Guest post by Jim Steele, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus, SFSU and author of Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism.
As is customary now, whenever tragedy strikes, the internet buzzes with articles blaming climate change. Hijacking the tragic Australia’s bushfires was to be expected. For instance, Microsoft’s MSN website just published “Climate deniers are cooking themselves — and everyone else”. They wrote, “Fires get worse when things are hot, dry, and windy, and climate change has provided all of those conditions in abundance. The continent has warmed by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit (a bit over 1 degree Celsius) since the 1970s, and in keeping with the predictions of climate models, Australia has experienced steadily worse droughts and heat waves over the last 30 years. The current drought may end up being the worst in history — this spring was the driest ever recorded on the continent, and back on December 18 it set a new record for the hottest day ever measured with an average temperature across the entire country of 105.6 degrees.”
How truthful is MSN? Indeed, Australia is experiencing hot dry summer weather. The map below (Figure 1) shows that most of Australia experienced temperatures far above average for December 18, 2019. But curiously the east and west coasts, as well as northern Australia were experiencing temperatures several degrees below normal. If global warming was driving the extreme wildfire season, we would expect the worse fires to be located where temperatures were warmest. But as the map of wildfires reveals (Figure 2), the warmest regions had the least wildfires, while the most fires were happening in the cooler regions. Averaging Australia’s temperatures to deceptively blame global warming for the wildfires only obscures the regional temperature effects.
MSN’s climate fearmongers dishonestly claim “Australia has experienced steadily worse droughts.” Climate fearmongers argue warmer temperatures will evaporate surface moisture more quickly and exacerbate droughts. But they have the tail wagging the dog. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology’s illustration (Figure 3) shows the 1920s and 30s had experienced much worse droughts than recent decades. Furthermore, during periods of low precipitation, drought conditions CAUSE higher temperatures. Without normal soil moisture to evaporate, solar radiation is no longer consumed as latent heat of evaporation, but instead, rapidly raises land temperatures.
The greatest 2019/2020 burned area is concentrated along the eastern coast in the states of New South Wales and Victoria. Both areas are known for habitat that is very susceptible to extreme fire danger. But are the recent fires than worse ever? History says NO! In February 1851, the Black Thursday bushfires incinerated about five million hectares (about 1,900 square miles). Around 12 lives, one million sheep and thousands of cattle were lost. Temperatures reached record extremes of about 47°C (117°F) in the shade. In contrast, MSN attributes the 2019 December fires to a misleading average temperature across the whole country of 40.6°C (105°F).
If temperature and precipitation cannot be attributed to the increasing trend in wildfires, what other factors should be considered? As in California, Australia has experience a tremendous increase in human ignitions. Arson is a huge problem. As government investigations reveal (Figure 4), deliberately set fires account for 66% of all ignitions, while only 11% of all wildfires are due to natural lightning ignitions.
Furthermore to the north, tropical and subtropical regions are being invaded by foreign grasses that are easily ignited and provide greater surface fuel continuity allowing fires to spread over greater areas. Likewise, humans must manage forest floor fuel loads. The easiest solution is prescribed burns. However, that solution is often resisted because people do not want to experience the accompanying smoke. But until prescribed burns are allowed to be judiciously applied, the public becomes increasingly vulnerable to larger more severe wildfires as endured in 2019.
Bad analyses always promote bad remedies! Blaming rising CO2 concentrations and global warming is only misdirecting real efforts to minimize wildfire destruction. What Australia and the world needs to address is 1) human ignitions, 2) invasive grasses and 3) fire suppression that allows surface fuels to accumulate and enable large intense and destructive fires to wreak havoc like never before!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
From Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald …
“There are, on average, 62,000 fires in Australia every year. Only a very small number strike far from populated areas and satellite studies tell us that lightning is responsible for only 13 per cent. Not so the current fires threatening to engulf Queensland and NSW. There were no lightning strikes on most of the days when the fires first started in September. Although there have been since, these fires – joining up to create a new form of mega-fire – are almost all man-made.”
It is also lack of resources put into controlling fires as en example the Kangaroo Island fire had been burning a month. Two individual blazes merged New Years Day
https://www.theislanderonline.com.au/story/6563107/kangaroo-island-ravine-fires-merge-move-toward-duncan-fire-ground/
All it needed was strong winds and high fuel loads and the result was entirely predictable.
There are a few things going on here.
Australia relies on Great Artesian Basin , which feeds the aquifers of the entire continent. This is being drained of its annual monsoonal waters by the frack wells of mining companies extracting coal seam gas.. As the continent becomes more dry, the temperature rises and entire river / forest ecosystems which depend upon the Great Artesian are dying out.
Then there are the multi-national agribusinesses of the Murray Darling Basin. The aquifers of this river system draw upon the Great Artesian and so have a lower volume to draw down due to the frackwell drainage in the North. The farmlands in the south are not getting enough water through their river and creek system because all of the water is being siphoned off to dams that are privately owned by mega agricultural companies and mega mining companies using this water for private operations.
So there is no drought based on precipitation, but there is less water.
Then of course one must consider the possibility of pyroterrorism. During very bad fires in 2009 this was treated as a real possibility. No speculation this time despite the government saying arson is behind some of the fires. Perhaps ecoterrorism to get countries to take “climate change” more seriously. Something to think about
How about some proof of your claims Pft? The fracking wells would use minuscule volumes of water compared to the artesian bores some of which still remain uncapped.
You suggest that “The farmlands in the south are not getting enough water through their river and creek system because all of the water is being siphoned off to dams that are privately owned by mega agricultural companies and mega mining companies using this water for private operations” What proof do you have? The Murray is still flowing and all irrigators have an allocation. The environment also has an allocation!
As of 17 December 2019 “Flows in the Murray River are being driven by water demands requiring releases from upstream storages, resulting in flows of up to 12,780 megalitres per day at Doctors Point, upstream of Albury. https://www.mdba.gov.au/managing-water/drought-murray-darling-basin/murray-darling-basin-drought-update
Pft!
It is nearly impossible to disabuse people of the notion that deserts are dry because they are hot rather than being hot because they are dry. Most people do not understand the incredible capacity of water to absorb and release heat energy through evaporation and condensation phase change. The phase change energy is nearly 1000 BTUs per pound. It takes only 1 BTU to change the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water 1 degree F. It takes only 0.29 BTU to change the temperature of 1 pound of air 1 degree F. Where it is very dry there is not enough water – liquid or vapor – to moderate temperature between day and night so incoming solar energy and out going LWR result in large temperature swings between day and night. 40 to 60 F temperature changes within 24 hours are not unusual.
2 or 3 degrees C of average temperature change is meaningless in terms of either drying of vegetation during droughts or ignition of bush fires. It takes either an open flame of burning ember to ignite dry plant matter – temperatures of at least 480 C (900 F). Climate change does not cause wild fires – nature and people do.
I never did understand, that there are profs in the world telling us day for day, the heat is resposible for bushfires. One of these profs, from PIK, well known here telling us, cullate may initiate fires. (proven false)
They certainely have no idea, how (bush)fires may happen in European or North-American winter. Just in wintertime, rel. hum. may drop at only 5% under certain weather conditions, so there is what we call draught.
Where did winter fires occur in the cold under low UVI? Where’s the data?
All the 5 worst Aussie fires goldminor listed happened near peak summer heat.
4/5 were during solar min, the other, solar max.
The current drought is due to ongoing low solar activity, low TSI shallow ocean heating resulting in less tropical evaporation. A similar condition is occurring in the US now, with drought now creeping back in, in spite of last year’s rain and snow.
Drought is an obvious factor for natural fires of sun-dried fuel.
The post article probably wouldn’t have made the connection to climate change if there was no warmth involved. The warmth, the dry fuel, the high UVI, are all connected to conditions the current low TSI sun has established, ie low evaporation and hence low water vapor/precipitation that enables higher insolation, the two main factors causing drought.
Also, these conditions paradoxically lead to near-simultaneous cold and heat records.
@Bob Weber
Bushfire Norway
Forest fires in Germany
Even in winter forest fires can occur if there is no snow cover.
https://www.rtl.de/cms/riesiger-waldbrand-im-winter-loescharbeiten-am-jochberg-dauern-an-4060686.html
or
https://www.sachsen-fernsehen.de/brandgefahr-in-den-waeldern-mitten-im-winter-451580/
It’s not question of UV, but draught, only drought, not heat.
In climate-speak: fires are more likely to happen in the summer when or after it’s hot, but they can happen anytime. In Australia, fires are a matter of UV.
Winter fires do happen but that’s not in Australia or the US. I’ve already presented sufficient evidence that indicates summer heat and low rain leads to drought and the most prevalent fire conditions.
Cold by itself doesn’t lead to drought. Cold doesn’t dry. Summer heat dries the fuel.
The fact that a fire started when it was cold really proves nothing by itself, and certainly doesn’t preclude necessary prior warming/drying when UV and summer heat was high, preconditions for drying in the first place with low rain.
PS per your request MgII is going on the solar min plot.
@Bob Weber
Cold by itself doesn’t lead to drought. Cold doesn’t dry. Summer heat dries the fuel.
In wintertime most plants are dry, no photosynthesis, no sap in the trees, dry, dead leaf on the grounds, dry fuel as much as you want too.
There exist weather conditions with dry air about 5% rel. humidity:
Such fires at untypical times of the year are no longer a surprise for Christian Schunk. The scientific assistant in the Department of Ecoclimatology at the Technical University of Munich has already investigated several events of this kind. In 2011 and 2015, forest fires occurred in Upper Bavaria in autumn and winter. Each time, the fires were preceded by a similar weather situation, which is called inversion, because it is colder in lower altitudes than at altitude. “On some mountain slopes, we even had temperatures above zero at night,” says Schunk. In addition, the overall humidity was very low. At Garmisch-Partenkirchen, even only five percent humidity was measured. “In other weather conditions, we would have doubted the functionality of the sensor with such values.” It’s seldom so dry, even in summer.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
<a href="https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/waldbraende-wieso-waelder-auch-im-winter-brennen-1.3317913"<source (german)
You can peg out washing in winter for drying without any problems.
In concern of cold and dry you are completely wrong, sorry.
Only draught is responsible for fire, and mostly an idiot with matsches.
Normaly in winter it’s wet, as in autumn too, so there are not so often fires in winter, that’s all.
PS
Due to the dry and often sunny weather, forests and soils have dried up. “The dead grass that grows between the trees in summer dries quickly in the winter air, which is low in moisture,” says Franz Binder, an expert in silviculture and mountain forests at the Bavarian State Institute for Forestry and Forestry. “It burns like tinder, if only a spark falls on it.” At Jochberg, it was probably a campfire started by hikers.
Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
Same source as in the post before, the tranlation above is the follow up of the new translatet text.
Linkcorrection:
For the translatet text:
source (german)
@Bob Weber
Cold by itself doesn’t lead to drought.
Do you know sublimation ?
Cold dry air is fine for wood to dry.
Yes that’s all true and thank you. But we were talking about Australia and we’ve gotten far from that. As I said before 4/5 of the top Aussie fires were in their summer, during high UVI.
I have provided direct evidence for why the 4/5 top Aussie fires and others occur. I did not say bush/forest fires can’t or never happen when it’s cold, so I feel like you’re talking about something else. Thank you for not doing that anymore.
I cut a lot of ‘green’ firewood from a logging cut from last winter that was pretty dry from the sap being in the ground when the trees were cut down. Dry vegetation in the autumn/winter happens annually, drought or not, everywhere to some degree. The fires we’re talking now about are happening in the Australian summer.
Australia is a very different situation than the USA and Germany because it’s on the tropic of capricorn. Brazil is different too.
Someone would have to show me some data for Australia fires by month for me to be convinced their winter has more fires. Here’s the info you have to beat, which shows December as the peak fire month, in their winter, during the solstice month:
There are fine differences in drought chances and fire seasons in Australia:
As I previously said cold by itself doesn’t lead to drought, ie cold wet winters don’t. Cold must be accompanied by lack of moisture, ie dry air, for recently dead vegetation to dry and burn. It’s not always dry when it’s cold.
The 2011 & 2015 Upper Bavarian autumn and winter fires you mentioned happened when TSI was high. The other part of my wildfires research findings involves high irradiance drying, drought and fires that happen before the high TSI drives an El Nino(s) that increases wetness reducing fire risk ( El Nino lags high TSI).
Correction:
Here’s the info you have to beat, which shows December as the peak fire month, in their summer [not winter as I had written there], during the solstice month:
More data would be helpful. Thanks Krishna.
@Bob Weber
What I wouldt tell is only, that the causation for fires is draught, not the heat. It’s right, that in general autumns and winters here are wet, so no fires will happen.
But as often, the hazard enters the game, so I can show you actual dry conditions in the Alps in Switzerland (rel. humidity)
https://kachelmannwetter.com/ch/messwerte/schwyz/luftfeuchtigkeit/20200105-2100z.html
So, in general we have forrest- and bushfires mainly in sommer too, jun-sept. often even oct. – seen last year, as result of weather patterns that led for some weeks hot dry air from Sahara over Europe. That doesn’t happen every year.
Came across this while commenting elsewhere on the fires, … https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-environment/2011/11/the-worst-bushfires-in-australias-history/
They list the 5 worst years as Feb 2009, Feb 1983, Jan 1939, Feb 1967, and Feb/March 1926.
goldminor
Absolutely correct. But since the stuff was produced in Nov 2011, they hardly could have informed us about… 2019.
Here is a bit from the opening paragraph ” … Bushfires, although a part of the Australian landscape for millions of years, have a wrought a significant amount of damage, some far worse than others.
Worst fires have high temperatures, low humidity and strong winds …..
The most devastating fires are usually preceded by record high temperatures, low relative humidity and strong winds, which create ideal conditions for the rapid spread of fire. ..”.
So there are similar factors for all of the most damaging fires. The southeast corner of Australia was encompassed by dry atmospheric conditions. So there is the low relative humidity. Next is the strong winds to drive the fire. Last is an early heat wave, and the arsonists who took advantage of the conditions to create this firestorm.
Overall, great article. However, this sentence is backwards:
“If temperature and precipitation cannot be attributed to the increasing trend in wildfires, what other factors should be considered?”
It should read as follows:
“If the increasing trend in wildfires cannot be attributed to temperature and precipitation, what other factors should be considered?”
In other words, the hypothesized causal relationship runs from temps to wildfires, not the other way around.
I think too much emphasis is put on heat. The most important fire conditions are dryness, wind and fuel (and something to start the fire)
Some deserts are cold, and some very hot places are wet.
Deliberately lit fires have decreased by a factor of a million since white man came on the scene.
And invasive grasses have nothing to do with catastrophic fires in Australia
Its all about gum trees and tea tree having leaves full of flammable oils.
Other countries have torn down valuable plantations because of the insane fire risk the pose.
There are 100 million hectare of Eucalyptus forest in Australia, we probably need to burn 20 % per year.
The current fires are not even close to the desired figure (on a non catastrophic level.)
Says it all. When will we ever learn.
Les Crowe
19 November 2019
I am writing this because I am appalled at the amount of near hysterical reaction to
the recent NSW and Qld bush-fires. My reasoning is not so much about the fires or
the people effected, but about whether “man made” climate change is the
underlying cause. Before I go further, my stance is not so much a personal but
rather a professional reaction.
I begin by telling those of you who don’t know, for a period of some 40 years, my
work as a loss adjuster was involved with natural disasters, ranging from Cyclone
Tracey through to a lesser involvement in 2009. I was appointed as National Chief
Loss Adjuster, an advisory role, to the Insurance Council of Australia on all natural
disasters but particularly bush-fires. This role was interactive with all agencies and
spanned more than 10 years. It was both proactive in planning stages and reactive
after the event. I was heavily involved in the 1983 Victorian fires.
I acknowledge the advice of The Bureau of Meteorology and the Climate Council, is a reality to the effect the projected changes to climate, was derived from modelling, which strongly suggested change would occur unless man made contribution was reduced,.
Somehow or other, sections of our communities, have taken control of the scientific argument about the future and have interpreted it to mean the change has already occurred. Not so. Records I have seen, actually show that the slight upward trend in temperatures on a global scale seem to be in direct line with the earth’s ever occurring”natural” climatic change patterns. History shows numerous ice ages, when the planet cooled, to corresponding heating up periods, over billions of years. This has always occurred. It is the nature of our planet and cannot be influenced by what man can or cannot do. On the other hand, the impact of humans is a future projection, well founded on scientific modelling.
The true position, despite all the comments about what the current fires mean in a
climate change scenario, is nobody can tell if there is any connection.
What I can tell you with absolute certainty is that these fires , as bad as they were,
are no more intense, widespread, dangerous or unexpected in outcome, to many
previous and historic events . There is no accurate method to measure such
outcomes. However, it is possible to look at prevailing conditions and contributing factors to seek patterns or influential factors.
Take a look at the following comparative data, much of which has been ignored by
the frantic argument to directly link man made climate change to the outbreak and
effects of these latest fires. I detail some of the arguments I have heard go
unchallenged or are simply ignored and unreported, particularly by the ABC who
are the appointed official national disaster communications service.
This the first time such fires have been rated as catastrophic.. True, but not
because they were rated any worse than many previous fires. In 2009, following the bush-fire inquiry, the defined categories of fire were renamed. Catastrophic
was introduced as the most severe warning. So this description was never
intended to make people think they were the worst fires ever. I have heard many
media reports entrench this mistake
The fires are occurring earlier because of climate extending the summer risk.
Can only be applicable in the North. However, NSW has a long history of
November and December bush-fires. In 1944, the Blue Mountains lost 27 homes
and other property in November. Since then, I can recall at least 3 other similarly
timed events in NSW. So this year was not unique, as has been strongly inferred by
many reporters. In southern areas, January and February have historically been
prone to outbreaks.
These fires are the most widespread and worst ever. They certainly were
disastrous. However, it is impossible to compare unless it can be based on raw
data…. Have more lives been lost than ever before. No, although 1 is far too many,
in 2009, 173 people died. In 1983, 75 people died. In 1962, 62 people died. In
that decade one of the victims in Eltham North was George Crowe, my Grandfather
and Grandma’s father in law. In 1967, it was reported that 2,600 square
kms of land was devastated in just 5 hours (Just try to imagine that ferocity).
In 2009 there were 2030 homes destroyed and in 1983 there were 6,000 homes
and other buildings destroyed.. Does this define which fire was the worst. NO.
All fires are bad but to try and claim the current fires are the worst ever is a blatant
disregard for historical fact. Worse still, it is a deliberate attempt to scare people
into accepting the fanatical side of the global warming argument, by accepting
radical changes to our economy, power generation and mining {let alone agriculture
and transport} must occur right now and in a premature manner. The so called re-definition of the predicted changes into an emergency, is a way to virtually destroy our entire way of life.
The fires were started as a result of climate changed conditions. Clearly wrong.
80% of fires were started by people either deliberately or accidentally lighting them.
Dry lightning strikes have been long recorded and are nothing new.
What has our Media and ABC generally ignored. One of the most clear data
based facts, reported out of the 2009 Inquiry, was the finding that fire intensity is
proportional to and severely aggravated by fire loads created by undergrowth and
forest floor debris accumulation. We can’t control wind and heat but we can
control fuel load. Ask any active Rural or Country serving fireman what they think of this hazard. Then ask your Green Party representative, why they have influenced
the management of National Park maintenance, as well as local government reserves, to leave far too much of the forest floor intact at any cost. Winter back burning,
firewood removal and general debris clearance has been widely restricted by stupid
laws. They argue it preserves natural ecosystems that rely on such decaying
material. Well, systematic removal of this fuel load may well disrupt some
Eco-systems, consider this;. A bush-fire positively destroys them all.
The only identifiable and recently introduced risk factor, is the environmental law
changes that have impacted a fire’s intensity potential and capacity to burn faster and hotter.
Find this hard to believe, Go into a forest and try setting fire to a living gum tree
with a match. Now stoop down and see if you get any better results from the dead
and therefore dry undergrowth at your feet. This is the effect ember spread has
on adjoining bush-land.
There is much more to say about bringing sanity back into discussions and I have my own opinion that if you believe the science of global warming, stick to the science and ignore the fanatical self professed experts, like some of the current crop of Green Party politicians and shrieking media, self appointed, experts. No, before it can be said. I was not self appointed in my former career positions.
I can only reflect that the handful of ex-firemen who were paraded before the media, may have had other agendas. The spokesman listed his current occupation as a “Climate Change Consultant”. Another said outright, on camera, that fires have always been linked to climate change. I prefer to listen to our Indigenous community who talk of bush-fire management over thousands of years. – oops before any hint of an industrial age, meat production or mining.
1. Summed up perfectly.
2. The ABC should be interviewing you.
3. I live in Melbourne, I have all my life and this is a typical summer. 5-6 beautiful days, 1-2 stinking hot days
Very well said Les. There are a lot of people with deep knowledge, long memories and history of our landscape that agree 100% with you. A lone voice of common sense. Sadly, while the left media keeps peddling “fake news” eventually people think it is correct. Keith Windschuttle’s books highlight the same issue in the reporting/writing of history. What’s that old saying, “never let the truth get in the way of a good story” or something like that.
5 million hectares is actually 19,300 sq. miles just to put things more in perspective .
That’s bigger than a lot of countries .
Common sense burn offs would reduce these major seasonal outbreaks by 90% area probably .
Not just Australia: the BBC is hawking ‘climate chaos’ based on drought in parts of Africa.
As if droughts in Africa never happened before. Bob Geldof was high on acid all through the 1980s after all….
There really is a case to be brought against the BBC charging them with criminal misconduct in masquerading as a news organisation when they have predetermined policy positions driving their every report. Climate chaos IS happening; until the GE, the EU WAS our saviour; Russophobia was engrained, especially during Skripalgate; and there has never been a disgusting woman, black, jew, muslim or homosexual. Let alone vegans or transsexuals…….
Figure 4 shows the causes of the investigated bushfires in New South Wales only for the years from 2001/02 to 2003/04 (https://aic.gov.au/publications/bfab/bfab021).
The question is, what are the causes in a longer period of time.
I sent the last WUWT post on these fires to an unfortunate alarmist who challenged me. He classified it as “Misleading Information from an obscure website” A severe case of CO2 Meme infection methinks.
Here’s a ramble I knocked together including some bits pinched off the net:
Now, more facts and truth.
Speaking at the United Nations, 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg said that if humanity really understands the science of climate change and still fails to act, we’re “evil.” This is because climate change means “people are dying.” Helpfully, she also told us what we must do to act correctly: In a bit more than eight years, we will have exhausted our remaining allowance for carbon emissions, so we must shut down everything running on fossil fuels by 2028.
While this claim is not uncommon, it is fundamentally misguided.
Her vision of climate change as the end of the world is unsupported. The UN’s IPCC estimates that by the 2070s, the total effects of climate change, including on ecosystems, will be equivalent to a reduction in average income of 0.2 to 2 per cent. But by then, each person on the planet will be 300 to 500% richer.
We don’t emit CO2 with malign intent. Indeed, it is a byproduct of giving humanity access to unprecedented amounts of energy.
Just a century ago, life was back-breaking. Plentiful energy made better lives possible, without having to spend hours collecting firewood, polluting your household with smoke, achieving heat, cold, transportation, light, food and opportunities. Life expectancy doubled. Plentiful energy, mostly from fossil fuels, has lifted more than a billion people out of poverty in just the past 25 years.
That’s not evil – it is quite the opposite.
Greta believes that climate change means people are dying.
Well let’s look at that hmm?
The facts are that weather-related disasters just a century ago killed half a million people each year.
Today, despite rising temperatures but because of less poverty and more resilience, droughts, floods, hurricanes and extreme temperatures kill just 20,000 people each year – a reduction of 95 per cent.
That’s a morally commendable achievement you must agree.
Then let’s say we’ll all go along with the plan of ending global fossil-fuel use by 2028 to let teenagers like Greta Thunberg get their childhood back.
Sure, if we’re all really really stupid, we can stop all forms of travel from bicycles to cars to tractors on farms, to trains and buses, to all forms of shipping including cruise ships and pleasure craft like yachts, to all aircraft etc, the list is endless when you put your mind to what we use oil and coal for, oh and air-conditioning because it can get really hot in many places around the world, no more houses can be built – and want to die early yes we can do that. Until we all die much younger I guess you might think it might even be fun to live like cavemen used to do.
Millions of people including the super rich with their private planes and mega yachts will be most annoyed – all that money and suddenly it’s worthless as they can’t go anywhere. All the kiddies throughout the world will have to walk to school more than likely barefoot and in raggedly clothes.
Most, if not all shops will close as the operators have no way of getting goods delivered let alone getting customers in.
But yes it can be done if we put our minds to it.
But back in realityland it’s a totally flawed plan because there is no energy technology invented that doesn’t require fossil fuels oil and coal to build it in the first place.
Even if those in control back down and say we can still use just enough fossil fuels oil and coal to build thousands of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, hundreds of nuclear plants, even those aren’t at the development required where they can take over what fossil fuels leave behind. Not forgetting that wind turbines and solar panels have a fairly short lifespan before they need replacing/major overhauls.
A hard by-hook-or-crook transition would cause a real, global catastrophe, sending most of us back into back-breaking poverty. That’s why developing countries, especially, want more fossil-fuel power, not less; they want to lift more people into comfortable lives.
Do you really think China and India will be delighted millions of their citizens are back into poverty?
Greta Thunberg told us that if we don’t cut off fossil fuels by 2028, the young generation will never forgive us. This, however, is reflective of a blinkered first-world view. When the United Nations asked 10 million people around the world in 2015 what they prioritize, they highlighted five issues: health, education, jobs, corruption and nutrition. In sum, they care about their kids not dying from easily curable diseases, getting a decent education, not starving to death.
Climate came last of 16 choices. That’s not because it is unimportant, but because for most of humanity, other issues are much more pressing.
“..the young generation will never forgive us.”
I’d say that most of the world’s young will never forgive us if we prioritized climate above our duty to tackle poverty, health, education and nutrition.
They don’t march in the third world for climate change.
How many people standing in Soviet food queues are worrying about air and river pollution? None. They were all worrying about whether they’d get a pork knuckle to go with their mouldy potatoes.
How many mothers standing in NZ Foodbank queues are worrying about plastic bags in the ocean? None. They’re all worrying about whether they’ll get enough food from the foodbank to keep their children alive for a few days.
The real facts around the climate change hysteria – it’s only wealthy people that can afford to worry about the environment etc.
But the biggest problem with “climate change” is that it has completely stolen the oxygen from real environmental issues and other issues of importance.
Until Climate Activists tell the truth – that they are really advocating Socialism and dressing themselves up as environmentalists – then there is no hope of a science based approach.
Correct. The only thing I would point out is that next generation nuclear reactors are by far the most viable way of maintaining human civilization
I live in Melbourne, Australia, I have all my life. There is nothing unusual about the weather this season. 5-6 beautiful days, 1-2 stinking hot days.