​What natural disasters should teach us

Hurricanes, landslides and other disasters show Africans why we need fossil fuels

Steven Lyazi

I express my deepest sympathies to the people in the Caribbean and United States who have been impacted by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria. The loss of life was tragic but has thankfully been much lower than in many previous storms. Buildings are stronger, people get warned in time to get out, and they have vehicles to get to safer places until the storms pass.

I also send my sincere sympathies to my fellow Ugandans who have been affected by terrible landslides in eastern Uganda, near Kenya. Natural disasters often strike us hard. Sometimes it is long droughts that dry up our crops and kill many cattle. This year it is torrential rains and landslides.

This time we were lucky. The collapsing hillsides destroyed three villages, but thankfully it was daytime and people were outside. They lost their homes, cattle and ripened crops, but not their families. A horrendous mudslide in the same mountainous area in 2010 buried 350 parents and children under 40 feet of mud and rock.

People there have been cutting down trees for decades – for fuel, lumber and to grow crops. Now no roots hold the hills together when it rains. More cracks have appeared in the hills, so more slides are likely. But people don’t want to leave their lands, and they’re not planting new trees either.

Some people are ignoring all this history and the human roles in causing these “natural” disasters. They are blaming the rains and mudslides on global warming, climate change and the fossil fuels that modern industrialized countries burn to provide modern homes, travels and living standards.

These false claims are intended to divert us from real problems. They are intended to justify demands and campaigns that Ugandans and other Africans should rely on a few wind turbines and solar panels and should never use oil, natural gas or coal to provide cheap, reliable and plentiful energy so that we can live more like Americans or Europeans.

These people want to become our Jesus, and save us from “global warming disasters,” by keeping us poor and at the mercy of Mother Nature. Former vice president Mr. Al Gore said manmade global warming has increased the number and strength of tornadoes and hurricanes, Mount Kilimanjaro’s glacier would disappear by 2016, and Arctic summers would be ice-free as soon as 2014.

None of this happened. So he just changed the year when the disasters will hit. Mr. Gore declares in his film that “it is right to save humanity.” Yes, it is and I support that with no argument.

But I would suggest that he and his friends begin by injecting their own billions of dollars into fossil fuels and nuclear energy to create jobs around the world, help us build modern homes, uplift economies so that people can live a self-sustainable life, and get rid of the diseases that are killing us.

He needs to stop trying to scare us by spreading false gospels about mankind and fossil fuels. He needs to stop trying to save humanity from movie disasters, when we face real disasters. He needs to stop making us rely on renewable energy, while he continues to have many big homes, drive around in big cars and fly in private jets all over the world.

Just in the last 25 years, fossil fuels have helped over 1.5 billion people in developing nations get electricity and escape deprivation, starvation, and lung and intestinal diseases that used to kill them and their children. But Africa, India and Asia still have vast regions that need to be electrified. More than a billion people in those regions still do not enjoy the wonderful blessings that electricity brings.

These places need more coal, gas and nuclear power plants. Thankfully they are building them, no matter what Mr. Gore and his radical friends say. Mr. Gore and his friends have fancy homes with every modern technology that electricity can bring. They have cars and modern hospitals.

My family in Kampala has a few of these things – a few lights and a radio, small stove and not even a little refrigerator. I just got a used computer that a friend sent me from the United States. Someday we would like a television and a normal sized refrigerator, like what we see in Europe and the States. Can we dream that someday we will have air conditioning?

Can the people in eastern Uganda dream of a time when they can rebuild their homes with more than mud and sticks? And actually have electricity, lights, refrigerators and stoves?

Radical Al Gore, renewable energy cheerleaders and climate activists have sweet homes and nice cars, jets and trains to take them anywhere they want to go 24/7. They cannot even come close to understanding how it feels to live in darkness, drink dirty water, and have no medicine except herbs and the grace of God when they get sick from malaria and other diseases they have never even heard of. They cannot imagine not being able to have a cold drink or hot coffee when they want one.

But they tell us we should be happy to enjoy the tiny improvements we might get from wind and solar power, as an “acceptable” and “preferred” and “sustainable” alternative to really better lives.

I have said this in my past articles, and I will still say it again. In Sub-Saharan Africa, nearly 700 million people still cook with wood, charcoal and animal dung, Hundreds of millions get horribly sick every year – and thousands die every year from lung and intestinal diseases, because we have to breathe smoke from open fires and don’t have refrigeration, clean water and safe food. Hundreds of millions are starving and malnourished, and try to survive on a few dollars a day.

Mr. Al Gore, how many dollars do you “survive” on per day? How many homes and refrigerators do you have? Can your refrigerators hold more than a few vegetables and a few bottles of milk or water?

To use the words of Rabbi Daniel Lapin, our impoverished masses simply want to take their rightful, God-given places among Earth’s healthy and prosperous people. Instead, we are being told “that wouldn’t be sustainable.” We are being told that improving our health, living standards and life spans is less important than avoiding the forthcoming climate cataclysm that Mr. Gore and his movies and computer models say will happen if we Africans modernize with fossil fuels.

These claims – and the false solutions to make-believe problems sometime in our future – ignore the real disasters and deaths that face us right now, every day of the year. They are intended to divert us from the better lives and sweet homes we dream of. They are intended to make Mr. Gore and his friends and the radical cheerleaders feel like they are saving Africans and our planet, while in reality they are killing millions of us every year.

Right this very minute, climate alarmists are blaming hurricanes and landside on fossil fuels. While they enjoy fancy homes, cozy beds and sofas, heating and air conditioning that keep them comfortable all year round, televisions and Alexa music, air travel whenever they want to go somewhere – they tell us Africans we should be happy and content with our “simple lives.” They tell us we should keep our oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy underground and untouched.

This is disgraceful. It is unacceptable. We will no longer tolerate it.

Alexander King was the co-founder of the Club of Rome, which wrote The Limits to Growth book. During World War II, he organized production of a new insecticide and gave it the name DDT. The chemical saved the lives of thousands of Allied troops in the Far East. It was also used to stop typhus epidemics in Europe after the war.

But later on he said: “My own doubts came when DDT was introduced for civilian use. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem. Of course, I can’t play God on that one.”

But King and his followers did play God. They got DDT banned and even blocked its use in preventing malaria for decades. Millions of African parents and children died. Now his descendants want to keep us from using fossil fuels. Where is the justice and humanity in any of this?

Steven Lyazi is a student and worker in Kampala, Uganda. He served as special assistant to Congress of Racial Equality-Uganda director Cyril Boynes, until Mr. Boynes’ death in January 2015. He plans to attend college and help his country and Africa get the energy and other modern technologies they need.

Advertisements

87 thoughts on “​What natural disasters should teach us

  1. A moving plea.
    What is powering the conveyances carrying those fleeing Pacific volcanoes?
    What is powering the movement of supplies to the islands devastated by hurricanes?
    Al Gore’s hot air, perhaps?

  2. Very powerful essay. I wish Steven success in bringing electricity and other modern conveniences to Uganda and the rest and Africa.

    Al Gore should be required to respond to Steven.

    • Yes, Al Gore should be required to respond to Steven, but I doubt if he’s capable. Steven is absolutely right, and I wish this essay could be more widely diseminated.

  3. This shows the true nature, the real human cost of the agenda of the climate alarmists and the ‘green’ movement.

  4. A big “Thank you” to Mr Lyazi for writing his essay and another to Anthony for providing a forum to make it public. It is an enormous indictment of the MSM that this essay will not pass by the MSM keepers of the holy flame of CAGW.

  5. A voice of reason… every point is well made and demonstrably true. When will Africa be allowed to prosper?

  6. I vow to save the planet by living like Al Gore does. I will be starting a crowed funding campaign soon, I am sure the interest will be high.

  7. Could you imagine a major evacuation where everyone was relying on EVs to get out? Now THAT would be a disaster.

  8. Excellent article to which I would add the following observation:

    Many third world countries have coal reserves. Developing them would create investment, jobs and infrastructure in country, possibly at some point export revenue. By persuading the World Bank to refuse funding for coal plants, the greens are trying to get what little money third world companies have sent to China to purchase solar panels and wind mills to produce horrendously expensive terribly unreliable power. Developing their own coal reserves is a win-win-win for third world countries. Going with wind mills and solar panels is lose-lose-lose, the only beneficiaries being the manufacturers of those products. No wonder China publicly endorses wind and solar, it is good for their business. Behind the scenes they’re doing what makes sense for their economy which is coal (among other things).

    • The Global Coal Plant Tracker portal confirmed that coal is on a tear, with 1600 plants planned or under construction in 62 countries. The champion of this coal-building binge is China, which boasts 11 of the world’s 20 largest coal-plant developers, and which is building 700 of the 1600 new plants, many in foreign countries, including high-population countries such as Egypt and Pakistan that until now have burned little or no coal.

      All told, it will be a 43% increase in coal-fired power capacity.

      https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/paris-is-a-parrot/

    • Griff,

      I admire your constant ambition to highlight how good and wonderful solar and wind and renewable energy generation is. In the world I work in, I don’t buy into religion of green energy, I go with what works. A few questions:

      1. Is solar and wind cheaper on a per kwh basis than coal, natural gas, or hydro…..without subsidies
      2. If so, why do solar and wind need subsidies
      3. If so, why aren’t businesses stumbling over themselves to use solar and wind. If it cheaper and you can make more profit, dump gas and coal tomorrow and get the cheapest energy available
      4. Is solar and wind reliable. Better than coal and gas.
      5 If so, why do you need coal and gas backup at all. Just get rid of coal and gas, no need for reliable backup
      6. In my business, we use coal and gas for power. We need to. We need our plant to run 24/7 without a hiccup. In fact, I pay the local utility a standby charge to make sure that if I have any power surges, they can serve that immediately….not an hour from now.

      I have had many solar companies come and try to sell me solar. they ask for my annual electric bill. they go away and do their calcs and come back and say they cant help me. apparently my use of coal/gas is cheaper than solar. and that’s assuming the solar is subsidized as well and it still isn’t competitive with fossil fuel generation.

      Would it be wise to switch to more expensive solar and charge my customers more? Ok, maybe to feel good, but I would still need to have a panel and switch to get coal/gas power when the renewable drops out. Does that make any sense.

      I think its a pretty well known fact. Solar and wind is not the cheapest per kwh type of energy. If you want to do it to feel good about something, fine, but costs, profit and reliability mean something in the real world. cars leaving florida to get out the way of a hurricane cant be electic or it would be a disaster. likewise, if im in for surgery, I want the surgeon to have reliable and constant power…not hope a cloud doesn’t block the sun in the middle of the surgery.

      Maybe solar has its place, a little “free” energy here and there. Power the globe, industry, transportation of goods, medical uses…I think not.

      • Griff missed the entire point of the essay. You don’t chopped down trees for more land to grow more crops because of they high loss rate due to lack of modern preservation AND then convince people to cover the same land with solar panels. First who pays? Oh, yea the evil USA. Will solar panels be built on hillsides and prevent erosion and mudslides? The CAGW crowd really do believe that solar and wind are free. They seldom mention maintenance of wind turbines and the need for ultimate replacement. They certainly don’t discuss what it takes to keep solar panels running as efficiently. It requires that they be cleaned usually with clean water. One of the most significant issues throughout the third world is having clean water, so they are now going to clean water and then use it to clean solar panels. As this author points out clearly we have an entire movement that wants to dictate to the rest of the world how we should live while they suck their thumbs floating in their pools eating gourmet food.

      • Edwin, agreement on most points.
        Solar panels also have a limited lifetime before they become increasingly weaker, usually around 20 years. The inverters needed to convert DC to AC are more problematic and have lifetimes around 15 years.
        For optimal solar power generation the panels should be clean and detritus free. However, you do not need to clean the panels with potable water drinking water. There are no water borne pathogens which can affect them. Of course you don’t want to be spraying these with mud, but river water should be fine.

    • Not so lucky for the fields of solar panels in PR.
      BTW, all the power generation in the world won’t help if the transmission lines are down.

    • Griff

      “If we are talking disaster, worth noting solar panels in both Antigua and Florida survived the hurricane and were able to supply power in the aftermath…………”

      During daylight hours. Too bad it gets dark once every 24 hours, and people die at night too.

      • crackers345

        You live up to your moniker.

        What batteries, where?
        What wind, I assume you mean wind turbines, which all had their blades torn off and are now utterly useless waiting for their own aid to arrive.
        Car charged, from what?
        How much energy can the non existent batteries provide night time rescue workers with heavy machinery, tools and equipment?

    • Fossil fuel plants survived the storm as well. It was the power lines and other infrastructure that went down.
      Without those, even your renewables are worthless.

      • Having dealt with all aspects of the environmental movement most of my life I can assure you that it is more than some that think there are just too many people. They truly believe if you do not believe in the latest orthodoxy then you are not needed in the world. It doesn’t matter whether or not you even know about the latest orthodoxy, if you oppose it even through ignorance than “mother earth” doesn’t really need you. They see, and I have debated this in public, humans as a disease. They see the night picture of the earth from space as analogous to a petri dish with bacteria and fungus. Where the “some” comes in is when they think about those in third world, undeveloped nations. While here at home they pretend to be tolerant and accepting of all people, they really don’t have the same consideration for those living in what they consider are “more primitive conditions.” Note: The DDT example is a good one of western liberals playing God. DDT was first introduced to third world countries to stop insect vectored diseases, malaria specifically, birth rates did initially rise but then leveled off and in some countries actually declined until malaria became epidemic again. When a family is dependent on sons and daughters producing for the whole family only some survive infancy and they have recurring malaria you try to have more children for the family to produce enough to live. It takes a few years once malaria is controlled for a family to get beyond that.

    • Men? I’d kind of be inclined to agree, excepting for the fact that men also until recent have been responsible for discovering 99% of science, technology, medicine and concrete business practices. Writing most law, manning armies, navies, air forces and police / fire departments. Don’t take it wrong: I included the magic words ‘until recently’ there. Times are a’changing.

      I think Mr. Shultz said it exactly right. Not “men”. They’re “the other critical half” of civilization. Historically.

      GoatGuy

  9. Well said. Eco fascists only care about themselves and expect other people to do their ideological bidding. The African continent is long overdue for its’ place in the modern world.

  10. Shouldn’t this be sent to every member of IPCC and UNFCCC and every Government leader?

    • No. What are they going to do about it except file it in the waste paper basket?

      This needs to go to everyone but politicians or fatcat NGOs. (Believe me, sending it to your congressman is futile. He’s fund-raising right now, and doesn’t give a sweet flying ph*k what an African writes or thinks.)

      Give a copy to your kid or grandchild, send it to your pastor, your local newspaper. Stick a copy up on the local library bulletin board (and if you’re truly brave, try the local Snowflake university). It may seem inconsequential to you; however, the people to educate are the grassroots. They are the ones who can tell politicians to stuff it. Witness presidential election 2016.

      What this excellent article underscores is the utter callow selfishness and arrogance the global warming activists have retained for the rest of the world. As long as their needs and desires are met, screw everyone else. Especially some Darkies in some African village. Whatevah! Who cares whether they prosper. Sustainability is the only law that counts, our sustainability, ‘cuz me and my kind rule it so, it’s already 97% settled and we know best, and we have to retain our purity.

  11. I learned a parallel lesson about 3 dozen years ago. Sticks with me still. One of life’s great ironies.

    For well over 40 years I have been a software designer, writer and career entrepreneur. One of the big ideas my partner and I had was, “let’s write some REALLY good, progressive tape-drive backup software”. This was in the late 1980s, when cheap tape cassette drives finally hit and when filesystems WITH folders got well used on networks. Time for good software.

    So, I invested about 2½ years writing awesome software with my team. Great stuff. My partner in the meantime was selling PCs like hotcakes on a cold winter day. One day, he desparately needed a certain hard disk. My PC had one. So, under pressure, I agreed to make a back up of my system then hand over the drive. You guessed it: the very software we wrote did the backup, but the restore didn’t work.

    The problem tho’ was something that only Beezlebub could engineer. A teeny-tiny chip of iron oxide (the stuff that the tapes are made of) imbedded itself into the read-head. The read head dutifully scraped a long channel down the entire tape, thus ruining the backup. The MULTIPLE backups. I was doomed. Years of leading-edge research (I was over a year ahead of our previous releases) … gone.

    THE LESSON was simple: never commit your backups to only one technology solution. Especially if they’re critical. Take the time to figure out another or a third way to back the super-critical stuff up.

    BUT THERE IS A LIFE LESSON too, not unlike that which the author of this piece intended. Essentially it is, Never become dependent on a single critical resource, for civilization, business, enterprise or health care. If the whole world were to “go electric” and eschew all gas, coal, oil, nuclear power, and do something 100% electrical … and that thing were to turn out to be prone to “little chips on the read-head”, well … we could be doomed for a long time to come.

    That’s what this hexagenerian brings to the party.
    A VERY bad, but Murphy-gummed-up problem.
    Dependent on a single technology.
    Dâhmn.

    GoatGuy

    • Had a similar experience early in my first (consulting) career. Worked literally 20 hours a day by 7 days a week for a month to recreate a business model against a deliverable deadline. Ever since, backed up everything early, often, in more than one way. For my two private businesses now winding down, now much easier–cloud and external hard drive. Plus for all the legal and IPR stuff, outside law firm keeps a separate copy.
      Any busin ss or society that becomes overly reliant on one thing is inherently fragile. Not only will Murphy’s law apply, Murphy was an optimist.

      • ristvan September 29, 2017 at 1:09 pm wrote:

        “…backed up everything early, often…”

        Backing up is easy enough to do. But as goatguy seemed to be saying, you have to be sure the backup is good. That’s far from easy. I’ve tried several times to simply transfer systems from one PC to another while everything was intact and working. No could do. Oh yes, I tried backing up with backup software – no cigar. It wouldn’t take on the new computer. And that’s with an almost ideal situation. The only way it could be better is if you had two identical PCs, including identical hard drives. For ordinary PC users backing up is mostly feel good activity.

        When we’re debating overpopulation vs whatmeworrylation, how does backup theory help? How are you going to “back up” seven billion people and everything they need to survive and prosper while you experiment with how many billion human beings the earth can support indefinitely?

        Edwin September 29, 2017 at 12:09 pm wrote:

        “… more than some that think there are just too many people. They truly believe if you do not believe in the latest orthodoxy then you are not needed in the world. It doesn’t matter whether or not you even know about the latest orthodoxy, if you oppose it even through ignorance than “mother earth” doesn’t really need you. ”

        So – concern over overpopulation is “the latest orthodoxy”? .

        and “more than some “, aka “many”, who express that concern want to see everyone who doesn’t dead??

  12. Looking at the world by satellite night, there’s a black hole where North Korea should be and another larger one , the disgrace of the West, over central Africa.

  13. I have long wondered why, let’s say, over the last 400 years, there has been no one from the African continent who has come to the fore in any discipline, e.g. Engineering, science of any kind toward the development of the natives of that continent, a supremely rich area of our World in resources.
    Why has it taken so long from the “western” interlopers to rub off! Why did it need this to happen?

    Tribal ways of life continue and those who have come to the west to learn and train, have not returned to develop their homelands and people’s.

    Just thoughts.

    • “Tribal ways of life continue and those who have come to the west to learn and train, have not returned to develop their homelands and people’s ” .
      I think that answers your question . It isn’t that they don’t care , it is just too hard to overcome the inertia of the culture . It was that way 60 years ago , and not enough has changed yet….
      Hopefully I will live long enough to see this change .
      There are some encouraging signs . There are some very intelligent people there .
      Waiting for that tipping point .

    • Roger, add this material thought:

      Swaziland hosts the world’s oldest mine, more than 40,000 years of continuous mining of iron. Why did it take the Europeans so long to catch on?

      Iron tools were made by the tribe living in Melville Koppies in Johannesburg for a long time, wiped out during the Mfecane, to the last artisan, in the 1820’s. We don’t even know their name.

      Iron tools were produced in Swaziland in the Zombodze area into the 20th Century from local ore mined at Ngwenya’ above Mbabane. When the open pit mine was established they found many ancient underground tunnel complexes. The locals like the Mnisi and Mkhatshwa clans were mining underground and producing iron tools long before first contact with Europeans.

      I purchased in Monrovia traditional iron money produced locally in the forest somewhere, made from locally manufactured stainless steel, produced using what I call ‘mystical’ memorized methods, meaning the invention was made so long ago they forgot how, but know how to replicate it by recitation and formula.

      Add this medical thought:
      When it comes to compounded medicines, Africans are leaders. There is a very effective medicine in Ghana made with six ingredients. Western scientists agree it is efficacious. Their molecular investigations confirmed that it has no ‘active ingredient’. It just works. That is the future of medicine, not the past.

      Add this governance thought:
      Africans have highly developed methods of consultation that put Westerners to shame.

      Add this social thought:
      The San people have overcome jealousy and envy, living free of it. Elsewhere, in northern Canada there are Inuit who have overcome anger, leading the planet in social development.

      Just because something is unwritten in Europe doesn’t mean diddly-squat.

      • Crispin in Waterloo September 29, 2017 at 10:02 pm wrote:

        “…The San people have overcome jealousy and envy, living free of it. Elsewhere, in northern Canada there are Inuit who have overcome anger, leading the planet in social development….”

        All of your statements are very interesting.They deserve some reference links, as much as they deserve serious contemplation.

        Happily, none of these predecessors of our current civilization seem to have developed nuclear or chemical toxins in sufficient quantities to derail the continued viability of the species.

        Still, the fact that their legacy amounts to largely neglected fragments buried here and there or barely kept alive by oral transmission suggests what would happen to our civilization’s heard-earned knowledge following a collapse of the current world order.

        We could expect to follow in the same path as previous degenerate civilizations. Practicioners of medicine would become outright shamans, would-be researchers would become heretics. Orthodoxy would be enforced with an iron hand, as it was by the Inquisition, but more efficiently. And humanity would sink once again into a brutal existence in which curiosity and experimentation is restricted to improving methods of domination and and repression.

        But this time humanity would have to run the gauntlet of new toxins that we have strewn throughout our environment without the help of true scientific expertise or instrumentation. I don’t think our species would survive long under these conditions. But if it did, it would probably only be possible by reversion to a primitive subsistence level, likely losing the essential tool of written language, for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years.

        That’s probably why the super-rich (who are such largely because of their privileged access to reliable information) are keen to book passage to other planets for astronomical sums and at great personal risk.

  14. CTM, thanks for finding and posting this outstanding essay. One thing to assert this basic irrefutable truth from the comfort of one of Fort Lauderdale’s most luxurious oceanfront condo properties. Quite another to hear it directly from Kampala. I will be sending locked versions to many of the usual warmunist suspects, starting with Katherine Hayhoe, Bill McKibbon, the Vatican, and the head of the World Bank.

  15. if Puerto Rico and Uganda has rooftop
    or community solar, they’d likely be up and
    running already. the fossil fuel
    infrastructure is totally destroyed, and
    will take months to rebuild. and it
    requires continuous shipment of
    FFs to PR and Uganda. it’s hardly
    a versatile fuel source.

    • @ crackers
      “if Puerto Rico and Uganda has rooftop or community solar, they’d likely be up and running already.”
      You make a good point about the resilience of renewables – here’s proof of how tough they really are –
      9-22-17 Puerto Rico Storm Damage:
      Windfarm – Solar farm (0:40) – Cellular Structures (0:35 & 1:18) …All Totally Destroyed

      You are not a complete idiot…there are still a few bits missing.

    • It’s the grid that’s down, not the plants.

      Rooftops are for the most part, gone.
      It doesn’t matter what type of imaginary solar you come up with, it still won’t be working after a storm like that.

    • Wind and solar should be competitive in places that have to import coal, oil, and gas, and probably should be incorporated into the power mix. They are certainly no panacea, though; many rooftop solar installations would have been just that much more debris flying around, and wind/solar farms would be subject to the same infrastructure shortcomings as ff plants.

  16. Since a major cause of the hurricanes that devastated the Caribbean has been the use of fossil fuels, any further use of such fuels should be eschewed in the rebuilding efforts.

    • Interesting purely emotional but devoid of meteorology science assertion, if not /sarc. Now prove it. SREX, nope. ACE, nope. Landfallings, nope. MSM histwria, yup but doesn’t count.
      Read Thermodynamics of work created by temp differences, not temp. Then Lindzen on the consequences of supposed polar amplification. Then NHC on windshear versus sea temp impacts on hurricane formation.

  17. “The loss of life was tragic but has thankfully been much lower than in many previous storms. Buildings are stronger, people get warned in time to get out, and they have vehicles to get to safer places until the storms pass.”

    This plaint ignores what’s happened and worse, what’s about to happen, in Puerto Rico, and what is likely to happen more and more frequently throughout the world, as our flimsy house of cards collapses under the weight of overpopulation, centralization, and just in time distribution.

    Puerto Rico isn’t benefitting from the coal, the gasoline, the diesel, the food, or the water that the USA has in abundance. It’s been massively deprived of all of these essentials of modern life, plus the key one, electricity, for more than a week. Why? Because its house of cards was built without any redundancy. It lost everything in one fell swoop, and now we are watching a train wreck involving three million people in slow motion.

    Now imagine a similar situation in Manhattan, or on the island of Montreal, and dozens of other overpopulated parts of the world that have become dependent on a continuous supply of electricity, fuel, and food transported by fragile conduits. The writer’s homeland would likely fare much better in such conditions.

    Overpopulation is the key element in such disasters. National leaders in the West have forgotten the story of the seven fat and the seven thin cows. The developed world is living on the edge, and when it gives way, the way to recovery may be blocked by a sea of corpses. Massive mining, damming, oil production, fishing and farming operations can all be wiped out by existing natural forces. And people will die under the sheer weight of their numbers, because a quick return to hunting and foraging has long ago become impossible.

    Unlimited expansion is something Nature doesn’t tolerate. What comes up must come down. Lemmings and jackrabbits can survive this as a group. They don’t have nuclear power plants, dams, and other infrastructure that must be constantly maintained…

    • Overpopulation is the key element in such disasters.

      Otropogo. One of the worst of your phrases quoted above, but cannot believe you wrote all that down for real, in the public domain, in any context, but here, now. The International Court of Justice has dealt with cases like this. Did you produce that all on your own or are you quoting Mein Kampf, Year Zero or the little red Purge manual? Or did you forget sarc tag at the end?

      Doubtfully it made either side of the debate feel comfortable. Care to clarify what you aim at?

      • jaakkokateenkorva September 29, 2017 at 11:07 pm wrote:

        “..cannot believe you wrote all that down for real, in the public domain, in any context, but here, now. The International Court of Justice has dealt with cases like this.”

        I’m having trouble making sense of your comment. Are you saying my post constitutes a crime against humanity?

        As for your question, I have never read any of the three texts you refer to and have no idea what “sarc tag” means.

        If you had a substantial question I would be happy to clarify. But I have no interest in making anyone feel comfortable about a growing and unaddressed threat to civilization, if not the human species. Nor am I impressed that you “cannot believe” the evidence of your own eyes.

        Please try to be coherent and relevant. I would suggest you begin by reading the posts you quote carefully before responding.

      • otropogo. As I understand Steven’s writing, he’s asking for an equal opportunity only. Not for cAGW compensation. Not for charity. An equal opportunity is an honest, fair and, in cAGW twisted world, an increasingly rare request. I respect it. It isn’t a plaint ignoring conditions in a tropical island with annual hurricane season.

        In my opinion politics in Manhattan, Montreal, Washington DC, Brussels etc shouldn’t be his concern. But as it is now, it is. Not by his choice or the choice of his compatriots. It is imposed in many way. It shouldn’t be this way. In my opinion Steven is right. Any anger or frustration he might feel is understandable and, thus, I offer him my understanding and support with means at my disposal.

        For these reasons addressing ‘overpopulation’ in this context puzzling at best. You seem to mean urbanisation and perhaps have a better idea than repeating Year Zero etc. These ideas would get the value and appreciation they deserve under a different topic. Hoping you agree, I apologise if my initial abruptness offended you.

  18. Thank you Steven Lyazi. I enjoyed your previous post at WUWT. And, with notable exceptions, join most of the subsequent comments.

    Climate alarmist choices are disgraceful and unacceptable in my opinion. In the words of their most prominent figurehead Obama: ‘Planet Will Boil Over’ If Young Africans Are Allowed Cars, Air-Conditioning, Big Houses’. This is enough for me to conclude at least Obama intentionally aimed/aims to subdue Africans.

    But climate alarmists have decided to do other things too. They have chosen to fight against
    a) Anthropogenic – covers entire humanity.
    b) Skepticism – the foundation of modern science.
    c) Carbon – the building block of all known life on Earth.

    And climate alarmists have chosen to protect:
    i) Arctic, Antarctic, Greenland glaciers, mountain tops and the hottest deserts – without residents.
    ii) The largest land-based carnivore on this planet – the polar bear – known to prey on human.

    They even spend scarce public resources to develop a concept of ‘cost of carbon’ – the cost of life itself. How much more fundamentally wrong could their choices possibly be? I haven’t, don’t and won’t tolerate it. But, however wrong alarmists may be, I defend their rights as members of the humanity. They are free to believe whatever they want, but remain accountable for their own choices and actions. Like we all are.

  19. Dittos to all above praising Steven Lyazi. And kudos to most comments above, many others very thought provoking, if not very convincing.

    Just for thought: Perhaps we ended the era of colonialism too soon. A number of European nations got involved with African colonization in the 19thC, some were better at it than others. The Portuguese were terrible, the Belgians the worst; Spain was little involved and Italy was very late and left with only Arab- inhabited deserts to play with.

    Britain and France did respectable work in the places they developed and exploited for natural resources while inevitably building the only infrastructure these countries have ever experienced. Unfortunately, in most cases the development was largely confined to the chief city or port, usually the same place.

    The other decent player in this game of forced development was Germany. Unlike in Britain and France, colonial expansion was not a goal of the government, but rather capitalism. Accordingly, the four German colonies in Africa- today’s names- Togo, Cameroun, Namibia, and Tanzania, are instructive cases in what might have been. Also countries not much in the news.

    Consider that the two major railroads in Tanzania were both in service before 1914, and only the branch to Lake Victoria was added by the British after 1919. Those railroads were built, maintained and manned by Africans under civilian German leadership.

    Namibia, a vast land with few people had dark days in the beginning, genocide even, but eventually emerged as perhaps the most stable nation on the continent. And it has an outstanding rail network.

    This is where we were in 1914 when World War I ended Western Civilization as we understand it and introduced the leftist notions that have prevailed largely since and given us Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc.

  20. A very good article, thank you Mr. Lyazi.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/23/the-evils-of-climate-enthusiasm/#comment-2618246

    [excerpt]

    “It is the obligation of responsible, competent professionals to blow-the-whistle on this (global warming) sc@m, and to encourage the availability of cheap, reliable, abundant energy systems for humanity. This is especially true for the elderly and the poor worldwide, and for the struggling peoples of the developing world.”

  21. I’m sorry, but snot-nosed children living in the economically developed first world know better than you do what you need. They’ve been praised by their Progressive teachers all their lives for “feeling” and “caring” about Africa. And they’re listening to Bono sing, all the time, even if he is old enough to be their grandfather. Surely, you wouldn’t dispute their righteous intentions to control the natural world with their superior feelings, would you?

Comments are closed.