Bernie Sanders demonstrated a… to call it shocking would imply that we have actual expectations of sense and logic out of him… bit of illogic (not to mention tone-deafness) in last night’s Democratic debates when he declared that:
climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.
This, a day after the worst terrorist attack in a decade unfolded in Paris. He was ridiculed all over social media, and deservedly so, but that doesn’t mean that some white-knight liberals didn’t jump to his defense.
Vox, a website that, I gather, caters to young liberals, posted a rationalization. In it, the author states that:
global warming has the potential to aggravate existing tensions and security problems, by, for instance, making droughts or water shortages more likely in some regions.
This statement isn’t false, but nor is the statement that “every man is a potential rapist,” if we stretch the boundaries of what potential means. If we soften potential up enough, it can be used to validate almost any bit of drivel one can come up with. The reality is that droughts and water shortages have been part and parcel of life in the Middle East for centuries, that what’s going on in the Middle East with ISIS and its terrorist predecessors has everything to do with religious fanaticism and the hunger for power and nothing to do with droughts or water shortages, and that this sort of dissembling demonstrates that Sanders is either utterly disconnected from reality or too cowardly to say things that might upset the quick-to-anger little flowers that are among his supporters.
Sanders’ statement was a defense of the premise that climate change aka anthropogenic global warming is the biggest threat to national security, a premise also put forth by President Obama. What neither Sanders nor Obama have indicated is any understanding of the harm and threat to national security that the proposed solution for climate change represents.
The only solution put forth by those who believe that action should be taken to combat climate change is a massive reduction in carbon emissions. In fantasy land, this will be accomplished by embracing non-carbon renewable energy sources, with wind power and solar power topping the list. Nuclear power, easily the best choice if one wants to go in this direction, is absent from the discussions. Fantasy land, indeed. In reality, this will necessitate making energy far more expensive and rationing its use by much of the world’s population. I have written on many occasions about how this is simply not going to happen. The BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and the developing world will not forego carbon energy. Their citizens, hundreds of millions of whom are just now rising out of subsistence poverty, won’t stand for it, and their leaders won’t do it. Energy makes lives better. It increases productivity, creating wealth that provides better nutrition, better health care, better living conditions, greater access to clean water and sanitation, and all in all better lives. The cheapest, most abundant sources of energy in the world all involve carbon, and we keep finding more and more.
But, lets say that it does happen. Climate change alarmists tell us that we may very well need to leave half of what we’ve already found in the ground to combat the threat of future harm. That alone will drive the cost of energy up far higher than otherwise. Reliance on wind and solar, which are far more costly than coal, oil or gas (and are intermittent, to boot, necessitating backup sources), will also drive energy costs up. Some believe this is both necessary and desirable. President Obama stated:
Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
What happens, though, when energy becomes more expensive?
All the things that cheap and abundant energy offer the poorest of the world’s developing nations would be curtailed, delayed or eliminated. Those improvements in living conditions, in health care, in sanitation, in productivity would not materialize. The lives saved wouldn’t be. The lives extended wouldn’t be. Hundreds of millions of people, perhaps billions if we start counting generations, would have their lives shortened. Millions would die from preventable or curable conditions. The toll on humanity – today and in the near future – would be absolutely staggering.
Even if Sanders can live with the monstrousness of such action, if he thinks that water shortages breed terrorism, what does he think will happen when the effects of carbon caps strike those parts of the world? Does he think they’ll suffer in quiet peace, comfortable in the belief that their sacrifices are bettering the planet for the generations of the next century? Or does he simply ignore that unfortunate complication in favor of knowing he has “done good?”
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters