The thing about globull warming policies is that they aren’t really designed to do anything other than redistribute money from the private sector to the public sector, as well as restricting freedom in the private sector. They won’t limit or reduce warming, as proponents say they will. Now, a new report highlights just how bad the policies are (via Junk Science)
(GWPF) Policies to reduce global warming may be doing more harm than good to public health in both developing and industrialised countries. This is the conclusion of a new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
In his report, Dr Indur Goklany, a leading expert on human health and climate change, shows that
• Global warming does not currently rank among the top public health threats
• The contribution of much-publicized ‘Extreme Weather Events’ to global mortality is negligible and declining.
• Poverty is a much larger public health threat than global warming
• Present climate policies are already adding to death and disease
• Focused adaptation to climate change and/or economic development would provide greater health benefits at lower costs than climate mitigation policies.The report warns that exaggerating the impact of global warming on human health seriously risks misdirecting the world’s priorities and resources in combating poverty and improving public health.
“Climate policies that hinder or slow down economic development or increase the price of energy and food threaten to augment poverty and, as a result, increase net death and disease,†Dr Goklany said.
The increase in biofuel production between 2004 and 2010, for example, is estimated to have increased the population in absolute poverty in the developing world by over 35 million, leading to about 200,000 additional deaths in 2010 alone.
You can read the whole report here.
ahh Teach you never seem to look at the SIGNIFICANCE of these numbers. in 7 years 200,000 dies or about 30,000 extra (assuming that is in fact, the truth) However each year 15 million children die of malnuttion. Starvation and sanitation needs of ALL humans (which of course smacksof socialism) could be taken care of for about 15 million about what the USA and Europe spend on perfume in one year.
And of course all that ethanol IS made primarily in the RED states and is voted in NOT for climate change reasons but simply so that agri business will continue its funding of the Republican Reps and Senators. Blaming “war mists” for those ploticans is lame, Teach, just lame.
So, for $15 million we could feed all those people? Gee, if only Obama hadn’t wasted $800 billion on the failed stimulus.
And, I’ve scolded Republicans that support ethanol.
Hey John, are you suggesting that farmers and mega-agriculture companies should turn down ethanol subsidization and guaranteed purchase for their crops?
Live in real-ville. Farmers scrape by and will sell to whomever buys. The large agri-companies were eager to get on the federal dole by supporting these green agendas.
If you made Product X, and you learned that the government would soon mandate that Americans would have to start buying Product X or products made with Product X, are you suggesting that you would turn down those automatic buys?
And, don’t want to speak for Teach, but we conservatives do not want to ban ethanol. We want to eliminate the mandate and the federal subsidization of it. That forces more food-grade and feed-grade corn to be turned into fuel. Government has no business picking sides in capitalism. It has no business in supporting a private industry.
And as for those malnourished children? I’m sorry, but with hundreds of billions spent on welfare and school lunches and after school lunches and summer meals and free home meals… I DENY that allegation.