not just what the immediate future holds in the form of many climate catastrophes. I've noticed that, in general, the younger someone is the more concerned they are about this immediate present and future of climate problems.

He's using capitalism rather than philanthropy on climate, and there's not really a shortage of capital in the climate space, its an incentives problem. Capitalism is of more limited use in the health of poor people, which is why he has focused his philanthropy there.