Energy

Energy Poverty Is Much Worse for the Poor Than Climate Change

Forcing poor people to forego economic development in order to prevent climate change is 'morally dubious'

|

WomanSticksDhrupalJethaDreamstime
Dhrupal Jetha/Dreamstime

Some 1.2 billion people do not have access to electricity, according to the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2016 report. About 2.7 billion still cook and heat their dwellings with wood, crop residues, and dung. In its main scenario for the trajectory of global energy consumption, the IEA projects that in 2040, half a billion people will still lack access to electricity and 1.8 billion will still be cooking and heating by burning biomass.

The agency defines the initial threshold for modern energy access as 250 kilowatt-hours (kwh) for rural and 500 kwh for urban households per year. How much is that? "In rural areas, this level of consumption could, for example, provide for the use of a floor fan, a mobile telephone and two compact fluorescent light bulbs for about five hours per day," the IEA explains. For comparison, in 2015 the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. household was 10,812 kwh—43 times the IEA's energy access threshold for rural households.

In September the United Nations issued 17 new sustainable development goals that are supposed to be achieved by 2030. Universal access to affordable and clean energy is number 7. To achieve this goal, the U.N. says countries can "accelerate the transition to an affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy system by investing in renewable energy resources, prioritizing energy efficient practices, and adopting clean energy technologies and infrastructure."

The transition to renewable energy resources in poor countries was discussed in "Scaling of Innovative Solutions for Mitigation and Adaptation," a side event at the U.N. climate change conference in Marrakech, Morocco, last week. The panel highlighted the distribution of solar lanterns to poor households in Africa and the distribution of small solar panels that can be used to for lighting and to recharge mobile phones. Giving poor people access to such technologies is certainly better than nothing, but that still leaves them mired in energy poverty.

The eco-modernist Breakthrough Institute takes a very different view than the U.N. in a new report, Energy for Human Development. Eco-modernists argue that through technological progress humanity will increasingly withdraw from nature, enabling a vast ecological restoration over the course of this century.

The Breakthrough report rejects any approach based around small-scale energy projects aimed chiefly at supplying tiny amounts of electricity to millions of subsistence farmers. "There is no nation on earth with universal electricity access that remains primarily agrarian," the authors note. "Modern household energy consumption has historically been achieved as a side effect of electrification for non-household purposes such as factories, electrified transportation, public lighting, and commercial-scale agriculture." Rural electrification has always come last, after urbanization and economic development have taken off. For example, in the U.S. nearly 90 percent of city dwellers had electricity by the 1930s but only 10 percent of rural Americans did.

Given this universal growth dynamic, the Breakthrough writers call for prioritizing energy development for productive, large-scale economic enterprises. Copious and reliable energy will accelerate the creation and spread of higher-productivity factories and businesses, which then will generate the opportunities for a better life; that, in turn, will draw poor subsistence farmers into cities. They further note that energy access and electricity access are not the same thing. In fact, in 2012 electricity accounted for only about 18 percent of the energy consumed globally. "Efforts to address energy poverty must address needs for transportation fuels and infrastructure, and for fertilizer and mechanization of agriculture," they argue.

But what about climate change? Current renewable sources of energy are not technologically capable of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty. Consequently, the Breakthrough writers see "no practical path to universal access to modern levels of energy consumption" that keeps the projected increase in global average temperature below the Paris Agreement on climate change goal of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. This implies that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will exceed 450 parts per million. They correctly point out that forcing poor people to forego economic development in order to prevent climate change is a "morally dubious proposition." They additionally observe that the wealth and technology produced by economic growth increases resilience to climatic extremes and other natural disasters. When bad weather encounters poverty, disaster ensues.

It is worth noting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's shared socioeconomic pathway narratives for the rest of the century include one, dubbed "SSP5," in which fossil fuels remain cheap, greenhouse gas concentrations more than triple, the average global temperature increases by nearly 4 degrees Celsius, and the rate of economic growth is high. Is that future a hell on earth? Not at all.

The "development first" SSP5 agenda results in the eradication of extreme poverty, greater gender equality, and universal access to education, safe drinking water, and modern energy before mid century, along with a strong build-up of developing countries' human and social capacity. "Lower socio-environmental challenges to adaptation result from attainment of human development goals, robust economic growth, highly engineered infrastructure with redundancy to minimize disruptions from extreme events, and highly managed ecosystems," notes the SSP report. In other words, people living in this economically robust scenario have greater incomes (up from the current average of around $10,000 to about $140,000 per capita in current dollars by 2100) and have access to much more advanced technologies with which to address whatever problems man-made climate change may throw at them.

The Breakthrough Institute report invokes the University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke Jr.'s "iron law of climate policy," which states that "when policies on emissions reductions collide with policies focused on economic growth, economic growth will win out every time." People will always favor policies to lessen energy poverty over strategies that aim to reduce the risks of man-made climate change.

"Lifting all of humanity out of energy poverty does increase the risk of catastrophic climate change impacts to some unknowable degree," concludes the Breakthrough Institute report. "But it is untenable morally and practically to insist that global climate change targets be balanced upon the backs of the poorest people on earth."

Advertisement

NEXT: Two Immigrants Debate Immigration

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I felt sad to see a bailey ariticle sitting for so long without comments.

    So I’ll give a tangent.

    Theft of copper wire was such a problem in many underdeveloped countries that they ended up with cell service before landlines, because it was easier to secure a single relay tower with some form of on-site power generation. than miles upon miles of expensive copper lines.

    Centralized energy production in such an area will run into similar problems, so decentralized production is pretty much the only way forward. This also provides resiliancy against the sorts of upheavals that tend to break out in these same geographic regions.

    1. *centalized electricity production

      Just to not get into an argument with the part of the article that includes cooking heat and other forms of energy usage that were not part of my point.

      1. My best friend’s sister makes $92 an hour on the internet . She has been out of a job for 6 months but last month her check was $14750 just working on the internet for a few hours. Go this website and click tech tab to start your work.. Now this web… http://www.Trends88.com

    2. There are bigger impediments than copper theft. Right of way and property rights, for starters.

      Any new data lines are going to be fiber anyway.

      1. I don’t imagine subsistence farmers would mind a little payment to bury some fiber across their patch of dirt. It would likely make it a boom year for them.

    3. This also provides resiliancy[sic] against the sorts of upheavals that tend to break out in these same geographic regions.

      You aren’t supposed to mention that part, you fucking bigot.

      1. I swear I closed that blockquote tag. My commenting was hacked! JILL STEIN, I NEED YOU!!!

        1. yes, my typing is known to make people [sic]. I tend to be in a hurry and don’t do much proofreading.

          1. I was just referring to the unpleasant truth that progs refuse to face, namely, that a lot of places in the world that are shitty and poor are shitty and poor due in large part due to the constant upheavals you mentioned. Boko Haram is entirely the fault of straight white men, after all.

          2. It’s good enough for government work.

            1. There doesn’t seem to be anything that isn’t.

        2. Trumputins vs squirrels.

    4. Centralized energy production in such an area will run into similar problems

      Will“?

      i’m not sure i agree that expansion of electricity-transmission will have exactly the same sort of problems. When you steal oil from the pipeline, you’re only robbing the 2 organizations at either end of that pipe. When you cut the town’s lights off… well, you might see how your neighbors would find that less-than-neighborly of you.

      1. Like that has stopped people from doing far worse.

        1. The distinction still applies.

          The benefit of some stolen cable is probably less than the social-cost depriving your entire community of electricity. its not like the oil/gas thieving, where there was no community-penalty (other than occasionally setting everyone on fire)

          1. You have a flaw in your logic – you’re assuming that the community losing its copper lines is the one the thieves are from.

            1. It’s the one that the thieves are operating in and seen by.

              Unless they’re climbing transformers, in which case their attempt to cut the wires may not end well.

              1. sometimes it doesn’t end well, but that never stops the activity.

              2. I mean high-power electrical tower, not transformer.

              3. Independent Lens : Powerless (about people who steal power in India…)

            2. No, it doesn’t matter = because the point is that communities police crimes that directly affect them.

              There’s no reason for a local village to stop vandals from stealing from oil companies that transmit oil through their region. As long as they’re not the one that goes up in flames when it all goes wrong, that is.

              The point is simply that there are different economic considerations when the issue is “stealing from a system no one in the community benefits from” versus “stealing from a system which everyone in a community benefits from”

              i’d think this sort of thing would be readily apparent to libertarians; the incentives to self-police change dramatically when the costs for enforcement are low, and the risks of violation are high.

              1. If you want I’ll go and dig out the actual incidents. Because, sadly, I’m not dealing in hypotheticals. Even with power lines.

                1. Funny bias – it takes much less copper disappearing in the US to make a headline about theft of power lines than those in the ‘developing’ countries. (I was sifting through the internet for some cases)

                  1. Its always been a problem that you can’t begin to add development investment into very-very-very poor places until you first get them to a minimum level of economic stability.

                    If they’re barely subsisting, then all those efforts will be torn down/wasted because a small number will try and steal/extort from the “aid” so that they can marginally benefit.

                    That’s not any sort of proof that “decentralized generation” is the better model for all very-poor places. Just that there’s probably *some* areas where there’s no point trying to provide electricity when they don’t even have the bare social-stability to maintain basic shared-resources.

                    1. “you can’t begin to add development investment into very-very-very poor places until you first get them to a minimum level of economic stability.”

                      You also need somewhat consistent protection of property rights and a mostly non-corrupt court system for addressing grievances. If you don’t have either of those things, every good that is produced will be stolen or grifted away by criminals, and pretty soon nobody will bother producing much of anything other than what they need to stay alive in the immediate term.

      2. You already have an example — cell-tower cable thieves. They deprive entire villages of cell phone access. Doesn’t seem to stop them. I would guess that to a lot of destitute villagers, that cell phone access is far more life-changing then mere electrical power. They can recharge cell phones from hand- or foot-powered chargers, then get their crop reports and weather reports. They already have alternate energy for cooking.

      3. Pipeline product theft and copper theft happens all the time in Africa, often with explosive and shocking results.

    5. Everyone already gave up on another article appearing today.

    6. Theft of copper wire was such a problem in many underdeveloped countries that they ended up with cell service before landlines, because it was easier to secure a single relay tower with some form of on-site power generation. than miles upon miles of expensive copper lines.

      Not sure that’s the main reason. Wireless is far cheaper to deploy and maintain than landlines, even in developed countries.

    7. I felt sad to see a bailey ariticle sitting for so long without comments.

      I don’t think it was on the H&R page very long.

    8. Theft of copper wire was such a problem in many underdeveloped countries that they ended up with cell service before landlines, because it was easier to secure a single relay tower with some form of on-site power generation. than miles upon miles of expensive copper lines.

      I heard a report on Radio Vilnius back in the day (probably a good 15 years ago; the English service went defunct close to a decade ago) that cell phones took off there because it was a heck of a lot easier to get one than to get a land line from the state telecom company, and because the text messaging served as a cheap form of email.

    9. This is not necessarily true. Waiting times for landlines from government telcoms were measured in years in say, Indonesia.

      This closely matched communist countries wait times for cars, etc.

      It suggests the issue is with government owned firms rather than with stealing.

      Cell phones came in as private firms in many of these countries and ate the Telecom Ministry’s lunch…though needing less fixed investment probably helped.*

      I’m also guessing a lot of the “stealing” at state-run telecoms wasn’t done by low-level thieves but by bureaucrats.

      *cell phones also came around when privatizing was more popular, so the cousin of the president would get the cell phone license…

    10. That is absolutely *not* the reason phone service didn’t roll out to underdeveloped countries until the advent of *cheap& cell phones.

      Its because that wired infrastructure is damned expensive and no one could turn a profit on installing it when everyone is dead poor.

      An individual cell phone is more expensive than a touch-tone but the infrastructure cost is orders of magnitude less – especially when it comes to costs of upgrading that IS – so the total system cost is signficantly less.

      In addition, poor places don’t have a lot of copper recyclers that you can drop an anonymous 50 lb ball of stripped wire off at – and the profit margin is really eaten into when you have to ride a donkey 50 miles to sell the stuff.

      Copper theft is something you really only see *now* because the *current* price is so high – wasn’t so high 20 years ago – and in reasonably (by world standards) well off places that actually have a large enough concentration of refined copper that can be stolen.

  2. There’s the right thing to do, and then there’s the trendy thing to do.

    I think we all know which one is going to win out.

    1. Faux-hawks for everyone!

    2. Trendy! Trendy! Trendy!

      Oh,

      Wait,…

    3. *strikes pose for Mannequin Flash-Mob Ice-Bucket For The Cure pose*

      1. +2 campaign planks

    4. Well shit, doing the right thing is hard, how about I just social signal? What’s the hashtag for this one??

  3. Our superiors have already made clear that they have a “let them eat cake” mentality to all this. It’s settled science.

  4. r the United Nations issued 17 new sustainable development goals that are supposed to be achieved by 2030. Universal access to affordable and clean energy is number 7.

    Pick one.

    1. No! I insist that all right thinking persons must demand both.

  5. Next time a left-wing elitist tries to justify their helicopter rides for dogs, jetting an entourage in the hundreds halfway around the world for a “climate conference”, etc, by saying those CO2 emissions are negligible compared to global CO2 emissions… ask them how many third-worlders could move from living on dirt floors heated by dung fires to something more approaching modern life if they were allowed to produce those same emissions.

    1. This is a really good idea…

      1. No it isn’t. Then they’ll pivot to some bitching about preserving culture.

    2. It will not be funny in about 15 years when, according to new dual-dynamo models of the sun that reflect history pretty well, we’ll be in a new Mauder Minimum or approach ice age, and need to warm the earth, and we’ve wasted so much resource on cooling the planet.

      Cold weather will kill far more than warmer weather.

      1. And the Global Warming tit will still be assuring us that the ice caps are melting and the global temperature is rising. Absolutely NO connection to reality….

  6. Totally off topic: I found out that my sister has gone full-SJW at Thanksgiving this year. She hates white people (we’re white) and is, like, super mad, at the Redskins. She says its our duty to go home and talk to “our super racist families” about social justice problems and fix their way of thinking. Kill me.

    1. She hates white people (we’re white)

      Suggest she stop trying to “fix” white people, and instead volunteer at a local prison so she can directly-rectify injustice.

      1. I’m relatively certain that she hasn’t done a minute of charity work during her adult life. I sit on the board of a $100k/year local charity that helps keep families off the street, and I also work as a CAC through Obamacare (so I can help my local community, most of whom happen to be immigrants, that have to navigate the mess).

        I didn’t bring these things up to her, but her self-righteousness was making me laugh on the inside. I’m sure she thinks that I’m the soulless one, even though I literally spend 8 hours of every Saturday doing charity work. Gah, I would have loved to use this as some sort of “fuck you” but then I feel like it sullies the charity part of charity work.

        1. The rise of virtue signaling culture has made me very skeptical of people who advertise their good works. Which is a shame, because in theory they should serve as an example to others.

        2. I quit talking politics with my family when my mother, who called herself a communist, asserted that China’s one child policy was “good government”. She died 2 months ago at age 84 and I’m glad we didn’t spend the last 15 years arguing about shit we ultimately can’t control. Forgive your sister and change the subject.

          1. I hear you. I think its probably best I take a deep breath and ditch politics as a subject with her.

          2. Never mind that even Chinese gov’t people have realized how fucking retarded this is. Which is why they got rid of it (without admitting they were wrong, of course – Chinese gov’t people never admit being wrong). Not that it’s going to stop the oncoming demographic trainwreck that’s coming.

          3. In general I agree with you, but sometimes it’s hard. My (much loved) Step-Mother-In-Law once got one of those “Friends Don’t Let Friends Vote republican” bumperstickers. She defended it by asking me if I could take a joke, until I asked her how she felt about the KKK keeping Blacks from voting.

            Bumper Sticker is gone.

            I don’t do that often, but that sticker REALLY annoyed me.

    2. Did you mention that the Washington Post took a poll of actual Indians and found that 90% of them had no problem with the name? It is true, you can look it up. You should have pointed that out to her and told her that her objection to the name is nothing but cultural appropriation. Straight up. Where does some white woman get off telling Indians what they should be offended by?

      1. No… but I did something similar and shared a story about my friend who visited from Cali recently. He happens to be black, and he said “man, I saw a lot of protests out there… a lot of white people telling me I’m oppressed. Fuck the oppression, why are these people so insistent on telling me how oppressed I am?”

        She was taken aback, and then she doubled-down.

        1. Marxists have been known to come to their senses and realize the ideology doesn’t add up.

          I wonder if SJWs can as well.

        2. Suggest she moves to a more enlightened country. That will give her an education.

          The US is unique in judging people as individuals. In the rest of the world, the groups to which you belong matter more than who you are as an individual. She’ll find she’s discriminated against, just because she’s not a native. On the other hand, in some countries like France, she’ll be able to get a job, because the law allows them to fire foreigners when they can’t fire French citizens. Of course the French think they are giving French citizens an advantage in doing this. LOL

          The other thing she’ll learn, is if she moves to a country with a lot less freedom, is what it’s like to live with a lot less of it. That usually results in getting mugged by the reality of too much government power, and a new appreciation for freedom (i.e., less government).

      2. The Amerinds actually we’re the ones who coined the term “redskin” to refer to themselves, as opposed to the white man.

    3. Is she hot?

      1. The commentariat deserves to know.

        1. An enormous amount of how seriously I’ll pretend to take her opinions hinges on this.

          1. Do you mean how seriously you take her opinions or how forgiving you will be of them. Nothing causes me to forgive saying something stupid like a pretty woman saying it. Stupidity is unforgivable in men, fat women and homely women. The pretty girls get a pass, like they do in pretty much everything.

            1. When you put it that way, I should rephrase to, “How seriously I will pretend to take her opinions.”

              1. Oh shit, looks like I already said that the first time. So there’s your answer.

                Actually taking them seriously? Not at all. Pretending to? Contingent.

            2. Lookist!

          2. Seriously. I’m not putting up with that kind of bullshit unless she’s smokin’ hot. Which she almost certainly isn’t.

            1. She’s my sister, so no I don’t find her hot. She also has recently come to terms with the fact that she’s gay. Its sad because we used to get along so well since I am the only one in the family that she’s come out to… but I’m fairly certain that her girlfriend is the one putting these things in her mind. I recently went to visit her and she mentioned a clash she had with some asshole on the subway, saying that the only reason this guy acted the way he did was because “he’s a white male”. I glared at her and flat out told her that she’s insulting her own brother with racist/sexist remarks like that.

              1. I hope it’s just a phase. (not the being gay part, the part where she’s being a jerk).

                I have one brother that I’m really close to, and another that I’ve written off completely. It’s tough to come to terms with that sort of thing.

                1. I hope so too. More than anything, I just hope she finds a new girlfriend. During my visit, I could see her deferring to her (crazy) girlfriend on everything. Its toxic but I don’t have any way of influencing her otherwise. She’s stopped talking to her other friends too and they’ve all noticed how different she is now.

      2. What Brochettaward said. We shouldn’t even have to ask. It should go without saying that we want to and deserve to know if she is hot.

        1. What’s he supposed to say? My sister is ugly? Or, even worse, my sister is hot?

          1. Yeah ya’ll are putting me in a tough spot here..

    4. Correct response.

      “It takes one to know one.”

    5. Heh, my brother surprised me by showing me the AR15 he built from parts. Really cool. Guess I’m just lucky.

    6. Tell your sister that the Cowboys killed the Redskins. Would that make happy?

      Would it help to say that the Cowboys quarterback is an African American?

      1. I know and as a Redskins fan, I’m kinda butthurt! Kinda ironic though right? Disliking the Redskins for racism reasons and then wanting them to lose to the Cowboys? Christ…

    7. Why didn’t you just tell her to calm the fuck down and quit lecturing you?

      -jcr

  7. You can’t have a modern economy and anything except medieval poverty rates without cheap energy. It can never be said enough that environmentalists are waging war on the poor.

    1. I have fallen into the habit of wondering what George Washington would think about various things — not being a Jefferson-style inventor or politician, I think he was in some ways more representative of the typical farmer at the time, and pretty innovative and refreshing.

      I think the most astounding aspect of modern life to him would be mobile energy. Back then, the only steam engines were in coal mines, I believe, and pretty pathetic. First steam engine 10 years after he died, first steam train 20+ years later … IIRC. Steam engines are natural and intuitive, internal combustion engines almost as much. Electricity is not nearly so, and so I lump lights, computers, radios, the internet, and cell phones as more like magic to him. I also don’t think electricity changed society nearly as much as steam trains did.

      Mobile power got man out of the gutter of poverty. Electricity made it more comfortable. Cheap energy made it possible.

      1. They did have mobile energy, but it was limited to approximately 1 HP, + or -.

        1. Cleaning up the exhaust from that was a really shitty job.

        2. Damn literalists! Literally, damn them to literal hell!

          Damn.

        3. But those engines were modular so . . .

          1. And were even used on ship treadmills to serve as winches and capstans. Humans are incredibly ingenious, which is something proggies hate being reminded about.

    2. How else do we get from a global population of 8 billion down to 500 million? Someone’s got to go and the poorest will be first. The compassionate left don’t have a problem with this.

      1. Simple – start with the Malthusians.

        Problem solved.

      2. I had a very lefty employee who explicitly advocated killing the poor. In the context of having no ability to discern their surroundings, I had another lefty employee whose family came from Peru, I asked, within earshot of the second employee, “So you think we should bomb poor people in Peru?!” He affirmed and vigorously defended his Luddite position within earshot of the second employee.

        I couldn’t have asked for a better setup to begin planting the seeds of liberty in the second employee’s mind. I set in right away. Unfortunately, I had to fire second employee, so effective irrigation from me was not possible.

      3. The ‘compassionate Left’ is morally identical to the old Aristocracy or the Southern Planters. They have all kinds of swell slinding things they pay lip service to, and when push comes to shove they will put babies in wood chippers if it will give them they power they want.

      4. that reminds me of the Star Trek episode where the two planets were “at war” for 500 years,and their computers decided who was “killed” in a “strike”,and ordered them to report to the disintegration chambers to actually kill them,per some dumb treaty/agreement. and that was supposed to be “civilized”.

        it would be ironic to have these AGW kooks randomly selected to be the first to be “downsized” to meet their desired carbon goals. “hoist by one’s own petard”.

    3. They are waging war on everyone.

      It’s certainly worth noting that they are basically telling the citizens of third world countries to stay poor, suffer and die, but they’re also busy giving the rest of us both barrels as well.

  8. Proggies, I think, come from an attitude that almost all people are despicable — dumb, ignorant, naive, helpless — and so must b taken care of by the very very few elites who understand reality. My guess on *why* they think this is that modern society confuses them, like Bernie baffled by 23 varieties of deodorant, and so they think lesser people must be in psychic hell and dumbfounded to the point of idiocy. But that doesn’t really matter to the problem of how to keep them from messing up civilization with their fearfulness.

    I can visualize the conversation in my head.

    So, you trust the climate models? — Of course!

    Are you familiar with SSP5? — I will go read it.

    Why do you not like the idea of eliminating extreme poverty and multiplying per-capita income by 14? — BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING AND OUT OF CONTROL AND FRACKING AND COW FARTS!

    No, I think I will not go there. The few proggie people I know would not react well to any truth that provides anything other than DOOM.

    1. Its not a *progressive* thing – its an authoritarian one.Let’s not forget that there is a fairly large conservative movement that thinks you can’t handle alcohol, any sort of drug, sex outside of marriage, non-conventional family arrangements, and pornography among other things. And those people are just as willing to use the power of the state to kill you to prevent you from doing them.

      Let’s not get hung up on ‘Progressive’ or ‘SJW’ and forget that their defining trait is *totalitarianism* and there is as little difference between the extreme left and right as their was between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

      1. If by fairly large movement you mean a nearly nonexistent one.

      2. yeah, what Lurk Diggler said.

        What the hell are you talking about? Since when is the right or even any small part of the right supporting all those things together and to that extent?

        It’s not even true anymore that the right supports any one of those things super strongly; it all depends on how you count people’s opinions.

        See? This is the caricature the left has to project since they can’t actually defend any of their positions. Like all of the right is some evil hyper-regressive racist sexist whatever. But never an actual response to the policies we want

      3. Psst, the Nazi’s and the Soviets were both on the left…

    2. Proggies, I think, come from an attitude that almost all people are despicable

      Well, since it’s true for all the people around them, that’s not surprising.

      -jcr

    3. More Top Men needed.

    4. Izzat the applied Misanthropomorphic Principle? The Misanthropomorphic Principle states that Plank’s constant cancels out to what it is so we can have mindless illiterate looters and knaves manipulated by social pressure shriek dinningly that free markets nuclear weapons nuclear power chlorofluorocarbons electric power generation (not overpopulation, war, famine or plague) is poised to wipe out humanity.

  9. “it is untenable morally and practically to insist that global climate change targets be balanced upon the backs of the poorest people on earth.”

    There is no global climate change aside from what is occurring naturally. This seems like an important factor to me.

    1. The more important thing is that even if climate change is being driven in part by humans, there’s nothing we can do about it and no one is even trying. The goal of the warmist cult is not to do anything about climate, but to redistribute trillions of dollars stolen from the masses, to green cronies, NGOs, and tin pot dictators. It’s the biggest scam ever attempted in the history of civilization.

      1. Pretty sure central banking was the biggest scam with socialism running a close 2nd. But I feel your pain.

    2. You are beating the wrong horse. It is beyond reasonable dispute that CO2, freon, methane, etc are greenhouse gases and man’s industrialization is warming the atmosphere. What is disputable is how much and what should be done about it. Also indisputable is that the climate models are jokes and the alarmists who rely on them to demand my money and my children’s money are crooks beyond the pale.

      1. “It is beyond reasonable dispute that CO2, freon, methane, etc are greenhouse gases and man’s industrialization is warming the atmosphere.”

        I entertained this theory at one time but there is no data to back it up. Not one iota. So, no.

        1. Oh bananas. There is plenty of evidence for that simple fact. To deny that because you don’t like how the alarmists misuse it is silly. Or maybe you think :greenhouse” has been so abused that you refuse to acknowledge what you believe to be the wrong meaning. Well, who knows. It’s just silly.

          1. There’s data that it should warm the atmosphere, the data that it did isn’t discernible without knowing the natural fluctuations and other complexities.

          2. Even if many of those things contribute in a direct way to global warming, water vapor is the most important factor by a long shot. Those things impact water vapor indirectly. But water vapor has both a positive and negative impact on the Earth’s temperature. When the negative impact is greater (ie increased albedo due to clouds) those items are actually contributing to global cooling.

            So, no it is not agreed that those increase global warming.

      2. no, allthe global warmists have repeatedly failed to predict the climate

        They always just magically “adjust” the numers after the fact to say that oh, look, it was indeed warming

        if they really knew how the climate acted they would be able to make predictions and wouldn’t have to “adjust” after the fact

        Google “Robert Tracinski global warming”, his articles describe it the best

    3. Important, yes, but also important is the disconnect between satellite data (showing no warming outside the error bars) and tamper-prone data showing, according to Gavin Schmidt, that the PAST is getting colder (realclimatescience.org). This makes recent altered data look even more like an increase in temperature occurred. Yet temperatures, sea level, etc haven’t done anything but vary normally for over three decades. Gavin Schmidt handed the Republicans the smoking gun they needed to get rid of Herr Doktor Schmidt’s dupes–the Democratic party–and the econazi infiltrators gorging on NASA funding.

    4. Important, yes, but also important is the disconnect between satellite data (showing no warming outside the error bars) and tamper-prone data showing, according to Gavin Schmidt, that the PAST is getting colder (realclimatescience.org). This makes recent altered data look even more like an increase in temperature occurred. Yet temperatures, sea level, etc haven’t done anything but vary normally for over three decades. Gavin Schmidt handed the Republicans the smoking gun they needed to get rid of Herr Doktor Schmidt’s dupes–the Democratic party–and the econazi infiltrators gorging on NASA funding.

  10. So, those 2.7 billion who are still cooking with sticks. Can’t they all just put a solar panel on their grass and mud huts? Maybe a wind turbine out back? I’ve been ensured by leftist acquaintances that this will work and at the same time save the planet.

    1. They can, until the local tribal council passes some good old fashioned NIMBY regulations banning them because they are an eyesore and bringing down property values from 2 goats per hut-allotment to 1 and a half goats.

      1. Well, once again, that would be the fault of the white devils.

    2. And nothing says good for the environment like burning wood to cook and keep warm. Cutting down every single tree in sight to keep from starving and freezing to death is so much more earth friendly than building one of those evil running dog capitalist coal fired electric plants.

      1. If the econazis could pass every climate accord in their wildest dreams and actually enforce them, nothing will change for those people. Trillions of dollars will be passed around, the poor will be just as poor, and the climate will keep doing whatever it’s doing.

        1. Yeah but a bunch of greens will feel good about themselves and a few others will get rich and that is what matters.

          1. I sometimes wonder why I shouldn’t just social signal the same things the Proggies don just to get along easier. Because you never have to do the right things, you just have to say the right things…..

        2. Perhaps the subsistence poor will be just as poor, but it won’t be the same for the developing poor. They will be sent back.

      2. If you clear cut Canada, it would actually reflect more sunlight in winter, and thus reduce global warming.

        No, this is not a joke.

        1. Ok, here’s the plan. We clear cut Canada and put up wind turbines.

        2. It’s called albedo, and can be part of a self reinforcing pattern that has resulted in “Snowball Earth” on the past.
          Also, global warming may prevent the next ice age.
          Also, self replicating nano tech will consume all the excess carbon in the environment.

          1. And then humans accidentally get turned into grey goo.

          2. Also, self replicating nano tech will consume all the excess carbon in the environment.

            No, no it won’t.

            1. Yes it will, but as stated earlier, the nanobots will see Us as excess carbon…

              1. Engines of Creation was one of the biggest scientific cons of the last 3 decades, right up there with CAGW.

              2. Well… the worst comeback to that is that their generalization is overly broad. I can think of over a hundred carbon units who aren’t excess, beginning with Captain Kirk.

          3. self replicating nano tech will consume all the excess carbon in the environment

            You mean algae? Bacteria? They’ve been around billions of years and are a big factor in regulating CO2 and other atmospheric gases (Oxygen).

      3. In lots of places, the preferred fuel is dried dung. It’s a wonderfully green fuel.

        In several insane first world countries, wood is burnt to generate electricity. If memory serves, almost 10% of the power generated in Vermont is wood fired. Of course, Vermont has to import 60% of their electricity since they shut down the Yankee nuclear plant. I’ve read that Europe even imports wood pellets from Canada for this purpose.

        Green technology is really wonderful, so wonderful that it deserves more subsidies.

        1. burning dung isn’t exactly healthy for humans.

    3. Actually…Germany is not very sunny. If Germany spent all its solar subsidies paying for solar panels in say, Lagos, it probably would be better for the planet.

  11. http://thenextweb.com/shareabl…..core-porn/

    A cable provider in Boston accidentally broadcasts 30 minutes of hardcore porn instead of CNN. The best part, is the scheduled programming was Antony Bourdain’s “Parts Unknown”. The audience got some parts unknown alright.

    Proof God has a hell of a sense of humor.

    1. That’s great. I’m sure it was Putin. According to the left, everything that happens these days, Putin is behind it.

      1. Tom Clancy died too soon. He’d have a blast this past 12 months.

        1. Tom Clancy is dead?

          *throws mimosa across room*

          1. Don’t worry, the undead conglomerate that prints in his name will never die.

            1. As long as Ubisoft stands, so shall the Clancy brand.

          2. At least we still have Lou Reed. We will always have Lou.

            *Obligatory*

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu6z4h2VYb4

    2. 30 minutes?

      Either the employees were in on it, don’t bother to check their own channel, or were “preoccupied”

      1. It’s cnn. Who even watches it, if alternative is present?

      2. “According to weather reports, the Cardinals and Cubs should be starting here within the hour. Now back to Anal Angels 8, on Rain Delay Theater.”

        1. Not ‘Black booty broke tha scale 8’? I am disappointed.

      3. No doubt inundated with tracking down fake news stories and debunking them.

    3. They should have done it with MSNBC. Nobody would have noticed.

    4. They don’t mention what the title of the ‘hardcore porn’ movie was. No one ever reports *facts* anymore.

      1. Yeah, these days you have to go to ZH to find out this was actually a transsexual porn flick.

      2. “Parts Unknown”. Can’t you read?

        1. Tranny porn running as “Parts Unknown”?

          Can’t decide if this is a practical joke, or proof that God has a sense of humor.

    5. Were they showing it on every monitor in Boston’s Logan Airport?

  12. 1. What about other species? Climate change of that magnitude will drive most everything else on the planet to extinction, and likely most remaining megafauna besides humans. Are you okay with this?

    2. What about ocean acidification? Rising temps means more acidic and less productive oceans. Are you okay with the end of fish and corals? ‘

    3. What if they’re wrong about the economic benefits? One option may be catastrophic warning and economic abundance but I understand that most other options are NOT that?

    1. Would you go back in time and try to prevent the dinosaurs from going extinct?

    2. 1. We’re libertarians. We’re not just OK with it, but look forward to the eradication of freeloading fauna and animal life.

      2. Listen, I spend extra money dumping the toxic waste from my orphan farm into the ocean. Stop asking stupid questions.

      3. Bailey has a monocle. He knows what he’s talking about.

      1. 1. I’m no libertarian, but I’m not terribly worried about the other species – call it high-speed forced evolution.

        2. We can convert the seas into a giant battery for storing the excress electicity, so acidify away.

        3. The warmist position is Russian roulette with an automatic. I’ll take my chances with prosperity, thanks.

        1. 1. What have these other species done for me lately?
          2. What have fish and corals ever done for me?
          3. Cheap energy may not guarantee economic abundance, but the lack of energy absolutely guarantees poverty.

          1. Yeah, but I’m sure the poster of that hyperbolic nonsense has turned off their AC and gotten rid of all their electronic devices, and probably forages for nuts and berries as their only sustenance.

            1. She was posting from her cave with smoke signals.

              *note to self: call reason and suggest shutting down the smoke signals to internet gateway*

            2. Why is my question hyperbole? What evidence do you have that any of my assertions are incorrect?

              1. For heaven sakes karen!!! Stop posting!!! You are killing all the furries…err i mean furry animals

              2. I assert that you kill small children and bake them into pies.

                Do YOU have any proof my assertion is incorrect?

                FFS We need a better class of troll around here. I mean this isn’t even fun.

              3. Why is my question hyperbole?

                Climate change of that magnitude will drive most everything else on the planet to extinction…

                You don’t know this and anyone who says they do is lying to you.

                1. Wow, Gilmore beat me by a whopping six hours, and I only had to scroll down a single screen to see it.

              4. What else did the kids “scientists” at skepticalscience scare you with?

                1) You do understand that that warming is not homogenous, right? Higher latitudes will warm more. Those higher latitudes presently suffer from brief to non-existent growing seasons, so MORE life will be around in the wholly unrealistic 4C by 2100 scenario. Strike one.

                2) You mean oceans that are less basic. There will be no significant change in the number or type of species in an ocean in equilibrium with a 450ppm CO2 world. Aragonite corals evolved when atmospheric CO2 was over 1300ppm, and crabs and shellfish of all types have endured, no thrived, with a warmer, higher-CO2 world. Strike two.

                3) What if spending 1% of that quixotic effort led to the the successful deflection of 2011 SR52 in 2034, an object capable of releasing 860 GT? Or more mundane: what if not diverting that money just so you can validate your existence in the universe resulting in billions more people enjoying a higher standard of living and millions living extended lives that you would deny through their energy impoverishment? Strike three.

                Normally I’m not a big fan of argumentum ad verecundiam, but when obvious underwater puppeteering majors like yourself want to inject themselves into a debate that they are clearly constitutionally incapable of understanding, I begin to make exceptions.

                1. I’d add on to what Skippy said, but he dropped the mic into a pitcher of Bud Ice.

              5. As you’re the one who wants to force other people to live according to your priorities, I would think the burden of proof is on you.

              6. “Why is my question hyperbole? What evidence do you have that any of my assertions are incorrect?”

                Have you done anything that I suspect you didn’t do to ‘save the planet’, Karen? I suspect that you do not want to get into an armed conflict without any arms here. But let me invite you to do so.

          2. Also, life expectancy at birth and per capita energy consumption correlate in a nice waltz. This and the Atlas Shrugged argument about altruism valuing death may be all anyone needs to know about the econazis and their anti-industrial revolution–other than that they use fake data.

    3. Climate change of that magnitude will drive most everything else on the planet to extinction

      99% of past life on this planet has already gone extinct. I fail to see why this has been a problem now; why is it a problem in the future?

      be specific = When do you expect this to happen? within 100 years? 500 years? 10,000 years?

      Otherwise your statement is as meaningless as saying, “Water is poisonous”. Technically true, but not really a ‘problem’.

      1. “be specific = When do you expect this to happen? within 100 years? 500 years? 10,000 years?”

        It’s almost too late, just like we told you last time.

        1. As with any scam it is always almost too late.

          1. And will be almost too late again before too long.

      2. It remains a dubious proposition to me that increased global average temperatures would result in mass extinction. Most mass extinctions in the past were connected to sudden drops in temperature, and biodiversity has generally been highest when the Earth was warmer.

    4. One option may be catastrophic warning and economic abundance but I understand that most other options are NOT that?

      You’re acting like its a “choice” whether developing nations develop.

      Its not. They’re going to one way or the other.

      The idea that some super-government will step in and “stop” the rest of the world from adding electricity generation, automobile use, and greater consumption of resources, is a complete myth.

      This is why most climate-alarmists instead waste their time trying to get places like the US and EU to impose draconian economic controls on themselves… even though those places don’t even add up to a fraction of the future emissions growth of places like China.

      1. Also the argument boils down to “Shoot yourself in the head so you don’t accidentally shoot yourself in the foot.”

    5. Unless you go to mosque on Friday, synagogue on Saturday, church on Sunday and sacrifice to various gods, restating Pascal’s a Wager three ways is not an argument I believe you care about.

    6. You know what else can cause that? Asteroid collusion, and we have geological data backing that up. Perhaps we should spend billions on asteroid prevention technologies instead? If you are concerned about the CAGW thesis you should be just as concerned about this to be consistent. If not you have a deliberate bias towards one theoretical outcome over another.

      1. Earth has gone through numerous megaextinction events, and regardless of human activity it will go through more. Somehow life has continued to flourish in conditions far worse than described. The entire premise is faulty though, because you assume this to be the outcome and then try and make us accept responsibility. Dishonest. You can’t claim to know the future outcome anymore than a person in the 1700s could predict the 2000s. Three hundred years from now every species on this planet could be genetically engineered to serve our interests instead.

      2. Same premise as above. The end is nigh, and you are responsible.

      3. Environmentalism is a first world, middle-upper class issue, you will never, ever get the developing world to care until they are prosperous enough to afford it. If CAGW is valid we’re already fucked if you insist that these countries develop at a disadvantage to soothe your feelings. Which they’ll just ignore anyway.

      1. 4. Every single prediction that has been made by the climate alarmists have been not only wrong, but very wrong. Why should anyone start taking them seriously now?

        5. The sun is headed towards a very quiet period according to scientists who have no profit motive. The last time that happened, we had what is now known as the ‘little ice age’. We should probably be more worried about cooling right now.

        1. 6) The principals of the catastrophic global warming scam have been caught red-handed destroying data, falsifying results, and conspiring to shut down critics.

      2. Asteroid collusion

        Spoiler alert: asteroids make poor accomplices

    7. 1. Learn to swim
      2. Learn to swim
      3. Learn to swim

      1. +1 Tool

    8. Karen…glug, glug, glug!

    9. What if they’re wrong about the economic benefits?

      The “what if” knife cuts both ways.

    10. Almost like other species can’t walk.

    1. Putin strikes again.

  13. “Some 1.2 billion people do not have access to electricity”.

    No more than 40-50 years ago, a lot of people in rural Appalachia didn’t have electric or even running water. I saw this myself when I was a little kid.

    1. You were a kid? Hmm. I thought you sprang from the head of Zeus a fully formed crotchety old man.

      1. Exactly what happened. The first thing I did was slap the nurse on the ass, hey she did it first, and then asked for a cigar and some brandy before telling someone to get off my lawn.

      1. Yes, the Simi Valley hillbillies.

      2. We would drive across the country every summer to see my hillbilly relatives in the Ohio and Appalachia. I really liked the driving across the country part though.

    1. “If however you’re a planet saving greeny millinnial asshole”

      I like this guy already!

    2. Thanks for that link, the guy is really taking it to the econazis.

  14. “…They correctly argue that “it is untenable morally and practically to insist that global climate change targets be balanced upon the backs of the poorest people on earth.””

    I can go for this, but somehow the method of dealing with the issue haven’t been addressed.
    If it’s still turning over the economy to Obo and his minions, I got a problem.

    1. Well, not strictly true; the article specifically rejects small-scale development in favor of large-scale, and in Africa, the only way that’s gonna happen is if there’s enough foreign aid money left in the bank after the local tin-pot dictator puts most of it in an off-shore account.

  15. Ronald continues to gorge on chorused assertions–embellished with fake data–that Heil Erde is a rotisserie. But undoctored satellite data has since the Y2k election shown no temperature increase outside the error bars. Manipulable data from thermometers (installed in meadow, now a parking lot) shows a minuscule increase as of Y2k when Green spoiler votes defeated the Dems. Rudy Heller offers free software you can use to check for yourself the data tampering.
    Misantropocentric Global Warming is a fraud so subsidize China–and I am a card-carrying Johnson supporter, not the Trumpenproletariat.

  16. “About 2.7 billion still cook and heat their dwellings with wood, crop residues, and dung.”

    Heh. Losers.

  17. Love Status for Whatsapp are best selected Love Status you can Pick that Love whatsapp Status Quotes Collection And Use it on Your Whatsapp.

  18. Theres nothing dubious at all about it. Sacrificing people in the name of a higher power or purpose is always problematic.

  19. Wanting the climate to stay exactly the same forever is, like, the literal definition of conservative.

  20. Molten
    Salt
    Thorium
    Reactor

    1. I’ll see your thorium salts and raise you a CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) pressurized heavy water reactor. Shut those down and the entire Northeast goes Galt with blackouts.

  21. ‘Morally dubious’ my ass. It’s fucking evil.

    Modernizing societies improves their environment. Which is why you don’t have to warn people not to drink the water in the US or UK.

    If you want environmental improvement, stop trying to drag everyone down to Uganda level and let Uganda get up to us.

  22. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ????????> http://www.extra.jobss1.com

  23. About 2.7 billion still cook and heat their dwellings with wood, crop residues, and dung.

    Leading the movement to renewable energy! We should be jealous.

  24. “Energy Poverty Is Much Worse for the Poor Than Climate Change”

    Human suffering is worse than an imaginary nothing.

    I agree.

  25. I Quit my office-job and now I am getting paid 99 USD hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely!

    Check it out what i do:===> http://www.NetNote70.com

  26. I Quit my office-job and now I am getting paid 99 USD hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely!

    Check it out what i do:===> http://www.NetNote70.com

  27. You have good REASON to be challenging science more than Trump;

    Trump bully’s climate change scientists with this threat;

    “If it’s too late to save the planet then only science can end this debate by saying their end of the world is as real as they love to say the planet isn’t flat, otherwise it’s not real.”

  28. Developing breakthrough 24/7/365 Power & Propulsion Technologies could help to replace fossil fuels fast. The ground-breaking new science increases the odds for human survival on a rapidly warming planet!

    AESOP technologies are designed to run, without interruption, on atmospheric (ambient) heat, a huge untapped reservoir of solar energy, larger than earth’s total fossil fuel reserves.

    Revolutionary science opened the door to these breakthrough technologies which exploits a loophole in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Scientists at the Argonne National Laboratory recently announced that an international team had discovered a loophole in the Second Law that allows such technologies. See SECOND LAW SURPRISES under MORE at aesopinstitute.org for an article about the Argonne Lab news release.

    A Ford engine converted to run without fuel on atmospheric (ambient) heat is the first Proof of Concept. AESOP is completing conversion of a Mitsubishi V6, a small Briggs & Stratton engine, and a window air conditioner that will also produce some electricity, to demonstrate fuel-free operation. A cheap simple Gen-Set can be designed for developing countries.

    AESOP’s Model QH4, a 2 kW Fuel-Free Gen Set ? 4′ high and 20″ in diameter. Designed to function 24/7/365, it will simultaneously air condition a home or office. Fuel Free refrigerators for “reefer” trucks without refrigerants: Product manufacturing and licensing begins 2017.

    1. Great! This thread really needed Maxwellian Demonology added to the energy mix.

  29. The best part of work is from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week. Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more info Check the following link

    ==================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  30. The best part of work is from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week. Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more info Check the following link

    ==================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  31. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ……………….. http://www.Nypost55.com

  32. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ……………….. http://www.Nypost55.com

  33. Consider the words of the man Comrade Obama hired as his top adviser on science and technology, John P. Holdren:

    “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to DE-DEVELOP the United States. Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries.De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation. This effort must be largely political.”

    “Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations,” wrote Obama’s future science adviser, along with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, “is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”

  34. Strange the climate change idiots never think about the energy poor leading to food poor, nor do they have a clue lower population growth results in lower energy use.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.