It did not have to be like this. Left wing extremists with an agenda they want to impose on everyone hijacked climate change. Common sense can be applied and produce real results instead of hardship among the middle class in the West and creating poverty worldwide. It can also be done at a fraction of the cost.
By H. Sterling Burnett, PhD, is the director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute
In the face of unbearable human tragedy around the world, children starving, women and children being bombed, homes and businesses without power, climate scolds continue to insist climate change is the most important danger the world faces.
With pictures streaming daily out of Africa and Ukraine showing grossly malnourished and starving children as well as leveled cities, callous Biden administration officials, environmental reporters, and researchers are more concerned about continuing the flow of research dollars than saving human lives. What's more, they continue to insist governments focus their attention on preventing hypothetical future climate harms, rather than present humanitarian crises.
People are starving in Africa today. People are being killed by Russia's unconscionable actions in the Ukraine as I write. Yet, misanthropic climate alarmists are concerned temperatures might be a little bit hotter 10, 30, 50 or 100 years from now—and insist working to prevent the latter should be the main focus of government efforts. They decry the fact that war and lack of food is diverting attention away from the purported climate crisis.
Proof of this heartless inattention to very real human suffering by climate obsessives arises almost daily, promoted by the corporate media no less. Just a few days before Vladimir Putin launched his deadly invasion of Ukraine, President Joe Biden's climate czar, John Kerry, bemoaned on BBC news the effect the war would have, not on people, but on peoples' focus on climate change, saying:
But it [the war] could have a profound negative impact on the climate obviously. You have a war and obviously you're going to have massive emissions consequences to the war. But equally importantly, you're going to lose people's focus, you're going to lose certainly big country attention because they will be diverted and I think it could have a damaging impact. . . ."
Kerry then expressed the hope that Putin would remain focused on climate change, regardless of any actions he took in Ukraine. Kerry's statements were both clueless and vile.
I and others at The Heartland Institute have previously detailed how Europe's and America's energy policies, and their dependence on Russian oil and natural gas, were contributing factors to the war in Ukraine as well as global food shortages and price hikes.
Biden surely recognized at least part of the problem and signed an agreement to ship U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe to supplant the loss of Russian gas supplies. The reaction from the progressive climate left was predictable, perhaps exemplified best by an article in The Hill, titled "LNG exports will add to climate change." The authors of the article warn of the increased greenhouse gas emissions from the production of natural gas, and the added infrastructure, pipelines, shipping terminals, etc., from ramping up U.S. LNG production and shipping it to help Europe out of its energy crisis.
Rather than helping Europeans heat their homes, cook, and run their lights on U.S. natural gas, the academics behind this article say, in effect, let Europeans' heat pumps, electric appliances run on wind turbines and solar panels. Of course, this call for electrifying Europe with renewable power is disingenuous, and the writers know it. [size=150]Europe is far ahead of every other region on Earth in the use of wind and solar power, which, as wind and solar have failed spectacularly in recent months, has contributed to the trading bloc's energy woes.[/size]
Never fear, climate harpies, Biden got the message. Even as he was talking the talk of helping our European allies with LNG, his administration was putting in place new rules to make the proposed expansion of gas development and shipments nearly impossible. Just a week after saying he would expand LNG exports to Europe, Biden rescinded Trump-era National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations allowing the expedited construction of critical infrastructure. Biden's NEPA rules virtually guarantee no new gas pipelines or LNG shipping terminals or associated infrastructure can be built. So much for sticking it to Putin and helping Europe.
Then there is the food crisis. People, thousands of them, many children, are not just going hungry but starving to death daily.
"More than 13 million people in Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia already are experiencing extreme hunger, according to a recent report from humanitarian aid organization Mercy Corps," writes the Scientific American (SA). "Humanity now is feeling the rumblings of a 'seismic hunger crisis,' the World Food Programme warned earlier this month."
Based on these facts, if you thought the SA article was a clarion call for countries to do whatever was necessary to immediately reverse this humanitarian crisis, you'd be wrong. The title of the article says everything you need to know about SA's true concern, "Responses to Rising Hunger Could Threaten Climate Goals European." The article goes on to decry the fact that "policy makers are considering easing environmental protection measures to allow for increased crop production." Imagine the temerity of Europe considering allowing an increase in crop production to save lives today, despite climate models projecting modestly rising sea levels in the future; the horror of it!
Never fear, in America, we are much more sensible. Despite rapidly rising food prices and often empty store shelves, the Biden administration seems unwilling to pause its inane attempt to control future weather in order to enhance food security. So far, despite pleas from members of Congress and farm groups, the U.S. Agriculture Department has thus far refused to grant waivers to allow the import of fertilizer or to allow farmers to farm on fallow fields enrolled in the Conservation and Wetlands Reserve programs. The crop season has begun, people are starving, prices are higher, and the Biden administration fiddles as the world's food supply is figuratively burning.
Peoples around the world face many more immediate, pressing, and deadly problems than climate change. That is an indisputable fact. It's immoral and inhumane for the media to keep giving climate alarmists a platform to claim otherwise.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/04/25/climate-misanthropes-say-fighting-climate-change-is-more-important-than-food-reliable-energy-and-peace/
Bad climate change policy combined with sanctions on Russia are causing severe food shortages in the developing world..
End the sanctions and produce more LNG and oil now to save lives.
They're fighting population.
They just have softer terms for it.
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=448003 time=1650977120 user_id=1676
They're fighting population.
They just have softer terms for it.
They're fighting middle class prosperity and winning.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=448001 time=1650974072 user_id=114
It did not have to be like this. Left wing extremists with an agenda they want to impose on everyone hijacked climate change. Common sense can be applied and produce real results instead of hardship among the middle class in the West and creating poverty worldwide. It can also be done at a fraction of the cost.
By H. Sterling Burnett, PhD, is the director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute
In the face of unbearable human tragedy around the world, children starving, women and children being bombed, homes and businesses without power, climate scolds continue to insist climate change is the most important danger the world faces.
With pictures streaming daily out of Africa and Ukraine showing grossly malnourished and starving children as well as leveled cities, callous Biden administration officials, environmental reporters, and researchers are more concerned about continuing the flow of research dollars than saving human lives. What's more, they continue to insist governments focus their attention on preventing hypothetical future climate harms, rather than present humanitarian crises.
People are starving in Africa today. People are being killed by Russia's unconscionable actions in the Ukraine as I write. Yet, misanthropic climate alarmists are concerned temperatures might be a little bit hotter 10, 30, 50 or 100 years from now—and insist working to prevent the latter should be the main focus of government efforts. They decry the fact that war and lack of food is diverting attention away from the purported climate crisis.
Proof of this heartless inattention to very real human suffering by climate obsessives arises almost daily, promoted by the corporate media no less. Just a few days before Vladimir Putin launched his deadly invasion of Ukraine, President Joe Biden's climate czar, John Kerry, bemoaned on BBC news the effect the war would have, not on people, but on peoples' focus on climate change, saying:
But it [the war] could have a profound negative impact on the climate obviously. You have a war and obviously you're going to have massive emissions consequences to the war. But equally importantly, you're going to lose people's focus, you're going to lose certainly big country attention because they will be diverted and I think it could have a damaging impact. . . ."
Kerry then expressed the hope that Putin would remain focused on climate change, regardless of any actions he took in Ukraine. Kerry's statements were both clueless and vile.
I and others at The Heartland Institute have previously detailed how Europe's and America's energy policies, and their dependence on Russian oil and natural gas, were contributing factors to the war in Ukraine as well as global food shortages and price hikes.
Biden surely recognized at least part of the problem and signed an agreement to ship U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe to supplant the loss of Russian gas supplies. The reaction from the progressive climate left was predictable, perhaps exemplified best by an article in The Hill, titled "LNG exports will add to climate change." The authors of the article warn of the increased greenhouse gas emissions from the production of natural gas, and the added infrastructure, pipelines, shipping terminals, etc., from ramping up U.S. LNG production and shipping it to help Europe out of its energy crisis.
Rather than helping Europeans heat their homes, cook, and run their lights on U.S. natural gas, the academics behind this article say, in effect, let Europeans' heat pumps, electric appliances run on wind turbines and solar panels. Of course, this call for electrifying Europe with renewable power is disingenuous, and the writers know it.
Rich white libtards are doing this for the children. ac_toofunny ac_lmfao
Quote from: Fashionista post_id=448004 time=1650977419 user_id=3254
Quote from: "Dinky Dazza" post_id=448003 time=1650977120 user_id=1676
They're fighting population.
They just have softer terms for it.
They're fighting middle class prosperity and winning.
Energy keeps struggling homes warm in winter, cool in summer, and the elderly and sick out of hospitals when they can afford it. It also translates to the growth and transport of food, production of petroleum products, and sanitation.
Limiting middle class prosperity has an even worse knock on effect for the lower classes.
Energy to them is life and death.
Alex Epstein can explain the ramifications better than I can.
Petroleum is the cornerstone of advanced middle class lifestyles.
It's the basis of modern lower and emerging classes.
It has kept the peace.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=448001 time=1650974072 user_id=114
It did not have to be like this. Left wing extremists with an agenda they want to impose on everyone hijacked climate change. Common sense can be applied and produce real results instead of hardship among the middle class in the West and creating poverty worldwide. It can also be done at a fraction of the cost.
By H. Sterling Burnett, PhD, is the director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute
In the face of unbearable human tragedy around the world, children starving, women and children being bombed, homes and businesses without power, climate scolds continue to insist climate change is the most important danger the world faces.
With pictures streaming daily out of Africa and Ukraine showing grossly malnourished and starving children as well as leveled cities, callous Biden administration officials, environmental reporters, and researchers are more concerned about continuing the flow of research dollars than saving human lives. What's more, they continue to insist governments focus their attention on preventing hypothetical future climate harms, rather than present humanitarian crises.
People are starving in Africa today. People are being killed by Russia's unconscionable actions in the Ukraine as I write. Yet, misanthropic climate alarmists are concerned temperatures might be a little bit hotter 10, 30, 50 or 100 years from now—and insist working to prevent the latter should be the main focus of government efforts. They decry the fact that war and lack of food is diverting attention away from the purported climate crisis.
Proof of this heartless inattention to very real human suffering by climate obsessives arises almost daily, promoted by the corporate media no less. Just a few days before Vladimir Putin launched his deadly invasion of Ukraine, President Joe Biden's climate czar, John Kerry, bemoaned on BBC news the effect the war would have, not on people, but on peoples' focus on climate change, saying:
But it [the war] could have a profound negative impact on the climate obviously. You have a war and obviously you're going to have massive emissions consequences to the war. But equally importantly, you're going to lose people's focus, you're going to lose certainly big country attention because they will be diverted and I think it could have a damaging impact. . . ."
Kerry then expressed the hope that Putin would remain focused on climate change, regardless of any actions he took in Ukraine. Kerry's statements were both clueless and vile.
I and others at The Heartland Institute have previously detailed how Europe's and America's energy policies, and their dependence on Russian oil and natural gas, were contributing factors to the war in Ukraine as well as global food shortages and price hikes.
Biden surely recognized at least part of the problem and signed an agreement to ship U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe to supplant the loss of Russian gas supplies. The reaction from the progressive climate left was predictable, perhaps exemplified best by an article in The Hill, titled "LNG exports will add to climate change." The authors of the article warn of the increased greenhouse gas emissions from the production of natural gas, and the added infrastructure, pipelines, shipping terminals, etc., from ramping up U.S. LNG production and shipping it to help Europe out of its energy crisis.
Rather than helping Europeans heat their homes, cook, and run their lights on U.S. natural gas, the academics behind this article say, in effect, let Europeans' heat pumps, electric appliances run on wind turbines and solar panels. Of course, this call for electrifying Europe with renewable power is disingenuous, and the writers know it.
Prog money hates the middle class. They will do anything to prevent Africans from joining the middle class.
Quote from: "iron horse jockey" post_id=448013 time=1650987573 user_id=2015
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=448001 time=1650974072 user_id=114
It did not have to be like this. Left wing extremists with an agenda they want to impose on everyone hijacked climate change. Common sense can be applied and produce real results instead of hardship among the middle class in the West and creating poverty worldwide. It can also be done at a fraction of the cost.
By H. Sterling Burnett, PhD, is the director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute
In the face of unbearable human tragedy around the world, children starving, women and children being bombed, homes and businesses without power, climate scolds continue to insist climate change is the most important danger the world faces.
With pictures streaming daily out of Africa and Ukraine showing grossly malnourished and starving children as well as leveled cities, callous Biden administration officials, environmental reporters, and researchers are more concerned about continuing the flow of research dollars than saving human lives. What's more, they continue to insist governments focus their attention on preventing hypothetical future climate harms, rather than present humanitarian crises.
People are starving in Africa today. People are being killed by Russia's unconscionable actions in the Ukraine as I write. Yet, misanthropic climate alarmists are concerned temperatures might be a little bit hotter 10, 30, 50 or 100 years from now—and insist working to prevent the latter should be the main focus of government efforts. They decry the fact that war and lack of food is diverting attention away from the purported climate crisis.
Proof of this heartless inattention to very real human suffering by climate obsessives arises almost daily, promoted by the corporate media no less. Just a few days before Vladimir Putin launched his deadly invasion of Ukraine, President Joe Biden's climate czar, John Kerry, bemoaned on BBC news the effect the war would have, not on people, but on peoples' focus on climate change, saying:
But it [the war] could have a profound negative impact on the climate obviously. You have a war and obviously you're going to have massive emissions consequences to the war. But equally importantly, you're going to lose people's focus, you're going to lose certainly big country attention because they will be diverted and I think it could have a damaging impact. . . ."
Kerry then expressed the hope that Putin would remain focused on climate change, regardless of any actions he took in Ukraine. Kerry's statements were both clueless and vile.
I and others at The Heartland Institute have previously detailed how Europe's and America's energy policies, and their dependence on Russian oil and natural gas, were contributing factors to the war in Ukraine as well as global food shortages and price hikes.
Biden surely recognized at least part of the problem and signed an agreement to ship U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe to supplant the loss of Russian gas supplies. The reaction from the progressive climate left was predictable, perhaps exemplified best by an article in The Hill, titled "LNG exports will add to climate change." The authors of the article warn of the increased greenhouse gas emissions from the production of natural gas, and the added infrastructure, pipelines, shipping terminals, etc., from ramping up U.S. LNG production and shipping it to help Europe out of its energy crisis.
Rather than helping Europeans heat their homes, cook, and run their lights on U.S. natural gas, the academics behind this article say, in effect, let Europeans' heat pumps, electric appliances run on wind turbines and solar panels. Of course, this call for electrifying Europe with renewable power is disingenuous, and the writers know it.
Prog money hates the middle class. They will do anything to prevent Africans from joining the middle class.
The West gives a lot of aid, but that doesn't lift anyone into the middle class.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=448001 time=1650974072 user_id=114
It did not have to be like this. Left wing extremists with an agenda they want to impose on everyone hijacked climate change. Common sense can be applied and produce real results instead of hardship among the middle class in the West and creating poverty worldwide. It can also be done at a fraction of the cost.
It does not have to be painful or even radical like ending all fossil fuel use and retrofitting buildings.
Any serious conversation about tackling global emissions includes the need for carbon capture and storage. And it will play a major role in helping Canada's ambitions to achieve a net zero economy.
Quote from: Thiel post_id=448082 time=1651026591 user_id=1688
Any serious conversation about tackling global emissions includes the need for carbon capture and storage. And it will play a major role in helping Canada's ambitions to achieve a net zero economy.
Progs aint doing that with wind and solar.
Pretty much every problem facing the world today would disappear if humans would simply reduce their population. And all you would have to do is zip up your pants. That's it. It wouldn't cost a dime, don't need the government involved, the effects would begin immediately, and in 70 years or so people could be living much better lives.
Zip It Up And Save The World.
I think I'll start a campaign on Twitter.
Quote from: "Oliver Clotheshoffe" post_id=448097 time=1651027801 user_id=3349
Pretty much every problem facing the world today would disappear if humans would simply reduce their population. And all you would have to do is zip up your pants. That's it. It wouldn't cost a dime, don't need the government involved, the effects would begin immediately, and in 70 years or so people could be living much better lives.
Zip It Up And Save The World.
I think I'll start a campaign on Twitter.
There is another problem. Whites and Orientals have already done that. It's Blacks and Browns who are having the world's babies. Who is going to tell them they can't have big families
Quote from: "Oliver Clotheshoffe" post_id=448097 time=1651027801 user_id=3349
Pretty much every problem facing the world today would disappear if humans would simply reduce their population. And all you would have to do is zip up your pants. That's it. It wouldn't cost a dime, don't need the government involved, the effects would begin immediately, and in 70 years or so people could be living much better lives.
Zip It Up And Save The World.
I think I'll start a campaign on Twitter.
The only proven method of reducing global population is lifting people out of poverty and into the middle class. Unfortunately, climate mitigation policies have the opposite effect.
Quote from: "Oliver Clotheshoffe" post_id=448097 time=1651027801 user_id=3349
Pretty much every problem facing the world today would disappear if humans would simply reduce their population. And all you would have to do is zip up your pants. That's it. It wouldn't cost a dime, don't need the government involved, the effects would begin immediately, and in 70 years or so people could be living much better lives.
Zip It Up And Save The World.
I think I'll start a campaign on Twitter.
Agreed. Biggest problem the world faces. Wasting money on wind turbines won't help either.
Quote from: seoulbro post_id=448137 time=1651060130 user_id=114
Quote from: "Oliver Clotheshoffe" post_id=448097 time=1651027801 user_id=3349
Pretty much every problem facing the world today would disappear if humans would simply reduce their population. And all you would have to do is zip up your pants. That's it. It wouldn't cost a dime, don't need the government involved, the effects would begin immediately, and in 70 years or so people could be living much better lives.
Zip It Up And Save The World.
I think I'll start a campaign on Twitter.
The only proven method of reducing global population is lifting people out of poverty and into the middle class. Unfortunately, climate mitigation policies have the opposite effect.
East Asian birth rates declined rapidly in tandem with much higher living standards.
Did you hear about this mother on death row convicted of killing her two year old? She's got 14 kids. FOURTEEN KIDS. You know why she killed her two year old? Because having 14 kids would drive you fucking nuts, that's why! People aren't meant to have that many kids.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Melissa-Lucio-gets-stay-of-execution-2-days-17124605.php
Quote from: "Oliver Clotheshoffe" post_id=448165 time=1651087940 user_id=3349
Did you hear about this mother on death row convicted of killing her two year old? She's got 14 kids. FOURTEEN KIDS. You know why she killed her two year old? Because having 14 kids would drive you fucking nuts, that's why! People aren't meant to have that many kids.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/Melissa-Lucio-gets-stay-of-execution-2-days-17124605.php
And she is probably receiving government handouts.
In that vein .......
Rather than ramp up a coherent plan for unemployed coal workers, the auditor general finds, the bureaucrats and politicians did little more than tinker with Employment Insurance
Coal miners in Alberta and Saskatchewan have faced transition for several years now. But the feds have done nothing to help them, and have no working plan to start despite many promises.
That's the conclusion of the federal auditor general's office, which finds that bureaucrats sat on their fat portfolios even as coal workers were losing their jobs.
Coal mining is itself the canary down a dangerous mine shaft.
There are only about 331 coal miners left in Alberta, down from more than 1,100 in 2017.
If Ottawa can't manage transition for that group, how will it deal with the thousands who are expected to leave oil and gas, as well as agriculture and even forestry, because of federal emissions policy?
Maybe Alberta will look like Newfoundland and Labrador after the federal shutdown of the cod fishery in 1992-93.
Quote from: cc post_id=448289 time=1651176041 user_id=88
In that vein .......
Rather than ramp up a coherent plan for unemployed coal workers, the auditor general finds, the bureaucrats and politicians did little more than tinker with Employment Insurance
Coal miners in Alberta and Saskatchewan have faced transition for several years now. But the feds have done nothing to help them, and have no working plan to start despite many promises.
That's the conclusion of the federal auditor general's office, which finds that bureaucrats sat on their fat portfolios even as coal workers were losing their jobs.
Coal mining is itself the canary down a dangerous mine shaft.
There are only about 331 coal miners left in Alberta, down from more than 1,100 in 2017.
If Ottawa can't manage transition for that group, how will it deal with the thousands who are expected to leave oil and gas, as well as agriculture and even forestry, because of federal emissions policy?
Maybe Alberta will look like Newfoundland and Labrador after the federal shutdown of the cod fishery in 1992-93.
Just Transition is just bullshit. It was never a real thing which is why it aint happening.