If you advocate for reducing CO2 emissions to somehow “improve” the planet’s climate, please at least know this:
you are actively contributing to higher levels of global poverty than would be the case if CO2 emissions were not restricted.
Simply by limiting CO2 emissions, in any way, humanity is purposefully removing access to a viable (actually, the most viable) form of energy for most situations that require energy – namely, almost all human activity.
Furthermore, humanity needs more energy.
Many billions of people are currently in energy poverty. Billions more have very limited access to energy, at least compared to the world’s wealthiest people, which probably includes you, dear reader.
And even you, and all those in your community, will continue to need more and more energy, as technology develops, as more globally relevant digital solutions such as crypto currencies emerge, and as we all seek to further our understanding of the world and universe, whether it be via travelling, working, researching or enjoying ourselves – all of which require more energy.
Yet, increasingly more and more people, by advocating, often violently, for CO2 emissions reductions, are actively encouraging the removal of a key source of energy, and therefore higher levels of energy poverty than could otherwise be the case.
And, as I think most anyone would recognise, energy poverty is essentially interchangeable with, well, poverty.
So, restricting CO2 emissions directly leads to more people being poor, all around the world, than would otherwise be the case. There is no disputing this; it is confirmed by all evidence and logic.
This is not a difficult concept to understand; there are no ifs, ands, or buts, at least not in terms of logic.
Moreover, the fewer poor people there are, the better the world is, and the more opportunities humanity has to improve its overall impact on the planet, across all resources and ecosystems, as opposed to having billions of people focused solely on staying just above the subsistence line and all the negative environmental, social and civilizational consequences this entails.
Yet many, including readers of this article, will feign ignorance, of these concepts or reason with themselves that the trade-off is worth it – OK, but again, know very well, deep in your soul, that that trade-off is:
Reducing CO2 emissions in return for much higher levels of energy poverty than would otherwise be the case.
Many think that they are saving the world by (pointlessly) reducing emissions, but these people should at least know that they are also encouraging higher relative levels of poverty, today, affecting actual people; you know, like kids, minorities, the poor, the downtrodden, those types.
And any advocacy for CO2 emissions reductions to somehow improve the future global climate, based on absolutely no evidence, will continue to have a proven, direct and significant negative effect on poverty levels, the world over, both now and well into the future.
That’s the trade-off.
And it’s a question that more and more public figures that advocate reducing CO2 emissions should be confronted with:
“Are you comfortable that your policies, by simple logic, lead to more poverty?”
“So you support more poverty in the world by reducing access to energy?”
Primate v. Climate 