The big three broadcast networks dedicated all of 46 seconds to covering the March for Life in January. Those same networks spent four and a half times longer on the People’s Climate March yesterday.
David Harsanyi has a good post up over at the Federalist making the eminently reasonable case that increased health, wealth, and longevity at the international level are good things. We could stop a moment to ponder the oddity of being forced to make a case in favor of living longer, happier, healthier lives, but let’s not; it’s too distressing. Instead, let’s just note, for the record, that the industrial revolution was totally worth it:
As Indur M. Goklany meticulously explores in his excellent book “The Improving State of the World,” in recent decades we have made the world a lot cleaner, healthier and livable for humans. And we did so without surrendering much wealth or freedom. I suppose it makes me a technoutopian to trust that we can adapt and create ways to deal with whatever consequences – and obviously there are consequences – a thriving modern world drops on us. Historically speaking, though, would it have been better for humanity to avoid an “Age of Pollution” and wallow in a miserable pre-Industrial Age, where poverty, death, disease and violence, were far more prevalent in our short miserable lives? Or would we have chosen global warming? I think the latter. And I think we’d do it again.
“Obvs,” as the kids say.
A vulnerable House Democrat attacked President Obama’s plans to bypass Congress and hold an international summit on climate change Wednesday, the Hill reports.
Billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer is attacking a Republican Senate candidate by claiming that she is opposed to a policy that environmentalists say is destructive to the earth’s climate.
Proponents of solar panel energy technology are in for quite the shock: the very technology they claim is ethical and environmentally friendly is responsible for the deaths of up to 28,000 birds per year.
Liberal billionaire Tom Steyer vowed in February to give $100 million to political candidates to push a green agenda, but his plans to enact climate change measures are not working, the Wall Street Journal reports.
Tom Steyer isn’t bothering to convince Americans that global warming is a problem, he said on Tuesday. Instead, he’s focused on firing up environmentalists who share his radical anti-energy views.
A U.K. government commissioned study found that people who claim to be concerned with global warming actually use more electricity than those who do not.