I’m assuming that the editorial board of the LA Times isn’t referring to actual sacrifices, but, this being the Cult of Climastrology, you can never be sure
The evidence, the expert advice, common sense — they all point to a single unavoidable conclusion: Humankind has dragged its feet for so long on the looming crisis of climate change that it is no longer looming but is upon us, and will be impossible to undo.
It would be foolish, of course, to rule out nascent or not-as-yet conceived technological advances that could claw back some of the carbon and other greenhouse gases we’ve already emitted. But it would be equally foolhardy to count on them. What is required, at a minimum, is a radical change, as quickly as possible, in the way the world produces and consumes energy. The goal is to eliminate most future emissions, especially of carbon, and to “capture†the carbon that is emitted so that it does not enter the atmosphere.
So, see, even though there’s nothing to actually replace fossil fuels at this time, we need to get rid of them. I wonder when the LA Times will give up its own use to gather and disseminate their paper? Anyhow, after lots of meaningless yapping
The Los Angeles Times editorial board has written about climate change for years. Here’s why we thought this was the right moment for a bigger, broader series of editorials on the subject.
What will our world look like in 15 years if we begin to do what we have to do? Charging stations for motor vehicles as plentiful as gas stations are now. A significant drop in gas-powered vehicles through phased-out production, and government-funded buyback programs to get older cars off the road. Millions of people working to create new power systems; the world needs cheaper and more efficient solar panels, bigger and more efficient energy storage systems, more utility-scale renewable production facilities and more efficient hydro and geothermal technologies. Oil companies will no longer have such disproportionate influence on government policy. Perhaps they will have become energy companies, transitioning away from fossil fuels — or perhaps they will have been superseded by new energy providers.
So, YOU will be forced from your fossil fueled vehicle and into, well, unless you can easily plunk down $40k or more (that’s about an $800 payment per month with excellent credit), you won’t have a vehicle. But, here’s where it really breaks down
Sacrifice will be a part of this too. Doing the right thing will require shifts in employment, changes in consumer habits (cutting way back on meat consumption, for instance, reduces global carbon emissions). We will drive less, ride more public transit, use less air conditioning. Costs will undoubtedly rise for goods we’ve taken for granted.
That’s interesting, considering most Warmists aren’t willing to sacrifice for their beliefs now. Nowhere in the opinion piece are we told what the members of the editorial board are doing to sacrifice in their own lives, nor what the LA Times is doing. But, you will have to sacrifice. And Nanny Government will be there to make you do it.
