Media's perverse focus on heat deaths is leading to wrongheaded climate policies
'Extreme Heat Is Breaking America,' warns The New York Times. 'Lethal heat is Europe's new climate reality,' adds Politico.
It's an annual routine: Expect to be inundated with alarming stories about heat domes, heat deaths and heat waves, pointing to the urgency of climate action.
Advertisement
But this narrative will tell you only a misleading fraction of the story.
The impacts of heat waves are stark and immediately visible, meaning they are photogenic and coverage is click-worthy.
Heat kills within just a few days of temperatures going up, because it swiftly alters the electrolytic balance in weaker, often older people.
Advertisement
These deaths are tragic and often preventable, and we hear about them every summer.
But the media seldom reports on deaths from cold.
Cold kills slowly — often over months. In low temperatures, the body constricts peripheral blood vessels to conserve heat, raising blood pressure.
But deaths from cold far outnumber those from heat. The most comprehensive Lancet study shows that while heat kills nearly half a million people globally each year, cold kills more than 4.5 million — i.e., nine times more.
Advertisement
Yet, perversely, global media instead write nine times more stories about heat waves than cold waves.
We deserve to know which is the bigger threat.
We should know, for example, that the United States sees more than 80,000 deaths from cold each year, vastly outweighing its 8,000 heat deaths.
In Latin America and Europe, cold deaths outweigh heat deaths 4 to 1. In Africa, astonishingly, it's 46 to 1.
Advertisement
Even in India — where the Western media has fixated on extreme heat this year — cold deaths outnumber those from heat 7 to 1.
Global warming indeed causes more heat waves, raising the risk that more people die of heat. However, it also reduces cold waves, leading to fewer cold deaths.
The Lancet study found that over the past two decades, higher temperatures have caused 116,000 more heat deaths annually — but 283,000 fewer cold deaths.
On balance, that's 166,000 fewer temperature-related deaths each year.
It is a travesty that this is almost never reported.
Sure, as temperatures rise, that balance will shift. But a near-global Nature study shows total deaths from heat and cold will remain lower than today even with as much a 4.8°F temperature increase, which is near what's expected by the end of this century.
One of the most obvious ways to keep populations cool is through cheap and effective city design: more trees and green spaces and painting black roofs and roads white to make them more reflective.
A study of London shows white paint could reduce heat-wave temperatures by as much as 18°F.
Advertisement
A Nature study shows large-scale, global adoption of cool roofs and pavements would cost about $1.2 trillion over the century but will prevent climate damages worth almost 15 times as much.
The best way to reduce both heat and cold deaths is ensuring access to cheap energy. Affordable energy allows people to use air conditioning during heat waves and heating during cold snaps.
In America, heat deaths have dropped by half since 1960, largely due to air conditioning — despite more hot days.
Affordable heating, enabled by lower natural-gas prices from fracking, now saves an estimated 12,500 lives each winter.
Advertisement
The big problem is that climate policies prioritize reducing CO₂ emissions over energy affordability.
Policies that increase energy costs make it harder for people to afford heating and cooling, which can mean more deaths, especially among the poor and vulnerable.
The International Energy Agency's latest data shows a clear correlation between more solar and wind and higher average household and business energy prices.
Advertisement
Countries pushing net-zero climate policies and fossil-fuel taxes like Germany's have seen energy costs soar.
Three in four Germans say they're worried about whether they can afford the high cost of Germany going green, and nearly 60% shiver in the cold instead of turning on heat, per a survey by a Sweden-based energy group.
Though climate change is a real problem, the media's reduction of this complex issue to sensationalist stories of heat deaths is misleading.
We need policies that prioritize human well-being, ensuring affordable energy for heating and cooling, along with adaptation.
Advertisement
To tackle long-term global warming we need to invest in energy innovation to make green energy cheaper and more reliable, rather than imposing costly mandates.
But the media's focus on heat deaths will only promote harmful policies and keep us from considering more sensible solutions — both for climate change and temperature-related deaths.
Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus, visiting fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and author of 'False Alarm' and 'Best Things First.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
The NHS ten-year health plan is missing a crucial ingredient: nature
The UK government has finally unveiled its much anticipated ten-year Plan for improving England's health. It contains a long overdue focus on prevention, after years of sidestepping by previous administrations. The plan rightly recognises that preventing illness before it begins is the most effective way to improve people's wellbeing. It should have the added benefit of reducing strain on the NHS and easing the nation's financial burden. Mental health, too, is given the attention it deserves. Recognised as integral to our overall health, its inclusion couldn't be more timely. A 2023 international study found that one in two people will experience a mental health condition in their lifetime — a much higher figure than previously estimated. But one striking omission threatens to undermine the plan's success: nature. Evidence tells us that it's one of the most powerful means of supporting physical and mental health. And yet is not mentioned once in the plan's 168 pages. If this plan is about prevention, then nature should be central to it. The science is unequivocal: contact with the natural world supports human health in wide ranging and profound ways. It lowers stress, improves mood, and alleviates symptoms of anxiety. For children, time in nature can even aid brain development. Nature helps reduce exposure to air pollution, moderates urban heat, and fosters physical activity and social connection. It can also reduce feelings of loneliness, improve the diversity of our gut microbiota – by exposing us to a wider range of environmental microbes that help train and balance the immune system – and support the immune system by reducing inflammation. All of these play a vital role in protecting against chronic disease. Read more: Then there are the intangible yet no less important benefits. Nature provides a sense of awe and wonder – feelings that help us gain perspective, boost emotional resilience and find deeper meaning in everyday life. Our own research, conducted in collaboration with Nick Bridge, UK special representative for climate change 2017-2023, and Michael Smythe, artist, activist and researcher and supported by a growing body of evidence, shows that even small, everyday moments in nature, watching birds from your window, for example, or pausing under a blooming tree on your way to the shop, can significantly boost mental wellbeing. Consider this: a Danish study found that growing up near green spaces during the first ten years of life reduces the risk of developing mental health problems in adulthood by a staggering 55%. A UK study similarly showed that people living in greener neighbourhoods were 16% less likely to experience depression and 14% less likely to develop anxiety. And as heatwaves become more frequent and intense – with soaring illness and mortality rates – the cooling effects of trees and parks will become more vital than ever for protecting our health. But it's not just access to green space that matters – it's also the quality of that space. Green areas rich in biodiversity, with a wide variety of plant life, birds, insects and fungi, provide much greater health benefits than sparse or manicured lawns. Biodiversity builds resilience not just in ecosystems, but in our bodies and minds. A recent study in The Lancet Planetary Health found that people living in areas with greater bird diversity were significantly less likely to experience depression and anxiety, even after accounting for socioeconomic and demographic factors. This research underlines a simple but urgent truth: we cannot talk about human health without talking about biodiversity. Read more: To deliver true prevention and resilience, we need a joined-up approach across government: one that aligns health policy with environmental protection, housing, urban design, education and transport. This means rethinking how we plan and build our communities: what kind of housing we develop, how we move around, what we grow and eat and how we live in relationship with the ecosystems that support us. There are many ways this vision can be put into action. The Neighbourhood Health Service outlined in the ten-year plan could be tied directly to local, community-led efforts such as Southwark's Right to Grow campaign, which gives residents the right to cultivate unused land. This kind of initiative improves access to fresh food, promotes physical activity, strengthens community bonds and increases green cover – all of which support long-term health. School curricula could be revised to give children the opportunity to learn not just about nature, but also in nature – developing ecological literacy, emotional resilience and healthier habits for life. Health professionals could be trained to understand and promote the value of time outdoors for managing chronic conditions and supporting recovery. Green social prescribing – already gaining ground across the UK – should be fully integrated into standard care, with robust resourcing and cross-sector support. Scotland's Green Health Partnerships show what's possible. These initiatives bring together sectors including health, environment, education, sport and transport to promote nature-based health solutions – from outdoor learning and physical activity in parks, to conservation volunteering and nature therapy. They don't just improve health; they strengthen communities, build climate resilience and create cost-effective, scaleable solutions for prevention. The ten-year plan is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. It could help remove departmental silos and unify national goals across health, climate, inequality and economic recovery, while saving billions in the process. But in its current form, it misses a crucial ingredient. By failing to recognise the centrality of nature in our health, the government overlooks one of the simplest and most effective ways to build resilience – both human and ecological. Surely it is not beyond a nation of nature lovers to put nature at the heart of our future health? This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Andrea Mechelli receives funding from Wellcome Trust. Giulia Vivaldi, Michael Smythe, and Nick Bridge do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
The NHS ten-year health plan is missing a crucial ingredient: nature
The UK government has finally unveiled its much anticipated ten-year Plan for improving England's health. It contains a long overdue focus on prevention, after years of sidestepping by previous administrations. The plan rightly recognises that preventing illness before it begins is the most effective way to improve people's wellbeing. It should have the added benefit of reducing strain on the NHS and easing the nation's financial burden. Mental health, too, is given the attention it deserves. Recognised as integral to our overall health, its inclusion couldn't be more timely. A 2023 international study found that one in two people will experience a mental health condition in their lifetime — a much higher figure than previously estimated. But one striking omission threatens to undermine the plan's success: nature. Evidence tells us that it's one of the most powerful means of supporting physical and mental health. And yet is not mentioned once in the plan's 168 pages. If this plan is about prevention, then nature should be central to it. The science is unequivocal: contact with the natural world supports human health in wide ranging and profound ways. It lowers stress, improves mood, and alleviates symptoms of anxiety. For children, time in nature can even aid brain development. Nature helps reduce exposure to air pollution, moderates urban heat, and fosters physical activity and social connection. It can also reduce feelings of loneliness, improve the diversity of our gut microbiota – by exposing us to a wider range of environmental microbes that help train and balance the immune system – and support the immune system by reducing inflammation. All of these play a vital role in protecting against chronic disease. Read more: Then there are the intangible yet no less important benefits. Nature provides a sense of awe and wonder – feelings that help us gain perspective, boost emotional resilience and find deeper meaning in everyday life. Our own research, conducted in collaboration with Nick Bridge, UK special representative for climate change 2017-2023, and Michael Smythe, artist, activist and researcher and supported by a growing body of evidence, shows that even small, everyday moments in nature, watching birds from your window, for example, or pausing under a blooming tree on your way to the shop, can significantly boost mental wellbeing. Consider this: a Danish study found that growing up near green spaces during the first ten years of life reduces the risk of developing mental health problems in adulthood by a staggering 55%. A UK study similarly showed that people living in greener neighbourhoods were 16% less likely to experience depression and 14% less likely to develop anxiety. And as heatwaves become more frequent and intense – with soaring illness and mortality rates – the cooling effects of trees and parks will become more vital than ever for protecting our health. But it's not just access to green space that matters – it's also the quality of that space. Green areas rich in biodiversity, with a wide variety of plant life, birds, insects and fungi, provide much greater health benefits than sparse or manicured lawns. Biodiversity builds resilience not just in ecosystems, but in our bodies and minds. A recent study in The Lancet Planetary Health found that people living in areas with greater bird diversity were significantly less likely to experience depression and anxiety, even after accounting for socioeconomic and demographic factors. This research underlines a simple but urgent truth: we cannot talk about human health without talking about biodiversity. Read more: To deliver true prevention and resilience, we need a joined-up approach across government: one that aligns health policy with environmental protection, housing, urban design, education and transport. This means rethinking how we plan and build our communities: what kind of housing we develop, how we move around, what we grow and eat and how we live in relationship with the ecosystems that support us. There are many ways this vision can be put into action. The Neighbourhood Health Service outlined in the ten-year plan could be tied directly to local, community-led efforts such as Southwark's Right to Grow campaign, which gives residents the right to cultivate unused land. This kind of initiative improves access to fresh food, promotes physical activity, strengthens community bonds and increases green cover – all of which support long-term health. School curricula could be revised to give children the opportunity to learn not just about nature, but also in nature – developing ecological literacy, emotional resilience and healthier habits for life. Health professionals could be trained to understand and promote the value of time outdoors for managing chronic conditions and supporting recovery. Green social prescribing – already gaining ground across the UK – should be fully integrated into standard care, with robust resourcing and cross-sector support. Scotland's Green Health Partnerships show what's possible. These initiatives bring together sectors including health, environment, education, sport and transport to promote nature-based health solutions – from outdoor learning and physical activity in parks, to conservation volunteering and nature therapy. They don't just improve health; they strengthen communities, build climate resilience and create cost-effective, scaleable solutions for prevention. The ten-year plan is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. It could help remove departmental silos and unify national goals across health, climate, inequality and economic recovery, while saving billions in the process. But in its current form, it misses a crucial ingredient. By failing to recognise the centrality of nature in our health, the government overlooks one of the simplest and most effective ways to build resilience – both human and ecological. Surely it is not beyond a nation of nature lovers to put nature at the heart of our future health? This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Andrea Mechelli receives funding from Wellcome Trust. Giulia Vivaldi, Michael Smythe, and Nick Bridge do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
New York Post
2 days ago
- New York Post
Media's perverse focus on heat deaths is leading to wrongheaded climate policies
Across the United States and Europe, the media is warning of dangerously high temperatures. 'Extreme Heat Is Breaking America,' warns The New York Times. 'Lethal heat is Europe's new climate reality,' adds Politico. It's an annual routine: Expect to be inundated with alarming stories about heat domes, heat deaths and heat waves, pointing to the urgency of climate action. Advertisement But this narrative will tell you only a misleading fraction of the story. The impacts of heat waves are stark and immediately visible, meaning they are photogenic and coverage is click-worthy. Heat kills within just a few days of temperatures going up, because it swiftly alters the electrolytic balance in weaker, often older people. Advertisement These deaths are tragic and often preventable, and we hear about them every summer. But the media seldom reports on deaths from cold. Cold kills slowly — often over months. In low temperatures, the body constricts peripheral blood vessels to conserve heat, raising blood pressure. But deaths from cold far outnumber those from heat. The most comprehensive Lancet study shows that while heat kills nearly half a million people globally each year, cold kills more than 4.5 million — i.e., nine times more. Advertisement Yet, perversely, global media instead write nine times more stories about heat waves than cold waves. We deserve to know which is the bigger threat. We should know, for example, that the United States sees more than 80,000 deaths from cold each year, vastly outweighing its 8,000 heat deaths. In Latin America and Europe, cold deaths outweigh heat deaths 4 to 1. In Africa, astonishingly, it's 46 to 1. Advertisement Even in India — where the Western media has fixated on extreme heat this year — cold deaths outnumber those from heat 7 to 1. Global warming indeed causes more heat waves, raising the risk that more people die of heat. However, it also reduces cold waves, leading to fewer cold deaths. The Lancet study found that over the past two decades, higher temperatures have caused 116,000 more heat deaths annually — but 283,000 fewer cold deaths. On balance, that's 166,000 fewer temperature-related deaths each year. It is a travesty that this is almost never reported. Sure, as temperatures rise, that balance will shift. But a near-global Nature study shows total deaths from heat and cold will remain lower than today even with as much a 4.8°F temperature increase, which is near what's expected by the end of this century. One of the most obvious ways to keep populations cool is through cheap and effective city design: more trees and green spaces and painting black roofs and roads white to make them more reflective. A study of London shows white paint could reduce heat-wave temperatures by as much as 18°F. Advertisement A Nature study shows large-scale, global adoption of cool roofs and pavements would cost about $1.2 trillion over the century but will prevent climate damages worth almost 15 times as much. The best way to reduce both heat and cold deaths is ensuring access to cheap energy. Affordable energy allows people to use air conditioning during heat waves and heating during cold snaps. In America, heat deaths have dropped by half since 1960, largely due to air conditioning — despite more hot days. Affordable heating, enabled by lower natural-gas prices from fracking, now saves an estimated 12,500 lives each winter. Advertisement The big problem is that climate policies prioritize reducing CO₂ emissions over energy affordability. Policies that increase energy costs make it harder for people to afford heating and cooling, which can mean more deaths, especially among the poor and vulnerable. The International Energy Agency's latest data shows a clear correlation between more solar and wind and higher average household and business energy prices. Advertisement Countries pushing net-zero climate policies and fossil-fuel taxes like Germany's have seen energy costs soar. Three in four Germans say they're worried about whether they can afford the high cost of Germany going green, and nearly 60% shiver in the cold instead of turning on heat, per a survey by a Sweden-based energy group. Though climate change is a real problem, the media's reduction of this complex issue to sensationalist stories of heat deaths is misleading. We need policies that prioritize human well-being, ensuring affordable energy for heating and cooling, along with adaptation. Advertisement To tackle long-term global warming we need to invest in energy innovation to make green energy cheaper and more reliable, rather than imposing costly mandates. But the media's focus on heat deaths will only promote harmful policies and keep us from considering more sensible solutions — both for climate change and temperature-related deaths. Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus, visiting fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and author of 'False Alarm' and 'Best Things First.'
