COMMENTARY: Yes, heat kills, but cold is far worse
In summer, as sure as the mercury rises, the media become fixated on heat waves as the poster child of climate change. Heat domes or heat waves, by any name, summer temperature spikes point to the urgency of climate action. What we don’t hear is that this narrative distorts reality, hyping the drama while ignoring the far greater toll of cold, which is a much bigger killer of Americans. This reporting means we focus on the wrong policies and don’t see the bigger picture.
The effects 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. These deaths are tragic and, usually, preventable, and we hear about them every summer. However, deaths by cold lag temperature changes by weeks and are less dramatic.
The reality is that cold deaths far outnumber heat deaths. The most comprehensive Lancet study shows that while heat kills nearly half a million people globally every year, cold kills more than 4.5 million, or nine times more cold deaths than heat deaths. Perversely, global media write nine times more stories about heat waves than cold waves.
We need to know that cold kills vastly more than heat across all continents and most countries. The United States sees more than 80,000 cold deaths annually, vastly outweighing its 8,000 heat deaths. In Latin America and Europe, cold deaths outweigh heat deaths 4-to-1, and in Africa, cold deaths are an astounding 46 times more frequent than heat deaths. Even in India — where the media have fixated on extreme heat this year — cold deaths outnumber heat deaths by 7-to-1.
Global warming, indeed, causes heat waves, and these raise the risk that more people die because of heat-related causes. However, it also reduces cold waves, leading to fewer cold deaths. The Lancet study found that over the past two decades, temperature increases have caused 116,000 more heat deaths annually but 283,000 fewer cold deaths. The net effect is a reduction of 166,000 temperature-related deaths annually. It is a travesty that this is rarely reported.
Of course, as the temperature rises, that balance will shift. A near-global Nature study shows that, looking only at the effect of climate change, the number of deaths from heat and cold will stay lower than today, almost up to a 3-degree Celsius temperature increase, which is more than expected by the end of this century.
One of the most obvious ways to keep populations cool is through cheap and effective city design: planting more trees, adding green spaces and painting black roofs and roads white to make them more reflective. One study of London shows that this could reduce heatwave temperatures by as much as 18 degrees Fahrenheit.
A Nature study shows that 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 to ensure access to cheap energy. Affordable energy allows people to use air conditioning during heat waves and heating during cold snaps. In the United States, heat deaths have halved since 1960, primarily because of 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.
The big problem is that climate policies prioritize reducing carbon-dioxide 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 across 70 countries from 2023 show a correlation between more solar and wind and higher average household and business energy prices.
Countries pushing net-zero climate policies and fossil fuel taxes, such as Germany, have seen energy costs soar. In January, residential consumers in Berlin paid 40.4 euro cents for one kilowatt hour of electricity, far above even the relatively high European Union average of 25.5 cents. Three in four Germans say they are worried about whether they can afford the high cost of Germany going green, and nearly 60 percent shiver in the cold instead of turning on the heat, according to a survey by Sweden-based energy group Vattenfall. A new study shows Germans are 18 percent less likely to be in good health if they are living in energy poverty.
While climate change is a real problem, the reduction of this complex issue to sensationalist stories of heat deaths is misleading and unhelpful. We need policies that prioritize human well-being, ensuring affordable energy for heating and cooling, along with adaptation. To tackle long-term global warming, we also need to invest in energy innovation to make green energy cheaper and more reliable, rather than imposing costly mandates.
Those who argue that taking account of cold deaths undermines the urgency of tackling climate change are simply suggesting that we need to stay inadequately informed to follow their desired climate policies.
Cold deaths outweigh heat deaths 9-to-1, and higher temperatures are reducing total temperature-related deaths. The fact that the media writes 9-to-1 in favor of heat deaths distorts our understanding and promotes ineffective and harmful climate policies.
Bjorn Lomborg is the president of the Copenhagen Consensus, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, and the author of “False Alarm” and “Best Things First.” He wrote this for InsideSources.com.