the cure is worse than the disease
phrase figuratively – The solution or proposed solution to a problem produces a worse net result than the problem does (or threatens a non-negligible risk of doing so), especially via unintended consequences.
Trying to engineer the global climate is not compatible with a genuine effort to overcome energy poverty. Contrarily, pursuing the latter is humanity’s best hope for dealing with our climate…
Future generations will inhabit a wealthier, more technologically advanced and smarter world, regardless of how the climate changes.
Yet there are still close to one billion humans in energy poverty, today, and many more in marginal situations.
In a global energy market, the scarcity principle demands that removing supply leads to higher absolute prices.
Therefore, efforts to curb fossil fuel usage necessarily increase global energy poverty; the logic is undeniable. Short of a guaranteed doomsday, we better have pretty solid reasoning and evidence to pursue such a path, and either way the approach is tantamount to a sacrifice (to the climate gods?)…
Should today’s poor have less access to energy because wealthy and powerful altruists think they can manipulate unpredictable, poorly understood and highly capricious future climate scenarios? Even as they fail miserably with myriad models and predictions…
Who benefits from such a crusade, and why should generations dying in abject poverty accept it, and be the sacrificial lambs of today’s climate crusaders?
Read all about it on Primate v. Climate.
Established in the year of lockdown, 2020-2021.
Please consider a donation if you like what you see and would like to support an independent publisher.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
Primate v. Climate 