You want to solve the influence of Gulf states that allow them to use the evil religion of Islam to oppress people? Maybe make the product they get wealthy off of not viable.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/02/fact-checking-skeptical-environmentalist/ Danish political scientist Bjørn Lomborg has made his fame and a fortune publishing two books, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001) and Cool It (2007). One reason for his success in muddying the media waters on matters of science regarding biodiversity and climate change is because he voluminously footnotes his own work. So Howard Friel took on the unenviable task of fact checking Lomborg’s sources. Friel found enough to be skeptical about in Lomborg’s findings to write a whole book, The Lomborg Deception, due out with Yale University Press next month. From Sharon Begley’s book review in Newsweek: “When Friel began checking Lomborg’s sources, ‘I found problems,’ he says. ‘As an experiment, I looked up one of his footnotes, found that it didn’t support what he said, and then did another, and kept going, finding the same pattern.’ He therefore took on the Augean stables undertaking of checking every one of the hundreds of citations in Cool It. Friel’s conclusion, as per his book’s title, is that Lomborg is ‘a performance artist disguised as an academic.'”
Also to add that yes I can fully accept that climate related disasters killed far less people now than 100 years ago just like far fewer die of gangrene now than they did 100 years ago. We have things like air conditioning, doppler radar, stronger building codes and etc.. that greatly reduce the amount of deaths from things like heat waves and storms. That doesn't mean the climate isn't changing but that our technology is better.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/02/consider-white-supremacy-of-requiring.html February 10, 2023 Consider the white supremacy of requiring cooks to switch from gas to electric. by noreply@blogger.com (Ann Althouse) I'm reading "Will most chefs ever trade gas stoves for induction? It’s complicated" (WaPo): The art of Chinese stir-fry cooking is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate with induction burners, even those specifically designed for woks, in part because heat transference occurs only when the pan is in contact with the electromagnetic cooktop. The way flavors are developed — such as oil singed as flames lick up and around the pan — are virtually unique to stir-fry cooking, especially those dishes that call for wok hei, a kind of charred quality that occurs when ingredients are tossed in a well-seasoned wok. For these reasons and more, chefs who specialize in stir-fry cooking will probably never surrender their high-Btu gas burners.... 'It’s kind of like asking, "Why can’t a guy doing Texas barbecue just use an electric stove instead of a wood fire?" Well, that’s not going to happen because that’s really the essential part of the flavor of the dish'...." Disparate impact. Posted by Ann Althouse at 7:47 AM
Today, fewer people die from climate-related disasters than in the past, due to advancements in technology and increased knowledge. However, the author seems to argue that we should not switch from traditional energy sources, as if doing so would undermine these advancements. In reality, transitioning to cleaner energy sources would continue the trend, and also benefit human health by reducing pollution.
Yes most wok cooing is done with gas but you can get high BTU out of using induction and electric woks even have the advantage that you don't have to season them. https://agirlworthsaving.net/best-electric-wok/ Anyway as stated this is one of those arguments that is mainly being pushed to rile people up and this is real stretch to argue white supremacy because of woks when there is no actual policy on this.
except when there is actual policy on this https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/13/hochul-backs-ban-gas-furnaces-stoves-00077751
OK good find. That said I don't think this will be as big of an issue that people think it will be and it's certainly not white supremacist.
Sounds like new residential building. Europe already on that path. As for wok cooking from personal experience. We have always done serious wok cooking (high BTU, shifting the pan around, or deep-fried food) outdoor. Even though we have a powerful hood, it's way too messy and large to be handled by our previous indoor gas cooktop. So, no impact to us once we moved to induction cooktop (awesome btw). For those that don't use wok, think crawfish boil or deep-fried turkey. Ain't no one cooking those indoor at home.
I do think it's wise to phase out LNG pipelines to homes and business. I don't think it's a good policy to outright ban localized containers to allow people to use LNG at their premises. Building codes could help with year round heating. Induction stoves are terrific.
LOL at Kennedy.... this moron has essentially taken every anti science position available. China already has much of the current green economy supply chain and is currently building out a lot of solar and wind generation. It is also true they are still building out a lot of fossil fuel energy generation but they are actively cornering the manufacturing for the new economy. OS Trig: Hello, China? You win!
Who is this 'expert' (Holtz-Eakin) on it costing $50T to reach carbon neutral by 2050? I hope he now publishes a paper on how it will cost $50T. In early 2010, Holtz-Eakin became president of American Action Forum,[10] a conservative think tank focused on fiscal and public policy issues.[11] Since joining American Action Forum, Holtz-Eakin has appeared on Fox News to argue against a 2010 health care bill,[12] as well as writing a similarly worded Op-Ed for The New York Times.[13] Holtz-Eakin has been active in supporting Senate immigration bill S.744, which would increase annual legal immigration numbers, legalize illegal immigrants in the United States and some who have already been deported, and promises future enforcement efforts to deter future illegal immigration. Recent research has been conducted on the cost of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/new-study-a-zero-emissions-us-is-now-pretty-cheap/ By building a model of the energy market for the entire US, the researchers explored what it will take to get the country to the point where its energy use has no net emissions in 2050—and they even looked at a scenario where emissions are negative. They found that, as you'd expect, the costs drop dramatically—to less than 1 percent of the GDP, even before counting the costs avoided by preventing the worst impacts of climate change. And, as an added bonus, we would pay less for our power. ... The good news is that doing this is relatively cheap. The researchers estimate that the net cost of the transformation will be a total of $145 billion by 2050, which works out to be less than one-half percent of the GDP that year. That figure does include the increased savings from electrical heating and vehicles, which offset some of their costs. But it doesn't include the reduced costs from climate change or lower health care spending due to reduced fossil fuel use. These savings will be substantial, and they will almost certainly go well beyond offsetting the cost. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020AV000284 Key Points The United States can reach zero net CO2 emissions from energy and industry in 2050 at a net cost of 0.2–1.2% of GDP, not counting climate benefits Multiple feasible pathways exist, all based on energy efficiency, clean electricity, electrification, and carbon capture for use or storage Least-cost electricity systems obtain >80% of their energy from wind and solar, with existing types of thermal generation for reliability Plain Language Summary We created multiple blueprints for the United States to reach zero or negative CO2 emissions from the energy system by 2050 to avoid the most damaging impacts of climate change. By methodically increasing energy efficiency, switching to electric technologies, utilizing clean electricity (especially wind and solar power), and deploying a small amount of carbon capture technology, the United States can reach zero emissions without requiring changes to behavior. Cost is about $1 per person per day, not counting climate benefits; this is significantly less than estimates from a few years ago because of recent technology progress. Models with more detail than used in the past revealed unexpected synergies, counterintuitive results, and tradeoffs. The lowest-cost electricity systems get >80% of energy from wind and solar power but need other resources to provide reliable service. Eliminating fossil fuel use altogether is possible but higher cost. Restricting biomass use and land for renewables is possible but could require nuclear power to compensate. All blueprints for the United States agree on the key tasks for the 2020s: increasing the capacity of wind and solar power by 3.5 times, retiring coal plants, and increasing electric vehicle and electric heat pump sales to >50% of market share.