How ABout Five Ways To Stop Hotcoldwetdry From Causing Health Problems

The ever helpful Huffington Post, a bastion of Progressive thought (and the unwillingness to pay bloggers for their work), provides helpful tips

Five Ways to Stop the Threat to Global Health From Climate Change

…..

First, we need to think of it in terms of opportunity. Tackling climate change could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st Century. Apart from the human misery escaped if we cut some of those lost trillions of dollars, imagine the net benefits if we invest the deferred losses in social good!

Second, achieving a decarbonized global economy as no longer primarily a technical, economic or financial question, it is political. As Al Gore loves to say, our capacity to survive climate change is all down to political will. And political will is a renewable resource.

Third, we need to proceed as though global health equity, sustainable development and the international policy response to climate change are inseparable. We cannot hope to cut emissions deeply enough on a global basis if the sum of our national greenhouse policies leaves billions with no prospect of poverty alleviation, and the poor health that attends poverty.

I’ll leave it up to you to read the rest, but, it sure seems like this is all about pushing far left politics, doesn’t it?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “How ABout Five Ways To Stop Hotcoldwetdry From Causing Health Problems”

  1. Jeffery says:

    The HuffPo site keeps misdirecting the link.

    Try this:

    http://www.istackr.com/page/840245/Five-Ways-to-Stop-the-Threat-to-Global-Health-From-Climate-Change/

    from the Lancet Commission report to the IMF:

    If we count both the direct cost of subsidies to fossil fuels, and the cost of damage created in fossil-fuel use, the total impact is 5.3 trillion per year, 6.5 of global GDP, a sum exceeding the total annual health spending of all governments. Just over half involves money governments are forced to spend treating the victims of air pollution, plus income lost because of ill health and premature deaths. Ending the subsidies would also halve premature deaths from outdoor air pollution, saving some 1.6 million lives a year.

    That makes it seem as if fossil fuel reliance has significant health costs.

    You should read the entire essay, it describes local progress in African villages that has significant impacts on family economies and health.

  2. john says:

    or you should read that there are bloggers who DO get paid and those who do not get paid the average unpaid blog gets only about 43 comments worth only a few dollars in ad revenue
    HuffPost is now owned by AOL AOL owned by verizon
    many large companies find that all things “progressive” (including green energy) promote a healthy bottom line
    Do your phone stores sell Verizon?

  3. liam Thomas says:

    See here is the problem. Co2 is not a problem at all period. Zip. Zero. NADA.

    Now the other effects of buring fossil fuels might well be a problem. They could be causing health issues.

    In fact China is burning such dirty coal that the world should be up in arms over their total pollution of the entire planet.

    So whats really at stake here is fossil fuels and I will again reiterate that this planet will DIE without fossil fuels.

    No gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel. No tractors, combines, planes, trains, tractor trailers, earth movers, cranes, and most importantly no lubricants to manufacture almost anything.

    The ending of fossil fuel use is nothing more then progressives and their absolute detestation of large business, corporations that RAPE, PILLAGE and PLUNDER the planet and dont pay their employees 1 million dollars per year to sweep to lunch room.

  4. Jeffery says:

    The objective of the movement to transition from fossil-fuels to renewables is to reduce the emission of CO2 which is causing the Earth to warm rapidly. Obviously, there can be and will be corporations that control renewables and that won’t pay their janitors a million, so you can relax.

    Most of the world’s energy use is for generating residential and commercial electricity. Doesn’t it seem reasonable that a large part of this capacity could be served by renewables?

    Just because your motivation for opposing this transition is political doesn’t grant you the right to lie about the science.

  5. Jeffery says:

    Co2 is not a problem at all period. Zip. Zero. NADA.

    That is a claim, not a fact. An overwhelming mountain of evidence contradicts your claim.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7478 access attempts in the last 7 days.