Excellent article. In fact far more people die due to cool or cold weather than due to warm or hot weather. A. Gasparrini, et al., “Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study”, The Lancet (2015) DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62114-0 http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2814%2962114-0.pdf

Y. Chung, et al., “Temporal changes in mortality related to extreme temperatures for 15 cities in northeast Asia: Adaptation to heat and maladaptation to cold” (2017) American Journal of Epidemiology, 185 (10), 907-913. DOI: 10.1093/aje/kww199

J.E. Brody, “Beware: Winter is Coming”, New York Times, 12/19/2016 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/well/beware-winter-is-coming.html

One quibble:

"It’s true that there have been more heat waves in the United States since 1960, and that higher temperatures dry out the dead wood in forests, contributing to a greater area burned by forest fires"

But there have been fewer heat waves than in the 1950s and even fewer than in the 1930s. The 1960s were a low point for heat waves and have been picked as the starting point for activists to claim the 'climate change' is causing heat waves.

Expand full comment

"And the reason California has failed to properly manage its forests is because, for decades, its leaders underinvested in fire prevention, including by diverting money that the state’s electric utilities could and should have spent on clearing the area around electrical lines, to renewables."

Also poor urban planning - California suburban sprawl has moved further out into previously undeveloped lands. I hate apartment living, and wholly get why people want to have a bit of property to call their own. It's a more humane way to live than being stacked atop one another like a factory egg farm. But if the former wildlands aren't thinned of fuel, then not only are there more wildfires, but they cause more damage to humans and our infrastructure. Yet the former urbanites who move out into the hinterlands often actively oppose any thinning of the natural fuel because they want to preserve what they see as the "natural" setting.

Well, nature's way of managing fire fuel is massive forest fires sparked by lightning.

Expand full comment

Great investigative article, Michael. However, the apocalyptic environmentalism paradigm also provides great cover for economic opportunists. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's administration was bribed by Competitive Power Ventures (CPV) to shut down Indian Point in April, 2021. Some low-level people suffered sanctions for their criminal acts. Andrew Cuomo remains New York State's governor. CPV's fossil-fired plants are operating today, providing enhanced profits to the corporation.

In California, there was a secret deal hatched at a Warsaw, Poland hotel by a senior executive of Southern California Edison (SCE) and CPUC president Michael Picker for the ratepayers to be mostly responsible for the unpaid decommissioning costs associated with the unnecessary shutdown of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) in January, 2012 after SCE mismanaged a routine service operation, replacement of the steam generators. California's Attorney General, Kamala Harris began an investigation into these illegal actions. This investigation was later suspended. (Now Kamala Harris is our nation's vice president.) SCE's holding company Edison International and San Diego Gas & Electric's holding company Sempra derived increased profits from the SONGS shutdown.

On June 24, 2021, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a plan to partially replace Diablo Canyon (Nuclear) Power Plant (DCPP) after 2025 with a huge procurement of 4,000 to 5,000 MW of "Unspecified Imports" - a California legal euphemism applied mostly to out-of-state coal-fired generation. Nonprofit intervenor Californians for Green Nuclear Power, Inc. (CGNP) has raised the issue of PacifiCorp aggressively lobbying the California government since our January, 2017 initial filing in A1608006 naming Berkshire Hathaway Energy's (BHE's) PacifiCorp subsidiary as the likely economic beneficiary of the "voluntary" planned DCPP shutdown in 2025. PacifiCorp has about 6,000 MW of coal fired generation - mostly in Wyoming - and about 3,000 MW of out-of-state natural gas fired generation.

CGNP recently discovered that this CPUC procurement order is likely illegal as a consequence of California's SB 1368 (Perata) 2006 - which became PUC § 8340. Given that BHE is sitting on a cash "war chest" of about $137 billion, the illegality of this CPUC action can be (ahem) dealt with by the firm. Furthermore, PacifiCorp has already obtained an exemption from SB 1368's prohibitions. This massive procurement , on the order of 18 billion kWh per year, should be the rationale to revoke the exemption on environmental grounds, preventing this procurement. CGNP filed objections in opening comments in a PacifiCorp General Rate Case (GRC) proceeding on Tuesday, June 29, 2021. Please contact CGNP via government [at] CGNP dot org for additional details.

Expand full comment
Nov 16, 2022·edited Nov 16, 2022


Great read but I could use some help squaring a tangentiality related (apparent) contradiction in a reference and quote you included. It seems like it'd be right up your alley to help clarify.

"It’s true that there have been more heat waves in the United States since 1960, and that higher temperatures dry out the dead wood in forests, contributing to a greater area burned by forest fires."

The referenced study for the increase in heat waves is tracking major cities, and seems to simply be proxy for population increases due to the effects of urban heat islands (the article itself mentions them in the notes, though doesn't account for in its figures).

1. While your use of the figures stands regarding AC and energy access, how could specifically urban temp increases extend to forest fire impacts? Heat waves could be more common everywhere but this connection is reminiscent of the "more destructive" hurricanes population growth misdirection.

2. Given the pronounced and documented effects of urban heat islands (just a million people can bump averages by multiple degrees), the linked reference's documented effects are surprisingly low given sub/urban explosions over the studied time horizon.

Is this another example of the overzealous reporting/research for the greater good that makes it _more_ difficult for people to align on addressing the actual problems of climate change?


Another resource on the EPA site claims "Daytime temperatures in urban areas are about 1–7°F higher than temperatures in outlying areas and nighttime temperatures are about 2-5°F higher."


This time article links to the same EPA resource about heat islands and claims night time temps could increased by as much as 22° F (presumably at night). Although, I didn't see that number on the site.


Expand full comment

Right on. What if there’s a calamitous weather event that blankets the country with heavy clouds for a just a few weeks. Then no electricity generated by solar panels. We absolutely need nuclear power plants to survive.

Expand full comment