Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
Aside from the immorality of obliging poor nations to avoid policies that would reduce poverty, the big problem with forcing carbon cuts is that green energy is not yet the savior that it is portrayed as.
More in my latest for @nypost:http://ow.ly/N8RE30lA98j
It is pure Malthusian opportunism trying to exploit a problem to fund and force their solution. They already killed nuclear energy which is climate solution, they killed glyphosate, GMOs, CRISPR, Vaccines. They just want poor to die https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1006225944879644672 …pic.twitter.com/cWO8Bu1ooe
People living in Kerala are sure glad they are not killed by climate (strong and global) changers
If anyone thought you or the libertarian nutjobs that deny the climate obeys the laws of physics gave a toss about the world’s poor you might have a point. But climate change affects them disastrously so you can have a possibly more comfortable life. That’s immoral.
If you object to policies to address climate change then argue that case. Do not argue that the science is wrong because you don’t approve of proposed solutions.
This is an important aspect to remind us all about. Poverty is very important to reduce as quick as we can!
And coal is? You present a flawed argument at a number of levels.
Great, brave and necessary article
Article wrong on many levels. Unfortunately for Lomborg's main argument green energy is now often cheaper than coal
Yes, but the rich complain more
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
