I just want to say that graphs like this should be contrasted with the number of deaths from extreme cold. I know Arizona probably doesn’t have the numbers of say, Alaska, but it’s worthy of note to contrast the two.
I’d also point out that it is far easier for an individual to protect themselves against the rigors of cold than it is for heat; in the cold, with warm clothing, you can keep yourself warm, while the environment is very cold; fire is relatively easy to make, even if you have little more than sticks, and thus getting warm or keeping yourself warm is by and large easier to accomplish than staying cold.
When you’re in an extremely hot environment, it’s not like you can make yourself more naked than naked. You need some outside influence to keep you cool, like a swamp cooler, a misting sprayer, a cool body of water (like a river or lake), or some kind of man-made cooling device like an Air Conditioner, in a relatively sealed enclosure (which relies on consistent access to power to run it). most of these are either inaccessible to people in a city or built-up area; sure, there are fixtures, like fountains that contain water, usually not enough to keep them from heating up, and usually the water is recycled, so the heat stays with the water. all other water access is typically restricted to water lines, which usually someone is paying for, and nobody wants to pay to keep random people cool when they don’t have to. All man-made (air conditioner) type cooling is generally access restricted to either workplaces, homes, or businesses/storefronts, where the expectation is that you’ll be spending money there (which not everyone has).
I’m just saying, that the limiting factor to reducing death by extreme heat, is a far larger one, than death by extreme cold, where you should only need to hand out sweaters, gloves/mittens, jackets, blankets, etc, to keep people from dying from it. There’s far-end extreme cold that almost nothing will save you from short of a heated structure, but generally, places that are inhabited by people who don’t have access to safe heat and cooling (like a home), are more temperate than that extreme of cold… not exactly too many homeless people walking around the arctic or Antarctic circles…
Neither is good, but both seem inevitable; regardless we should be doing all we can to help to ensure the survival of everyone, as a species. Whether that’s saving them from the heat, the cold, from starvation or dehydration, we should be helping in any way we are able to.
Climate change is just getting started and people should start suing cities and design firms for failing to include shade requirements in their standards and for making roads too wide to properly shade
Where natural shade can’t be sustained artificial shade needs to be provided.
The single family house on a grass lawn is such a stupid idea in many places
I wish, but I just know the segregationist city planners in my town will just lay down more asphalt and gated suburbs. We don’t even have sidewalks or crosswalks even though there’s people walking/biking everywhere. They intentionally make our towns unlivable.
Why do I suspect his ass is the first to flee when shit gets real? Doubt he can live up to his own lyrics, evidence has shown most of these people can’t.
At the end of the day, the root cause of bigotry is cowardice. Maybe stupidity and indoctrination got them where they are, but for 100% of them, it’s cowardice that’s keeping them there.
Foster parent here and guess how many times I wanted to punch a person from the system in the face when they said “the parental bond is the most important thing” to explain away unfathomably shitty parenting.
I work in mental health and have a fair bit of professional experience with parents and the CPS system in my state. What a fucking shit show. With both CPS workers and foster parents, it seems like a 50/50 toss up whether you get a good one or a bad one. Having a system for this sort of thing is obviously better than not having one, but damn do we need to improve upon ours.
Sadly, I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon. CPS mostly deals with poorer families and no one gives a shit about them.
I gotta think that part of the problem is even finding someone who would want to be a CPS worker in the first place, considering the kind of work it is and the kind of situations they deal with.
Put another way, It’s like how prison guards tend to be of low quality - no one decent wants the job.
From what I’ve seen, the problem with the CPS worker workforce is that a significant portion of them are people who suffered abuse during their own childhoods and are out on a mission to catch child abusers as a proxy for their own trauma. These folks are zealots and do not have the objectivity necessary to make unbiased assessments in their work. I’ve seen them make decisions about certain parents very early on in their cases, labeling them either “good” or “bad” and refusing to either reassess or acknowledge that people can change.
Thankfully, they’re not all like that and I’ve worked with some very good CPS workers as well. But then you have the arguably more important problem of the fact that all of these workers (like most mental health workers and teachers) are horribly overtaxed with too many cases and too few resources to support them. Underfunding and lack of personnel make even the best efforts of the good workers hamstringed. So, the system is broken, but not because no good worker wants to do the work.
The only people capable of fundamentally improving one’s country are those willing to see what’s wrong with it. The very country of the United States was founded by a bunch of people so mad about their country that they literally revolted.
Except the slope of your graph looks like a kicker ramp while OP looks more like a quarter pipe, so it really doesn’t look like population growth can account for the uptick in heat deaths
Devil’s advocate: type of population also makes a difference. If that uptick in population is predominantly elderly, for instance, you’re gonna see the rate of susceptibility skyrocket relative to the whole.
But that is not to dismiss the reality of climate change. It just illustrates the potential for dangerously synergistic factors to be considered when evaluating risk that we’ll need to keep in mind as we try to keep existing in this ever-hotter world.
Still a 4x population increase since 1970. The point is op’s graph is misleading not climate change doesn’t exist. Even then you still have to account for demographics and such. Here’s a more dramatic graph for you: https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/846acbf1-0480-4548-8413-8566e641a0f5.webp
And I don’t know if it is misleading, why does it make sense to adjust for population here? Like, objectively more people are preventable dying from heat, and “There would be fewer preventable deaths if fewer people were around to die of preventable causes” isn’t a very satisfying answer to that problem.
When looking at data on causes of death, adjusting for population size provides important context and allows us to make fairer comparisons over time. The raw number of deaths increasing could be due to a number of factors not directly related to topic. While that isn’t the case here, it necessary to factor this in.
However, you raise a fair point - we should not lose sight of the real human impacts and absolute number of lives lost. Behind every statistic is an individual tragedy. We should have compassion for those suffering while also trying to objectively understand the data.
Perhaps there is room for nuance - we can acknowledge that adjusting for population provides useful perspective, while also recognizing that any preventable loss of life to extreme heat is highly concerning and worthy of solution-oriented discussion. If we aim for intellectual honesty and keep our shared goals of truth and human welfare in mind, we are more likely to have productive dialogues on complex issues like this. You’d call out opposing groups if they were to do this, but it’s fine if it supports a narrative you agree with? We know the climate’s changing we’ve all stepped outside. It’s not necessary to use tactics like this to gain public favor.
This was a really well written comment that gave me a bit to think about, so thank you for the effort you put into it. I’m definitely emotionally engaged by this issue, so maybe I just needed to hear someone else say this
we should not lose sight of the real human impacts and absolute number of lives lost. Behind every statistic is an individual tragedy. We should have compassion for those suffering while also trying to objectively understand the data.
Disagreeing with those specific people for their actions is not the same as hatred for white people. An asshole is an asshole whether they’re black, white or green.
With this judge having been appointed by Trump and already having her rulings overturned for blatant favoritism towards him, does anyone seriously think this is going to be a fair trial?
It might be in his favor as the judge controls what is allowed and what is not to be presented. But ultimately the decision falls on the jury. The fact that her previous decisions were overturned by appellate court might also make her more cautious about showing favoritism.
If it even makes it that far. She could just dismiss the case entirely— and that’s not appealable I believe. I’m really hoping she’ll be a truly neutral arbiter, but I’m not holding my breath.
Dismissal without prejudice allows the procecuting party to just re-file the charges once the cause for dismissal is addressed. And there are very limited cirmustances where dismissal with prejudice is applicable.
I read an article from NYT on her that actually painted her in a much better light, despite her overturned ruling. They even talked about how that overturned decision wasn’t that unreasonable under normal circumstances. If she ends up being too favorable, she can very quickly be removed. At this point, with all eyes on her, I would imagine she would try to be fair about it. So do I think it’s going to be a fair trial? I’d give it a solid maybe.
Just found the article- thanks for mentioning it. Good to hear a different perspective on the whole thing. We will see how things shape up over the next year.
They never seem to end this sentence with “so we’re spending the money to be able to process all legal applications as fast as possible and creating a new legal immigration pathway for good people fleeing hard circumstances”
Seriously. I worked at a law firm one time that thas been around for like thirty years. Some of the younger partners bought out the older ones that were retiring and then wanted to change the name. Something like 75% of people who found the firm’s website did so by searching the name. I went bullshit. The name changed and new business dropped off.
However poorly, they may be trying to get at the Roe decision was about privacy, and that would have been the only leg that the pigs could have stood upon in regards to their being filmed. I may be giving them too much credit, but i have been actively try to be hopeful that some shred of humanity still exists in this world.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.