“Environmental” Orthodoxy Can Be Deadly for Humans and Ecosystems

As discussed in my book on climate, one of the many problems with the CIC’s climate “consensus” is that it ends up delaying if not destroying the hopes of billions of people in less developed countries (LDCs) to reduce their exposure to indoor air pollution (IAP) and reduce their endless efforts to scavenge for wood and other sources of biomass widely used in the less developed world to meet their needs for cooking and heating. In the book, for example, I describe and picture the endless line of wood gatherers bringing wood into Agra right across from the Taj Mahal.

There is continuing controversy as to just what the adverse health effects of the resulting IAP are and what the effects of biomass scavenging are. But surely it is cruel and inhuman to possibly risk the health and welfare of billions of poor people in the less developed world by making it more difficult for them to stop exposing themselves to the smoke and pollutants which necessarily result from burning wood and other biomass near or in their houses for cooking and heating.

It is equally distressing that forests and other sources of wood and other biomass are allowed to literally walk away when they are so badly needed to hold the soil, reduce erosion, and feed and protect the animals that have long made it their homes. Some of this can be avoided by making it permissible for people to access the limited energy they need to sustain their lives, as by using electricity and other fossil fuels. The philosophy of many so-called “environmentalists” that we should just leave fossil fuels in the ground is thoughtless and inhuman in its effects on the poor in LDCs. The introduction of modern sources of energy in a form usable by poor people protects their health and their time as well as protecting the natural world. Yet is is not allowed under current “environmental” orthodoxy.

The problem arises because modern environmental orthodoxy demands that humans use only “renewable” sources of energy. This, in turn, relies in part on climate orthodoxy that claims that global temperatures will increase catastrophically if carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are not drastically reduced. I have long argued that neither of these “environmental” orthodoxies have any real basis in science, but rather reflect the warped environmental views of people often calling themselves “environmentalists.” What is gained if we insist on exposing billions of people to indoor air pollution of uncertain or possibly deadly sorts and destroy the vegetation and other biomass that is so necessary for maintaining the ecological and environmental values of the regions where they live?