The Independent, a southern Utah news site, recently published an article titled “Tackling Climate Change, Ignoring the Poor,” in which writer Howard Siller claimed that climate change activism ignores the needs of the poor and only supports them Preferred policy objectives. [emphasis, links added]
this is true.
Anti-growth and green policies hinder access to cheap, reliable energy for the world’s poorest people, doing them more harm than good.
Sirer reported that the G20 group is calling for $3 trillion in annual spending for developing countries, but more than half should be earmarked for climate, sustainable development and related infrastructure, with the remainder for food and medical technology.
That doesn't make much sense, Schiller points out, “given the reality in many developing countries. Opportunities in these places are limited by a lack of cheap and abundant energy that rich countries need to develop.“
“Climate change activists try to obscure these realities by arguing that poverty and climate change are inextricably linked,” Schiller continued, pointing out again and again Research shows that “every dollar spent on core development priorities helps more and faster than if funds are directed towards climate.“
He noted that investments in energy access, clean water and medical infrastructure will immediately help people and improve weather resilience, But investments focused on reducing emissions “will not, if at all, lead to significantly different outcomes for one generation or generations.”
Siller's analysis is absolutely correct, and is backed up by research published by the Consensus Center in Copenhagen and field reports from farmers in places like Africa, where a large proportion of the population in countries across the continent lives without constant or reliable energy.
inside climate realism The post, “Wrong BBC, popular Kenyan farmer is right, there is no climate emergency and Africa does need fossil fuels” takes a look at a farmer who has been leading the fight for energy in his community.
BBC climate campaigners tried to write a hit article about him in an attempt to distract from the real problems faced by Kenya's subsistence farmers and the realistic solutions to their problems.
Farmer Jusper Machogu lives in a poor area; Advocated for agricultural modernization for his family and neighbors. He is critical of “green” agricultural practices Yields are lower and farmers need to invest more labor.
Over time, modern synthetic fertilizers and fossil fuel-powered equipment have begun to help African countries increase food production and reduce hunger and malnutrition, as discussed here , here , and here .
Likewise, oil exploration and development is gradually increasing in African countries, as discussed here and here . This remains the case despite efforts by green NGOs and financial institutions to halt the growth of the Dark Continent.
not to mention, The availability of electricity and indoor heating from fossil fuels has significantly reduced the need for cooking and heating fuels such as wood, crop waste and dung, which are commonly used in poor countries.
Indoor burning of wood, manure and crop waste results in poor indoor air quality and contributes to lung and heart disease, which are leading causes in poor countries.
The poor in Africa and other poor, energy-poor regions around the world are not clamoring for decarbonization; they are demanding reliable energy and the products, services and infrastructure that comes with it.
Sierer explained at the end of the article that although global spending on renewable energy exceeds $12 trillion, “global greenhouse gas emissions will reach an all-time high in 2023, and consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas are all close to historical highs. close to global energy demand” continues to grow. “
This means that despite trillions of dollars being invested, there are no clear benefits. Think of what those trillions of dollars could do for the world's poorest countries if they were invested in traditional development, including modern energy infrastructure.
Schiller noted that while eliminating fossil fuels may bring some vague, distant supposed benefits, none of them have yet been proven. “The costs and disruptions of rapid decarbonization are immediate and enormous.”
The Independent should be commended for publishing this article. Siller's analysis hits home that climate activism is more likely to harm the world's poor than help them.
Read more Climate Realism
