Interesting Look at the Deaths in France's Heat Wave

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,422
19,832
146
Energy Tax Blacks Out Many Lives in Europe

Wednesday, August 20, 2003
By Patrick J. Michaels

France claims that the recent European heat wave was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 of its countrymen. But for most of the summer, it has been much hotter in the American West, and no one can find even one body attributable to the heat.

The difference is air conditioning run by affordable energy, and the obvious fear is that if the next big blackout hits at midday during a major heat wave (when energy demand is greatest) and continues for days, a tremendous catastrophe will ensue.

For the record, the mean summer temperature in Paris is the same as in Detroit, Chicago and Denver, and when these American cities heat up to record levels (as long as the power stays on), there's no proportional number of excess deaths.

All of these cities share common physics: Their bricks, buildings and pavement retain the day's heat, making them nice little laboratories to study the relationship between warming and mortality. Washington, D.C., for example has a striking "urban effect" heating (no doubt enhanced by the waste heat from all those politicians exhaling).

The temperature around formerly rural Dulles Airport remained constant for decades, but then began to rise about 20 years ago as the government and its service corporations grew along the Dulles Access Highway.

Rural mid-Atlantic temperatures, however, haven't budged for 100 years.

Environmentalists warn us that unless we stop global warming (search), urban death rates will skyrocket, as this will supply an additional increment of heat. The way to stop global warming, of course, is to restrict the use of fossil-fuel energy, which can only be accomplished by raising the price to a level at which people begin to self-ration their consumption.

My University of Virginia colleague Robert Davis and I looked into the issue of heat and mortality in American cities and published our findings in several academic journals. Given all those bodies in France and the big blackout, perhaps it's a good time to get these out of the dusty library stacks and tell what we found.

People who study mortality and climate have known for years that most temperate-zone cities have had some "threshold" temperature at which daily mortality suddenly begins to skyrocket. People who study economics will argue that this is a market ripe for adaptation.

How have Americans adapted to our warming cities? They stopped dying. Even though the local temperature keeps going up and up, the threshold at which deaths skyrocket has become higher and higher, and now is beyond the highest temperatures.

In Philadelphia, a typical old urban core, deaths began to rise in the 1960s when the "effective temperature" (a combination of heat and humidity) hit the mid-80s. By the 1970s, the threshold was in the low 90s. In the 1980s the temperature threshold was in the mid-90s, and by the 1990s there was no measured effective temperature at which mortality rises.

This behavior repeats at virtually every American city we studied, except in "new" cities of the Deep South, such as Houston, which never have shown any temperature at which mortality jumps.

Obviously the solution is air conditioning powered by affordable energy. And that's the difference between America and Europe.

European cities are virtually devoid of air conditioning in large part because the energy to run them is so expensive. And why is that? Pressured by vocal environmentalists, European governments have levied energy tax after energy tax, with the latest excuse being global warming.

The mathematics of this problem are terribly transparent. In order to meet their self-imposed targets from the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, European nations already have taxed energy, but they have not done enough. Consequently, even more restrictions are being proposed, especially by the German government. Unaffordable air conditioning will become even more expensive, killing more and more Europeans the next time the temperature reaches what passes for a few degrees above what is normal in Dallas.

Europe has effectively imposed a continuous blackout on air conditioning, and now it is paying the price.

Some people will point to the hundreds of people who died in the infamous July 1995 Chicago heat wave and wonder how we could have ignored this obvious tragedy. We didn't.

Normally many more die on the poorer South Side of the city, but not in 1995. A power outage hit the affluent North Side early on and the air conditioning went out. As they say, Q.E.D.

And as for the heat-prostrated people of Europe, it's too bad that the Kyoto Protocol will do nothing measurable about the Earth's mean temperature for the forseeable future. But it will kill thousands and thousands more in France, Germany and England, where energy taxes are enormous, creating an invisible blackout of lifesaving air conditioning.

 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,422
19,832
146
Cliff note:

The reason so many died in France compared to the even hotter summers in the US is the general lack of AC in France, due to extremely high energy costs due to high taxes.

Stop being lazy and read the article. It makes some very good points.
 

DainBramaged

Lifer
Jun 19, 2003
23,454
41
91
Originally posted by: Amused
Cliff note:

The reason so many died in France compared to the even hotter summers in the US is the general lack of AC in France, due to extremely high energy costs due to high taxes.

Thank you. Now thats a good reason not to live in France. Not that we needed one.

Just read full text. European politics are really screwed up.
 

CaseTragedy

Platinum Member
Oct 24, 2000
2,690
0
0
i see. hopefully that won't affect my gf then. maybe the hostels would let them use a/c at their own expense?
 

KGB1

Platinum Member
Dec 29, 2001
2,998
0
0
It is quite true... but there is a lot of cynical references to the kyoto environmental treaty. There has got to be a better way of keeping elderly safe from the heat and protect the environment.

They haven't mentioned the middle east or central america nor africa and how they cope with their 40+ temps everyday
 

BatmanNate

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
12,444
2
81
One would think the logical course of action given theses premises would be to use the tax money from this energy tax and begin construction of more "clean" power sources (nuclear/hydro) so as to satisfy the environmentalists disputable global warming claims and lower energy costs in the end.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,422
19,832
146
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
One would think the logical course of action given theses premises would be to use the tax money from this energy tax and begin construction of more "clean" power sources (nuclear/hydro) so as to satisfy the environmentalists disputable global warming claims and lower energy costs in the end.

As if nuke and hydro placate the tree huggers. Already Europe gets a far higher % of it's power from nuke than the US... but that hasn't stopped the trtee huggers from protesting, and the socialist governments from taxing it so damn much.
 

BatmanNate

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
12,444
2
81
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
One would think the logical course of action given theses premises would be to use the tax money from this energy tax and begin construction of more "clean" power sources (nuclear/hydro) so as to satisfy the environmentalists disputable global warming claims and lower energy costs in the end.

As if nuke and hydro placate the tree huggers. Already Europe gets a far higher % of it's power from nuke than the US... but that hasn't stopped the trtee huggers from protesting, and the socialist governments from taxing it so damn much.


Agreed that it certainly would not appease them entirely, but they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in regards to global warming if nothing else.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,422
19,832
146
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
One would think the logical course of action given theses premises would be to use the tax money from this energy tax and begin construction of more "clean" power sources (nuclear/hydro) so as to satisfy the environmentalists disputable global warming claims and lower energy costs in the end.

As if nuke and hydro placate the tree huggers. Already Europe gets a far higher % of it's power from nuke than the US... but that hasn't stopped the trtee huggers from protesting, and the socialist governments from taxing it so damn much.


Agreed that it certainly would not appease them entirely, but they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in regards to global warming if nothing else.

They'd just change their tune. It's not like intelligent folks don't want to change coal and oil plants to nuke. It's the same damn tree huggers that spread all sorts of fear to stop that from happening.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
First off, comparing American and European cities and stating that they share "commen physics" is a bit dishonest. The density of buildings and construction techniques and materials used in, say, Paris and Chicago would vary greatly. Somehow I think that Paris has more of a urban heat island effect than Chicago does.
And I think the real reason why most of europe doesn't have alot of AC because they don't need it, not because the power to run the AC is too expensive. The average high in Paris in August is 75, so they were +20-30 degrees abnormally high for a week. How many people would die in Chicago if it was 102-112 degrees for a week straight??
But hey, this guy will use any story to push his anti-global warming agenda...
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
57,422
19,832
146
Originally posted by: jahawkin
First off, comparing American and European cities and stating that they share "commen physics" is a bit dishonest. The density of buildings and construction techniques and materials used in, say, Paris and Chicago would vary greatly. Somehow I think that Paris has more of a urban heat island effect than Chicago does.
And I think the real reason why most of europe doesn't have alot of AC because they don't need it, not because the power to run the AC is too expensive. The average high in Paris in August is 75, so they were +20-30 degrees abnormally high for a week. How many people would die in Chicago if it was 102-112 degrees for a week straight??
But hey, this guy will use any story to push his anti-global warming agenda...

Um, yeah right.
rolleye.gif
Tell me, how many homes in New Hampshire have AC? North Dakota? Vermont? Maine? A lot higher % than France.

And to say Paris creates more of a heat island than Chicago is pure ignorance. Chicago is the most studied for the "heat island" effect because it is the most remarkable example of it.

Somehow I knew a lefty would come in here and try to justify France's ridiculous taxes. I was right.

BTW, Chicago HAS had extreme heat waves into the 110s. A couple hundred at most die, and all extremely elderly people with... guess what? NO AC.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: KGB
It is quite true... but there is a lot of cynical references to the kyoto environmental treaty. There has got to be a better way of keeping elderly safe from the heat and protect the environment.

They haven't mentioned the middle east or central america nor africa and how they cope with their 40+ temps everyday

Its called 100s of years of adapting to the enviorment. They cope because their bodies are fairly used to it. Humans can adapt to the heat, and to the cold. But when you have old folks not used to a 100 degrees, that have poor circulation, and no AC a disaster happens, and that goes for anywhere. Elderly people in Texas die from the heat, every year, the numbers are low, but it happens.

13,000+ people died in France because of several reasons. Poor healthcare and no ac(expensive power), are the two main factors.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: jahawkin
First off, comparing American and European cities and stating that they share "commen physics" is a bit dishonest. The density of buildings and construction techniques and materials used in, say, Paris and Chicago would vary greatly. Somehow I think that Paris has more of a urban heat island effect than Chicago does.
And I think the real reason why most of europe doesn't have alot of AC because they don't need it, not because the power to run the AC is too expensive. The average high in Paris in August is 75, so they were +20-30 degrees abnormally high for a week. How many people would die in Chicago if it was 102-112 degrees for a week straight??
But hey, this guy will use any story to push his anti-global warming agenda...

Um, yeah right.
rolleye.gif
Tell me, how many homes in New Hampshire have AC? North Dakota? Vermont? Maine? A lot higher % than France.

And to say Paris creates more of a heat island than Chicago is pure ignorance. Chicago is the most studied for the "heat island" effect because it is the most remarkable example of it.

Somehow I knew a lefty would come in here and try to justify France's ridiculous taxes. I was right.

BTW, Chicago HAS had extreme heat waves into the 110s. A couple hundred at most die, and all extremely elderly people with... guess what? NO AC.

So, do the homes in NH, ND and Vermont need the AC?? No. Look at a climate summary for Paris. Would you invest in AC if the highest average temp all year is 75 with low humidity??

So you think Chicago, which was built from 1850 on, has more a heat island effect than Paris?? Could you point me to the study?? I would think that Paris, with many buildings older than the US itself and narrower streets, would see more of a heat island effect.

And no, Chicago has not seen a week of temps 20-30 degrees above average. In '95, it was hot for a few days, but it wasn't 110 for 5 straight days.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
its 13,000 now?!? what are the death tolls for other areas?
 

Stark

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2000
7,735
0
0
I was just out in Indio, CA where the temp was 108. Guess what, I SURVIVED!!

this article is awsome... i suspected the leftist french political system had something to do with all these deaths, but if this doesn't prove that the frogs are the most backwards (and irrelevant) modern nation on earth, I don't know what does.
 

AnitaPeterson

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
6,024
557
126
if this doesn't prove that the frogs are the most backwards (and irrelevant) modern nation on earth, I don't know what does.

It also points out at the fact that you are an uneducated moron.
 

arcas

Platinum Member
Apr 10, 2001
2,155
2
0
France simply was not equipped to deal with a heat wave of that magnitude. Take most towns in the US and boost their August temperatures to 25 degrees above normal for a week or two. Where I live, an August day might top out around 90-95F (though this year has been cool by comparison). Add 25 degrees onto that for 10 days. Think there'll be problems? You bet!

Swamp coolers (which work by basically evaporating water) are pretty popular in the southwest where humidity is normally very low. They're simple and very efficient. But what would happen if, say, Phoenix were stuck with, say, Huntsville Alabama's weather for a few weeks? Hint: a swamp cooler wouldn't work at all in Huntsville because the humidity is way too high for the evaporator to work.

Same thing goes for odd winter weather patterns. What would happen if an arctic airmass were to settle over the southeast coast for a couple weeks? Building codes simply don't take such extreme weather patterns into consideration. How many houses on the South Carolina coast would you expect to find with, say, R-55 attic insulation? Probably not many. But my guess is it would be pretty common in North Dakota. How many houses southern Florida have furnaces? How screwed would Miami be if they spent two weeks below zero?

It's not a problem that's unique to Europe.

 

usualuse

Senior member
Jul 28, 2003
289
0
0
I have never ever in my life seen a man suffer or die becouse of the sun.:)
On the contrary,every where i was people liked the sun,and to get "burned".
It's strange to me now to hear so many died.What was the reason exactly?
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: Dezign
*curious about hard numbers, in terms of "expensive energy"*

*goes to google*

Finally someone with a bit of sense! Please post those numbers if you find them.

If the authors wanted to convince people, why not include something as simple as the actual energy prices in France, England, Spain, Portugal and US states with similar climates and problems?
 

dawks

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,071
2
81
Um, yeah right. Tell me, how many homes in New Hampshire have AC? North Dakota? Vermont? Maine? A lot higher % than France.

Quick note, I live about 5-6 hours NORTH of North Dakota, and about 85% of the houses on my street have A/C. Of course its been about 90-95 everyday for the last two-three months..

Its interesting how people can claim Nuclear Energy is a clean source of power. Sure the plant doesnt give off any different immediate pollution then the average plant (heat pollution), but are people forgetting the Radio Active Waste? That stuff hangs around for decades, if not centuries. Sure we can just 'sweep it under a rug', but that rug is completely un-safe for any human use for a very long time..

Fusion power is the wave of the future!.. Just need to develop containment systems.... hmmmm
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: DaZ
Um, yeah right. Tell me, how many homes in New Hampshire have AC? North Dakota? Vermont? Maine? A lot higher % than France.

Quick note, I live about 5-6 hours NORTH of North Dakota, and about 85% of the houses on my street have A/C. Of course its been about 90-95 everyday for the last two-three months..

Its interesting how people can claim Nuclear Energy is a clean source of power. Sure the plant doesnt give off any different immediate pollution then the average plant (heat pollution), but are people forgetting the Radio Active Waste? That stuff hangs around for decades, if not centuries. Sure we can just 'sweep it under a rug', but that rug is completely un-safe for any human use for a very long time..

Fusion power is the wave of the future!.. Just need to develop containment systems.... hmmmm

coal power generates plenty of toxic waste which is pumped into the atmosphere. i'll bet theres some radioactive waste in there as well. heck, maybe as much as a nuke plant (it takes several cars of coal to power as much as a couple tablets of nuke waste) seriously, i'd much much much rather have radioactive waste in a concentrated form that we can lock away somewhere rather than just pumping it into the atmostphere. and its not like that stuff wasn't radioactive when it was pulled out of the earth.