Continued Use of the Fuels Most Relied Upon in Developing Countries Will Eventually Lead to

It is often heard that there is 97% consensus among climate researchers that climate change is a fact, which is also mainly driven by human activities. But 97% of climate scientists have not said such a thing.

Is the use off fossil fuels destroying the world according to 97% of climate scientists?

Firstly, there is no one denying that the climate is changing, and the term climate denier is nothing but a despicable slander that some climate activists want to libel their opponents with, in order to create an association with holocaust denial and thus silence their opponents.

The question is how much, in what way, and why the climate changes. Because the climate has always changed. Which leads to the second part of the statement about how much human activity is behind climate change.

Certainly there are researchers who consider that humanity is the main reason. But claiming that 97% of qualified climate researchers agree on this, is nothing but a falsification.

One of the reports that supported the 97% statement was produced by John Cook (Global Change Institute, Australia), the report evaluated how many percent of scientific studies that establishes that human beings are behind climate change. However, on examination, it was found that less than 2% of the studies were plainly claiming that. The rest was, mildly expressed, Cook's personal free interpretations of the sample.

Why is it important to lift this? The most important thing is to highlight how deeply rooted the idea of human-induced climate change is, although the facts do not support this. It also touches on the honesty of those who champion the environmental issues. If false statements are spread in the name of the environment, then it shows that the truth is not their highest value. If that's the case there is reason to even mistrust their agenda.

Do not misunderstand me. I don't know how much of the climate change that is caused by human activities. However, it does not seem reasonable to assert that man can control the climate without very clear evidence for it.

But if this isn't true, then how should we think? How do we achieve a better environment, and less negative environmental impact? First, it must be clear to ourselves what is most important. The highest goal must be human flourishing and minimized human suffering. The environmental objectives must be subordinate to these, but at the same time be allowed to participate in important considerations.

We must start by establishing what doesn't work; dramatic cuts of the only energy source that can lift poor countries out of abject poverty and into affluence. One cannot measure the negative side effects only. Instead you have to compare these with the positive main effects.

This makes an extremely strong moral case for fossil fuels at the present; to deprive poor countries of free access to fossil fuels would lead to mass starvation. In addition, we would prevent them from achieving a similar prosperity that we ourselves have, which is the only thing that can withstand and handle climate-related deaths and disasters.

To even deal at all, with external pressure on the poor countries in this regard is very doubtful. Why should rich Westerners who do not have much to lose on the proposal, tell poor people in developing countries what to do. Removing fossil fuels in developing countries would mean taking away high-productive agriculture, heated housing and modern society's disease resistance, to name just a few catastrophic effects.

At the same time, we have several problems in the third world with great negative environmental impact that we actually can do something about, especially in the area of soil and water management. Excessive and unbalanced fertilization is a major environmental problem, the same goes for pesticides. Government interventions and taxes haven't been successful in dealing with this. Government subsidies have rather made the problem worse; as cheap fertilizers often lead to excessive use.

The most effective way to combat environmental problems is to show the profitability of doing just that, and let the free market deal with it. Let me illustrate with a clear example; excessive fertilization. This can be fended by spreading proper management and relevant technology. It would be profitable for the farmers, but also for the entrepreneurs who spread the solutions. And profitability creates results.

The most urgent thing right now is to increase affluence in the developing countries. It's not just the most moral thing to do, as it addresses the biggest immediate threats; death, starvation and poverty. In addition, it is the methodology that has the utmost greatest potential to accelerate the emergence of truly functional alternatives to fossil fuels, as this would create much more resources to reach a solution, but also incentives for profitable innovation on the energy front.

jaworskiincturban.blogspot.com

Source: https://joachimnachmansohn.com/fossil-fuels-and-affluence-in-developing-countries/

Share this post