Climate change will bankrupt us before it can ever end the world.

Climate change is a widespread topic in recent times and advocacy to curtail its effects is something that the average individual is aware of.

It is a topic that has garnered lots of attention in the political space over the years. It is no news that with the discovery of coal more and more toxic chemicals are being released into the environment.

Now the real arguments are: how should climate change be managed? who should be responsible for its management? and Is it a big enough concern to bother ourselves in the first place?

Activists like Greta Thunberg have become the face of climate change advocacy for liberals.

Conservatives on the other hand are not having it and believe there are bigger problems to face. It has been a continuous tug fight.

I would be breaking down as clearly as possible the true cost of climate change advocacy and how it will affect the quality of your life.

How climate change advocacy affects energy politics.

Climate change and energy politics go hand in hand. Industries around the world are in a constant struggle to decrease their use of fossil fuels and at the same time increase production. It is no easy feat.

Nations like the US and China are expected to take responsibility for climate change as they have the majority of industries that produce most of the world's carbon print.

The reactions of these nations have been quite interesting. The US has been actively trying to put policies in place to reduce its carbon print. Migration to cleaner energy sources and giving industries carbon limits have been the major moves and a net zero emission by 2050 is the plan.

China, on the other hand, although, first dismissive of climate change as a whole has also partaken in the cause. It is important to note that China is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide. The country bids to bring its emissions to a peak by 2030 and be carbon-free by 2060. Its 3 Gorges dam is used for hydropower generation as part of the plan to reach its goal.

However, due to droughts in recent times, these dams have been drying up. Construction of 8.6 gigawatts of coal power plants has been approved by Shanghai in the first quarter of this year as energy security trumps climate concerns.

It is no news that China is at the forefront of the race to beat the US as the world's leading economy. China became the world's largest exporter of goods in 2009 with a contribution of 12.4% to global trade with the US close behind at 11% as of 2018. So trust that she will not cut down her fuel usage for an alternative that is not sustainable yet.

Is it wise for the US to continue to pursue this very expensive endeavor even with the continuously rising inflation rates and increasing national debt while its competitors are gaining ground on it?

Who suffers the most from climate change advocacy, the environment or you?

The way migration to renewable energy is being carried out, more harm may be caused than good.

These things can't happen overnight. Green energy is first of all unsustainable. This is because its supply is greatly limited compared to coal and natural gas. Due to fluctuations in sunlight and wind energy, it is required that these renewable energies are stored in batteries which are themselves nonrenewable. This in itself is counter-productive.

Also, taxpayers pay the cost of this migration. Yes, the already overworked middle/lower-class man and women already dealing with inflation. The truth of the matter is beyond all the protests to reduce climate change, renewable energy is expensive and someone will have to pay for it.

The Biden administration has increased corporate tax in the US to 21%. It claims that this increase will only affect big corporations. That is very false. What these cooperations do when there is a tax increase is simply to shift costs to the salaries of their employees who are the middle and lower class.

They also shift costs to consumers by increasing the prices of their goods thereby further worsening inflation.

An increase in poverty will naturally follow inflation. You may think "I'm African and these are issues that don't concern me" but developing nations will certainly also suffer from "cleaning the planet", maybe even more than others. Let's go into how.

The industrial revolution was kicked off singularly with the discovery of coal, a cheap fuel compared to burning wood.

Developed nations used coal, natural gas, and fossil fuels to grow their economy to where it is now.

In the mid-2000s developing countries caught on and also began to grow their economy with fuel. Ironically, that is when the world discovered that this cheap gold is harming the environment.

Millions of people in Africa face extreme poverty and hunger. Should this primary concern be abandoned for "cleaning the environment"?

Only when people have food to eat and live comfortably will they care about the climate. Maybe concentrating on eradicating poverty will be a better idea oh you environmental empathizer. Maybe only then you can achieve your goal.

Deloitte, the US main corporation that advocates for climate change in a recent publication admitted that migration to renewable energy will cause a reduction in economic growth for a short while. This "short while" is unspecified.

The "temporary poverty" from green energy will be at the cost of those barely making it.

Dutch farmer's protested earlier this year against the new emission rules enforced by their government to halve harmful emissions of nitrogen compounds by 2030.

The government proposed a radical cut in livestock. They estimate that 11,200 farms will have to close and another 17,600 farmers will have to significantly reduce their livestock.

Should the protection of the climate come at the cost of food production?

People are expected to believe that they should feel guilty for destroying the planet and should be happy to be made poorer to clean it even when they are already barely getting by and it simply doesn't make sense.

The hypocrisy of climate change advocacy

The 2022 United Nations Climate Change Conference was held in November. The world leaders in attendance came to the venue, Egypt with private jets or some form of aircraft. It will interest you to know that a single private jet can emit 2 metric tons of carbon dioxide in just 1 hour. That is 2000kg of carbon dioxide. The jokes write themselves, don't they?

Electric cars are supposed to be the better alternative to conventional cars to reduce carbon emissions. Although with initial high costs they are cheaper to maintain than conventional cars. However, the problem is, electric vehicles don't have zero emissions as we are made to believe. On average, they produce more than eight metric tons of CO2 in manufacturing and production plus an additional two metric tons of CO2 per year based on the energy mix used for electricity generation.

The production of lithium batteries for electric vehicles also comes with a host of environmental and human rights concerns: including child slavery, massive water usage, pollution, and more.

Not only that, the wheels of electric cars have the same disastrous impacts as gas vehicles, the particulate matter also spreads through the environment killing fish and wildlife.

The average comfortable person lives in a home with heating or air-conditioning depending on what part of the world he/she lives in, has home appliances like fridges, microwaves, etc, uses a mobile phone, and owns a car or uses some form of modern transportation to commute.

All these contribute to the pollution of the environment in one way or another other but they are technological advancements that have and continue to make our lives easier than that of the generation before us.

Who gets to determine what source of CO2 pollution should be tackled first? Should we begin with cars, gadgets, industrial machinery, or fertilizers amongst others? Or everything should be addressed at once? Transitioning to renewable energy across all industries at the same time without breaking the system is simply impossible.

Reasonable measures to reduce carbon emissions are encouraged but worse problems will arise when it becomes radical. With the explosion of woke activism and political correctness, it is becoming radical.

Hence, those that are convinced that climate change is so urgent a crisis that radical measures should be taken at the cost of making the whole world poorer should start getting rid of their gadgets and commuting by trekking.

As my favorite author, Jordan Peterson says: "Set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world".

Conclusion

Is it worth it to go on an endeavor that has a high probability of ruining us faster than climate change ever will?

Let me know what you think in the comments below and do make sure to subscribe.