Since it is somehow fair game to compare holocaust deniers to climate change skeptics.....then it must be said that climate change proponents are only pushing their beliefs to kill poor people in poor countries!
What a stinking load of absolute codswallop. Considering that the first and hardest-hit victims of climate change are going to be the poor people in places like Bangladesh and the Pacific Islands who will see their living space literally washed out to sea... I think it's fair to say that the exact opposite is true.
And, in any case, virtually every policy I've seen to fight climate change (save, perhaps, some of the more extreme geoengineering proposals) would be a good idea for the future of humanity anyway. For example, even if CO2 wasn't an issue, we'd need to make a concerted effort to build an economy and infrastructure not dependent on oil and other fossil fuels, because oil is a limited resource (and things like burning coal cause immense health problems, besides). We'd need to aggressively promote birth control because available arable land is shrinking rapidly and overfarming is leading to desertification in places. Etc. etc. etc. 95 percent of the time, trying to forestall the consequences of global warming merely heightens the urgency of what we need to be doing anyway.
The fact of the matter is that if global warming were such a big deal, and we needed to curtail our carbon emissions to even a moderate extent, it would hurt poorer, faster growing countries more than stagnating places like Europe. Would Europe be willing to cut their emissions by 30-40% so that India, China, and yes, Bangladesh could catch up somewhat to their standard of living? Europe wouldn't be willing to do that. It is absolutely a fact that real changes to combat global warming would hurt poor countries way more than rich countries, unless the rich countries agree to curtail and reverse their carbon emissions to a much, much greater degree.
Of course, I don't really think either rich or poor countries need to worry too much about carbon emission. They should focus on things like switching from fuel sources that will go extinct within the next 50 years to newer sources of energy, including renewable and nuclear energy. Those in poorer countries should focus more on their environment and how to curtail pollution (and I don't mean carbon) and keep their water clean. They also need to tackle things like birth rates and desertification. Those are all great things to do, but crucifying themselves upon a cross of carbon is not a good idea.
It's not completely fair to say that global warming alarmists are motivated by screwing over poor countries, but is it really fair to compare global warming skepticism to holocaust denial?
Poll
