Heatwaves kill more Americans than hurricanes, tornadoes and floods
economist.com
economist.com
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...
If the humidity is high enough, it can take it past even. But you won't find that out by comparing summer and winter numbers in the same location, because there aren't a significant number of locations that have both summer and winter conditions severe enough to push the numbers. You would want to compare, say, Canada in winter with south Florida or south Texas in summer (or, for even more extreme, northern Scandinavia in winter with southeast Asia or equatorial Africa in summer).
Even just locally here the 25 degree F differential with ~50% relative humidity in summer would be interesting to compare to the 60 degree F differential in winter. Maybe those ultra efficient hygroscopic dehumidifiers will finally enter production.
And heat pumping to geothermal for summer might help too. I know some people locally do that. Big investment though.
Central heating is also common and often heated by garbage.
And you can survive “unaided” quite low (sleeping bags rated to -30°?) but there is a heat point where you die if you cannot escape it somehow.
I have a heat pump for heating and cooling, and my electric bills are only slightly higher in winter (5-10%).
It all feels incredibly dirty and inefficient to me for such a rich country.
*) Depending on time and location of course, but it's the case surprisingly often.
As a Swede, the more I learn about about how central Europe has been heating their homes the more disgusted I become. Like, the way e.g. Germany seems to think of burning gas as "clean". I mean, maybe compared to coal, but... you shut down nuclear plants with a plan to replace with (Russian) gas? You do understand burning this causes CO2 emissions, right?
That was the many-billion-Euro German green energy revolution your environmentalists wouldn't stop talking about a decade ago?
And now our electricity in southern Sweden (which is what we generally use to heat our houses, in contrast to most of Europe, since it used to be very cheap and clean here, just a year ago. Most use an air-to-air/water heat pump or three) is insane costly, because of a combination of idiotic leftist politicans/voters also shutting down nuclear plants while at the same time building export power connections to Europe.
It's like everyone is doing the opposite of what's sane. /rant over
Those export connections are there to benefit Germany industry who basically shut down some domestic production, because "green", and is instead importing its deficit from the others, raising the prices for everyone.
Portugal and Spain together are the only ones not connected to the shared grid and now have the cheapest energy prices in Europe, with Germany mumbling about it that this should change. Well done guys.
(More believable.)
Source?
At the moment this is leading to a quite a lot of resentment towards the EU (and Germany) here amongst people.
Even if the nuclear plants the 'greens' forced to shut down were started again this probably will not bring down the power prices very much since the demand from neighbouring states will keep them up. As an aside and since you're in the south, would you have any idea why the wind park at Lillgrund (off the coast of Malmö) is not being used [1] when power costs 5.70 SEK/kWh? It is not because of a lack of wind as the linked video - which is taken from a boat sailing at ~8 knots past the wind park - clearly shows.
Europe used to be a one big jungle and the western Europe was first to chop it all and build their wealth on it.
If now we regret it then those who did chop off all their forests should share part of their wealth if they don't want others to follow suit.
The winter is coming. Despite global warming, somebody (starts with U, ends with S) will make a pretty penny. It will teach those EU socialists (healthcare, education, functional public transport) how to do business. Fixing somebody's problem that you yourself created--Godfather would be proud.
Ah yes, the country of Urussias. Or perhaps you mean Unorways. Or Ualgerias? Or Usaudi Arabias?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_European_...
It’s now the largest LNG exporter in the world in 2022, though that hardly benefits the country directly in terms of making a pretty penny.
LNG only accounts for a small portion of the EU natural gas imports, most of their gas is imported in gaseous form.
Main extra-EU partners for imports of natural gas, 2021:
Russia: 39.2%
Norway: 25.1%
Algeria: 8.2%
United States: 7.3% <-- The one you're blaming.
United Kingdom: 6.5%
Main extra-EU partners for imports of petroleum oil, 2021:
Russia: 24.8%
Norway 9.4%
United States: 8.8% <-- The one you're blaming.
Libya: 8.2%
Kazakhstan: 8.0%
These figures will be updated to reflect an entirely different new world. They’re from 2021, the year before Russia invaded Ukraine and Europe’s energy supply was dramatically changed at both ends.
Natural gas in the EU is generally used to heat homes and power industry, it and other sources of energy aren’t immediately fungible.
I don’t subscribe to realism and don’t personally blame anyone but Russia and the EU member energy policies responsible for this situation unlike the Russian sympathetic commenter you originally responded to, but using pre war figures on top of pre export ban statistics does border closely on disingenuity given how loudly and rapidly changes have been occurring in 2022.
x4 price increase!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/what-lng-can-...
Though the increase in military spendings may eclipse that.
Why did Hungary remove protection for forests to allow people to collect firewood? Presumably because they think it's necessary. So what would you have them do instead, abandon their country?
For people who have studied the history of how countries and their leadership make decisions, even just superficially (eg, you've followed the news for 20 years), this is actually a very strange presumption.
It is historically just as plausible that it's not thought necessary for society as a whole, but is simply profitable for some special interest, such as (just an example, not an actual suggestion) a large forest land owner.
I thought this was obvious, unless one is very young still or one has never taken any interest in history or current events.
Not, 'What could they have done five years ago?' or 'What could they do five years from now?' I want to know how Hungarians can heat their homes 5 months from now. That's the question the government of Hungary is forced to address.
Solar panels and heat pumps seem like a good long-term solution, but that can't be done in time to keep people warm this winter. So for this winter, what would you have them do? Freeze? Travel back in time a few years and come up with a better solution?
Edit: you seem to be under the impression that this "firewood" will go to households of all income levels. GP's statement about naivete is reinforced.
I'm sure it would sting to do so, but it is an option.
There are 1001 ways to generate electricity but with no good storage options we need to prize reliability over all other attributes when considering what we invest in.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange...
Prey population density declines predictors need to expend more energy to get a meal, this space is frequently the limiting factor for prey species not the availability of food or water.
We nees to address social problems too. You energy policy won't help a homeless person
Stricter building codes and other mandates to improve efficiency will also increase housing costs at a time when many people are struggling to afford a home at all. Efficiency pays back in the long term but the capital expenses are painful in the short term.
That's a misinterpretation. Those are global numbers. Those people dying are dying primarily from exposure due to housing shortfalls, it's not an energy distribution problem. And it's absolutely not a problem due to (as you seem to imply) inappropriate regulation of fuels, which isn't happening anywhere anyway.
If you want to keep these people alive then cut a check to a global housing construction NGO. Letting GE build a reactor or BP dill a well does nothing.
Saying this wouldn't help is just false. Of course increased supply helps with shortages.
Also, the mere existence of housing problems doesn't negate the point that cheap energy is immensely beneficial to human flourishing in general.
The fact that one person cannot heat their home has nothing to do with a person with no home.
If people freeze to death because they’re homeless or get lost hiking no amount of cheap energy is going to help.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... (March 2022)
Global mortality burden attributable to non-optimal temperatures
They report that 2.98% of deaths globally could be attributed to non-optimal temperatures in 2019; 2.37% of deaths from low temperatures and 0.63% of deaths from high temperatures.
Current WBGT - https://www.weather.gov/tsa/wbgt
Fahrenheit - https://arielschecklist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/CHART...
Celsius - https://arielschecklist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/CHART...
WBGT Work Recs - http://blog.mesonet.org/agriculture/wp-content/uploads/sites...
These are good guides but don't let this info plant anxiety in your mind either. Heat can kill you over time, but if you get into a situation where you feel heat exhausted, stay calm and stick to a single plan to unwind and rest. Carry around a frozen water bottle or two if you're headed somewhere hot for awhile. Neck + palms are one of the best ways to cool core temps [1]. Pre-hydration is also important, water + electrolyte intake days before exertion affects performance.
Given that extreme heat is not even close to being at the top 50 ways that Americans die on an annual basis, it seems to me that there is much better bang for the buck having federal state and local governments focusing on those things that kills the most people first - if the goal is saving lives (which it should be), than attack those societal/public health problems that kill the most people first.
Basic triaging is necessary - if you don't have unlimited resources, and you can't save everybody (both of those things are objectively true), then the best benefit to society is to attack the problems that will save or extend the lives of the most people.
The top ten causes of death alone account for 1.5 million USA deaths per year; extreme heat is less than 1/10 of 1% of just those top 10 - I want the government to prioritize making progress on those things first.
Just having a healthier population alone would probably cut way down on # number of people that die from extreme heat - a healthier person will almost certainly fare better in extreme heat than someone that already has 2-3 comorbidities.
A person with breathing difficulty, for example, should be getting routine medical care. If they lack insurance, don’t qualify for Medicaid or are unable to access healthcare, that won’t happen.
So it’s easier to have old people hang out at a school gym or whatever than engage in some “socialist” pursuit.
Compare that to, say, a tornado that wipes out a family with 2 young kids and 2 middle-aged adults. That to me feels orders of magnitude worse, both in the violent manner of death, and the fact that these people had years and years of healthy life left.
And, to hopefully kill this anticipated straw man, I am not making the assertion that "it's no big deal" if elderly or sick people die. I am only commenting on the comparison to other forms of death, and arguing that I think it's fair to think those other forms are death are much worse if you look beyond just "number of people killed".
https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr...
Almost every soldier death would be 18-25. I suspect the civilian would lean older but I don’t think it would entirely offset it.
Absolutely not true. The age at which countries recruited were up to 45 normally (united states) or even 60 (Germany UK) and in Germany every able bodied male eventually ended in some kind of unit - if only home defense. Starting with 14 actually.
The ration of civilians to soldiers killed is 3:2 to 2:1.
http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/greatwar/ages-of-the-dead/
Certainly lower than 55+, though ww2 could be moderately higher than 27 I doubt it.
The civilian to soldier death ration in wwi was different. The civilians were not directly targeted the way they were in wwii. The ideologization was lower and population itself was not the enemy the way it was in wwii.
Also, both Amrica and UK sent soldiers away to fight. UK was bombed, but did not had large displacement of population or ethnic cleansing or retaliation for those going on in their territories.
Modern wars kill more civilians then soldiers.
Excluding officers and keeping in logistics would not make much sense. (Tho logistics does not mean safe either).
If you and your family are well off, you can be reasonably sure that hot or cold weather will not affect you so dramatically.
We’re wired to respond to a crisis that comes upon us. Most city fire departments try to target a 5-10m response time to a fairly rare event.
We’re not good at responding to longer term or complex cause and effect issues.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/12/14/fac...
Also, it’s much easier to warm up in cold weather than it is to cool down in hot weather.
As use of heat pumps increase, and average temperatures continue to climb, the balance between heating and cooling costs will shift (this is obviously a very regional phenomenon).
May be true for the human body, but when you're talking about heating a living space to a comfortable temperature versus cooling the same, in the majority of places (at least in the US) it takes way less energy to accomplish the latter.
Even in a hot place like Dallas, TX with an average daytime high of 97 degrees Fahrenheit in the hottest month, it's only a 20-degree differential to bring it to 77 degrees indoors, vs. an average overnight low of 38 degrees in the coldest month, where you would need to bring it up 30 degrees and might still feel cold inside.
This is not to mention how much more energy-efficient air conditioning (which just moves heat around) is compared to furnaces (which generate heat from fuel).
It's true that you can claw some of that back from the fact that A/C can have a coefficient of performance greater than 1, but COP also gets worse (i.e., closer to 1, less of an advantage) as the conditions get more extreme.
But if Silicon Valley gets slightly uncomfortable for a week it’s the end of the worlds.
Why exactly the USA has such a huge infrastructure problem is debatable. Maybe it's the concentration of wealth and political power in fewer locations, i.e. some regions of the West and East Coasts? Maybe it's too much money being earmarked by Congress to military-industrial projects in their home districts, leaving little for things like rebuilding water supply systems, railroads and bridges, improved electricity grids, etc.? A decreased overall tax base due to a steep reduction in tax rates (particularly on the wealthiest) since the 1960s? Financialization of the economy and a resulting lack of engineering expertise and interest in infrastructure development?
As far as infrastructure for heat waves, termite-mound-inspired architecture would be the way to go. Build bunkers with large capacity that people can retreat to, with built-in cooling mechanisms.
https://wyss.harvard.edu/news/termite-mounds-could-inspire-n...
> "The team’s observations show that thin, outer channels of the mound heat up rapidly during the day when compared to the deeper tunnels in the mound, which causes air to circulate in a closed-loop convection cell. During the day, air moves up along the outer channels and down the center. At night, the flow is reversed. This reversal flushes out the carbon dioxide from deep inside the mound, and the gas then diffuses through the porous walls."
I thought it's because we didn't build it nearly from scratch about 70 yers ago.
Further preparing for heat waves is also quite expensive, as you need more power generation capacity that sits unused 99% of the time etc.
Even paint degrades faster with heat, as does just about everything else. Individual Solar panels don’t show any obvious issues, but multiply a little damage by 10’s of billions of dollars worth of panels and it adds up.
PS: Rust seems like a counter example because water and salt dramatically speed things up, but all things being equal heat does increase the rate stuff rusts.
Also, society generally designs things with the knowledge that light bulbs go bad, exposed metal rusts, etc. Unless a heatwave were to shorten the lifespan of things by an order of magnitude, it’s likely that a slightly shorter lifespan is within the designed limits of many things.
Hurricanes are infrequent and don’t inflict devastation over nearly as much area as heat waves can. Hurricanes are obvious like bullets, but add up the numbers globally and average over a decade and they’re not that big a deal.
Actually we do notice stuff like that. Which is why it is advised that you don't inhale asbestos particles, wear sunscreen, avoid smoking, etc.
My point still stands: it's understandable that heatwaves aren't considered as serious as hurricanes if the only impact of a heatwave you can point to is that lightbulbs theoretically burn out more quickly during a heat wave.
> Actually we do notice stuff like that. Which is why it is advised that you don't inhale asbestos particles, wear sunscreen, avoid smoking, etc.
No we don’t. Asbestos and others became such an issue because people didn’t notice the damage they inferred it after the fact based on exposure. It’s easy to correlate unusual symptoms with workplace hazards after the fact, but by then it’s too late: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
Isn’t every observation just a causal inference after the fact?
Look, you’re free to attempt to quantify the impact. Either via direct measurement or a theoretical calculation. However, a baseless opination without any data backing it up isn’t that convincing or interesting.
No, instinctive reflex for example is a response to a stimulus without inference.
If uranium had a horrific taste the radium girls wouldn’t have licked their uranium paint brushes thus avoiding Radium jaw. Horrific taste doesn’t always mean something is harmful, but it generally causes people to limit ingestion.
Further the perception and response to that taste isn’t a inference that something is physically harmful. You can dislike perfectly healthy food. That said, if uranium had a bad taste people wouldn’t have been as harmed demonstrating the lack of perception of the initial minute harm resulted in greater long term harm.
Parts of the US where heatwaves are endemic rarely have serious issues with heatwaves, they've learned how to live with them for a long time and the local customs and infrastructure reflect that. Like in Europe, much of the human hazard from heatwaves is in areas where extreme heat is rare such that appropriate infrastructure has never been needed. As an example from the US, the extreme heatwave that hit the Pacific Northwest in 2021 was bad in part because it is a rare region of the US where few people have air-conditioning. It is a wealthy region with some of the cheapest electricity in the world so lack of air-conditioning was not a failure of infrastructure or spending, there was no good reason to invest in it.
If you live in a place that has regular heatwaves, no one needs to "retreat to bunkers". Almost all of the infrastructure is built with the assumption that heatwaves will occur at relatively low cost. The only implication for infrastructure is that it can stress power generation and distribution systems, but that isn't specific to heatwaves or natural disasters generally.
Well here in Boston our transit infrastructure is falling apart . . . and we don't lack for political influence especially among elites.
I am not certain of the cause, but cost disease seems to be a related phenomenon.
There’s lots of problems, but imo a big one is just like the “low fat” crisis of the 80s and 90s… we changed building codes to make buildings like envelopes and pursued HVAC efficiency over everything else.
I live in 1920s frame home. We have at minimum 2 windows per room, often more. Every side of the house has windows, allowing for cross-drafts and adjusting for the sun through the day.
The average modern development typically skips windows on the sides, and builders put the smallest windows possible in the rear and ceilings are lower. Modern construction techniques designed to slow fire often reduce airflow to the second floor of houses as well.
We live in the northeast, and we use window ac units for probably less than 30 days a year, in our bedrooms only. The key is to manage the windows/blinds and have an attic exhaust fan. My sister lives a few miles away in a circa 1999 home, and totally different story… they use the AC from May to October.
Hurricanes don't come from nowhere. You can evacuate for a hurricane. And the actual hurricane is over relatively quickly. I'm also not sure how knock-on deaths are counted. Hurricanes cause flooding, spin off tornadoes, and can disable services during some of the hottest months of the year. So a hurricane will make you susceptible to floods, tornadoes, and heatwaves. But still. We know what to do when hurricanes come.
Tornadoes are violent, but quick. You usually have some amount of time to clear out of the path if necessary.
Floods come in many forms. A lot of them are less lethal. Water slowly rising 4 feet over several hours is a different scenario than water rising 4 feet over several seconds.
Heat. Heat is different. There's no real indicator that there's too much of it. Yeah, you got hot, but you get hot a lot of times. It's fine. "Just got to finish this lawn, this run, this game, etc." And heat usually covers a huge area, enough that it could take over a day just to drive out of the affected area.
We respect violence, and heat is not violent.
Actually, we can't realistically evacuate Miami/Dade county. There is only one highway leading north, and no other direction to go.
Ask Pakistan about floods.
But yes, you are right about heat. My theory is that it is the fourth rider of the apocalypse. Covers a huge area and just kills everyone.
Yes, that's why I said there are different types of floods. I explicitly acknowledged that floods come in several varieties. Pakistan is notable for a lot of reasons. It's also notable because even for a flood, it is out of the ordinary.
You tried to pick edge cases to try and say the typical doesn't apply. It still does. The issue is that the typical heatwave is different from the typical variety of other disasters.
I admittedly don't pay much attention to it since I live pretty minimally anyway. Though, I cannot tell you how many homes in my area have "Climate Action" signs in front of their unnecessarily large homes. One home in particular has one right next to a gas guzzling jeep.
It's sad that so many human issues have fallen into the political spectrum where they are weaponized for power rather than resolved for the common good.
Better than one next to a Prius that commutes 50 miles every day.
Someone with a Jeep in their driveway who has no commute at all and works from home so they only drive 10k miles a year is far better than the Prius driver who does 40k a year and has to buy vehicles 4x as frequently.
> better than the Prius driver who does 40k a year and has to buy vehicles 4x as frequently.
But worse than the F-150 driver who never hauls anything and works in an office and has to buy the same amount of vehicles. Again, doesn't make sense. You can always compare the other way.
Looking back now, I have no idea how I survived. My pet chinchilla died one summer because it was too hot in my bedroom.
I could never imagine allowing my own son to grow up on such conditions.
I suppose I have regressed and I am now weaker. But I couldn’t possibly live without AC now.
Second-hand smoke kills almost 100 times more Americans.
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco...
Perfect is the enemy of good.
>Perfect is the enemy of good.
Agree. Looking at the bottom of mortality list is perfectionism.
If you have a list of problems you don't only focus on solving the one with the largest impact. You need to balance resource allocation between how the problem negatively impacts AND ability to solve.
If we followed your logic, we would stop trying to cure cancer and just focus all healthcare resources exclusively on developing life extension drugs.
my own example - I live in a tiny town at about 1700 ft elevation, nowhere near the ocean, no bodies of water than can flood, not anywhere near the ocean, just 1 tornado in the past 80+ years, and no hurricanes above a cat 1 in a century (which caused almost no damage)- i.e. almost zero immediate 'environmental threats' - the town was given a $120K state/federal grant to "prepare" for climate change effects.
What do you think would save more lives in my little place in the world? - giving out free car seats to all newborns, free smoke detectors every few years to every residence, free CO2 monitors, and tackling obesity and unhealthy lifestyle choices such as drugs thru more education or recreational opportunities for kids etc - or 'studying' the possible effects of climate change in nowhereville USA?
My money is on the former.
Your criticism of the Federal Grant you mention is valid. It would have been great if you could have expressed that thought _before_ they wrote that check, right?
That's what this entire comment section is: People discussing a specific problem. Not the other problem, this one.
There are already government programs and charities that give out free car seats, and car seats are required by law for infants in every state. There's not much more the government can do to get more babies in car seats.
Most areas require hardwired smoke detectors in new construction, as well as in rental units. The Red Cross and other charities (and some fire departments) provide free smoke detectors to those that can't afford them.
Spending money now to prepare for worse climate in the future sounds like a good investment since many mitigations can take years or decades to fund and complete. (like building generator backed community cooling centers, building or improving levees, etc).
Lots of things kill more Americans than hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. Hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods can be quite destructive, but they don't really kill a lot of people in the grand scheme of things.
There's lots of bad reporting on the increase in heat related deaths since the 1950s which glosses over the fact that few people were fat back then and air conditioning was exceedingly rare. A fraction of the people were living in the hottest areas of the US and those that were could handle it.