In a recent MSNBC interview, 2024 GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy responded to host Andrea Mitchell’s assertion that climate change led to the demise of two million individuals over the past half-century.
Ramaswamy emphasized that technology, fueled by fossil energies, has curtailed climate-induced fatalities by nearly 98%. He also expressed skepticism about Mitchell’s use of testimonies from some Florida residents, who claimed that Hurricane Idalia was unprecedented in its severity, as an indicator of climate change’s impact.
Mitchell introduced the discussion by highlighting Ramaswamy’s statement during a GOP debate, labeling climate change as a “myth.”
Addressing the impending hurricane, she challenged, “You’ve termed the climate change discourse as a myth. You believe that flawed climate policies have taken more lives than the actual climatic shifts. But a U.N. report states that from 1970-2021, extreme climatic events, intensified by global warming, accounted for two million deaths.” She proceeded to ask Ramaswamy for proof of his claim that “over 2 million people succumbed due to the transition to green energy.”
In response, Ramaswamy articulated that fossil fuels have been crucial in safeguarding lives from climatic catastrophes.
Drawing on historical data, he remarked, “In the past century, there has been a staggering 98% decline in deaths resulting from climatic disasters. The mortality rate from hurricanes, heatwaves, and other weather extremities was significantly higher in 1920. Today, for every 100 individuals who perished then, only two face the same fate.”
He attributed this reduction to the widespread availability and utility of fossil energy and technologies that depend on it. He further stated, “Historical data also reveals that cold-induced fatalities are eightfold higher than those caused by heat. A plausible solution to combat temperature-related deaths is the increased accessibility to fossil fuels.”
After emphasizing the role of carbon dioxide in plant sustenance and restating his belief in the “undeniable truths” surrounding climate debates, Mitchell pointed to Floridians’ concerns regarding Hurricane Idalia.
Highlighting the gravity of the approaching hurricane, she shared, “A long-time resident of St. Petersburg mentioned he’s never witnessed anything akin to the current oceanic warming trends. But shifting focus to another issue…”
Ramaswamy interjected, “Andrea, may I present a counterpoint? If a layperson, perhaps someone without formal education from Arkansas, cited a single weather anomaly as conclusive proof of global climatic shifts, they would be ridiculed for their lack of comprehensive data.”
He urged, “It’s vital to be consistent in our standards. The emphasis should be on empirical evidence.”
To which Mitchell replied, “I wasn’t referencing an individual perspective. Our sources include scholars, industry professionals…”
Interrupting her, Ramaswamy pointed out, “Yet, you relied on a singular opinion just moments ago. It’s essential to distinguish between such anecdotal accounts and the concrete evidence I’m presenting.”
