I did not see the evidence that it HAD. It certainly need not in the future. Each nation taxing its own emissions of CO2 has very low deadweight loss for a poor country with low CO2 emissions.
“I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.” ― Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh[2] (in his Foreward to: If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.)
This is the work that Bjorn Lomborg have dedicated his time to comparing the cost benefit analyst of taking action vs "climate-change" vs other issues and by far investing our time and money on other issues like health, education and infrastructure the reason is because the second, third, and fourth order effects far outweigh the minimal will outcome of reducing carbon. In fact if the reduction of carbon is because of reduction or access to fossil fuels, than the preceded reduction in carbon as it cannot be measured correctly and the other outcome depend on fossil fuels.
Everyone interested should read Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist. Start there and learn his story. Former Greenpeace advocate, statistics professor in Denmark. Set out to prove Julian Simon wrong, found out Simon was almost entirely right. Changed him completely.
The Copenhagen Consensus made this work granular, at the issue and region or country level.
Cost/benefit justified, risk-based prioritized.... these should drive energy and environmental policy. Not fear porn, neo-Malthusianism, or EcoStatism. Simple.
I suppose it depends on what you are solving for. The Malthusians might say that helping developing countries become developed with access to electricity and low cost vehicles (China opening new markets here) and all manner of consumer goods is a truly bad thing. It will, after all lead to more consumption of the world’s resources and more global warming. All these costly, climate-related events inconveniencing the developed world, are just going to be made worse. I mean…what good is it to relieve people’s poverty if the planet is just going to burn them all up in a carbon-induced bath of fire? It makes you wonder who the climate soldiers are actually saving the planet FOR. So, 20% of people ARE thinking about it and it’s being saved for THEM. And the other 80% have been conscripted into the campaign under false pretenses. If you challenge them (note Canada’s legislative attempt to outlaw such doubting), you will be shouted down - shun the non-believers, shun, shun. It is a highly developed form of gaslighting.
Many years ago, Dr. Richard Lindzen was very patient when I asked him all sorts of questions about atmospheric chemistry, physics, etc. We did this several times via email. Nice man. Paid the price for speaking up. Like our friend, former Chair of Earth & Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, Judy Curry.
Good movie but it fails to mention or perhaps even recognize geoengineering.
What makes you think that the agenda that is in place to reduce the population is in line with "saving" the poorest? You may not believe that depopulation is a goal.
Another Sterling effort to show the hideous hypocrisy of the climate alarmists, well done!
The WHO, IMF, UN, WORLD BANK and a score of other similar organizations should be disbanded immediately. Their actions are harmful to humanity as you might expect from Malthusians. Climate change is the biggest scam to circle the planet.
Links below are clipped from X repost, the tiny url apparently will not open so try the long X link. The pres. of Guiana challenges the meme in a most compelling way..dh
Excellent piece. Really thoughtful, informative timely. We should have listened to the John Birch Society in the 60s, and withdrawn from the UN. It would have collapsed under its own weight. It still would if we stopped paying the bills. It is worse than useless.
One can only assume that the real goal is not to make life better for the bottom 99%, but to depopulate the world. As the famous philosopher Mel Brooks said “Fuck the Poor”
What about rna injections into chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cattle in response to the upcoming avian flu pandemic? Won’t whoever eats the meat ingest and assimilate the altered proteins? Then…
The fight against Human Induced Climate Change (HICC) was been orchestrated by rich, entitled socialist brats who have zero understanding of the logistics of the plumbing, power, sanitation, and other energy systems that make our advanced lifestyle feasible.
So tragic that the power-hungry have convinced most of us to go along with spending $trillions to try to “fix” a portion of the 10% of atmospheric CO2 contributed by human activity, when total atmospheric CO2 is 0.044%. We have been fed a huge lie and are only now realizing that we will pay for it in spades. Can the faux fix be reversed?
Very enlightening. We take so much for granted in America. The trillions spent trying to do the impossible, controlling the global climate, could be so much better spent to actually help the poor.
Opportunity Cost: "the potential benefits that a business, an investor, or an individual consumer misses out on when choosing one alternative over another...the forgone benefit that would have been derived from an option other than the one that was chosen."
Article is great and your 2800 word articles are also great.
Great article. If I did not know better, I would think these environmentalists are clinging to the Malthusian roots.
I did not see the evidence that it HAD. It certainly need not in the future. Each nation taxing its own emissions of CO2 has very low deadweight loss for a poor country with low CO2 emissions.
“I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist... I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.” ― Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh[2] (in his Foreward to: If I Were an Animal; United Kingdom, Robin Clark Ltd., 1986.)
This is the work that Bjorn Lomborg have dedicated his time to comparing the cost benefit analyst of taking action vs "climate-change" vs other issues and by far investing our time and money on other issues like health, education and infrastructure the reason is because the second, third, and fourth order effects far outweigh the minimal will outcome of reducing carbon. In fact if the reduction of carbon is because of reduction or access to fossil fuels, than the preceded reduction in carbon as it cannot be measured correctly and the other outcome depend on fossil fuels.
Everyone interested should read Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist. Start there and learn his story. Former Greenpeace advocate, statistics professor in Denmark. Set out to prove Julian Simon wrong, found out Simon was almost entirely right. Changed him completely.
The Copenhagen Consensus made this work granular, at the issue and region or country level.
Cost/benefit justified, risk-based prioritized.... these should drive energy and environmental policy. Not fear porn, neo-Malthusianism, or EcoStatism. Simple.
https://tinyurl.com/bddb7p26 Try this one, dh
Got it. Saw it the day after the interview.
Loved the deer in the headlights reaction by BBC reporter.
I suppose it depends on what you are solving for. The Malthusians might say that helping developing countries become developed with access to electricity and low cost vehicles (China opening new markets here) and all manner of consumer goods is a truly bad thing. It will, after all lead to more consumption of the world’s resources and more global warming. All these costly, climate-related events inconveniencing the developed world, are just going to be made worse. I mean…what good is it to relieve people’s poverty if the planet is just going to burn them all up in a carbon-induced bath of fire? It makes you wonder who the climate soldiers are actually saving the planet FOR. So, 20% of people ARE thinking about it and it’s being saved for THEM. And the other 80% have been conscripted into the campaign under false pretenses. If you challenge them (note Canada’s legislative attempt to outlaw such doubting), you will be shouted down - shun the non-believers, shun, shun. It is a highly developed form of gaslighting.
Someone should send them here so they can shout themselves until they lose their voices.
We'll keep writing.
Watch the recent documentary film "Climate: The Movie." It has a segment on the effect of the climate crisis scam on the world's poor.
Saw it the day it came out.
Many years ago, Dr. Richard Lindzen was very patient when I asked him all sorts of questions about atmospheric chemistry, physics, etc. We did this several times via email. Nice man. Paid the price for speaking up. Like our friend, former Chair of Earth & Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech, Judy Curry.
Good movie but it fails to mention or perhaps even recognize geoengineering.
What makes you think that the agenda that is in place to reduce the population is in line with "saving" the poorest? You may not believe that depopulation is a goal.
I agree. It is a must-see for all Americans.
Another Sterling effort to show the hideous hypocrisy of the climate alarmists, well done!
The WHO, IMF, UN, WORLD BANK and a score of other similar organizations should be disbanded immediately. Their actions are harmful to humanity as you might expect from Malthusians. Climate change is the biggest scam to circle the planet.
Agree.
Thanks!
Links below are clipped from X repost, the tiny url apparently will not open so try the long X link. The pres. of Guiana challenges the meme in a most compelling way..dh
Origin of the link below, https://twitter.com/BBCHARDtalk/status/1773649980823081460?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1773649980823081460%7Ctwgr%5E607c68ce8015c90ebd41262fe7058191823550dd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fscroll.in%2Fvideo%2F1065996%2Fi-am-going-to-lecture-you-on-climate-change-president-of-guyana-hits-out-at-bbc-journalist
Try this one https://tinyurl.com/mrxjdusp
Won't play for me.
Excellent piece. Really thoughtful, informative timely. We should have listened to the John Birch Society in the 60s, and withdrawn from the UN. It would have collapsed under its own weight. It still would if we stopped paying the bills. It is worse than useless.
One can only assume that the real goal is not to make life better for the bottom 99%, but to depopulate the world. As the famous philosopher Mel Brooks said “Fuck the Poor”
What about rna injections into chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cattle in response to the upcoming avian flu pandemic? Won’t whoever eats the meat ingest and assimilate the altered proteins? Then…
Thanks!
We had to look up the Mel Brooks reference on YouTube.
But, that nails it, Lee!
Best Movie Ever. Still waiting for History of the World Part 2
The fight against Human Induced Climate Change (HICC) was been orchestrated by rich, entitled socialist brats who have zero understanding of the logistics of the plumbing, power, sanitation, and other energy systems that make our advanced lifestyle feasible.
They're ignorant idiots, AT BEST.
(and malevolent Malthusians, at worst).
I disagree with the ignorant idiot part. They are brilliant manipulators ... they have our money and have bought political favour with it.
Sue has the ignorant, we added malevolent Malthusians, and we'll categorize yours as EcoStatists.
That cover it? It's ~80/20 (~80% plain ignorance influenced by legacy and social media; 20% malevolent Malthusians and EcoStatists).
Anything bad is good.:-)
So tragic that the power-hungry have convinced most of us to go along with spending $trillions to try to “fix” a portion of the 10% of atmospheric CO2 contributed by human activity, when total atmospheric CO2 is 0.044%. We have been fed a huge lie and are only now realizing that we will pay for it in spades. Can the faux fix be reversed?
Yep.
But first, it's like Clubber Lang (Mr. T) said in Rocky III when asked his prediction for the match:
"Pain".
Very enlightening. We take so much for granted in America. The trillions spent trying to do the impossible, controlling the global climate, could be so much better spent to actually help the poor.
Opportunity Cost: "the potential benefits that a business, an investor, or an individual consumer misses out on when choosing one alternative over another...the forgone benefit that would have been derived from an option other than the one that was chosen."
OC.
Exactly.