policy opinion piece A heatwave isn’t the end of the world Reducing emissions will hurt the poor https://unherd.com/2023/07/climate-hysteria-has-no-class/ excerpt: One might think that, even for those with environmentalist sympathies, the choice here isn’t too difficult to make: fewer deaths is surely a goal worth pursuing. Instead, development banks and international funding groups such as the World Bank and the European Investment Bank are increasingly linking finance to climate adaptation and mitigation, curtailing or halting their funding of fossil-fuel or nuclear projects. Here we can observe the best example of the way in which climate hysteria is pushing us to make increasingly irrational — and ultimately very dangerous, if not deadly — choices for poor and marginalised people everywhere, in the developing world as well as in rich countries. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do anything about climate change; it means that we need to strike the right balance between improving human welfare — which implies more emissions in the short term — and mitigating temperature rises. As long as poverty continues to kill more people than climate change, environmentalists who profess to care about saving the world should think about who they are saving it for. more at the link
The impacts of climate change hit the poor disproportionately - in terms of both lives and higher costs. Cheap energy in exchange for more expensive food? Droughts in India have caused tomato prices to skyrocket 700%. So this is a pretty poor argument.
not really. fossil fuels make agriculture and widely-available affordable food largely possible--look up Green Revolution. This thesis is also related to the point behind the Kerry tilting-at-China-coal-windmills editorial
What was the point of the editorial? You never explained it. The use of fossil fuels is destroying agriculture in many places. But that doesn't mean you have to stop using fossil fuels to power tractors and harvesters. I think people are making a error in logic trying to make that association. The goal is to reduce the use of fossil fuels overall in order to manage the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Clearly farmers need energy and aren't going to use less.
To me it was an opinion about a diplomatic visit by Kerry which has little to no meaning. I don't see what it has anything to do with poor countries not using fossil fuels to produce food.
why are you insisting that I must have a point I am trying to convey? I offer up editorials from the WSJ all the time, largely as a public service to those who do not subscribe and who otherwise would not read those kinds of perspectives on current events because of the paywall. Just trying to be a good citizen
my opinion on the Kerry piece--along with the hypocrisy accusation about Kerry galavanting around the globe in his/his wife's/somebody's private jet--is that he is an ineffective climate diplomat, attempting to preach a self-righteous U.S.-centric virtue-signaling message to the Chinese, who, for very obvious reasons, aren't buying what he's selling. but that's just my opinion. your mileage may vary
I've stated this already - that Kerry is pointless. I don't think he is accomplishing anything but being a nuisance. So we aren't far in agreeing on that. That said, China can very much reduce its CO2 footprint without negatively affecting food output or even the cost of food. In fact, it can lower that cost. More sustainable farming practices for example. Less tilling of the land. More efficient storage and transport of food. And that's just the food industry. People act like it's a zero sum game - that every time you reduce CO2 there is an economic hit. No, that's not true, as often time it's the opposite. You can reduce CO2 and increase productivity, but yes it does require upfront investment. Still not wishful thinking.
all of that may be true, but coal is still cheap and easily available. yeah, it kinda still is. But I understand your argument that China could decide to do things differently; I just believe it is much more natural and obvious to see why China decides not to do things differently
