Alternative suggestion: howzabout we break out the ropes, pitchforks, torches, and loaded mags and begin “phasing out” the Biden/DemonRat/shitlib Climate Change (formerly global warming, formerly global cooling, formerly The Weather) fucktards instead.
The Net Zero energy policy pursued by the current administration would essentially, sooner or later, phase out fossil fuels. That would roll back much of the progress America and the world has witnessed since the 19th century in economic and human well-being while increasing pressures on the rest of nature.
An alternative, embraced by many conservatives, is the “all-the-above” (ATA) policy. This approach preserves the option of using fossil fuels but with strict limitations that, however, are not founded on empirical science. Moreover, ATA would hamstring economic growth, increase the cost of living, and particularly hurt those on the lower economic rungs. We all would be poorer.
Feature, not bug.
The fundamental problem with the ATA approach is that it accepts claims that CO2 is an existential problem when there is no empirical corroboration of warmists’ apocalyptic narrative. Instead, the following global trends are widely recognized:
- Deaths from weather and climate phenomena (heat and cold, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts) have declined 98 percent since the 1920s. Studies indicate that several-times more people die from cold than heat. Economic losses from such events, as a fraction of wealth or global GDP, have declined.
- The extent of wildfires peaked globally in the mid-19th century.
- Cereal yields have tripled since 1961, while food supplies have increased 31 percent.
- Sea level has risen continually 400 feet since the end of the last ice age with no significant acceleration during the modern age.
- Access to clean water has increased, mainly because of improved hygiene and engineering solutions for water and sewage treatment.
- Death rates from climate- and weather-sensitive vector-borne and parasitic diseases have declined.
Importantly, since the Industrial Revolution, virtually every measurable, significant indicator of human well-being has advanced because of the economic growth and technological change that was brought about through the consumption of fossil fuels and the economic surpluses that they generated. Use of fossil fuels freed resources, including most significantly the time and brain power that human beings had to devote previously to agriculture and other tasks where brawn rather than brains were at a premium. Consequently, globally:
- People are living longer and healthier lives.
- Income levels have improved, and poverty levels have declined.
- The human development index has advanced virtually everywhere.
As for environmental health, fossil fuel-related technologies – including machinery, fertilizers and pesticides – have helped increase global food production at least 62.5 percent directly or indirectly and have enabled human beings to spare 20.4 percent of global land area (GLA) for the rest of nature. This exceeds both the habitat lost currently to cropland (12.2 percent of GLA) and the global cumulative area currently reserved or identified as conservation areas (estimated at 14.6 percent of GLA). For context, the area saved from conversion to agriculture is 25 percent larger than North America.
All of the above bulleted points are things unalterably, vehemently opposed by the Goosesteppin’ Left, mind. Once you recognize that incontrovertible fact, everything else begins to make sense. Well, of a sort, insofar as anything the idiots say or do can be said to make any kind of sense at all.