Media & news

Through the years, I have written articles centered on climate change and different people’s beliefs and demands around climate change. Many readers say they appreciate my articles, because I address the extreme beliefs of climate change advocates. However, my articles infuriate some readers. I receive negative responses that most often call me names, criticize my ignorance of science, and demand that Alabama Living stop printing my articles. Just last month, one cowardly, anonymous reader sent me a copy of my November article with handwritten notes reading: “This is Bull—-” and “Your opinions have no place here.” In short, some of my readers advocate a “cancel culture” that prohibits people who don’t share their values or beliefs from expressing their own opinions.

A social media-influenced society, like the one we live in today, is susceptible to continuously repeated beliefs when they are expressed strongly.  Multiple times a week The New York Times Climate Desk publishes articles stating that climate change is causing flooding, droughts, more and stronger storms, heat-related deaths, and other catastrophes without citing any studies or data supporting the causation. They have successfully established a public acceptance that climate change is the cause of almost all natural disasters experienced in the world since the start of the industrial revolution.  

I realize there is no chance of convincing those readers they might be wrong. There is no chance those readers will recognize the climate change movement is based on theories and not the cause-and-effect rigorous testing required by real science. There is no chance their beliefs will be influenced by geological facts that the Earth’s climate has constantly changed for billions of years. And there is also no chance they will accept that trillions of dollars could be better used to offset real and current crises, like child health and starvation, than to subsidize programs that might reduce carbon emissions and might reduce global temperatures — by a few hundredths of a degree.  

I write about climate change to offset the media deluge of articles published daily in The New York Times, Nature, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and other newspapers and magazines. I’m not so naïve as to believe my articles will have the reach of The New York Times. My objective is much simpler and more local. Regardless of what any of us may believe about climate change, the solutions offered on renewable energy and other climate change remediations will increase the cost of energy and the cost of living. My articles merely document that climate change remediation attempts cause power bills to rise, and that your money can be used for better purposes.

Recently, one of the strongest climate change advocates, Bill Gates, changed his position on climate change mitigation in an article titled “Three tough truths about climate.” Gates admits that he has invested billions of dollars in innovation to reduce climate change over 20 years. He continues to stress that climate change is a serious issue; however, he says, climate change “will not lead to civilization’s demise.” While there will be consequences associated with climate change, “people will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth,” Gates says.

Gates states climate change advocates’ “doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emission goals” and “diverting resources” from more effective things that should be pursued to “improve life in a warming world.”

He suggests that policy should be directed to maximize human welfare and improving people’s lives rather than focusing strictly on temperature or emissions. Current climate investments are not producing the greatest possible impact for the most vulnerable people. Instead of spending on energy subsidies, better defenses against climate impacts would come about as the result of investments in global health initiatives, such as vaccines for malaria and other diseases, funding to reduce malnutrition, and investments in global economic development. Healthier, wealthier populations are better equipped to adapt to a warming world.

Gates expresses optimism that technological innovation is already driving down the cost of clean energy and will continue to do so, avoiding the worst-case warming scenarios. He recognizes that prosperity will increase emissions in the short run, but prosperous people will live cleaner lives in a cleaner world.

He notes that excessively hot weather causes around 500,000 deaths a year, but “despite the impression you’d get from the news, that number has been decreasing for some time,” mainly because more prosperous civilizations can afford air conditioning. Also, excessively cold weather is far more deadly, killing ten times more people a year than heat. Deaths from natural disasters have also declined by as much as 90% as the world has become more prosperous.

I don’t expect Bill Gates’ pivot to have a significant impact on the beliefs of climate advocates. However, reality is that the current path, spending trillions of dollars for insignificant carbon reductions, is wasteful.  Those funds could make living conditions better for millions of people, helping them be more productive and more efficient. It is a much better path forward than the unending subsidies for anything renewable regardless of costs.  Reality matters.

I hope you have a good month.