“[T]he climate change agenda and the policies are killing more people than climate change,” Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy informed CNN’s Dana Bash yesterday. “That’s the reality.”
He explained: “The climate-related death rate — tornadoes, hurricanes, heat waves — it is down by 98 percent over the last century. For every 100 people who died of a climate-related disaster in 1920, two die today. And the reason why is more abundant and plentiful access and use of fossil fuels.”
Attacking the “anti-fossil fuel agenda,” Ramaswamy added, “Eight times as many people today are dying of cold temperatures, rather than warm ones. And the right answer to all temperature-related deaths is more plentiful access to fossil fuels.”
Her head having exploded, Bash responded by actually telling Vivek: “As you know, it’s not about people dying today. It’s about what is going to happen in the short term and long term.”
“Oh,” replied Mr. Ramaswamy, “I think it’s all about people dying today.”
Today does certainly come before both short term and long term.
“If you don’t want to cut fossil fuels,” Bash inquired, “what would your policies be to slow things like droughts, like flooding and other damage to our planet?”
“I think we should focus on adaptation and mastery of any change in the climate,” offered the candidate, “through technological advances powered by fossil fuels and other forms of energy.”
Celebrities, politicians and diplomats jetting off to international junkets where they jawbone over unenforceable agreements to cut carbon emissions may impress CNN talking heads. But will Vivek Ramaswamy’s more practical alternative convince voters?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Midjourney
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
5 replies on “Bashing Climate Change”
Vivek speaks the truth. Fossil fuels and the chemicals we derive from them are a present necessity, and their use can be moderated as we move to the future and act as the good stewards of spaceship Earth.
Immediate cessation of their use is not an option, especially in “developing” countries” where their use is existential to those who would be deprived of them, not to mention those residing in the northern US.
Openly expressing this truth will cause Vivek significant pushback until it dawns on the zealots he is totally correct, and the transition must be made in a reasoned, practical and evolutionary manner in order to avoid more harm than benefit.
Hopefully Vivek can precipitate a real discussion and sustainable plan.
I certainly appreciate his being on the stage. Ms. Bash, if properly challenged, might even seek to educate herself not just on theoretical climate change but also the effect of knee jerk policy change on real people.
Vivek is using the energy talking points developed by Alex Epstein in his informative book: Fossil Future. It’s good to see the spread of intelligent thought on this subject.
You people are beyond help!
If you have nothing of substance to say, just resort to wild random accusations, right? Definitely a successful method of debate.
Where are the globalists in this instance? They told us global trade would benefit everyone, but how is that supposed to happen without fossil fuel resources to transport goods, both raw and manufactured, all over the world?