The high cost of ineffectual actions against hypothetical man-caused “climate change”

Australian Topher Field makes some of the smartest videos out there, poking factual holes in liberal fallacies.  Here, he demonstrates with actual numbers culled from the climate changers themselves that it costs 50 times as much to “combat” climate change (oh, we puny mortals and the things we think we can do) as it would simply to raise standards of living so poverty-stricken people have some bulwark against the earth’s continuously mutating climate:

My only quibble with the video is that for some reason — and the problem may be on my computer — the sound quality is very poor.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. JKB says

    But think of how superior we’ll feel “environmentally” as we freeze and starve.
     
    Just saw this:  We did something right in the 20 th century then | Adam Smith Institute
     
    Stupid capitalism made us fat.  And could make the poor of undeveloped countries fat is only we’d (they’d) let it
     
    That is the most important fact to grasp about the world economy of 1870. The economy then belonged, even for the richest countries, much more to its past of the Middle Ages than to its future of–well, of you reading this.

  2. says

    My issue with environmentalists and their politicians is that instead of changing themselves to preserve human resources for the poor and rich alike, they instead set out to change the world instead. Instead of changing themselves, they force other people to starve and preserve resources so that the benefit goes wholly to the environmentalists and their politicians. By changing the world to validate their own pollution and wasteful habits, they force people to acknowledge their own goodness.
     
    It’s one way to adapt and change. You don’t have to change your own evil ways. You can force the world to admit that your evil ways are environmentally friendly.

  3. lee says

    The first point he makes is also why it was so friggin’ stupid to ban the ol’ fashioned incandescent bulb. Incandescent bulbs with a low efficacy are already effectively banned for commercial use, so really the only place you saw them were in residential use. Energy use in the US for residential lighting was already less than 1% of the energy use pie. But let’s just say it was 1%. Cutting that in half reduces it from 1% to 0.5% of the energy use. Big muffins. But the other thing is, most residential light use is in the winter (shorter days) and the heat of the lights offset some of the heat needed from heating systems. Which meant some energy use provide both light and warmth. So, energy use for residential heat went up a smidge. 
     
     

  4. MacG says

    Lee not to mention the incandescent has no mercury vapor in it.  Break it and sweep it up toss in trash.  Now it involved a trip to the recycle center hazardous waste site.
     
    I think it was the Mercury lobby that pushed the CFL’s ;) 

  5. says

    The politicians don’t care if you get mercury poisoning. Their children and their families are safe. They hire immigrant workers to clean that stuff up otherwise.
     
    And if you complain, they’ll increase regulations to suit, and maybe next time the ATF or IRS will pay you a visit instead.

  6. Spartacus says

    Once upon a time, there was an American inventor named Thomas Edison.  He invented all sorts of brilliant things, but in humility, claimed that his work was 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.  Generations of American schoolchildren who sang of amber waves of grain and such things were taught that he was a role model.  Furthermore, one of his inventions, the lightbulb, literally brought the world out of darkness.  For this, not only was it considered a good idea, but the lightbulb actually became the iconic symbol of a good idea, and was frequently used to depict the existence of a good idea graphically.
     
    So on the one hand, it is an absolute outrage that in the “land of the free” we are no longer allowed to choose a filament-based bulb for all of our lighting needs if that is our preference, and also that this is because of an idiotic and thoroughly debunked hypothesis that a few lightbulbs will cause the oceans to rise.  But on the other hand, a Congress that would outlaw even the symbol of a good idea — much as a grinch would steal Christmas — has handed us a beautiful rock of symbolism to throw at them.

Leave a Reply