Today we came across a great article making the simple point, which is essentially the mission statement of this site, that glossing over the ongoing misery of billions of people to focus instead on the highly uncertain outcomes of having more or less CO2 molecules in the Earth’s atmosphere is a an absolute travesty and devoid of almost all moral and ethical value.
The trade-off being that these many billions of people will have to suffer from more extreme energy poverty than would otherwise be the case if we focused simply on delivering supply from ALL SOURCES, including fossil fuels, in a competitive marketplace, to instead allow us, as a species, to try to reach some arbitrary level of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, with no precedents about what that the will entail, beyond some vague temperature predictions that absolutely no scientist nor prophet nor politician has the expertise nor the experience nor the track record to guarantee, and indeed could be completely offset by any one of dozens to hundreds of natural and manmade events.
In short, trading off the best possible level of wellbeing of billions of people in energy poverty for a gamble on the state of the future climate.
Unfortunately, as we all know, the trade-off is simply not recognised or just ignored by climate alarmists, and many that simply haven’t thought about it enough.
Hopefully we, and articles like the one below, can start to change this equation…
These people are forced to cook with wood and dung in their homes, leading to indoor air pollution that kills about 4 million per year, making it the deadliest environmental problem facing the world today — 2,667% more deaths per year than those attributed to climate change.
They meet on the heels of the president of Uganda making a powerful statement that “Africa can’t sacrifice its future prosperity for Western climate goals” and ministers from the G-24 labeling net-zero goals “anti-equity.” They have a point, too. When did we start caring more about molecules than we did people?
Climate leaders, like Al Gore, have weaponized FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). To recruit believers to the climate cause, Gore is quoted saying, “we need to create fear!” as he lobbied the likes of the late Hans Rosling. What’s worse is that they seem to have portrayed the problem in such an extremist way that they’ve convinced a growing army of climate warriors that terrorism is justified as a means to an end.
ARTICLE / SOURCE: