While this paper makes some good points about fuel poverty and energy cost, they bit hook line and sinker the ridiculous recent claim of Super exponential accelerating CO2 growth and cited it as a reference – Anthony
- Keith B G Dear, senior fellow,
- Anthony J McMichael, professor
Three reasons to act: the health burden, inequity, and mitigation
On 12 May Michael Marmot and his team published their report, “The heath impacts of cold homes and fuel poverty,” commissioned by Friends of the Earth.1 The report highlights an obvious, well known, and largely ignored fact—that cold homes waste energy and harm their occupants—and identifies an opportunity for simultaneous gains on three fronts. By improving the thermal efficiency of British homes the government would reduce carbon dioxide (“greenhouse”) emissions, avoid a major burden of ill health, and reduce health inequity, which—as the report shows—maps closely with social and economic disadvantage. The report delivers three messages. Firstly, improving the energy efficiency of the housing stock—to spread “affordable warmth”—would bring multiple health gains, directly and through improved home finances. Secondly, fuel poverty as a result of poor housing stock causes avoidable health inequality and is unjust. Thirdly, reduced fuel use would bring environmental gains, in the short term through reduced air pollution and in the longer term in helping to mitigate climate change.
The same is true of Australia, which is perhaps often envied by inhabitants of northern Europe as a land of sand, sunshine, and seasonal tropical monsoons that bring welcome warm rains (albeit sometimes to excess). The reality is that even in the subtropical city of Brisbane (population two million) deaths as a result of extremes of winter cold are roughly equal to those attributable to extremes of summer heat.2 This fact matches the finding in Europe that “higher rates [of excess winter deaths] are found in countries with less severe, milder winter climates.”3 The explanation is that building standards have been raised in colder countries such as Finland and Sweden, but not in countries with a milder climate such as the United Kingdom. The report estimates that in the UK, about 5500 more deaths a year occur in the coldest quarter of houses than would occur if those houses were warm. Of note, this substantial burden of mortality was shown only by careful accumulation and analysis of national statistics. Might measures of housing quality be added to the international health statistics website, gapminder.org? The software at this site (created by Hans Rosling) allows graphical cross referencing of many national statistics over time, but housing quality is not currently represented among the variables available.4
Living in a cold house can affect health at any age, not just in old age, for a variety of reasons. Although the extra deaths in elderly people are caused mainly by cardiovascular and respiratory disease, far greater numbers have minor ailments that lead to a huge burden of disease, costs to the health system, and misery. Compared with those who live in a warmer house, respiratory problems are roughly doubled in children, arthritis and rheumatism increase, and mental health can be impaired at any age. As the report notes, adolescents who live in a cold house have a fivefold increased risk of multiple mental health problems.1
…
The Marmot report takes the same approach in reverse—an environmental benefit (reduced greenhouse emissions) will accrue from an intervention aimed primarily at protecting health. In addition to this double benefit, the social equity argument provides yet a third motivation.
We should not assume that because the planet is warming dangerously, cold temperatures will become a thing of the past. Climate scientists anticipate that warming will be accompanied by increased variability.6 Furthermore, warming will not be globally uniform. In particular, northern Europe might become much colder later this century if the meridional overturning circulation is weakened by inflows of fresh water from a melting Greenland ice sheet (the geological record shows that such things have happened before).7
The world community is struggling to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is not merely continuing to rise when it should be starting to fall, but its rise is accelerating.8
Full essay: http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d2807.full
h/t to “Manny”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
News today in the UK.
The industry secretary Vince Cable has won the cabinet battle to stop CO2 reduction schemes being charged to industry.
Reason!
No other european country is going to handicap their industry with these charges.
Chris Huhne -Secretary of State: Department of Energy and Climate however is insisting that all CO2 targets are met.
The Government “compromise” position is that the CO2 targets will be met and the full costs passed on to domestic energy users.
So the reality of pensioners staying in bed all day because they cant afford their fuel bills will increase
Right you are, Scottish, on the need for adequate attic ventilation when adding insulation. I discovered that the hard way, after a company called “Energy Improvements” (who should have known better) added blown-in cellulose insulation to our attic, a few years ago. Nothing was said about the need for added ventilation to this 50’s-era ranch home. I left a small, much-needed storage area, with access via a pull-down staircase (now with an easily-removed styrofoam cover) , and that winter discovered, to my horror, a thick frost coating the underside of the roof, and all supporting timbers. Had I simply closed off the attic, I shudder to think of what would have happened when all that frost started to melt.
Fortunately, the fix was relatively simple – ridge vents + caps, and soffit vents, though it effectively doubled the overall cost of my “energy improvement”.
My apology for the placement of this OT, Tips & Notes has no place to comment. We had a surprisingly cogent opinion piece in our local paper on the climate change hysteria:
Politicians, bureaucrats will be forced to reject climate change propaganda “The drought of skeptical science and intellectual honesty in the green movement will eventually be washed away by a torrent of public backlash. It’s like the Colorado River. If you ignore the flood warnings, you’re going to drown. by James D. Kellogg
http://www.postindependent.com/article/20110516/VALLEYNEWS/110519887/1022&parentprofile=1077
Add to fuel poverty food poverty.
http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield-news/worst-planting-season-in-53-years-could-cost-millions-1159236.html
What twaddle dressed up as science rather than just an ideology rehash to a recipe as funded by an organisation that would be happy if less humans survive on this planet. I am ashamed this came out of the ANU – such is the low point of scientific research in this country.
We should not assume that because the planet is warming dangerously, cold temperatures will become a thing of the past. Climate scientists anticipate that warming will be accompanied by increased variability.6 Furthermore, warming will not be globally uniform. In particular, northern Europe might become much colder later this century if the meridional overturning circulation is weakened by inflows of fresh water from a melting Greenland ice sheet (the geological record shows that such things have happened before).
Let’s have some fun:
We should not assume that because the planet is cooling dangerously, hot temperatures will become a thing of the past. Climate scientists anticipate that cooling will be accompanied by increased variability.6 Furthermore, cooling will not be globally uniform. In particular, northern Europe might become much hotter later this century if the meridional overturning circulation is strengthened by outflows of sea water to a growing Greenland ice sheet (the geological record shows that such things have happened before).7
More people die in winter than in summer at higher lattitudes, not because of cold temperatures per se, but through lack of sunlight and thus vitamin D. With some supplementation and improved ventilation very many would survive. Temperature alone within ordinary variations, no more kills people than it makes a bristlecone pine grow faster.
Here in the UK we had a particularly cold winter month where the electric storage heating had to be full on to avoid the cold ( even with that I saw to my amazement ice forming around the door frame that made the door stick – and the ice was on the inside ! ) Anyhow we are now paying for that extremely cold month , our electricity monthly bill has doubled from £100 to £204 a month and will remain at this new rate until the excess bill is paid off . God only knows whats going to happen if we have another cold winter , we really really need global warming to kick in to save use from extreme poverty – my pension isnt even covering the £204 a month we now have to pay our electricity suppliers and my wife who works is having her hours cut in the shop where she works so no extra cash – its all going to pay for the ‘green’ extras adding to our bill – and we are as mad as hell as it seems it is going to stop the global warming we so desperately need to help us survive through the winter !!!
so the solution to cold weather deaths is to raise energy prices through taxes to stop the planet from warming?
make fuel more expensive and the planet colder to help reduce cold weather deaths. sounds like a policy platform for the Looney Party
what if we let the planet warm up and kept energy prices low? wouldn’t that actually help solve the problem?
ferd berple says:
May 17, 2011 at 9:07 am
so the solution to cold weather deaths is to raise energy prices through taxes to stop the planet from warming?
You have to follow through thier logic to the conclusion: When populations can no longer afford to keep themselves warm in the winter, they will perish. After that, they won’t produce any more CO2 footprints and the planet will experience Global Cooling which then causes Global Warming. The Planet won’t be saved, but then there won’t be anybody left to argue the point.
Fuel poverty increases general poverty. People die younger while others despair.
Government action increases hardship, mortality rates and suffering.
None in power will experience fuel poverty, die from cold, malnutrition and inadequate medical attention. None will be brought to book for the misery, destruction and death that their activities create.
And the reason why we, the victims, should sacrifice ourselves is so that they can “feel-good” by having saved the planet and, in many cases, enrichen their lives!
No way Jose.
When the few threaten the future of the many, it’s time for muscular democracy to step forward.
The sheep are used to being shorn but getting slaughtered is a different kettle of fish.
To say the truth: Good isolation helps lower the energybill, keeps harsh winter outside and helps cooling in summer with lower cost. Really nice is that it’s allways 22C inside my home in Finland. Comfortable. 30% weaker isolation means 70% more money to energy.
You’d think that with all the publicity about AGW and the need to deal with it, that intelligent people would be doing something about it in their ordinary lives. The evidence I have (based on observing the behaviour of friends, family and neighbours) is that there is a disconnect.
Sure, company car drivers rush to get their hands on hybrid vehicles for the tax breaks, then drive them like lunatics, defeating the object.
Householders don’t bother to turn off the heating during the day, even when out. When in, they walk around the house dressed for the Tropics, with the windows open to freshen things up.
We’re sleep walking to a future of black outs and rationing, but what the heck…
A Holmes says:
May 17, 2011 at 8:47 am
You won’t have been too pleased today then to hear on the BBC that Huhne’s newest great idea will cost you £52 per annum on your electricity bill in renewable charges.
You will be even less pleased to learn, if you were not already aware, that the renewable charges levied on your current bills exceed that amount.
By how much it is hard to say as that portion of the bill is not itemised, but a debilitating trawl of the internet reveals that it is currently at least £86 p. a. and could well be found to be a lot more by someone with a higher tolerance than mine for turgid and Byzantine officialese.
I believe that a similar imposte applies to gas and oil bills, but such is the obfuscation surrounding these charges, unfurling the Gordian knot might present a better prospect.
ROCs also apply to businesses: who knows what sums are amortised into the goods and services we consume.
Liam Fox may be our salvation – Cameron out!
Paper source: “National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health”
Epidemiology is a fraudulent scam masquerading as science just like climate junk-science. Want to know how bad epidemiology is? Check out http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/. I would not be surprised if so-called climate scientists didn’t learn many of their tricks from epidemiology which has been presenting fraud as scientific fact for a much longer time.
Health inequality? really? In europe they are using terms like Health Inequality. I thought it was bad enough that in the US they use the term social justice, but apparently this is just the begining of more aweful expressions the government will invent to help control your life.
Wrong solution for the problem, you did not need to increase ventilation of the loft so much as you needed to put a vapor barrier on the warm side of the insulation so the moisture never got into the loft in the first place.
Vapor barriers are well known and required by building codes in locations that routinely experience cold winters, in areas where such conditions are relatively rare, either codes or knowledge about vapor barriers in the insulation industry is the source of the problem.
You should check your local building codes and see if they require vapor barriers. If they do, the company that put in the insulation should pay to do the job correctly.
Larry
Some more insulation for energy efficiency to reduce carbon
dioxideemissions? And as the people who need the added insulation the most are those who can’t afford it, why not do it as ataxpayergovernment-funded program?Maybe they want a worldwide repeat of the fun and joy of Australia’s insulation scheme under former PM Kevin Rudd, especially with the stunning success of the aluminum foil insulation they used (BBC “family friendly” report). I well remember when I was regularly reading Andrew Bolt’s blog and the many times he pointed out the scheme’s many little triumphs, quite loudly, and rightfully so. (For which he used many non-family friendly words, and rightfully so.)
The energy chickens are even coming home to roost in China, as there are indications they are expecting an energy crisis this summer in spite of all their energy infrastructure construction in recent years.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/17/chinas-energy-crisis/
Larry
My first impression was that they were inventing needs to spend government money.
Since Brisbane was mentioned, may I point out that houses that are cold, are also breezy. There are a lot of old Queensland style homes in Brisbane. Louvers are common, old wooden walls are common, gaps and even broken windows with plastic sheets over them are common.
You would have to rebuild the entire home to fix these problems, putting insulation in the roof and walls does not fix a breezy louver.
What the original article (2) said…..
Yes, they said negative winter correlations……………
Brisbane mean Tmin for July (our Winter depth) 8.80C
Brisbane mean Tmax for Feb. (our Summer peak) 29.00C
I have been living in Brisbane for the last 5mths after time in Canberra where it really does get cold, and yes, it does seem to be cool, more likely due to a higher moisture content, but deaths due to Brisbane cold. Oh come on !
Since the first paragraph emphasis yet again the “Super exponential accelerating CO2 growth” paper and Willis failed to explain what the term meant in his March 17 post. It is worth understanding what the term does mean.
Firstly, we should note that this is used in a mathematical paper not a tabloid journal. The prefix “super” means superior to or larger than , not humongous OMG kind if big as in Superbowl.
So “super-exponential” means a growth pattern that is changing faster than the exponential funtion. Exponentials can be very gradual , all depends on the parameters and where on the curve you look. The key characteristic is they grow faster and faster
as they progress. A “super-exponential” has an even greater tendence to run away.
Also note that a “super-exponential” is not an exponential that is “super” or really bad, it is NOT an exponential at all, it is some different function that grows faster than an exponential.
What most people don’t realise is that a “steady” 2% per (or any small but positive % per year) growth is not stable. It is basically a run-away trend that shoots off to infinity. Something has to give.
From page two of the paper:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2832v2.pdf
Willis’ plot unfortunately did not help clarify what is happening to CO2 unless you already understand all this.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/annual-atmospheric-co2-growth-rate.jpg
What we can see is that CO2 rate of change is firmly positive everywhere and getting bigger. Now from what I quoted above we can see that a flat horizontal line on that graph would represent and exponential increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. So any positive trend on that graph is fairly and accurately described as “super-exponential”. This is not alarmism or hyperbolics, it is mathematically correct.
The only good news there is that the graph is less steep now than it was in the 70’s. That means the growth of CO2 is “less” super-exponential that is was, but it’s still super-exponential.
Maybe if that continues , by around 2030 the growth will be “only” an exponential growth.
PS due the the logarithmically decreasing significance as CO2 levels rise, an exponential increase is CO2 will lead to a linearly increasing “forcing”, leading to a constant fixed rate (not a % rate) of temperature increase, eg 0.7C per century per century. This results in a parabolic rise in temperature. It is similar to the constant acceleration due to gravity leading to a parabolic curve.
The line labelled “quad” in the following reconstruction is such a rise.
“We should not assume that because the planet is warming dangerously, …”
That’s what the lemmings are claiming anyway. What if you are not a lemming?
The housing stock on the UK is for the main part rather old and it is doubtful whether these old houses can be made as energy efficient as the government would like to believe. Most heat is lost through the walls. Cavity wall insulation will reduce this heat loss but most old houses (pre 1940) do not have cavity walls. They have solid walls and solid walls are difficult to insulate.
Much energy is lost through the roof. The government estimates that many homes do not have adequate roof insulation. That is probably correct but fails to take into account that most people’s loft space is full of old clothes, boxes, rugs and the like which whilst not as efficient as proper insulation, does partially insulate the loft space. It is therefore probable that less savings can be made in this area than the government forecasts.
The next largest source of heat loss is through windows and gaps under doors etc. Double glazing can reduce this heat loss. However, there is a down side to this. Old houses were designed to be drafty and if glazing is tightened up, old homes often become damp. To avoid damp problems one either has to keep a window open or fit air bricks or ventilators in the window frames. Thus if one is to avoid a damp house, any gains through fitting double glazing are offset by having to keep a window open or fitting ventilators.
The upshot of the above is that the government’s estimates for energy savings are too optomistic and are unlikely to be achieved. The present UK energy policy will lead to a substantial increase in early mortality rates in old people not simply because of increased heating costs (resulting in exacerbating the fuel poverty problem) but also because energy rationing will inevitable occur whenever there are adverse winter conditons with blocking highs and no wind for those stupid windmills. For the last 2 winters for lengthy periods (about 3 weeks), wind energy was producing between just 1 to 8% of design specification, 3 or 4 % being typical. Green energy cannot provide reliable energy and continued power cuts during cold weather periods will be a killer.
The government should be held accountable for each and any extra deaths caused by their foolish policy.