Phyllis Schafly is a conservative. She's got no scientific background or training. And yet... she can pony up and write a column about global warming and energy policy.
She's a dunce.
She goes with the classic attack on global warming international policy: that it's a wealth redistribution scheme. No word about who will suffer most as climate shifts -- the less well-fortuned countries and people. We're all in this together, Phyllis -- and as things get worse, people get angry. And they can be easily convinced that those with more are oppressing those with less unless it is demonstrably and observably otherwise. So maybe wealth distribution is a good thing if the alternative is jihad and terrorism.
"It had little to do with any science about climate change and everything to do with trying to get the United States and other industrialized nations to redistribute their wealth to the poorer nations under the supervision of eager United Nations bureaucrats."
OK, thank you for vomiting up a skeptical talking point.
"Our over-consumption is alleged to cause global warming. We are guilty because we are prosperous, so we supposedly owe reparations to the poor nations."
It's beyond alleged, but that simple point is beyond the ability of your vacuous brain to comprehend it.
"The World Wildlife Foundation estimates that the amounts needed to protect against climate change will run to $160 billion to $200 billion yearly by 2020."
"The main cause of poverty in other countries is the lack of enough energy. We should be increasing the use of energy rather than expanding government powers to restrict energy."
We are all going to be running out of energy soon, Phyllis baby, unless nationally and collectively, we expand our portfolios. So what about maybe exporting scientific technology, like nuclear? Earlier on, Phyllis wrote:
"They also floated a scheme to force 37 industrialized nations to transfer their technologies along with huge financial bonuses to the poorer 155 nations."
Which is EXACTLY what we need to do if we are going to raise the standard-of-living in 3rd World countries, reduce their overpopulation by empowering their women so they don't have to have 10 kids -- which no doubt you have a problem with too, Phyllis, since you believe a woman's place is in the home, happy and pregnant -- and also protect the environment from air pollution and climate change.
So you answered your own question while belittling it. So pardon me if I don't think your opinion on this has any value. You wouldn't understand science if it stuck it's finger in your eye.
She finishes with this sickening sentence: "If poor countries want to be rich, the way to go is to follow our American model for success, freedom and prosperity."
Yeah, y'know how we did that? By kicking Native Americans off their lands, plowing forests under for farms, slicing the tops of mountains off for coal, burning cheap (at the time) oil for energy, and otherwise making money hand-over-fist without ever reckoning one iota of
That's why you're a dingbat and a dunce, Phyllis, and you should never had put fingers to keyboard about this.
Brazil: how to face the challenge: capacity x energy?
3 minutes ago