Groups target Europe’s coal companies over harmful emissions
FILE – In this Feb. 27, 2018 file photo a coal-fired power station steams in the cold winter air in Gelsenkirchen, Germany. Environmental groups say 10 utility companies are responsible for the majority of premature deaths caused by emissions from coal-fired power plants in Europe. In a report published Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2018 five campaign groups, including Greenpeace, blame the companies for 7,600 premature deaths and millions of work days lost across Europe in 2016. (AP Photo/Martin Meissner, file) (Martin Meissner)
By FRANK JORDANS | November 20, 2018
BERLIN (AP) — Environmental groups claimed Tuesday that 10 utility companies are responsible for the majority of premature deaths caused by emissions from coal-fired power plants in Europe.
In a report on the health impacts of coal emissions across Europe, five campaign groups blamed the utility companies for 7,600 premature deaths and millions of work days lost because of health problems in 2016.
Emissions from German utility company RWE are said to be responsible for the highest number of premature deaths, mostly from tiny particles known as PM2.5.
RWE said it abides by legal limits on emissions and continually tries to lower them.
The five groups, which include Greenpeace…
[…]
The activists’ report finds that four of the most damaging companies operate in Germany…
[…]
Dr. Michael Barczok, a spokesman for the German Pulmonologists Association, said the harmful health effects of PM2.5s described in the study — such as their contribution to increased risk of asthma, heart disease, cancer, diabetes and strokes — are well-established
“It’s true that coal can trigger these illnesses,” said Barczok, a practicing pulmonologist who wasn’t involved with the report and declined to comment on the precise figures. “We have to assume people are sickened by this, or that it can contribute to their premature deaths.”
“The harmful health effects of PM2.5s described in the study — such as their contribution to increased risk of asthma, heart disease, cancer, diabetes and strokes — are well-established.”
“It’s true that coal can trigger these illnesses,” claimed a “pulmonologist who wasn’t involved with the report and declined to comment on the precise figures.”
“We have to assume people are sickened by this, or that it can contribute to their premature deaths.”
Translation:
The science is settled.
No, I can’t provide any specific support for the numbers.
We have to assume the science is settled or more people will die!
So… Coal, via PM2.5’s killed 7,600 people in Europe in 2016 with asthma, heart disease, cancer, diabetes and strokes. Name them… Any of them. It shouldn’t be too difficult to identify the bodies. We have a pretty good idea as to how many people in Germany died from various causes. Being a modern, industrialized nation, they probably kept track of who died in 2016.
The World Health Organization keeps track of how many people die from various causes. In the most recent year available (2015), 244,707 people in Germany died of asthma, heart disease, diabetes and strokes:
Germany
No. of deaths
Diabetes mellitus
24,400
Ischaemic heart diseases
128,230
Cerebrovascular diseases
56,982
Chronic lower respiratory disease
35,095
Total
244,707
If I included cancer, the number would have been even larger. From 2006-2015, an average of 245,000 people died each year in Germany from asthma, heart disease, diabetes and strokes… And these Bozo’s think they can attribute 7,600 deaths to those causes plus cancer, across Europe, to coal?
Figure 1. Annual number of deaths in Germany from asthma, heart disease, diabetes and strokes(World Health Organization) and annual coal consumption (million tonnes oil equivalent, BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy).Figure 2. Age standardized death rate in Germany from asthma, heart disease, diabetes and strokes(World Health Organization) and annual coal consumption (million tonnes oil equivalent, BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy).
Even if you could attribute 7,600 deaths in Europe in 2016 to coal (via asthma, heart disease, cancer, diabetes and strokes), that’s only 3% of the number of deaths just in Germany, just from asthma, heart disease, diabetes and strokes.
Here’s the pièce de résistance…
In a report on the health impacts of coal emissions across Europe, five campaign groups blamed the utility companies for 7,600 premature deaths and millions of work days lostbecause of health problems in 2016.
How many work days would have been lost if Germany shut down all of its coal-fired power plants?
Yes… I know that asthma, heart disease, diabetes and strokes aren’t strictly synonymous with chronic lower respiratory disease, ischaemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus and cerebrovascular diseases… But that’s the closest that WHO listed and they are close enough to demonstrate the idiocy of this Greenpeace-of-schist.
Needless to say, the Greenpeace-of-schist is based on (drum roll, please)… Models…
How many work days would have been lost in 2016 if RWE had shuttered all of its coal-fired plants? How many premature deaths would have occurred due to a lack of reliable electricity?
China now generates 66.7% of TOTAL energy from coal and the US just 17.1%. But China’s life expectancy has jumped to 76, just 6 years or so behind the OECD. So how many lives does their extreme use of coal (over the last few decades) saved?
Oh and in their big cities the life expectancy is about the same as the OECD and this drops in rural areas. Clearly fossil fuels are a life saver, just look at the data from Dr Rosling’s 200 countries 1810 to 2010 on youtube.
I also understand that the fantasists prefer their mitigation fantasies, but in the real world China now generates 66.7% of TOTAL primary energy from coal while the US generates just 17.1%. Here’s the data from the EU based IEA and please also note the generation from clueless Geo+ S&Wind energy.
Little wonder that Dr Hansen called Paris COP 21 “just BS and fra-d”. So when will they wake up and start to live in the real world?
And the WHO “life expectancy” data include gun deaths and motor vehicle deaths, which are significant in the US, but have nothing to do with health or health care.
Nearly 20 yrs ago, there was a multi-day expose in my local paper about cancer issues in the industrial area of town. Not denying there was an issue, but one of the focal points was a man who died in his early 60s from lung cancer. His widow blamed it on air pollution. Accompanying the story that day was a photo of that same widow, sitting at her kitchen table…smoking.
How do they separate the premature deaths attributable to pm2.5 from coal fired power stations, from the premature deaths attributable to pm2.5 from using diesel powered vehicles, the newest bad boy on the block?
Good question. its is usually done as a simple fraction.
So you start with concentrations of Pm25.
Then you have to allocate that to various sources.
There a simple ways to do that, and more complex methods.
In all cases you get a estimate with a uncertainty .
Keeping it simple:
You have good estimate and measurements of the amount of pm25 a typical coal plant will emit.
studied to death
Alarmists & energy greenies need to be called out & held accountable for all the millions of deaths they cause by restricting energy usage, which correlates to lifespan longevity, as well as the murder of billions that can be extrapolated from their proposed solutions to climate change. The statistical derivation of deaths should have to cut both ways, & they only want to consider the downside & ignore the upside of any scheme. Alinsky’s rules are crying out for application to CAGW activists.
JCalvertN(UK)
November 26, 2018 7:15 pm
I wonder how many Germans died from diesel car emissions? The country that gave the world the Volkswagen emissions scandal a.k.a. ‘dieselgate’.
Yes just wait for the law suits against Volkswagen from all the people with respiratory disease that got it only because of Volkswagon.
Tom Abbott
November 27, 2018 5:17 am
“Needless to say, the Greenpeace-of-schist is based on (drum roll, please)… Models”
This appears to be a trend. It reminds me of the large number of deaths reported in Puerto Rico after the latest hurricane. It seems the numbers were generated by a computer model. No body count was done.
One thing about it: You can never take any of this CAGW/Green propaganda at face value. You have to dig down deep to find the real facts, and the facts usually turn out to tell a different story.
Environmental Groups Claim Coal Killed 7,600 People in Europe in 2016… Can’t Name Any of the Victims.
___________________________________________________
China now generates 66.7% of TOTAL energy from coal and the US just 17.1%. But China’s life expectancy has jumped to 76, just 6 years or so behind the OECD. So how many lives does their extreme use of coal (over the last few decades) saved?
Oh and in their big cities the life expectancy is about the same as the OECD and this drops in rural areas. Clearly fossil fuels are a life saver, just look at the data from Dr Rosling’s 200 countries 1810 to 2010 on youtube.
I also understand that the fantasists prefer their mitigation fantasies, but in the real world China now generates 66.7% of TOTAL primary energy from coal while the US generates just 17.1%. Here’s the data from the EU based IEA and please also note the generation from clueless Geo+ S&Wind energy.
Little wonder that Dr Hansen called Paris COP 21 “just BS and fra-d”. So when will they wake up and start to live in the real world?
Here’s China. https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/CHINA4.pdf
Here’s the US. https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/USA4.pdf
And the WHO “life expectancy” data include gun deaths and motor vehicle deaths, which are significant in the US, but have nothing to do with health or health care.
Suicide by gun is a major concern in the USA.
Most people consider this to be a health issue.
err you do see the flaw in your argument right?
Nearly 20 yrs ago, there was a multi-day expose in my local paper about cancer issues in the industrial area of town. Not denying there was an issue, but one of the focal points was a man who died in his early 60s from lung cancer. His widow blamed it on air pollution. Accompanying the story that day was a photo of that same widow, sitting at her kitchen table…smoking.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner!
sorry the studies control for smoking
How do they separate the premature deaths attributable to pm2.5 from coal fired power stations, from the premature deaths attributable to pm2.5 from using diesel powered vehicles, the newest bad boy on the block?
Asp
Good question. its is usually done as a simple fraction.
So you start with concentrations of Pm25.
Then you have to allocate that to various sources.
There a simple ways to do that, and more complex methods.
In all cases you get a estimate with a uncertainty .
Keeping it simple:
You have good estimate and measurements of the amount of pm25 a typical coal plant will emit.
studied to death
Alarmists & energy greenies need to be called out & held accountable for all the millions of deaths they cause by restricting energy usage, which correlates to lifespan longevity, as well as the murder of billions that can be extrapolated from their proposed solutions to climate change. The statistical derivation of deaths should have to cut both ways, & they only want to consider the downside & ignore the upside of any scheme. Alinsky’s rules are crying out for application to CAGW activists.
I wonder how many Germans died from diesel car emissions? The country that gave the world the Volkswagen emissions scandal a.k.a. ‘dieselgate’.
Yes just wait for the law suits against Volkswagen from all the people with respiratory disease that got it only because of Volkswagon.
“Needless to say, the Greenpeace-of-schist is based on (drum roll, please)… Models”
This appears to be a trend. It reminds me of the large number of deaths reported in Puerto Rico after the latest hurricane. It seems the numbers were generated by a computer model. No body count was done.
One thing about it: You can never take any of this CAGW/Green propaganda at face value. You have to dig down deep to find the real facts, and the facts usually turn out to tell a different story.
https://www.google.at/search?q=European+Union+(EU)+-+total+population+2018+%7C+Statistic&oq=European+Union+(EU)+-+total+population+2018+%7C+Statistic&aqs=chrome.
vs.
Environmental Groups Claim Coal Killed 7,600 People in Europe in 2016… Can’t Name Any of the Victims.
___________________________________________________
That’s not even “statistical noise.”
That’s plain fraud.