Dear Reader (especially those who make charitable contributions),
Tyler Cowen has a good, if somewhat familiar, piece on the economic divide between the United States and Europe (Yascha Mounk wrote a similar piece for The Dispatch two months ago). But Cowen’s opening sentence knocked me for a loop. He writes:
“I was shocked recently to learn that more Europeans die of heat death—largely due to lack of air-conditioning—than Americans die from gunshot wounds.”
I was shocked by that, too. I was going to riff on the differences between America and Europe. But something about that statistic nagged at me.
More people die from cold than heat—a lot more people. And that’s true everywhere, including the global south. And it’s not necessarily “extreme” cold either. But how often do you hear about cold-related deaths? A study published in The Lancet found cold weather kills 8.3 times more people in Europe than heat, while according to Bjorn Lomborg, heat deaths get nine times more media coverage.
I think climate change is real and a problem—even if I think it is also overhyped and used to justify a political and economic agenda that is not entirely about dealing with the problem. So I don’t want to be too dismissive.
The American experiment is still happening.
As the United States approaches its semiquincentennial, The Dispatch has launched The Next 250—a year-long project examining America’s founding principles and what makes this country, imperfect though it may be, so exceptional. Featuring exclusive essays from historians, political theorists, military experts, legal scholars, and cultural commentators, we’re exploring the biggest questions facing our nation and the unique qualities of this big, messy experiment we call home.
Still, the fact is that most of the increase in global temperatures manifests itself in the form of warmer winters than in hotter summers, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. It’s probably overly simplistic in myriad ways, but going solely by temperature-related deaths, it’s not unreasonable to assume that climate change could save more lives than it costs. (Indeed, many models predict that climate change will be a net benefit for society before the negative consequences kick in—in the form of greater crop yields, faster reforestation, and, again, fewer deaths from the cold).
But let’s get back to Europe versus the U.S. for a moment. As Cowen notes, air conditioning in much of Europe is considered a luxury. For some Europeans, air conditioning is seen as a profane American indulgence (I consider it close to indoor plumbing as a boon of civilized living). The Wall Street Journal reported this week that debates over air conditioning are roiling the continent. I loved this:
The prospect of U.S.-style air conditioning sends shivers through some Europeans. In France, media outlets often warn that cooling a room to more than 15 degrees Fahrenheit below the outside temperature can cause something called “thermal shock,” resulting in nausea, loss of consciousness and even respiratory arrest. That would be news to Americans who expect indoor temperatures to be cooled to around 75 degrees even when it is near 100 outside.
In parts of Switzerland, you need government approval even to install air conditioning. French hospitals are mostly un-air-conditioned.
All other things being equal, if you really care about global warming, you should be more concerned with artificial heating than cooling, given that carbon emissions from heating fuels are four times greater than emissions from air conditioning, according to Hannah Ritchie, who publishes an excellent newsletter titled “Sustainability by Numbers.” She writes:
In Europe, if someone can’t afford heating then they’re defined as being in “fuel poverty”. There is (quite rightly) outrage about the fact that fuel poverty still exists. What’s strange, though, is that cooling is almost treated in the opposite direction: having an air conditioner is seen as a luxury or overconsumption. But it also saves lives, and would have a huge impact on many people’s level of wellbeing and productivity.
I agree with Ritchie that fuel poverty is a problem, but you really don’t need the modifier “fuel.” Poverty kills people. I’m not making some Trojan horse argument for socialism, in large part because socialism is often likely to increase poverty and it’s guaranteed to impede growth. I know some folks will roll their eyes about the first part. So I’ll explain really quickly. In many countries, socialist policies reduce the “Gini coefficient”—the statistical tool used to measure inequality in an economy. Wealth redistribution makes the rich poorer and some of the poor somewhat less poor. This happened in South Africa after apartheid, Venezuela (and Brazil) in the 2000s, and plenty of other places. In China, inequality plummeted after the communists took over, because almost everyone got poorer. Often, as in South Africa and Venezuela, the policies that “improved” inequality also eventually led to capital flight, corruption, inflation, and reduced economic growth, and therefore ultimately increased absolute poverty.
So what does all of this have to do with air conditioning? Good question. I guess the specific thing I find interesting is how much supposedly “data-driven” public policy—and the journalism that stems from it—is fueled by cultural, ideological, or psychological biases. Air conditioning is a good example of what I mean.
If it were true that AC-induced “thermal shock” was a thing, people living in Arizona, Texas, and Florida would be dropping like flies every time they went to a restaurant, the mall, or the movies because the AC in most places is set to “meat locker.” And when they took the victims from the ambulance to the hospital, they’d be screaming from their stretcher, “No! Not again!” The idea that this claim is taken remotely seriously by anybody is proof of a kind of cultural panic or psychological derangement. It certainly isn’t “data-driven.”
My point that “poverty kills people” is kind of misleading. A better way to think about it is that poverty allows nature to kill people. Nature is a murderer. What do I mean by nature? Well, everything. Disease is natural. Poor people and poor societies alike are more susceptible to disease than rich people and rich societies. If you live in a very poor society today—or at any time in human history—but have access to antibiotics, clean drinking water, and adequate shelter, you’re probably the richest person around. The story of the conquest of nature is the story of humanity’s enrichment, period.
In rough seas, the man with a boat is richer than everybody in the water.
It’s fine to talk about “health” or “medical” poverty the way Europeans talk about “fuel poverty,” but again the issue is really just poverty.
Natural disasters are part of nature, as the word “natural” suggests. By some estimates 90 percent of deaths in natural disasters occur in low-income countries. Consider earthquakes. Earthquakes in rich countries kill far fewer people than earthquakes in poor countries, even when rich countries are hit by much bigger quakes and are more densely populated. In 2011, Japan was hit by the largest earthquake ever recorded in that quake-plagued nation. At 9.0 magnitude, it was beyond massive. It killed some 20,000 people. The year earlier, a 7.0-magnitude quake hit Haiti. That might not sound like a big difference, but a 9.0-magnitude earthquake releases over 1,000 times more energy than a 7.0. However, the Haiti earthquake killed 11 times more people. Roughly 2 percent of the Haitian population died in the 2010 quake while 0.016 percent of Japan’s population died in that country’s quake.
This kind of disparity holds true everywhere earthquakes hit. Indeed, a better example would be the 8.8-magnitude earthquake that hit Chile the same year as Haiti’s earthquake. It killed an estimated 525 people.
The poorer a nation, the more people die—despite the fact that in rich countries people often live in very tall buildings while poor people live in small houses or even huts. That’s because in rich countries, we build buildings that can withstand earthquakes. In poor countries, not so much.
You can complain about income inequality, but income inequality is largely—not entirely—a cultural or aesthetic concern. People like New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani may claim that they’re concerned primarily with fighting poverty, but their focus on inequality is focused to a large degree on resentment about there being too many rich people. Mamdani thinks billionaires shouldn’t exist, after all. But one of the many things billionaires are good for is paying for buildings that can withstand earthquakes and hurricanes and subsidizing the building codes (and clean drinking water laws) for rich and poor alike. And on a hot summer day, the poor benefit from the air conditioning provided in the malls and movie theaters the rich own.
All things being equal, you’d be a fool not to want to be poor in a rich country instead of middle class in a very poor country. To carry the earlier metaphor a bit further, the man with a boat is richer than all of the desperate swimmers without one, but they benefit all the same by being able to get in the boat.
Now, I think that’s a cultural statement as much as it is an objective one. Some people think living amid the social equality of universal poverty is preferable to living at the wrong end of the Gini coefficient in a rich country. But the fact remains that nature is less likely to kill you in a rich country.
I am for fighting climate change—but even if you subscribe to the most alarmist versions of the threat, the threat is still the age-old fight of holding nature at bay. And that fight is won by humans getting richer. The price of getting richer as a society is that some people will get rich faster—and richer in general—than others. That may be aesthetically or culturally displeasing, but a lot more wealth gets shared than the whiners appreciate.
Various & Sundry
Got Questions? Sara Isgur and I are doing a life advice episode of The Remnant. Send your questions—about career, food, kids, pets—to remnant@thedispatch.com by Tuesday, July 29.
Canine Update: It’s been a very rough week for Zoë and she’s not out of the woods quite yet. She’s in the animal hospital as of this writing, and I am too worried and feel too guilty about not being home to do a detailed or fun update. I am deeply appreciative of everyone who has sent a kind word or good thought, and I am beyond grateful to The Fair Jessica who has taken the lead on all of this for a week. We should have clarity soon.
The Dispawtch
Owner’s Name: Mark Shroyer
Why I’m a Dispatch Member: I originally found The Dispatch by way of Advisory Opinions, but I’ve come to love it overall for its conscientiously factual and fair coverage. The Morning Dispatch is now my go-to daily news summary. And while I hadn’t much read or listened to Jonah beforehand, The Remnant has since become one of my favorite podcasts.
Pet’s Breed: Domestic shorthair cat
Pet’s Age: 18 (almost 19!)
Gotcha Story: One evening at a friend’s place in college, a very pregnant cat walked up to the patio window from the adjacent woods and started pawing to be let in. She was a stray, but clearly comfortable with people. We helped her into the bathroom, where she gave birth to three kittens: Two male and one female. We named them after the Rescue Rangers: Chip, Dale, and Gadget.
We registered the cats with the Alachua County Humane Society and decided to foster the kittens, with the intent of giving them up for adoption. However, the female kitten bonded with me specifically, following me around everywhere. I couldn’t adopt all of them (the apartment I was living in at the time didn’t allow any pets, so even one was a stretch), but I adopted her.
Eighteen years later and she’s luckily quite healthy for her age, aside from some arthritis. I’m doing my best to keep her happy in her senior years.
Pet’s Likes: Being exceptionally vocal. She meows a sort of “hello” when I so much as make eye contact with her from across the room. Also tuna, and burrowing under the bed covers.
Pet’s Dislikes: Other cats. I tried multiple times throughout her life to bring her fellow cat friends, but she never took to them. She loves humans, though!
Pet’s Proudest Moment: One day I accidentally left the back door open. After getting home from work I found her not having escaped but just sitting at that door, loudly alerting me to my mistake.
Bad Pet: I’ve never heard her called a bad cat! She doesn’t even fight when getting her shots at the vet, she just meows plaintively.
Do you have a quadruped you’d like to nominate for Dispawtcher of the Week and catapult to stardom? Let us know about your pet by clicking here. Reminder: You must be a Dispatch member to participate.
