While I agree that eliminating fossil fuel is idiotic and anti-human, arguing that people are being burned to death because of the scarcity of fossil fuel is easily refuted by simply noting that if there were no fossil fuels, there would be no people being burned to death by fossil fuels. Their hearts are in the right place, but their argument is flawed since the antagonists are not advocating for the limitation of availability of fossil fuel, but the outright elimination of it.
Hoot, you mean if there were no cars, no one would be killed by a car? True. But then there's going to be all those killed walking.
The author's point is poverty and making fossil fuels expensive as a way to reduce use, leads to genius ideas like drilling holes in natural gas pipes to steal it. ( kills dozens to hundreds every year in commie Africa ) And the recovery of leaking fuel from accidents is hazardous.
Burning stolen diesel in a bucket is still less indoor pollution than burning sun dried feces in your living room.
You might recall the yuppie sales of fancy twig burning stoves to rich westerners to finance the building of cheap clean cook stoves ( same principles, less fancy ) in third world countries where indoor pollution is a leading killer of elderly and children. ( from dung burning ) ( And with a USB charging socket ! powered by the fire )
It's of scientific and anthropology interest to point out that the design of mud huts ( composite construction! Wattle & Daub ) in Africa hasn't changed in thousands of years. It's the materials available. And the smoke handling design elements haven't changed much either, since their ancestors first were introduced to the new technology.
A Viking or Iroquois longhouse are both living structures designed in colder climates and evolved far better ( but still poor ) smoke handling systems in a Darwinian selection process. Bad or nonexistent smoke hole? Dead occupants.
I hypothesize that the difference isn't IQ, it's climate necessity. Darwinian selection is uncaring and brutal.
There's also the fact that lack of resources and poverty reduces future available resources, if you don't plant more trees than you cut down for building and fuel, you get deforestation.
I should dig out a college paper written in the 1980s comparing the man made ecological disaster of African deforestation to the Harvard MBA Cult followers who buy old family logging companies that practiced REAL sustainable, generational wealth growth, and clear cutting the area to maximize quarterly profits, and then abandoning the mudslide raped ecosystem they destroyed...
The Harvard cultists don't score better than Africans and far worse than stone age tribes in New Guinea.
Exactly correct. No cars, no car deaths. No fossil fuel, no screaming alphas. They do not care about how many people die from energy poverty only that a completely harmless, and arguably beneficial, trace gas in the atmosphere does not increase in concentration. Not that they care about that, directly, but it is their path to power.
One of the first posts in this thread is the fact that changing from gasoline to electric vehicles requires a large increase in electric generation.
Yep. It's true then and true now.
That it requires a larger increase in power generation than the reduction in whatever unit you pick for the not burned gasoline is simple physics. More conversions of energy and losses in power lines. No matter how efficient the generator.
That this is ignored tells you the whole plan is a fraud. At no point in the over four decades of the Climate Con, did a world leader give the correct answer to power requirements. "We plan to massively increase power generation to lower costs and bring energy prosperity."
It was obvious to me in the "onrushing Ice Age" scare in 1977 that to replace fossil fuels we needed both expensive in resources and land use diffuse energy collection, where practical, and Lots of modern nuclear power to fill in when wind and solar were off.
Sure, I was a smart alec college idiot, but such obvious truth was not acceptable to the Cult. Solving the problems is not their goal. Theft and Tyranny is.
Yep. Required classwork should include how to tell children are being lied to. And follow the money.
0% success rate in dire predictions is a cue.
Remember Manhattan under water? Trump killing all the Democrats? Actors fleeing the country?
Honestly, sometimes it seems the Watermelon's alternate universe is a better one. Too bad it's lies. ( people in Manhattan may disagree it's better with the tides washing the streets )
If you want one, fine! If the Government Demands you use one? Screw them!
Not everyone is capable, for various reasons to accept the limitations of motorcycles, or electric cars. The reasons may be different, but they are not invalid.
I admit there is an ideological bias in my attitude. Let me explain and expand, briefly.
If you want anal sex, fine! If the Government Demands you have it? Screw them!
If you want to ride a unicycle to work, fine! If the Government Demands you do it? Screw them!
If you want to buy a solar roof, fine! If the Government Demands you have it? Screw them!
If you want to smoke pot, or pork shoulder, fine! If the Government Demands you do it? Screw them!
If you want to live in a 15 minute city, fine! If the Government Demands you do? Screw them!
Insert nearly anything, nearly, and you have my attitude.
Breathing? That's nonsensical. I'm stubborn, not stupid. It's a general statement with exceptions, real life, not fantasy.
I CHOOSE to ride a motorcycle. I have learned and accept the limitations. Imho, it's impractical for ME to have one as my only form of transportation. You might be in different circumstances. ( there's snow on the ground, here, now )
Ditto electric vehicles. I own 2. They are recreational and of limited use, not my sole means of transportation, and I wouldn't demand anyone else use them. Choice!
( if you want to try one, ask! I've got some nice safe trails local )
I may, and often have & do, choose fringe or alternative vehicles for the challenge and occasionally thrill.
That's why most of my logged flight hours are in flying machines that didn't have motors. By Choice.
My boat is a modified canoe that uses a kite for a sail.
Neither of those 2 are practical for the vast majority of people. Choice!
I'm now in the market for a toy and lumber hauler. I prefer a van type with enclosed carry, since rain and snow is very common here. I assume they'll make a Tesla Truck Cap. ( maybe with a camping mode? )
I bet sales of electric cars would skyrocket, if Joe* declared he'd cancel your student loan debt if you bought one. ( it would be illegal, but Joe* don't care )
They're carnivores. Unless you turn millions loose free range in cities to eat rats, the cost equation is ridiculous.
Also, no breast meat!
Pythons are mentioned. But with city rats, Diamondbacks, would be more productive. I'd strenuously Object to Imported Cobras! Invasive species is a serious problem. ( zebra mussels, locally. Inspection stations and boat washes at local lakes )
But sure, if the goal is to offer free range food for City Homeless & Illegals? Just teach kids to be careful, & not to disturb them.
Might be a profitable business! Breed Eastern Diamondbacks ( Western, where native! No Invasive species! ), milk some for the anti-venom ( which would also be a booming business! ) and then release them at homeless camps and the rich 'hoods. I'm sure you can get a government grant.
So, while I'm tempted to mock the Cult for cluelessness, in this case they may accidentally have picked a good idea. For values of good. Depending upon your moral GPS.
Arguably, the reduction in rats well outweighs the Civilian risk, by reducing disease vectors. Might prevent the Plague spreading fast from illegals. And homeless gulags would highly benefit from reduced varmint population.
Also, I've had Eastern Diamondback strips. Pretty tasty. Snake, gator, chicken, all Dinosaur! Mammals evolved to eat Dinos.
I've not purposefully eaten rats, but I'm told they taste worse than squirrel, and I've eaten at some dodgy restaurants and food carts. I prefer snake to squirrel by a lot.
I wonder when snake goes on the Congressional cafeteria menu?
I'm not a Climate scientist, just studied the weather, & the Cult since 1977. Stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last year, too!
I do have a very important question that is currently blasphemy.
"At what level does CO2 in the atmosphere reflect 100% of the narrow band of the Infra Red in the spectrum, back to the earth?"
Because over that number, there's no more warming, just more plant food. And the plants are a feedback mechanism, converting CO2 to Oxygen and sugar.
The Cult aspect is Settled.
More than adequate claims from the Cult,itself, that science isn't involved except as a means to take power by lies. Change the economic system. ( communist dictatorship ) Crush Capitalism. ( communist dictatorship ) For The Children! ( communist... You get the idea )
Plus a 0% correlation between predictions and reality.
Settled. Disproven. Conclusively.
We do need a lot more study of environmental impact and climate change.
After all, we now know that societal wealth and individual freedom are the most important causes of environmental protection. Poor countries run by authoritarian regimes are environmentally harmful.
Obama's & Joe's* Invited Invasion are ecological crimes against humanity. Cruelty to all the humans involved, both the Imported Exploited and the Citizens they victimize.
Just See the environment damage on Sanctuary City streets. Feces, garbage, drug needles, dead bodies, ruined greenways, arson, etc.
It's a good bet, that eliminating humanity will kick off the Big Ice Age as billions of BTUs the cities radiate, stops. One of those bets no one can collect, unless Elon gets the Mars Colony self sufficient enough to survive without Earth. And one I don't want to happen.
The Cult fringe is for annihilation, but the Leaders are just calling for a culling of the Servant Classes to a level that can maintain their lifestyles with minimal threat from the enslaved survivors.
I'm friends with a guy who works on the Gorilla Glass projects at Corning. If I could afford GG protected solar panels all over my house? Hail? Hah! Asteroid strike, not so much, but a few kiloton blast a dozen miles away wouldn't phase it. Burn out the connections on the panels, though.