Global warming contributes to increased heat-related mortality, contrary to Bjorn Lomborg’s unsupported claims that climate change is saving hundreds of thousands of lives each year – Climate Feedback CLAIM: "Global warming saves 166,000 lives each year"; those claiming that climate change is causing heat-related deaths are wrong because they ignore that the population is growing and becoming older DETAILS Unsupported : Bjorn Lomborg’s claim that 100k+ people are saved each year thanks to global warming is based on a misinterpretation of a study and interpretation of data that doesn’t support such a conclusion. Incorrect : Scientists who study the effects of climate change on human health explain that studies on human mortality due to climate change take ageing and population growth into account, contrary to Lomborg’s claim. UPDATE 2021-09-22: Following the publication of our review, Bjorn Lomborg published a series of Facebook posts and tweets insisting that his claim that global warming is saving 100k+ lives per year was correct and supported by the Zhao et al. paper published in The Lancet. Professor Yuming Guo, the second author of the paper, commented on behalf of the research consortium that led the study and confirmed to Climate Feedback that Lomborg’s interpretation of their research is incorrect: the study did not assess whether the changes in cold and heat-related deaths over the past 20 years can be attributed to temperature changes or to other factors. (Scroll down to read Guo’s entire comment.) In the posts, Lomborg also claimed that this review misquoted him and that he never said that heat-related deaths have decreased since 1990. In fact, this Facebook post by Lomborg stated that “both heat deaths and especially cold deaths have been declining” since 1990. ...
@JuanValdez This is why Texas might not do the right thing, not thinking ahead of more severe drought, flooding coastline, and extreme weather due to a hotter planet. But I do have hope. FL is run by Republicans and the reality set them straight. And last I checked, Republicans in FL are a bit nuttier than Republicans in TX. Maybe I'm just biased toward my Texan friends.
Canada could be a huge climate change winner when it comes to farmland https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/climate-change-farming-1.5461275
I remember Warren Buffett co proposed some multi-billion power plants in Texas to boost reserve capacity. Any idea what happened to that?
I like Canada. One of my best friends moved to Kaslo, B.C., back in the 70's. Right after his move, they ended the draft. Stayed anyway.
The industry isn't populated by a bunch of climate science deniers. The current market construct punishes companies that are bad at forecasting, so denial is bad for business. My one concern is that long term planning might not be rewarded enough. A similar idea lives on. It's not a good idea, imo. It was a money grab.
This is a very bizzarre argument. If we took this argument that we can't change technology because there was benefit from it we would've we would still be using a lot of lead. The use of lead in paint and water pipes saved a lot of lives by providing sanitary water and making our homes more weather tight and cleaner. That doesn't mean we didn't replace lead once we saw how bad it was and could come up with alternatives.
nothing at all bizarre about it. Fuel is important--as Gifford Pinchot wrote in The Fight for Conservation, "Coal is the vital essence of civilization." The same holds true for oil and other fossil fuels today.
The same discussion has happened here in MN that climate change could be a net benefit by opening up more areas for farming. The problem with that as the article notes is that air temperature isn't the only factor in farming. One of the issues we've been seeing is rainfall patterns have gotten very uneven in the upper Midwest. In the last two summers the Twin Cities have been in drough conditions while Northern MN has been having record rains. Also a lot of Northern MN and Canada much of that land is peat and in NOrthern Canada is its permafrost tundra. Even with warming temperatures that land is hard to farm. With increasing temps that land isn't going to turn into rich prairie land but will turn into boggy land.
Yes and so was lead. Over the history of human civilization lead might've been more valuable than fossil fuels. That didn't stop us from greatly reducing our use of lead. It's bizarre to say that we can't change or discuss the harm of a particular technology because of previous benefits.
no one is saying this. You are once again erecting a straw man of your own creation to combat an argument you dislike and, in all likelihood, do not understand. This is not meant as a criticism, but as an observation.
Right, even people at Exxon decades ago knew. Their self-interest rule. I’m not talking about the industry. The private sectors are usually a few steps ahead of gov most of the time. Many companies have already committed to net zero by 2030. I was talking about the public sectors and the politicians in gov that set regulations and rules and can push for long-term projects to mitigate climate change.
Can someone explain to me why we haven't increased our power production to match increased demand, and why we aren't redundant after the freeze 2 years ago? I'm not locked into this and would appreciate understanding why I'm going to have to deal with blackouts.
