In a rare instance of mainstream media sanity regarding climate policy, Tilak Doshi, writing for Forbes, underscores how climate policies affect the most vulnerable, especially in Africa, unintentionally worsening their situation by limiting access to clean energy and water. Here’s an excerpt:
‘Climate impacts hit the world’s poor the hardest’. By sheer dint of repetition in countless ‘expert’ reports and mass media articles, this line in the climate change narrative has become a truism. According to the International Monetary Fund, “by hitting the poorest hardest, climate change risks both increasing existing economic inequalities and causing people to fall into poverty”. The World Economic Forum states that “the lowest income countries produce one-tenth of emissions, but are the most heavily impacted by climate change”.
It would seem straightforward that resolving the ‘climate change’ problem would serve the poor the most, given that they are the hardest hit. But, by a tragic turn of irony, moves to ‘fight climate change’ are precisely what is hurting the poor most. It is not ‘climate change’ but the policies adopted in response to it that are the problem afflicting the poor the most.
‘Fighting climate change’ – which for most Western politicians and policy makers means achieving the “Net Zero [carbon emissions] by 2050” policy target of the UN Paris Agreement – has thus also become a fight for the world’s most poor and vulnerable. That the climate industrial complex claims the interests of the world’s poor within its ‘Net Zero’ agenda is a powerful lever in public relations.
The call to ‘save the planet’ includes, by definition, ensuring the welfare of the world’s poor. But making the fight even more so about helping ‘the most vulnerable’ gives the narrative of ‘fighting climate change’ a philanthropic edge. Philanthropy is universally admired, like Mother Theresa. It is a particularly attractive hobby for the rich who have made their fortune and want to ‘give back’ to society. Thus, Bill Gates’s or Michael Bloomberg’s self-proclaimed philanthropic interests in the global poor, public health and climate change. …
In 2019, out of the world total of almost 760 million people without access to electricity, sub-Saharan Africa accounted for almost 590 million or approximately 78%. Without electricity or clean fuels such as natural gas, keeping warm (or cool), getting drinking water, cooking food cleanly and getting enough light to read after the sun sets is not possible. …
It has always been the poor that have been affected by the weather throughout human history. With dilapidated housing, inadequate clothing, and poor nutrition, they are naturally those who are most vulnerable to the vagaries of nature. Before modern industrial civilisation could provide electricity and clean fuels such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) to most of the population, being able to heat (or cool) the home, to cook food without polluting indoors and to maintain adequate shelter against extreme weather (like storms, hurricanes, floods, etc.) was a daunting challenge for the world’s poor.
By describing ‘weather’ as ‘climate change’, policy emphasis is put on mitigation rather than adaptation to reduce the impacts of future climate change on human welfare. The implicit assumption behind mitigation is that greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change and trying to ‘fight climate change’ by reducing GHGs should be the overriding priority for policymakers from Germany to South Africa. Governments should shun using fossil fuels and multilateral development agencies including the World Bank have long since stopped supporting investments in fossil fuel projects in developing countries. …
If the first sleight of hand is to call ‘weather’ events as ‘climate change’, a second is to treat ‘renewable energy’ as a ready and viable (‘cheaper and cleaner’) substitute for fossil fuels. The most critical factual assertion of the policy push for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions is that of the plunging costs of wind, solar and battery technologies. These technologies, it is asserted, can rapidly replace fossil fuels which currently account for over 80% of the world’s primary energy supply. This assertion undergirds the entire edifice of claims by ‘Net Zero’ advocates such the IMF, the WEF, the IEA and the World Bank regarding the ‘Net Zero’ future. Take away the supposed cheap and effective ‘renewable energy’ offered by the wind, solar and battery technologies, and green policy advocacy collapses into the rubbish heap of history.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Excellent analysis, thank you for this. $cience. I can guess who paid for this ‘study’. Peer review has long been a bit of a joke (been involved in such reviews myself). No time, no access to data, unpaid, ‘you approve mine I will approve yours’ etc. Just a mantra and myth within the cult of $cience.
“My verdict is that if I were a reviewer of this paper, I would unequivocally reject it on the grounds that the data on which it is based are unsound, that it fails to analyse the crucial interaction between vaccination status and SARS-CoV-2 infection, and that the conclusions drawn are not supported by the results presented”
‘Turles all the Way Down’, also provides very similar examples of outrageous data fraud, lack of relevant control groups, lack of dependent/independent variable analysis, attributions that are from studies whose data do not support the stated pre-ordained conclusions, or studies that are so old as to be useless in the current context of the mRNA stabs.
Excellent article, thank you, Doctor.
I do feel rather like I felt on 31 December 1999, when the world was celebrating our entry into “The New Millennium”:
I know it’s not the start of the New Millennium. You know it’s not the start of the New Millennium. But who are we?!
This time, however, the stakes are somewhat higher…
I’d love to see her go head to head in a debate with Dr Thorp. He’d wipe the floor with her due to his extensive experience and research. These unethical liabilities to the public should be struck off/sacked. They’re a menace to society, but I guess the terms “misinformation/disinformation” only apply when you’re challenging the narrative.
Great article; thanks.
Thank you for your article . It so upsetting to read because as I regard this as medical malpractice and it is causing at least serious heart ache. I know young women who have had miscarriages and are finding it difficult to get pregnant. I know that correlation isn’t causation necessarily for them but it makes one wonder? Is the vaccine the reason for their loss?
They are in denial of course themselves because if it is, it will be more difficult to bear.
Yet again I am filled with anger reading another abject failure to adhere to the scientific method.
Remember “primum non nocere”?
Remember thalidomide?
I despair at what a once honourable profession has become.
Indeed. I give the example of Frances Oldham Kelsey to many people and all I get back is either complete ignorance, or,
“Oh, that couldn’t happen these days.”
The horrible symptoms of Thalidomide in babies were obvious for all to see. And it still took years to ban it. Just think about the symptoms of myocarditis…
And Oscar Semmelweis. Denounced and forgotten, despite his critics accepting his observations and his message – and then not crediting him.
And to think that the FDA and the MHRA used to be filled with people like Dr Kelsey
https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/vote-like-a-woman/comments
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/effects-on-mother-and-child-that-bear-out-mike-yeadons-warnings/
I am sure Matt Hancock’s £400k fee for talking self-exculpatory voodoo BS science to an audience of idiots via I’m a Celebrity will be offered to Iatro-geno-cide aware groups for the support of gene therapy victims and their families.
Or will he simply trouser it and continue his delusional existence?
Dear Dr Viki Male, Immunologist at the bought and paid for Imperial College, your disgusting Twitter video encouraging the most vulnerable people in society to ‘come forward’ to be poisoned and put themselves and their babies at risk from an entirely and self-evidently unnecessary injection, will ultimately be evidence used against you in your war crimes trial.
You are either so thick that you’ve believed the lies of your superiors, so evil that you enjoy the thought of babies dying, or so greedy that you don’t care either way.
Whichever it is, you and your superiors will pay heavily for this crime and your lies will come back to haunt you.
Hopefully all the haunting will start with her being sued personally for the harm she has caused
Ignorance and obeying orders was no excuse I’m afraid she will have to pay for her crimes.
Great analysis.
I’d add that there seems to be a complex interaction between the post vaccine immune system and the impact of Covid infection. It would be useful if there was much more research in this area.
Perhaps Drakeford can help?
Made me chuckle!
Male’s opinion is annihilated by Thorpe.
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202209.0430/v1
The sheer depravity of Male’s crime is accentuated when taking in to account the huge volume of evidence which destroys her position.
How the hell does she sleep at night after promoting these maim and kill injections?
I’ve taken issue with this appalling shill on Twitter. She’s a dreadful excuse for a human being. Incredibly thick, but an absolute believer in her own credentials. Smug and vile.
Hopefully she is taking so many of these jabs that she will render herself infertile and the world will be spared the continuation of her genes.