The Cost of Keeping Cool

By James C. Benfield
August 2, 1999

Everyone knows that extreme cold weather is more dangerous than an extended heat wave, right? Not necessarily, as the deadly heat wave, which has claimed lives from the Great Plains to the East Coast, has demonstrated.

"Who's to blame? What can be done to prevent more deaths this summer?" These questions are being asked of government officials.

To put the issue in perspective, this is not a new problem. Heat deaths in Philadelphia, for example, have been common since colonial times, when heat was the third-biggest killer after smallpox and tuberculosis.

We've come a long way in the past 250 years. What has changed is obvious: air conditioning. So there you have it; make sure people have access to air conditioning. With that as the goal, families, friends, social service agencies and the government must expand and implement the availability of cooling assistance to those in need.

As we scan press reports, there is a common thread of victims' not having or using air conditioning. For those who had air conditioning and didn't use it, most of whom were elderly, research suggests that the victims likely were conserving financial resources for food or medicine.

There are additional reasons to focus on the elderly during heat waves. Heart attacks and strokes account for nearly 90 percent of all deaths due to heat, while "heat" strokes account for only roughly 10 percent, according to a 1994 study by Roger D. Colton, an economist with Fisher, Sheehan & Colton. Thus, traditional measures of heat-related deaths substantially understate the dangers attributable to hot weather.

Also, heat-induced deaths are not a "southern" phenomenon, but are concentrated primarily in the Northeast and Midwest. While deaths might begin to increase at 80 degrees in Chicago, for example, such deaths would not begin increasing until 103 degrees in Dallas, according to University of Delaware professor Laurence Kalkstein. Kalkstein also found that it is the minimum temperature in a day that is most important in influencing the increased rate and number of deaths, not the maximum daytime temperature.

While education on these issues helps, let's not forget about the vital component to a lasting solution: money. Yes, local charities, utility fuel funds and family can help. But the largest single contributor of energy assistance for the poor comes through a federal program call the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP).

Each year, as Congress continues to balance the budget or cut taxes, LIHEAP becomes a favorite target for cuts. Last summer, the House of Representative tried to eliminate the entire $1.1 billion program.

Because LIHEAP is funded at the same time as dozens of programs under the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and because the Budget Enforcement Act calls for cutting the "Labor/HHS" bill by up to $10 billion, LIHEAP's funding is at risk again this year.

Congress likely will consider appropriations for LIHEAP when it returns from the August recess after Labor Day. Those who believe energy assistance for the poor is part of the solution to these daily tragedies should let their elected officials know this.