THE POOR ARE CARRYING THE COST OF TODAY'S CLIMATE POLICIES

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Great article from Matt Ridley's blog. To my mind, nothing exemplifies the hypocrisy underpinning much of the debate than the sight of so many private jets arriving at Orly airport for COP21.

I say to my greener friends:

Where do you get your insouciance about the clear evidence that the poorest people in the world are the ones hardest hit by climate change policy today? 


Where do you get your indomitable certainty that the end justifies these means?

Where do you find the evidence that we must cause certain pain to today’s poor in order to forestall the small possibility of suffering among tomorrow’s rich? 


And where do you find the hubris to occupy the moral high ground?

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/climate-change-the-facts/
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that the selfishness of climate alarmists in totally ignoring the plight of the poor, in Africa and Asia, truly amounts to a form of racism.
 
Last edited:
which class of people have the money to deal with the changes and effects of GW in their personal lives?
 
rich people can move right?


poor people not so much huh

Diarrhoea is a leading killer of children, accounting for 9 per cent of all deaths among children under age 5 worldwide in 2015. This translates to over 1,400 young children dying each day, or about 526,000 children a year, despite the availability of simple effective treatment. Over a billion people have no access to electricity and clean safe water.
 
which class of people have the money to deal with the changes and effects of GW in their personal lives?

Slum lords like you. You could improve the efficiency of the heating/cooling systems, put in more efficient lighting, insulate your apartments better, put in more water efficient appliances, etc, etc, instead of screwing the poor renters and pocketing the profit.

You know, practice what you preach hypocrite.
 
Slum lords like you. You could improve the efficiency of the heating/cooling systems, put in more efficient lighting, insulate your apartments better, put in more water efficient appliances, etc, etc, instead of screwing the poor renters and pocketing the profit.

You know, practice what you preach hypocrite.

your proof any of that idiocy is true?
 
Does burning fossil fuels release pollution yes or no?

I think your very own EPA can best answer that question.

Historic Success of the Clean Air Act

Congress passed the landmark Clean Air Act in 1970 and gave the newly-formed EPA the legal authority to regulate pollution from cars and other forms of transportation. EPA and the State of California have led the national effort to reduce vehicle pollution by adopting increasingly stringent standards.

The U.S. vehicle pollution control under the Clean Air Act is a major success story by many measures:

New passenger vehicles are 98-99% cleaner for most tailpipe pollutants compared to the 1960s. Fuels are much cleaner, lead has been eliminated, and sulfur levels are more than 90% lower than they were prior to regulation. U.S. cities have much improved air quality, despite ever increasing population and increasing vehicle miles traveled. Standards have sparked technology innovation from industry.

Reducing pollution from transportation sources has led to healthier air for Americans. In cities, smog has been visibly reduced. Just compare the images of New York City below.


New York City: 1973 vs. 2013

ea894f80d227c6a33b708954ceed8120.jpg

https://www.epa.gov/air-pollution-t...ents-and-success-air-pollution-transportation
 
Last edited:
I can tell you this, growing up in SOCAL in the 80s-90s, there is simply no comparison to the air quality now. Inland LA was the worst, it got so bad at times it was literally like a foggy day, but it was brown poison. I lived on the coast so it didn't really effect me until I went inland.

I don't care what they did, but they cleared up the air, good on them.
 
Back
Top