The Independent, a news site out of Southern Utah, ran an article recently titled “Fight Climate Change, Ignore the Poor,” in which writer Howard Sierer claims climate change activism neglects the needs of the poor in favor of their preferred policy goals. This is true. Anti-growth and green policies do far more harm than good for the poorest people in the world by stifling their access to cheap reliable energy.
Sierer reports that the G-20 organization has called for $3 trillion per year in spending for developing nations, however more than half of that is supposed to be earmarked for climate, sustainability, and related infrastructure, with the rest going towards food and medical technology. Sierer points out that it doesn’t make much sense, “given the realities on the ground in many developing countries, places where opportunity is limited by a lack of the cheap and plentiful energy that allowed rich nations to develop.”
“Climate Change activists try to paper over these realities by arguing that poverty and climate change are inextricably linked,” Sierer continues, noting that time and again studies have shown “spending on core development priorities would help much more and much faster per dollar spent than applying funds to climate.”
He makes the point that investments on things like energy access, clean water, and medical infrastructure would help people right now, and improve weather resilience, but investments focused on cutting emissions “won’t deliver noticeably different outcomes for a generation or more, if ever.”
Sierer’s analysis is completely correct, backed up by research published by the Copenhagen Consensus Center, and by reporting on the ground by farmers in places like Africa, where a large portion of the population across the continent’s various nations live without consistent or reliable energy.
In the Climate Realism post, “Wrong, BBC, the Popular Kenyan Farmer Is Right, There Is No Climate Emergency, Africa Does Need Fossil Fuels,” I take a look at one farmer who has been leading the fight for energy access in his community. The climate activists at the BBC attempted to write a hit piece on him in an attempt to drive attention away from the real issues Kenyan subsistence farmers are facing, and the realistic solutions to their problems. The farmer, Jusper Machogu, lives in a poor area, and advocates for the modernization of farming for his family and neighbors. He is critical of “green” farming practices that lower yields and involve greater labor on the farmers’ part.
Modern synthetic fertilizers and fossil-fuel powered equipment have already begun to help African nations’ food production over time, reducing hunger and malnutrition, as discussed here, here, and here. Similarly, oil exploration and development is gradually increasing in African countries, as discussed here and here. This is despite the efforts of green NGOs and financial institutions which try to discourage development on the dark continent.
Not to mention, electricity and indoor heating that is made possible by fossil fuels drastically reduces the need for cooking and heating fuels like wood, crop waste, and dung, all of which are commonly used in poor nations. The indoor burning of wood, dung, and crop waste produces poor indoor air quality and results lung and heart ailments – leading causes of death in poor countries.
The poor of Africa and in other impoverished, energy-starved areas around the world are not clamoring for decarbonization, they are asking for reliable energy and the products and services and infrastructure it makes possible.
Sierer ends his article by explaining that despite more than $12 trillion spent on renewable worldwide, “global greenhouse gas emissions grew to an all-time high in 2023, with consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas each near record levels as worldwide energy demand continues to grow.”
This means that despite trillions in investments so far, there has been no identifiable benefit. Think what benefits those trillions could have delivered if devoted to traditional development, including modern energy infrastructure, in the world’s poorest countries.
Sierer points out that while getting rid of fossil fuels may result in some nebulous, distant supposed benefits, none of which have been proven, “the costs and disruption of rapid decarbonization are immediate and substantial.”
The Independent should be applauded for running this article. Sierer’s analysis hits the nail on the head that climate activism is more likely to be harming the world’s poor rather than helping them.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Linnea Lueken took over a very good H. Sterling Burnett column at Climate Realism and is doing a great job.
The Green Blob also backs “organic” farming, a German grenzwirtschaft, border science, which arose out of the same mystic anti science traditions that gave rise to the NSDAP. Heinrich Himmler was a great fan of that sort of “land and soil” movement. So if the greens show a certain callousness, they arrived at it by history.
I was in a grocery store today that has an “organic” section. The veggies cost 2 to 3 times as much as the regular type. When I had a garden, everything was “organic” (I guess), I only put horse manure in the soil. “Anyway,” I did not see or taste a big improvement, although the strawberries and tomatoes are better. The verities in the stores are selected for color and shipping – not taste. Local “farmers markets” have good stuff, but also expensive.
It is really good, and cynical, marketing. On the other hand, some varieties of fruits and vegetables do not “ship well”. Black Tartarian cherries taste much better than Bing, but will be a moldy mess inside a week. Black Tartarians were the pollenizer for Bing, so farmers cherry stands had them. “Heirloom” varieties are a different issue than “organic”.
Some heirloom tomatoes are the best tasting- though they often look ugly- odd shaped with some surface defects.
Supermarket tomatoes are generally varieties that have been bred for appearance and stability for shipping, rather than taste.
I’ll take that ugly odd shaped beefsteak over the pretty but tasteless supermarket one…
Nothing wrong with organic farming if not forced on farmers- and we aren’t forced to buy organic food, though I usually do if the price is reasonable.
For $12 trillion cures for a bunch of different deadly cancers could probably have been found.
Very nice Linnea. The CAGW crowd are not humanitarians, nor are they concerned with science or truth. They are political creatures looking to gain power and control over the rest of us. They don’t give a damn what the temperature is outside. Climate/weather are merely a means to achieve power and control.
That’s correct, the Malthusians cannot possibly work well w/ the WOKE. Malthusians don’t want anyone to prosper, think that the problem is that we have too many poor folks, and they don’t care if they all die.
Thanks Linnea for spotting this author and article:
Howard Sierer moved to St. George in 2000 after living on both coasts and places in between. He worked as a satellite systems engineer and program manager, finishing his career managing fiber optic communications systems development.
https://archives.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/author/hsierer/
Climate activism is rooted in deep leftism.
Of course they don’t care about poor people. !
Do you think the world’s poor care if it is slightly warmer AT NIGHT? That is what has been touted as the cause of “rising global temperatures.
Howard will be vilified. DeSmog is digging dirt on him as we speak.
At some point, the chorus will be louder than the orchestra.
Excellent article.
The conditions that the local people in places such as in East Africa endure
are so harsh one needs to see it first hand to imagine it. Health care and
energy are where I see the most need. The focus on climate change here needs to be shifted
to helping these people improve their conditions IMO.
We don’t want to give our own poor money because it would make them lazy or something. But we keep giving money to poor countries and with what result? Stop wasting our money, it’s clearly not working. You can help and guide them but they have to work themselves.
Think what we could have done with those trillions wasted on climate with zero result.When the west becomes the third world no one is going to rescue you. The damage the west has done in such a short time is unbelievable.
I grew up in a poor country, Pakistan, that was short in electricity. We had to learn to live with daily load shedding. I find it hard to believe that the U.S. and other rich countries want to deprive themselves of the benefits of cheap and reliable electricity.