Observe that whenever there is a problem, some people want to *solve* the problem and some people want to *use* the problem to advance an agenda that is irrelevant to the problem or that would actually make things worse. 🧵
"Solving the problem" with climate danger means advocating for better climate adaptation/mastery practices.
It can also mean liberating cost-effective non-carbon alternatives like nuclear energy--but recognizing that CO2 levels will not decrease for a long, long time.
It can also mean liberating cost-effective non-carbon alternatives like nuclear energy--but recognizing that CO2 levels will not decrease for a long, long time.
"Using the problem" with climate danger means using problems with extreme temperatures, storms, floods, wildfires to advance policies that prohibit people, especially poor people, from using the low-cost, reliable energy they need to deal with those ever-present problems.
The response to CA wildfires is the ultimate example of "using the problem." Instead of addressing the root cause, excess fuel load from bad, "green," forest management, the green movement blames today's CO2 levels (which we have no near-term control over) and demands more power.
This thread by @ShellenbergerMD is an example of someone who is interesting in *solving* the problem of climate danger (Shellenberger) exposing people who are interested in *using* the problem of climate danger (the green movement) to make things worse.
https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1409526283373989889
If you want to solve the problem of dangerous wildfires, read this.
energytalkingpoints.com/california-wil…
energytalkingpoints.com/california-wil…
If you want to watch me expose a climate journalist "use the problem" of wildfire danger to advance policies that would make it worse, watch this:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
