When it comes to ‘climate change’, as in the tiny 1.4 degree Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures since 1850 being mostly/solely caused by Mankind’s output of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), what Warmists call “carbon pollution”, this is a movement that is mostly ensconced within 1st World left leaning citizens, along with 2nd and 3rd world big-shots, all of who already have access to inexpensive, reliable energy. Nowhere within the Cult of Climastrology is the notion to deny the world’s poor the same access more prevelnt than within the mostly Caucasian 1st world Warmists. Seems rather racist. Here we have Annie Gowen, the Washington Post’s New Delhi bureau chief, and about as lilly white as one could get
India’s huge need for electricity is a problem for the planet
POWER PLAY | Cheap electricity, a changing climate This is part of a series exploring how the world’s hunger for cheap electricity is complicating efforts to combat climate change.
Got that? Cheap, reliable electricity is a problem, nowhere more so than for India’s poor.
Of the world’s 1.3 billion people who live without access to power, a quarter — about 300 million — live in rural India in states such as Bihar. Nighttime satellite images of the sprawling subcontinent show the story: Vast swaths of the country still lie in darkness.
India, the third-largest emitter of greenhouses gases after China and the United States, has taken steps to address climate change in advance of the global talks in Paris this year — pledging a steep increase in renewable energy by 2030.
But India’s leaders say that the huge challenge of extending electric service to its citizens means a hard reality — that the country must continue to increase its fossil fuel consumption, at least in the near term, on a path that could mean a threefold increase in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030, according to some estimates.
There’s an obvious answer: nuclear power. But, the hardcore Left is against the use of nuclear because, well, really irrational, uninformed and exaggerated reasons. Of course, they are super enthused over the idea of alternatives, which aren’t cheap, but so often stop the construction of actual solar, wind, and hydrothermal power plants.
Also, natural gas, which provides enormous power output for low cost without despoiling the surrounding region? Warmists aren’t happy with that, either. Well, at least not for Other People, especially poor non-white people in other countries.
Although 300 million Indians have no access to power, millions more in the country of 1.2 billion people live with spotty supplies of electricity from the country’s unreliable power grid. The grid failed spectacularly in 2012, plunging more than 600 million people into total blackout.
In the country’s high-tech capital of Bangalore, for example, residents have recently had to endure hours of power outages each day after repairs and a bad monsoon season prevented the state’s hydroÂelectric and wind power plants from generating enough electricity.
Shocking! Alternatives failing!
Led by Modi, an early proponent of solar technology, India is in the midst of a huge drive to expand its solar and wind capacity, with plans for dozens of mega-parks that the government hopes will move the country closer to its goal of 100 gigawatts of solar-generating capacity by 2022, plus 75 gigawatts of other renewable energy, predominantly wind. The government wants to expand its hydroelectric and nuclear power capacity as well.
They also plan to double their use of coal. But, hey, this is all a problem for people who have nothing better to worry about but tiny changes in the global temperature, entirely consistent with the Holocene pattern of warm and cool periods. It all seems very racist and shows a profound hatred for the poor of the world, for people Liberals see as inferior.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
[…] William Teach on The Pirate’s Cove: Warmists Totally Enthused To Deny Cheap Power To World’s Poor […]
The mean global surface temperature has warmed 1.4F in the past century, which is more than the Earth warmed OR cooled during the entire Holocene…
Marcott et al stated clearly in that study that the robustness is wanting and they “…should not be relied upon…â€
dp,
So you have better data?
Do you mean better smoothed, fudged, misleading data?
No, I leave that up to the hockey team at NASA.
“More than the entire Holocene..” As the Holocene is less than 12,000 years, that is but a speck of time. How fast did it rise during all the other 12,000 year periods out of the 4 billion we have to play with? You mean you don’t know? J tries his rapid mantra again, with no proof. “Who do you think will suffer if the earth is 1C, 2C…warmer?” Cold kills, warming periods are usually beneficial. We won’t suffer from the warming, we’ll suffer from the drama queen reaction to the warming from liberals (as in the poor above.) There is absolutely no proof that warming, if and when it starts up again, will be dangerous to humans. Absolutely none. Try again, J.
j,
The other periods are not really relevant are they, since humans weren’t around.
What is causing the Earth to warm now? 1.4F in only 100 years? That’s a large increase in a short time. What is causing it?
You are wrong and are whistling past the graveyard. Try again, j.
There is nothing wrong with mathematically smoothing data. There is no evidence of data being “fudged”, except by Deniers, e.g., Roy Spencer. And misleading? The Earth is warming.
Well, I guess according to the RealClimate mafia your obtuse comment is valid.
j,
Is it really your argument that since the Earth warmed and cooled 4 billion years, 400 million years, 40 million years, 4 million years, 400 thousand years and 40 thousand years ago, all before human civilization populated the Earth, that the warming today cannot be caused by humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere?
Does the fact that lung cancer existed before cigarette smoking became endemic prove that cigarettes cannot cause lung cancer?
Does the fact that head and neck cancer existed before the HPV16 epidemic prove that HPV16 cannot cause head and neck cancers?
“That’s a large increase in a short amount of time.” Short compared to…what? You again have no answer. And, the warming has stopped. “What is causing it.” The same factors that warmed and cooled it for 4 billion years. What’s your proof that those factors aren’t in play now, as there’s 4 billion years of “data” to go by? “Did the fact that lung cancer existed before cigarette smoking prove that cigarettes cannot cause lung cancer?” Poor J, you’re using a flawed analogy. Of course cigarettes can cause lung cancer. Where you go wrong in your little analogy to CO2 is that then cigarettes would have to cause all lung cancer, which they of course don’t. But all that being said, you’re still ignoring the important point-even if what you said was true, there’s absolutely no proof warming would be dangerous to humans. Just speculation. And no proof of dangerous warming trumps everything else.