Ramaswamy, Not the Washington Post, Is Right About Climate Deaths

From CLIMATEREALISM

By H. Sterling Burnett

The Washington Post (WaPo) ran a so-called fact check on presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy’s claim during the recent Republican debate that “The climate change agenda is a hoax … The reality is more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change,” ruling his claims false. WaPo’s “Fact Checker” analysis is almost certainly wrong, since real world data shows a significant decline in deaths linked to non-optimal temperatures and extreme weather events. Also, most of the deaths in developing countries that Ramaswamy was referring to are preventable, but the poor in developing countries continue to die unnecessarily, in part, because of Western governments and institutions climate policies discouraging and preventing the expanded use of fossil fuels for transportation and reliable electricity.

In the WaPo story, “Vivek Ramaswamy says ‘hoax’ agenda kills more people than climate change,” so-called fact checker, Glenn Kessler, wrote:

Many have interpreted Ramaswamy’s comment that the “climate change agenda is a hoax” as a flat statement that climate change is a hoax. But that doesn’t seem accurate, because a moment later he referred to deaths from “actual climate change.” Instead, he appeared to be suggesting that policies used to stem climate change don’t deliver what they promise and thus are a hoax.

Ramaswamy, a business entrepreneur, is a fan of fossil fuels — in his closing statement he asserted that “fossil fuels are a requirement for human prosperity” …”

At The Fact Checker, we’re interested in numbers; in discussing climate change, Ramaswamy offered a big one. He asserted that more people were dying of bad climate policies than climate change itself. What’s that about?

So far, so good. In fact, numbers are precisely how one can best assess premature mortality claims attributed to climate change in comparison to green energy policies. Yet rather than going to the numbers, some of which do exist, Kessler asked purported “experts,” what they thought of Ramaswamy’s claims.

The first expert Kessler quoted obfuscated the issue by suggesting that the woefully mistitle, Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), is relatively new with little of its policies being fully enacted. This is true, but laughably beside the point. The IRA is hardly the first law or treaty adopted in the United States, in developed countries, or by international institutions like the United Nations and various “development” banks, to impose restrictions on fossil fuel use and promote expensive and the use intermittent alternative energy technologies instead. Such policies have been common, in the United States and around the world since the U.N Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was first adopted in 1992, 31 years ago. Thousands of policies and programs discouraging or forcibly limiting fossil fuel use, have been adopted since then, and hundreds of billions of dollars, possibly trillions have been spent fighting climate change.

When looking at deaths “threatened” by climate change, Kessler, in lieu of referencing existing trends grounded in hard data for people dying from, for example, malaria, heat exposure, and childhood undernutrition, he refers to climate model generated projections for the future used by the World Health Organization. Why look at future projections when real world data is available? After all, Ramaswamy was speaking about what has happened, not what might happen based on some computer model scenario.

As Climate Realism has repeatedly pointed out in previous posts, herehere, and here, for example, climate models have gotten neither the basic projection they make, the global average temperature and its rate of rise, right, nor the trends in weather events and their real world impacts. If climate models don’t accurately portray the past and the present correctly without adjustments to basically force them to do so, why should their projections of the future be trusted by anyone, especially by a presumably educated, science savvy person like Kessler.

To be fair, Kessler seemingly recognizes that he should be looking at data concerning past when fact checking Ramaswamy’s claim. He writes:

That’s the future. Looking backward, the World Meteorological Organization in May concluded that extreme weather, climate and water-related events caused 11,000 reported disasters between 1970 and 2021, resulting in just over 2 million deaths. Nine out of 10 deaths took place in developing countries. Economic losses amounted to $4.3 trillion.

Whether all of these deaths are the result of climate change could be subject to dispute. Many of the highest death tolls from extreme weather took place decades ago; better weather forecasting and improved disaster response have helped reduce death tolls. The highest death tolls listed by WMO are 300,000 from a 1983 drought in Ethiopia and 300,000 from a 1970 storm in Bangladesh.

What’s in dispute is whether any of these deaths resulted from human caused climate change, much less all of them.

Most of the deaths cited by Kessler were tied to extreme weather occurred when the earth was in a cooling period, when many scientists were warning of a possible pending ice age, before the modest recent warming now labeled dangerous and attributed to recent causes. One cannot determine whether climate change caused any particular event, but one can look at trends over time so see whether deaths related to extreme weather and temperatures are increasing and coincide with change in climate. Doing so, the evidence is clear and should be convincing to anyone with an open mind, though you wouldn’t know that from reading Kessler’s WaPo article.

Kessler provided a very narrow selection of numbers. What data shows is that during the period of recent warming, deaths related to extreme weather events have declined by more than 99 percent over the past 100 years, as discussed in Climate Realism posts, here and here, for example. Extreme weather events killed nearly 500,000 people annually in the 1920s, but by 2021 only 7,790 deaths were attributable to extreme weather events. Concerning deaths related to extreme temperatures, multiple large scale peer reviewed studies in top journals, perhaps most prominently in The Lancet, show that cold temperatures kill far more people each year than hot temperatures. They also demonstrate that as temperatures have modestly warmed, the number of deaths tied to non-optimum temperatures has declined.

Concerning hunger and malnutrition, research cited in more nearly 200 articles posted at Climate Realism show that as carbon dioxide levels have risen, crop production has boomed for almost every crop one cares to discuss, in nation after nation spanning all parts of the globe. Agronomy explains that a large part of the reason for the crop production and yield increases is due to the improved fertilization effect of rising carbon dioxide levels, a decline in late season frosts, longer growing seasons, generally improved moisture conditions in the worlds major growing regions, and plants’ improved abilities to use water efficiently. Neither Kessler nor the experts he spoke with provided any reason for believing any of these conditions will worsen should the Earth continue its modest trajectory of warming in the foreseeable future.

This CO2 induced increase in crop production has not eliminated hunger and malnutrition, but research shows it has diminished it considerably. Forty-four percent of the world’s population lived in absolute poverty in 1981 – 42 years of global warming ago. Since then, the share of people living in such poverty fell below 10 percent by 2015. And although 700 million people worldwide still suffer from persistent hunger, the United Nations reports the number of hungry people has declined by two billion since 1990 – 33 years of global warming ago.

Let’s talk about the second part of Ramaswamy’s claim, that climate policies are killing more people than climate change.

Just as it is impossible to link any particular death to “climate change,” it is equally impossible to link any particular death to a specific climate policy, so hard “data,” which Kessler suddenly places at a premium, is necessarily lacking.

However, common sense and research strongly suggest that policies that slow the introduction and use of modern high yield farming techniques and technologies in developing countries, like restrictions on fossil fuel use and the use of fertilizers and pesticides made from oil and natural gas, result in lower yields and growth, and this contributes to hunger, malnutrition, and in extreme cases deaths from starvation. While we don’t know how many lives of the hundreds of millions of people still suffering from persistent hunger or facing starvation would be saved by improved agricultural production, it is certainly orders of magnitude more than the less than 10,000 who died as a result of extreme weather events in 2021.

How many people died unnecessarily in 2021, and during the more than three decades years since the UNFCCC was adopted, in developing countries due to climate policies that prevented or slowed the construction and operation of modern medical facilities with dependable 24/7 electric power there. Power that is provided best by coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants. How many women’s and children’s lives were lost during or near birth due to the absence of modern medical facilities and the hundreds of energy intensive technologies and products used daily at hospitals in developed countries, which oil and gas either power or are component parts of. No regular refrigeration keeping medicines and foods usable, no nighttime lighting or power for emergency surgeries and difficult births. When people die due to lack of modern medical care as a result of energy poverty, that’s a death attributable, in many instances in this day and age, to climate policies and restrictions adopted by governments, and international institutions like the United Nations and the World Bank.

Then there is air quality. Indoor air quality is a leading cause premature death in poor countries accounting for more than 2.3 million preventable deaths per year, writes Our World Data, discussing findings from the World Health Organization. Our World Data attributes the cause to the use of renewable fuels in the home, writing:

Indoor air pollution is caused by burning solid fuel sources – such as firewood, crop waste, and dung – for cooking and heating.

The burning of such fuels, particularly in poor households, results in air pollution that leads to respiratory diseases which can result in premature death. The WHO calls indoor air pollution “the world’s largest single environmental health risk.

How many lives would be saved each year if the impoverished households currently burning renewable but dirty wood and dung were plugged into a modern electric power system, fueled by the cleanest, coal, natural gas, or even nuclear plants. Emissions from modern coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants don’t threaten ill health or premature death. They are certainly cleaner sources of heat and light than wood and dung, and they are more reliable than wind and solar.

In short, energy poverty is a killer and climate policies maintain energy poverty in developing countries, while forcing more lower income people into energy poverty due to higher energy prices in developed countries. All things considered, Ramaswamy is almost certainly correct to claim climate policies kill more people each year than climate change, and thus, contrary to Kessler’s assessment, merited no “Pinocchios,” rather than the four Kessler assigned.

H. Sterling Burnett

H. Sterling Burnett

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News. In addition to directing The Heartland Institute’s Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, Burett puts Environment & Climate News together, is the editor of Heartland’s Climate Change Weekly email, and the host of the Environment & Climate News Podcast.

5 22 votes
Article Rating
37 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Editor
September 7, 2023 12:13 am

Good article. I note that Vivek Ramaswamy put his statement firmly in the present, not the future: “The reality is more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change” [my bold]. As highlighted by H. Sterling Burnett, WaPo’s “Fact Checker” said “we’re interested in numbers” and first went to “experts” who talked about model predictions, but amazingly they did then check some numbers, which pretty clearly supported Vivek Ramaswamy’s assertion. NB. ‘supported’, not ‘proved’. Less amazingly, they then made a finding which ignored the data and followed a pre-assigned narrative.

That’s about par for the course for “fact-checkers” nowadays.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 7, 2023 5:12 am

Fact-checkers need to be Fact-checked.

Greg61
Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 7, 2023 5:33 am

Fact Checker has become an Orwellian term, perhaps it always has. Today’s “Fact Checker” absolutely has a single purpose, push the narrative and to hades with the facts.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 7, 2023 7:44 am

“Fact checker” translates to “Leftist party hack spinmaster” in the real world.

MarkW
Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 7, 2023 1:15 pm

So called fact checkers employed by media sources have always been primarily charged with protecting the left wing narratives.
The only change, is that like their media masters, they no longer try to hide how biased they are.

dhsay
Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 8, 2023 2:14 pm

From this interaction, Ramaswamy is much better informed on “climate change” than anyone may have believed. Even if he doesn’t go very far in the nomination, “he has kicked the wasp nest” and sparks are going to fly, whether we like it or not. It may be more dramatic than a July 4th fireworks display. It may also flush out where the other contenders really stand.

https://youtu.be/6ODiWqSOnv4?si=XUJPz3OI2ugiKOxE

Ben Vorlich
September 7, 2023 12:59 am

I’m sure but not 100% certain that I heard an idiot on ITV News saying that heat kills more than cold when talking about the UK “Heat Wave – Amber warnings everyone”.
I was actually more interested in what happened to the June Killer Heatwave as there have been headlines about the Hottest Day of the Year appearing for the last couple of days. Apparently it wasn’t that warm, barely getting into the low 30s, for about 6 hours where I am.

strativarius
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 7, 2023 1:29 am

Having family in the Veneto we’ve been going back and forth since 1979 and the average in summer is never below 30. No warnings, no nothing

Until recently we would celebrate a few nice days, no warnings, no nothing,

The MSM has changed maybe we should call it centralised script approval.

It doesnot add up
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 7, 2023 10:35 am

I see no signs of weather related deaths. Just the ongoing excess deaths that they don’t want to talk about.

Deaths to 25 Aug 23.png
Ben Vorlich
September 7, 2023 1:05 am

Just in case there’s any doubt when I complained to the BBC about their report on the floods in China this year this what they said, verbatim

As with much of the BBC’s science reporting, we aim only to accurately report on findings and do not ourselves conduct the scientific research – in this instance the report was based of the findings and analysis from the above mentioned parties. However, we appreciate you felt that context behind historic flooding in China should have been reported on.

Importantly, we acknowledge the weight of scientific consensus around climate change and this underpins all of our reporting of the subject. The scientific community has reached a significant consensus on man-made global warming. We therefore reflect that with due weight when reporting on the science involved.

Unsaid we’re right you’re wrong and we’re not changing nor are we reporting on anything that goes against the narrative..

mikelowe2013
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 7, 2023 1:14 am

So the BBC really believes that “concensus” beats “truth”! No surprise there, after their support for Attenborough’s disgraceful lies about those walruses!

Oldseadog
Reply to  mikelowe2013
September 7, 2023 4:02 am

To be fair, the Government, (who hold the BBC purse strings,) have forbidden, on pain of dismissal of the culprit, all BBC references to anything which is contrary to the CAGW story.

Richard Page
Reply to  Oldseadog
September 7, 2023 3:25 pm

That’s very interesting, Oldseadog, I’ve heard the same thing a couple of times on here. Can you provide me with a link to where this can be found, please? I’d be very interested in finding out who has leaked this information, either the BBC or the government.

strativarius
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 7, 2023 1:21 am

 we aim only to accurately report on findings”

That’s a lie straight off. They report according to their narratives.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  strativarius
September 7, 2023 3:22 am

great journalists will do the findings themselves

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
September 7, 2023 12:44 pm

Or at least check them.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  strativarius
September 7, 2023 12:44 pm

And a split infinitive. I despair for the King’s English.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 7, 2023 12:43 pm

The “scientific community” or the “Climate Scientist” community?

strativarius
September 7, 2023 1:19 am

Any position the purveyors of the sacred theory take on the climate system is wrong by default.

Unless someone can show a correct prediction….

cwright
September 7, 2023 3:26 am

Like probably most people here I’m sure Ramaswamy’s statement is correct. But how to prove it? Have any academic studies addressed this question? This would be a great topic for Willis to address….

There are good examples from the developing world, but I suspect there is great damage caused by bad climate policies in the rich West. For example:

I think these two facts are well established:

  1. Far more people are killed by the cold than by heat.
  2. The greater the amount of renewables the more expensive electricity is.

So, as renewables increase electricity gets more expensive. As electricity gets more expensive many people, particularly the elderly on small pensions, will often be more cold than otherwise. They will therefore die in greater numbers. But how many? I would guess that in the West it would be many thousands per year or even more. But it’s only a guess.

In the UK Net Zero will cost the country at least a trillion pounds over the next 25 years unless it is stopped. That means far less money for hospitals, nurses and doctors. This could lead to thousands more deaths a year.

One thing is certain: global warming is a net benefit that will save vast numbers of lives. It probably means that the cost of global warming is negative.
But all the mad government policies such as Nut Zero will literally cost the earth.
Chris

scvblwxq
Reply to  cwright
September 7, 2023 4:58 pm

This recent study shows that cold weather we have every year causes about 4.6 million deaths a year mainly through increased strokes and heart attacks, compared with about 500,000 deaths a year from hot weather. We don’t protect our lungs from the cold air in the winter and that causes our blood vessels to constrict causing heart attacks and strokes.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

This article from 2015 says that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather and that moderately warm or cool weather kills far more people than extreme weather. Increased strokes and heart attacks from cool weather are the main cause of the deaths.
‘Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multi-country observational study’ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

Tom Abbott
September 7, 2023 5:10 am

From the article: “At The Fact Checker, we’re interested in numbers; in discussing climate change, Ramaswamy offered a big one. He asserted that more people were dying of bad climate policies than climate change itself. What’s that about?”

Well, Vivek has to be correct because not one human has been killed by human-caused climate change, because there is no evidence that human-caused climate change is real. No connection has been made between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures, or Earth weather.

Claiming climate change policy is a killer is correct. One example: The arctic cold front that hit Texas and the rest of the nation in February 2021. People died because climate change policy insisted on adding wind and solar to electrical grids, which ended up causing brownout and blackouts.

SteveE
September 7, 2023 5:38 am

“Just as it is impossible to link any particular death to “climate change,” it is equally impossible to link any particular death to a specific climate policy…”

Really? How about the fire situation in Hawaii? A well-documented risk of fire combined with a “save the planet” mentality on the part of state and local government clearly led to everything being done for renewable energy and nothing for the fire risk.

Compare the end results:

  • Building windmills – result will be absolutely nothing. Hawaii produces 15 MT of CO2 annually. The year over year increase in China C02 production is around 500 MT
  • Ignoring fire risk – 100+ dead, 400+ missing
Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  SteveE
September 7, 2023 12:47 pm

Really? How about the policy requiring natural gas pipeline compressors to be powered by electricity rather than by using gas from the pipeline itself?

William Capron
September 7, 2023 8:18 am

So, are Kessler and Nick Stokes the same person?

MarkW
Reply to  William Capron
September 7, 2023 1:20 pm

While I have never seen the two of them in the same room at the same time, they probably aren’t the same person.
However they definitely sing from the same song book.

scvblwxq
September 7, 2023 9:12 am

The Earth is still in a 2.46 million-year Ice Age named The Quaternary Glaciation, in a warmer interglacial period between glacial periods, that won’t end until all natural ice has melted. Currently the Quaternary Glaciation consists of a alternating cycle of glacial periods that last about 100,000 years alternating with warmer interglacial periods that last about 10,000 years. The current interglacial period named the Holocene has lasted 11,700 years.

It is still too cold to live in temperate climates like the USA and Europe in the winter without lots of technology in the form of warm clothes, warmed houses, warmed offices and factories and the like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

dhsay
September 7, 2023 10:16 am

Ramaswamy is stating facts and making waves. He may or may not get to first base in the race but is getting more attention by the press. At some point, if he survives the nomination gauntlet, he will be viciously attacked on his Climate Change stance. Could this be an opportunity for the truth to penetrate the MSM Iron Curtain? He will need backup.

Old.George
Reply to  dhsay
September 7, 2023 1:08 pm

If the rank and file GOP decide that Trump has too much baggage then Vivek is the perfect choice. He checks all the boxes. He’s young with a family. He is comfortable with people of all skin colors. He is a successful businessman who is not beholden to the antique (to him) GOP. He takes the high ground on every issue he touches. He has a Ramaswamy Doctrine like Monroe’s.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
September 7, 2023 12:37 pm

Here is a climate-related deaths article from The New Yorker:

https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/life-and-death-in-americas-hottest-city?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us

Lede – “Across the U.S., significantly more people die from heat each year than from any other weather-related event. Many of these deaths are concentrated in and around Phoenix.”

Se my own response below (don’t want too many links in one comment)
 

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
September 7, 2023 12:39 pm

Climate Change Indicators: Heat-Related Deaths | US EPA
 
Between 1979 and 2018, the death rate as a direct result of exposure to heat (underlying cause of death) generally hovered between 0.5 and 2 deaths per million people, with spikes in certain years (see Figure 1). Overall, a total of more than 11,000 Americans have died from heat-related causes since 1979, according to death certificates.
 
Climate Change Indicators: Cold-Related Deaths | US EPA

Between 1979 and 2016, the death rate as a direct result of exposure to cold (underlying cause of death) generally ranged from 1 to 2.5 deaths per million people, with year-to-year fluctuations (see Figure 1). Overall, a total of more than 19,000 Americans have died from cold-related causes since 1979, according to death certificates.

EPA data. So, according to the New Yorker article, 11,000 is more than 19,000. And 0.5-to2 is greater than 1-to-2.5. Post-modern math.

Of course there is death as a direct result of heat/cold v death in which heat/cold was a factor. Death from heat, v death with heat.

scvblwxq
September 7, 2023 2:41 pm

Here are the Lancet studies the author mentions. This recent study shows that cold weather we have every year causes about 4.6 million deaths a year mainly through increased strokes and heart attacks, compared with about 500,000 deaths a year from hot weather. We can’t easily protect our lungs from the cold air in the winter and that causes our blood vessels to constrict causing heart attacks and strokes.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

This article from 2015 says that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather and that moderately warm or cool weather kills far more people than extreme weather. Increased strokes and heart attacks from cool weather are the main cause of the deaths.
‘Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multi-country observational study’ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext

patg2
September 7, 2023 4:17 pm

Yes, he’s right about that. But he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and unacceptable otherwise. And even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

DMacKenzie
September 7, 2023 5:03 pm

Interesting proposition he threw into the ring. Hard to actually prove wrong. Good chance someone who tries to prove him wrong will select a straw man and be made to look bad.

September 7, 2023 5:11 pm

w that cold temperatures kill far more people each year than hot temperatures.

nope nope nope

  1. Cold temperature can Contribute to death, but few people die from hypothermia.
  2. Death by hypothermia? Show me the death certification

in short if you look at the etiology you will find
a. in cold weather old people stay indoors
b. indoors exposes them to respritory viruses
c. they get sick and die from the flu. cold weather does not appear on the death certificate.

the same occurs with hot weather. weather heats up
grampa sits in front of a fan
he dehydrates.
he stands up, feints, falls down

of course since i had to study heat related deaths i learned a little about death certificates
and the great heat wave in chicago
folks didnt die from heat stroke. the excess deaths were from falls.

in the winter
cold–> stay inside–> catch the flu from the damn kids. die.

in the summer
warm–> stay inside—dehydrate, feint and fall

AS for the study these guys cite

ITS A MODELLING STUDY!!!!! NOT REAL DATA!

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext#%20

IF YOU WANT TO DO THIS RIGHT YOU NEED.

A. GLOBAL TEMP DATA YOU TRUST

B. CODED DEATH CERTIFICATES.

TO GET B FROM THE CDC YOU NEED SERIOUS CONNECTIONS

Victor Gunter Larsen
September 7, 2023 7:16 pm

As a long time observer of US politics, I think the Hindu Kid is a comer. Smart ,telegenic and most importantly : young. I believe there is as deep a desire for younger leadership, as there is for outsider leadership amongst the US voter in general. That he is speaking some truth: the agenda underlying AGW has nothing whatsoever to do with actual climate change nor the saving of humanity, the enviroment, etc is a big plus for many of the voters he is after. Is he a con artist, a huckster, a carpet bagger, if you will, yes. But then all succesful politicians are,eh. Just for speaking that truth regarding Climate change, he has my consideration should he get that far.

stevethatdoesntalreadyexist
September 15, 2023 6:10 pm

We have to stop using the term “hoax” because it’s not accurate.
The word is “scam.” Or, “hysteria.”

Nobody is playing a prank. They’re coming after your wallet.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights