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?
In a world with much spin and shameless Fake News championing fake science, whose opinion can we trust?
How about an educated whistleblower? A non politician? A non activist? Someone dedicated to honesty, however truly inconvenient? How about a chap who wrote a 575 page book? And grinds out an essay per week, right here?
What a rogues gallery.
Harvey Weinstein, ardent advocate for climate change. Ought to be in jail.
Anthony Weiner, sicko, husband of Hillarys top aide. Landed in jail.
Governor Elliott spitzer.
Another misogynist and climate charlatan was AG Schniedermam, drunk from booze and power.
Climate change appeals to some horrible people. A magnet for scoundrels.
Why are such horrible people drawn to the cause of climate change?
one reason is they are readily embraced by the Fake News. They get lots of cheap publicity from supporting the cause. Publicity is needed in politics.
A second attraction is the addiction of power and fame. They love reading about themselves or seeing themselves on tv. The context is socially worthy. They are saving the planet. This is liberating. They are not doing it for themselves, but instead for everyone, even the stupid deplorable people who doubt the cause.
And so terrible people are drawn to the climate scam. Harvey Weinstein championed the cause. Lots of other Hollywood celebrity lemmings. Venal Al Gore has become wealthy from self dealing and championing the scam.
Now we learn some of the dark side of Eric schneiderman. A drunkard who indulges in violence. Not an admirable gentleman no matter how much he virtue signals about climate change. A typical climate scamster and loser.
It seems as if orthodox environmentalists prefer burning wood or biomass versus fossil fuels. This may be premised on the notion that a tree or crop pulls co2 out of the air, whereas a fossil fuel is sequestered underground, such that burning it contributes more carbon up to the biosphere.
This is unpersuasive. The origin of carbon within co2 is irrelevant, if the emission from wood or coal is the same. Co2 does not mysteriously form from carbon atoms in soils. we are not choking the biosphere with carbon residues owing to fossil fuel combustion and reducing this insult by instead burning crops or other biomass.
Wasting corn by turning it into ethanol is economically foolish.
If biomass is cheaper than a fossil fuel, it could be chosen on cost benefit grounds.
But there is no environmental advantage to using biomass rather than a fossil fuel.
Alan,
It’s been 20 years since I spent much time in the lake district of Italy, but I do recall our hosts extended family having a few orchards, and forests outside of town that they harvested wood from for biomass heating in the winter months.
It does seem a bit disconcerting that local governments in Italy are looking at some innovative resource optimization (for themselves it seems) as a means of increasing revenue…..
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/the-road-to-seneca-cliff-is-paved-with.html