Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Greens usually try to sidestep questions about the cost of their proposals, but occasionally they slip up and reveal the true pain their agenda would inflict on ordinary working people.
Behind the smokescreen, the Coalition’s stance on climate change hasn’t changed at all
Saying you agree with the science of climate change but that you believe the government’s current plan is adequate is like saying you agree with vaccination, but you chose to only get one of your three kids immunised because, heck, that is more affordable.
The cheapest way to deal with the cost of climate change is to reduce our emissions and prevent, as much as is possible, further increases in global temperatures.
Dealing with climate change will be tough – people will lose jobs, the prices of some things will rise, but the cost of inaction is going to be much greater and more damaging – both to our economy and to our society.
This admission that climate action is expensive and would cause hardship echoes Obamas speech in 2009, in which he promised to make electricity prices skyrocket;
I applaud Guardian author Greg Jericho his honesty, but not his judgement.
It is easy to talk about hardship in abstract terms when your job is not on the line, but we don’t have to look far to see what a serious commitment to climate action would do to the lives of ordinary people. The government of California has ruined the lives of thousands in their manic quest for climate leadership.
But surely all this pain is worth it, to save the lives of our children?
The problem with this argument is there is no evidence further global warming, if it occurs, would inflict significant damage on the global economy.
2C of warming is the equivalent of moving around 160 miles closer to the equator. In the Northern Hemisphere you can experience a 2C warmer world by driving 160 miles South.
What you will also see if you drive South is a lack of dead people. The people you see 160 miles South of your current hometown, or even a thousand miles South, will mostly be doing just fine, going about their ordinary lives much the same as you do. Although you might see more old people – older people frequently move to warmer climates, for better quality of life.
As for sea level rise – if an alarmist like President Obama doesn’t take sea level rise seriously, why should you?
My point is, there is no good reason why even one job should be lost to the effort to address the alleged climate crisis, until climate action advocates come up with convincing evidence that there is actually a problem.
via Watts Up With That?
January 19, 2020 at 08:28AM