Will Climate Action Produce a New Holocaust?

Kicking away the energy ladder – How environmentalism destroys hope for the poorest

There is a new white-paper out from The GWPF that illustrates the damage being done to people in poorer countries by environmentalists’ obsession with decarbonization in their imaginary quest to stave off global warming. As Dr. John Christy once said:

“Without energy, life is brutal and short”

The report, by eminent epidemiologist Mikko Paunio, says that international bodies and NGOs are trying to prevent poor countries from expanding their use of conventional fuels, have abandoned the so-called “energy ladder” — the gradual shift to cleaner types of fuel that underpinned the clean up of air quality in industrialised nations.
As Dr Paunio explains, this will have devastating consequences:

“Indoor air pollution from domestic fires kills millions every year. But instead of helping poor people to climb the energy ladder and clean the air in their communities, the poorest people are being given gimmicks like cookstoves, which make little difference to air quality, and solar panels, which are little more than a joke.”

What is worse, the greens inside and outside the development community are blaming air pollution on power stations, industry and cars, as a way to prevent any shift to industrial power production. As Dr Paunio makes clear, most air pollution in poor countries is in fact caused by burning low-quality biofuels and coal in domestic stoves:

“Trying to blame power stations for indoor air pollution might make greens feel they are saving the planet, but the reality is that they are allowing millions of deaths from air pollution to continue. The body count is going to rival that of the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century.”

From the executive summary:

These ‘ambitious’ global climate mitigation policies leave environmental health problems amongst the poor unaddressed and will result in the loss of over 200 million lives by 2050. They are also unlikely – even in theory – to prevent the 250,000 annual deaths that the WHO speculates will be attributable to climate change between 2030 and 2050: high-quality IPCC-linked research has recently shown that solid biomass combustion actually increases CO2 emissions, at least over the next 100 years, compared to fossil fuels.

A killing greater than Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot combined. But the environmentalists won't be around to see them die.

But don't worry, the environmentalists are willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause. Oh wait. They're really not. A new study finds climate change skeptics are more likely to behave in eco-friendly ways than those who are highly concerned about the issue.

Do our behaviors really reflect our beliefs? New research suggests that, when it comes to climate change, the answer is no. And that goes for both skeptics and believers.

Participants in a year-long study who doubted the scientific consensus on the issue "opposed policy solutions," but at the same time, they "were most likely to report engaging in individual-level, pro-environmental behaviors," writes a research team led by University of Michigan psychologist Michael Hall.

Conversely, those who expressed the greatest belief in, and concern about, the warming environment "were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions."

Sorry, I didn't have time to recycle—I was busy watching a documentary about the crumbling Antarctic ice shelf.

Or "I really needed to attend that climate conference in nice warm Bali in Dec, 2007. New York was so cold!"

The researchers found participants broke down into three groups, which they labeled "skeptical," "cautiously worried," and "highly concerned." While policy preferences of group members tracked with their beliefs, their behaviors largely did not: Skeptics reported using public transportation, buying eco-friendly products, and using reusable bags more often than those in the other two categories.

This pattern was found consistently through the year, leading the researchers to conclude that "belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior."

Hall and his colleagues can only speculate about the reasons for their results. But regarding the concerned but inactive, the psychological phenomenon known as moral licensing is a likely culprit.

I agree that moral licensing is part of it, but another major side is that the two groups believe in different modes of action. Conservatives, largely catastrophic climate change skeptics, believe in personal responsibility over government action. "I can drive a Prius; it will save me money and gas in the long run, and who knows, it might help the environment." Liberals, largely catastrophic climate believers, also believe government mandates are necessary. "If the people in flyover states can have pickups and SUVs, I can too, and until businessmen are restricted from flying to save CO2 prodcution, I'll fly when I want, too.