Originally written by Forbes
By Tilak Doshi
Suicide is considered a crime in many countries. In a court of law there is a grave indictment and the evidence must be conclusive in order for such an allegation to be made (e.g., did you actually see him try to jump off the bridge?). But if societies (or at least their leaders) try, it can be said that it certainly falls under the rubric of sovereign right to govern oneself wrongly. In the sacred tradition of Western liberal democracy, a maladministration that leads to social death by suicide is just an unfortunate result of gross negligence or culpable intent led by death, for example, as long as its political leaders are elected in free and fair elections . Cult ideology. Let's move on to law enforcement anyway.
The circumstantial evidence of social suicide
The first piece of evidence is an amazing article published last week in the Boston Review by a professor of anthropology at Rutgers University. The good professor said that Zimbabwe and Puerto Rico "provide models for what we might call" non-stop "electricity". The West has created a comprehensive infrastructure to generate and consume electricity around the clock, 365 days a year. Since this relies on "planet-wrecking fossil fuels and nuclear power," we need to emulate the poor countries mentioned above and save the climate by giving up the demand for constant electricity supply.
To be fair, the professor also noted that the Zimbabweans and Puerto Ricans did not accept electricity rationing, but were instead imposed through gross negligence and corruption by their governments. The professor cannot be lightly dismissed, and the Boston Review shares residence with MIT and Harvard University, the temples of wisdom in modern Western civilization. And the review has its share of praise, at least for those with a particular conviction: "When it comes to posting fresh and generative ideas, the Boston review has no peers," said Robin DG Kelley, professor of American history at the University of California. Los Angeles and Naomi Klein, New York Times activist and bestselling writer, say "The Boston Review is so good right now."
We come to our second piece of evidence, this time from the other side of the corridor "Climate Emergency". Professor Fritz Vahrenholt is a giant among environmental circles in Germany. (The country is known to be the world's leading national champion for environmental issues and for ensuring that Europe will focus on “net zero emissions” by 2050.) Prof. Vahrenholt received his doctorate in chemistry and began his professional career at the Federal Environmental Agency in Berlin (responsible for the chemical industry) before joining the Hessian Ministry of the Environment. From 1984 to 1990 he was State Secretary for the Environment and from 1991 to 1997 Minister for Energy and the Environment in Hamburg.
One day before the publication of the Boston Review article on October 5th, Prof. Vahrenholt bald-headed in a German television interview that climate science was "politicized", "exaggerated" and full of "fantasy" and "fairy tales". He declared: “The (Paris) agreement is already dead. Putin says it is nonsense. (…) The Americans are out. The Chinese don't have to do anything. It's all concentrated in a handful of European countries. The European Commission is massively involved. And I assume that they will only achieve the goals if they destroy European industry. "He lambasted Germany as a country" in disapproval when it comes to the broader global debate on climate science ". He went on to characterize Europe's recent push for even stricter emissions reduction targets for madness, which resembles Soviet central planning, which is doomed to spectacular failure.
The material evidence
At that point, the solicitor defending the social suicide allegation could jump up before the presiding judge and say, “Enough, Your Honor, this is just circumstantial evidence! Show that court the evidence! "Ultimately, the jury could well agree with the suggestion that despite the weighty references from the two professors, we are still dealing with mere people who naturally tend to exaggerate or exaggerate. Where is the evidence that society jumps off the proverbial bridge? ?
At this point in the judicial process, the prosecution might say, possibly with calm confidence in the social suicide case, "Let's go beyond the circumstance and into the realm of substantive evidence, Your Honor … Let me now, for example, for Germany itself ". In an analysis of 126 countries based on data adjusted for purchasing power, Germany ranks 16th in the international ranking (the highest in Europe) for household electricity prices. Most of the countries with even higher prices are crisis-ridden developing countries such as Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Burkina Faso, where some people cannot afford electricity at all, or in isolated island states such as Vanuatu, the Cook Islands and Tonga. According to data for March 2020, the price of electricity for households in Germany was $ 0.38 per kilowatt hour (kWh), compared to $ 0.15 for US households, $ 0.17 for Sweden, $ 0.21 for France, and 0.26 USD in the UK.
Germany has felled thousands of acres of its ancient Germanic forests and is threatening its endangered species of birds and bats at its sacrifice at the Altar of the Green God by dedicating thousands of windmill crucifixes with arms made of fiberglass-reinforced petroleum-based epoxy resin to polyester resins made in natural gas-fired ovens, require rare earths such as dysprosium, neodymium and praseodymium, which are obtained with fossil fuels. Windmills are built on thousands of tons of reinforced concrete towers with cement and steel made in intensive fossil fuel factories. Most worryingly, the leading German news magazine Der Spiegel found in 2014 that 17% of all German households are living in poverty due to an “energy cost explosion”. Since then, average electricity prices for a three-person household have risen nearly 68% over the past 15 years as green-fueled efforts were made to shut down their nuclear reactors, natural gas power plants, and coal-fired power plants.
Let us turn to another leading example of social suicide. This is California – sometimes referred to as the People's Republic of California by over-steered and beleaguered small businesses, with no sense of humor – that has been run exclusively by the Democratic Party for decades. According to engineer Ronald Stein, "California's direction and action for a green crusade is increasing the cost of electricity and fuel, which will ensure the growth of the homeless, poor, and affluent populations, and more fuel (no pun intended) for the housing affordability crisis." "
California, the fifth largest economy in the world, now imports most of its crude oil from overseas (since the extraction of its plentiful local oil resources is practically prohibited) and imports nearly a third of its electricity from neighboring states (since nuclear and natural gas). Power plants are gradually being shut down by law. Between 2011 and 2017, California electricity prices rose five times faster than domestic electricity, and now Californians pay an average of 60 percent more than the rest of the country for residential, commercial, and industrial electricity. With power outages it has gained a status in the third world. Indeed, the state appears to have anticipated the advice of the notable Rutgers University professor of anthropology.
In a notable moment of candor, Governor Gavin Newsom said in mid-August that the state's transition from fossil fuels is a factor in the state's rolling blackouts. The elimination of fossil fuels and the move to solar power, windmills and other forms of green energy have created what are known as "gaps" in the reliability of the power grid. To top it off, the governor signed an executive order on Sept. 23 banning the sale of new gasoline-powered vehicles for 15 years in an attempt to reduce air pollution and meet government targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conveyed this common sense judgment to the Green Governor: “California's record of rolling power outages – unprecedented in size and scope – coupled with recent inquiries to neighboring states for power raises the question of how to keep a power should operate a fleet of vehicles that goes hand in hand with a significant increase in electricity demand if you can't even turn off the lights today. "
But it's about saving the planet!
At this point, the defender appealed to the ultimate moral arbiter of all energy policy debates: "We have to save the planet!" The defense will conclude that this is all that can be said about this lengthy judicial battle. "We're not committing suicide, Your Honor, but we're doing our best to avoid this mindless rush for the very suicide that the prosecutor is so drastically misinterpreting." And with a rebound, the intrepid defense rests their case with the unveiling of the hockey stick diagram of the impending global catastrophe for maximum impact on the jury.
But the prosecution still has an arrow in its quiver. The prosecutor consults the work of Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus – whose pioneering work on the economics of climate change earned him the award – and notes that the best current research shows that if we do nothing, the cost of climate change will be less than the end of the century 4% of global GDP. This means, as the New York Times' best-selling “environmental skeptic” Björn Lomborg puts it, “that incomes may not rise to 450% by 2100, but“ only ”to 434%. But "how can we trust this claim?" a juror or the judge himself could ask. "Well, as much as you can trust the hockey stick table," comes the inevitable answer. How can one trust a predictive long-term global temperature chart that has miraculously invalidated the well-documented historical warming periods of the Romans and the Middle Ages with temperatures as high (or higher) as they are now?
Ultimate solution: the people will act
At this stage, a spectator of this judicial drama might raise their hands in desperation and say that a hanging jury is inevitable. While this may be the case in our theoretical judgment, there must be a solution in real life. There is nothing theoretical about the unstoppable force of climate alarmism which fulfills the immovable goal of binding people to their accustomed material standard of living. And such resolutions are taking place in real time in different parts of the world and are possibly the leading indicators of whether social suicide is on the cards for Europe and possibly for the US after Trump.
Perhaps one of the most striking examples of resolution came from Australia's 2019 national election, where center-right Liberal-led coalition prime minister Scott Morrison retained power despite polls predicting an easy Labor victory. The opposition Labor Party's electoral strategy of making climate alarmism and anti-coal legislation key issues failed in what is widely known as the "climate election". One Australian commentator noted, "How to lose the non-final elections: be anti-coal". The US election vote in 2016 also shows some parallels. Failed, hopeful President Hillary Clinton claimed her greatest regret was doubling ex-President Obama's "war on coal" and declaring in her campaign that "we will put many miners and coal companies out of business."
The judging panel is in: Modern economic growth has not shown that a country can develop successfully without the simultaneous use of fossil fuels, and ordinary people around the world are fully aware of this.