More than a billion people don't have access to electricity. And billions more aren't doing much better. Years ago we used to try to help the world's poor. Now we're making it tougher to help them by blocking access to cheap power. It's crazy.
It's easy for a person with all of his basic needs met to think of his grand-children's future but go to a poor country with limited electricity, dirty water, bad crops, etc and ask them if they are worried about sea level rise in 50 years or their family making it to the end of the year without dying. It's nuts.
I think that's the gist of that article so yes, I agree wholeheartedly with it.
I agree with you about the article and the fact that it highlights some issues that are being ignored.
There are a lot of people in the world who, through no fault of their own, are way behind us in many ways. The problems they face significantly shorten their lives. Who are we to say that that situation must be maintained?
One proposal is to use non-fossil fuel-based energy. Unfortunately, that is always the more expensive option. That is reminiscent of Marie Antoinette who, when the populace complained that they had no bread, is reputed to have said: "Let them eat cake." The quickest and most cost-effective way to improve their lot is to provide them with a fossil fuel-based energy system. You can "improve" it when they have stopped dying young.
Interesting replies here. One suggests higher pay for the poor. That pre-supposes that the Industrial Revolution has already happened in the less developed countries and that that they all have paid jobs to go to.
Another claims that coal is not free. You could argue that it is, in fact, free. You just pick it up off the ground. Sometimes you might have to dig. It is just as free as solar and wind. In all cases the raw material is free but collection and distribution cost money.
Also, no system is maintenance free. The full maintenance cost of wind turbines has not hit home yet. The craftier developers have now pocketted the subsidies and are selling their turbines on. The buyers will find out that the windmills need constant repair and maintenance and will all need to be replaced in about 15 to 20 years. Solar panels need constant maintenance as well.
What makes you think that those issues are not considered?
Poor countries that don’t have fossil fuels by now are not going to get them. Every energy resource requires generation/import, transmission/transportation, and distribution systems – and all of that requires money and infrastructure.
>>More than 1.2 billion people around the world have no access to electricity<<
How are you going to get it to them and – more importantly – what are they supposed to do with it if they do get it? It’s not as if they live in houses that are wired and have hot water tanks and electric/gas stoves – or a bunch of pre-built but unused gas stations, manufacturing plants, and stores on every street corner. In fact, they don’t even have street corners – or money to buy the energy even if it was there.
Who is going to pay for someone else’s system? And, even if you were going to build an energy infrastructure – why build one that will be obsolete and obscenely expensive by the time it’s finished? Hell, our own energy infrastructure is a rotting piece of sh-t. The two large power companies that I deal with both have 30-40 worth of work planned just to keep what they have from falling apart – and it’s like that everywhere.
There is a lot right and lot wrong with the article. Even I know that we do not shut off all the fossil fuels now. We have not prepared ourselves to do so. It is an almost certainty that fossil fuels will be needed at least in some small degree going forward.
But, there are many wrongs contained within the article as well. A more equatable pay for working people around the world would help many of these poor to buy newer technology that is less dependent on fossil fuels than our current system of doing things. I am not just talking about wind farms or solar farms. I am talking about simple technologies. Should the author of the article have any serious concerns about people using smoke producing fuels to cook with, then the author would look for other sources of energy than fossil fuels to help them to do this. Solar ovens and stoves are one such measure - https://www.google.com/search?q=solar+ov... . And, unlike fossil fuels that they have to continuously pay for ( not even coal is free ), they only have to pay for the cost of the solar oven only as often as they need to be replaced. It does not matter if you admit it or not, but fossil fuels will soon become to cost prohibitive to use and still grow economies. ... This is just one thing that can be done, out of many things that could be done, to improve the plight of the poor without having to resort to more fossil fuel use, if you are willing to look.
BTW, the article reads like it was written by the fossil fuel industries for it never even tries to look at solutions for the poor, other than fossil fuels. Why is that?
"There’s no question that burning fossil fuels is leading to a warmer climate and that addressing this problem is important."
When you set that as the precedent for your article, I believe I would have a very difficult time believing anything the writer has to say. His or her objectivity is zilch.
I don't agree, he's just forgetting that delaying any reduction in emissions is making the problem worse for generations to come.
This is an opinion page, not an article
Please consider this http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UqBA...
While I don't agree with everything he says, I must admit it highlights problems many AGW believers don't consider.
