By Vijay Jayaraj
What if the worst environmental problem wasn’t the one everyone is talking about? While Western elites sip fair-trade coffee and obsess over carbon footprints, the developing world drowns in a toxic soup of its own making – a crisis entirely distinct from the phantom menace of climate change.
The real environmental emergency isn’t the modest warming that has helped humans thrive. It’s land degradation, poisoned water and other forms of pollution that are burying the Global South alive.
Yes, we’ve been fighting the wrong environmental war.
The foaming black sludge in the rivers, the mountains of untreated garbage festering in streets and the invisible superbugs breeding in waterways represent a true crisis that extends across continents.
In Ghana, only one-quarter of the daily trash is gathered for disposal. Uncollected waste breeds insect vectors that transmit malaria and dengue fever. In South African townships, nearly three-quarters of the residents report diseases directly attributable to improper waste disposal. Cholera dominates the list.
Southeast Asia now ranks among the largest contributors to marine plastic pollution. Mismanaged waste flows through rivers into coastal waters, damaging fisheries and tourism. Plastic pollution stems from governance failure, not atmospheric chemistry. The solutions are mundane but unapplied: collection trucks, engineered landfills and modern incineration with air-emission controls.
Yet here emerges the peculiar tragedy of our moment: While our children drink poisoned water, our governments have burned billions of dollars at the altar of net zero. They divert precious financial resources, energy and administrative bandwidth toward fighting a ghost. They chase the approval of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, pledging allegiance to a “war on carbon.” They announce billion-dollar “renewable” targets for solar and wind installations.
In countries where capital is scarce and competing priorities numerous, this reallocation is consequential. Billions allocated to renewable energy transition in poor countries translates into delayed investment in wastewater treatment, sanitation systems and waste management technology.
Environmental ministers in developing nations have been socialized into a hierarchy of concern that places the atmospheric concentration of a botanical nutrient – carbon dioxide – above demonstrable health catastrophes unfolding in their jurisdictions.
The justification for this abysmal stance is rooted in the claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) is causing a climate crisis. The premise that this trace gas drives dangerous global warming is unscientific. The “settled science” is anything but.
Researchers like William Happer and W. A. van Wijngaarden have shown that the greenhouse effect of each CO2 molecule diminishes as it atmospheric concentration increases. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere is like painting a black window with another coat of black paint; it makes little difference to the light passing through.
Furthermore, new data indicate that the rate of global warming between 1899 and 1940 – before the surge in industrial emissions – may have been higher than the warming rate from 1983 to 2024. If human emissions are the primary control knob of the climate, how can the greater warming of the early 20th century be explained? It cannot.
Every time a city in India or Bangladesh floods, the media shrieks “climate change!”, blaming the rain on the burning of fossil fuels. This is a lie. The rain is real, but the cause of the disaster is fabricated. Analysis of Indian flood deaths show repeatedly that urban planning failures are the culprit.
Recent assessment by the U.S. Department of Energy acknowledges that excessively aggressive mitigation policies targeting CO₂ are likely more detrimental than beneficial to economic welfare. The scientific case for treating CO₂ as a planetary menace has weakened as observational data and physical modeling have matured.
And the irony is that the fossil fuels proposed for abandonment are needed to solve the real problems: High-temperature incinerators, recycling plants and water treatment facilities require massive amounts of reliable, affordable baseload power. Solar and wind cannot provide this.
Robust infrastructure that can withstand floods and storms requires steel and concrete, which is produced by using coal and natural gas. To improve the quality of indoor air, households must transition away from burning dung and wood to clean-burning liquefied petroleum gas.
The climate scare is a luxury adventure for the rich. For most, the fight is for clean water, breathable air and the dignity of a life free from filth. The abstract, unscientific, and profitable carbon targets tailor-made for multi-billion-dollar corporations is not going to save the Global South from the suffocating effect of real pollution.
The longer developing nations remain entranced by climate virtue signaling, the longer they defer the genuine environmental remediation their populations deserve.
Originally published in The Center Square on January 28, 2026.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India. He served as a research associate with the Changing Oceans Research Unit at University of British Columbia, Canada.
Wind and solar are distractions, and the effort should go elsewhere.
And I find it incredible that this paper – https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/revisiting-co2-emissions-and-global-warming-implications-for-soci/ – brought to our attention by Jayaraj above (labelled “data” in red), has not been discussed at length on these pages, let alone anywhere else.
For environmentalists, fighting the ill effects of a non-existent climate crisis always sound more glamorous and progressive than tackling ground and water pollution. Besides the supposed fight against climate change is more likely to justify higher taxes and opportunities for graft, corruption and needless mandates than cleaning up mundane issues that often affect only the poor.
Climate change as our #1 environmental problem was entirely misdirection to get useful idiot activists focused on a fictional problem rather than the real ones.
This is exactly the argument of Bjorn Lomborg. The developing world has many problems, some of them environmental. Even if it is true, AGW is utterly trivial in its effects compared to real toxic pollution, uncontrolled garbage, uncontrolled sewage and simple public disease control. The real question is, how many people were killed in undeveloped nations by preoccupation with AGW delusions rather than dealing with real problems?
This is sort of a modern “tragedy of the commons”. A place needs a functioning government, rule of law, and wealth to fix these issues.
Chicago early-on had to fix a water and sewage mess, reversing the flow of the Chicago River to prevent polluting their drinking water – Lake Michigan. At Cleveland OH, the surface of the Cuyahoga River caught fire multiple times with the incident of June 22, 1969 being a spark to finally get a cleanup done. The song “Cuyahoga” by R.E.M. was released in 1986.
It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.
AGW was spawned to destroy Capitalism using environmentalists as the useful idiots. Nothing more.
The shocking truth is no one is documenting the story on a regular and comprehensive basis. Where are the videographers, nature show narrators, and all those rich NGOs with their T shirt design team and youth propaganda groomers?
Do you think the head of the UN, the prime minister of the UK, Jimmy Fallan, George Soros, or Mike Mann want to go into Ghana and wade through the filth for a week of seeing the problems? Maybe stay in a hotel and drink the running water from the tap. Won’t ever happen. The problems will remain hidden.
Just for clarification, what do you mean by “Global South” ?
I live in Australia, and I really don’t like that phrase, can you please define what you mean or use a better phrase.
“The Global poor” ??
The UK is a world leader in ‘Sustainable’, ‘Green & Clean’, ‘Net Zero’, and ‘Environmentalism’, (just ask mad Ed Miniprick or anyone sipping a skinny latte in Starbucks ).
And we’ve achieved this great goal, by sending all our heavy & dirty industries to the far East (so they can have the pollution), sending a huge proportion of our rubbish to Africa & the far East (so they can have the waste & disease), while we can feel virtuous living in a ‘Green’ & pleasant land (apart from all the fly tipping & raw shit being pumped into our rivers & seas).
Does it remind you of the Hunger Games series of movies?
Well, your government is doing an A #1 job of screwing you and your environment right to hell so you got ZERO room or justification to complain about nomenclature.
Ferenc Miskolczi: Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change
2023
“The greenhouse effect predicted by the Arrhenius greenhouse theory is inconsistent with the existence of the CRE (Chandrasekhar-type radiative equilibrium). Hence, the CO2 greenhouse effect as used in the current global warming hypothesis is impossible. Let us emphasize the overall conclusion:
The Arrhenius type GE (greenhouse effect) of CO2 and other non-condensing GHGs (greenhouse gases) is an incorrect hypothesis and the CO2 greenhouse effect based global warming hypothesis is also an artefact without any theoretical or empirical footing. Without scientific proof the debate on the CO2 GE based catastrophic AGW (anthropogenic global warming) should be abandoned and policymakers should focus on the more urgent environmental and social issues of humanity. The recent worldwide energy crisis is a warning sign that the promotion of the so-called green energy is neither solving energy shortages nor helping to protect the environment from pollution. The climate does not need protection, but the clean environment does.“
Nice essay! I’m saving the above in my bibliography if it ok with you. It aptly explains the issue of saturation in a way that is understandable.
Northern Mississippi and northern Louisiana were devastated by the ice and freezing rain last weekend. Many are still without power. Transportation is still very difficult is some areas. Try living in a home with no water and no electricity and nowhere to go for relief.
Though not a plumber or an electrician, I have helped some by patching leaky plumbing and fixing small electrical problems. One person I know called a plumber and was told that there were 8 people ahead of him. Most retailers and supply houses are running short of plumbing fittings.
Homes that have natural gas and propane along with a generator do much better than those with all electric home. Even with electricity, heat pumps do not work well at subfreezing temperatures.
Cold kills, not heat.
We are having similar discussions in the UK.
I have prepared a detailed response that can be accessed here
Apologiea. The links did not work. I think these do!
We are having similar discussions in the UK.
I have prepared a detailed response that can be accessed here
How many times can you explain to “people” the things they cannot do in order to have clean water and successful agriculture? Apparently doing it over and over for 150 years is not working.
It is refreshing to read a paper (https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/revisiting-co2-emissions-and-global-warming-implications-for-soci/) which does not call it “carbon” emission but “CO2” emission and which then comes to the completely obvious conclusion that CO2 does not control climate. CO2 is one component of the global environmental and ecological system, but is not a climate switch.
All climate related funds and resources should immediately be earmarked for waste disposal/treatment, water supply/treatment and reliable energy production and transmission. The CAGW crowd has been given trillions of dollars and decades to lower average global temperatures and CO2 concentrations and have failed miserably. I say we can accomplish three or four times as much good for half the amount of money and far less time.
What a sensible article. I live in a part of the world where there is incredible pollution. The local river has been poisoned beyond belief. But this pollution was tacitly sanctioned for decades by a socialist government. Its my job to try and clean all of this up but I look at the billions that have been wasted chasing the false climate change dream. It makes me extremely angry.