EVs are more reliable than petrol cars in the long run - "New Automotive stressed that its analysis could only account for roadworthiness, not battery condition. An MOT examines a car’s brakes, tyres, suspension, steering and lights but does not measure battery health or charging performance, which can affect an EV’s performance. Separate research by UK broker Howden Group has also previously found that drivers of electric cars were being asked to pay twice as much for insurance as those who own petrol-fuelled models. The difference was blamed on a higher cost of repairs for electric models when something did go wrong."
Meme - Serafim Batzogiou: "The @washingtonpost has published a graph showing that Earth is close to its coolest temperature of the past 485M years, with most of the time temperature being tens of degrees higher. In fact Earth was much warmer even 1-2M years ago as we are now in an ice age interglacial."
zerohedge @zerohedge: "A funny thing happened as the WaPo tried to map out half a billion years of global temperatures and the "disaster of global warming""
"Scientists have captured Earth's climate over the last 485 million years. Here's the surprising place we stand now. An effort to understand Earth's past climates uncovered a history of wild temperature shifts and offered a warning on the consequences of human -caused warming."
The Left is losing the climate class war - "It is telling that, rather than gathering around such a programme on the Left, “green” industrial workers — such as those in the Danish wind industry — are rejecting environmentalism and voting for the Right. After all, the environmental movement still remains populated by middle-class activists brimming with moral certitude that their political project must include corralling the consumptive behaviour of ordinary people. That we could both save the planet and make life significantly better for the majority simply does not cross their mind. And as long as the Left simply renews the climate politics of the last 30 years, workers will continue to reject a platform that has nothing to offer them."
Punishing rich people and companies, as the author recommends, will still flow down to affect normal people, so. Left wingers see economic growth as evil, so good luck making life better for the majority
The hypocrisy of Australia’s Net Zero policy - "Once completed, the 86 towers will rise 200 metres above the tree line, polluting the view for miles. The federal government can ill-afford to press pause. It has pledged to make the east coast electricity grid 82% carbon-free by 2030. It will be no mean achievement for a grid that relies on coal and gas for more than 65% of its electricity. The Australian Labor Party is making the task considerably harder by refusing to remove the long-standing moratorium on nuclear power. Of the dozens of jurisdictions with grids running on 80% clean energy or more, none have achieved it with wind, sunshine and water alone. Nevertheless, Chris Bowen, Australia’s pugnacious energy minister, told a business gathering last month his targets are “very, very achievable for Australia”. His timetable is ambitious: installing a 7mw wind turbine and 16,500 solar panels every 18 hours until 2030, supported by some 10,000km of new transmission lines... Their single-minded attention to climate change leads them to regard the destruction of natural biodiversity as a necessary evil. And so they plough on, blind to the realisation that, in Australia as elsewhere, the expansion of wind and solar is constrained by the scarcity of land. We are re-learning the lesson that broke the hearts of Australia’s pioneering farmers in the late 19th century — that even in a country as vast and sparsely populated as this one, you eventually run out of usable terrain. It was only a matter of time before the iron law of energy density checked the headlong rush for wind and solar. A report last month, jointly sponsored by the Universities of Melbourne, Princeton and Griffith, calculated that 120,179 square kilometres of land would be needed to produce enough renewable energy to achieve Australia’s Net Zero target. That is an area equivalent to 90% of the landmass of England, or half the size of the state of Victoria. Understandably, not everyone supports the colonisation of this land. In April, Apple pulled out of a deal to buy power from a proposed wind development on the edge of the North Queensland rainforests at Upper Burdekin after a devastating environmental impact report. It found that constructing the wind turbine plant would destroy 769 hectares of koala habitat. Elsewhere, politicians and environmental bureaucrats are quietly making trade-offs. A proposed wind farm on Robbin Island in north-west Tasmania will only proceed if the operators agree to it shut down for five months each year so as not to disturb the migration of the orange-bellied parrot. Construction of a wind farm in Victoria has been curtailed because of the threat to a local wetland bird species, the brolga... Tim Nevard, an adjunct professor at the Cairns Institute at James Cook University, describes the application to build on the site as ludicrous. “Biodiversity can’t be destroyed in order to stop climate change,” he said. A virtue often ignored is the power of the forest to enrich the human spirit. The natural beauty of the rainforests and the Great Barrier Reef attracts 400,000 tourists a year to the region. But it also has a deeper, sacred significance to the Jirrbal people, whose ancestors were here long before the birth of Christ. Those who retain an attachment to the land through blood lines and tradition are distraught by the proposal... the Jirrbal people, in alliance with local conservationists, are trying to raise funds to fly to Canberra, a distance equivalent to London to Moscow, hoping to put their case to the minister face to face. It is a measure of the unequal battle between a small regional community and the renewable energy companies that they are relying on charity for the fare. For the defenders of Chalumbin, it’s an all-or-nothing fight. If this land isn’t safe from colonisation by big renewables, where is?"
The great Net Zero lie - "while the West is clearly responsible for the overwhelming majority of past emissions, future emissions are going to be driven primarily by newly emerging economies. Regardless of what we do in the West, the billions of people who still live in poverty in countries such as India, not to mention those in Africa, and who legitimately aspire to the comforts of industrialisation, will drive a colossal surge in energy demand in the coming years. Projected worldwide consumption of all types of energy 30 years from now is about 50% higher than today, most of it in poorer countries. This usually invites two types of response: the Malthusian-pessimist kind, which claims that this is intrinsically unsustainable, and that the world can’t afford the massive increase in fossil fuels that the widespread development of the Global South would inevitably entail; and the naïve-environmentalist kind, which contends that developing countries can rely on solar panels and wind turbines to sustainably grow their way out of poverty. Both of these responses share one thing: they’re wrong. What’s interesting, however, is how these two approaches overlap when it comes to Net-Zero polices in the West. Climate ideology has become a dangerous mix of end-of-days apocalypticism, with thousands of young Westerners now suffering from “climate anxiety”; of individual scapegoating, where ordinary citizens who bear little responsibility for systemic problems are guilt-tripped into thinking that they bear the burden for potential ecological collapse; and of eco-authoritarian hubris, based on the notion that the West needs to drastically accelerate its process of decarbonisation. A perfect example of the latter is Dutch prime minister Mark Rutte’s recent proposal to drastically cut back nitrogen emissions (70-80%) in the country’s farming sector... the Netherlands is Europe’s largest exporter of meat and the second-largest agricultural exporter in the world, just behind the United States, meaning the government’s plan would cause food exports to collapse at a time when the world is already facing a global food and resource shortage — a disaster caused by the same global elites who are now peddling Net Zero. This isn’t just happening in the Netherlands. In July, thousands of protesters stormed Sri Lanka’s presidential palace and forced the president and prime minister to resign. As in the Netherlands, the protests were sparked by the government’s decision to ban fertilisers and pesticides in favour of organic, climate-friendly alternatives — a decision that devastated millions of the country’s farmers and caused an artificial food shortage that plunged nearly two million Sri Lankans into poverty, and turned the country from rice exporter to importer. The defenestrated prime minister, Ranil Wickremesinghe, was also, like Rutte, a devoted member and Agenda Contributor of the WEF; in 2018, he published an article on the organisation’s website titled: “This is How I Will Make My Country Rich by 2025”. (Following the protests, the WEF swiftly removed the article from its website.) In light of all this, it’s easy to see why a growing number of people view Net Zero as either a case study in utter incompetence or, even more troublingly, as the latest example of “crisis capitalism”, whereby crises are exploited (and in some cases engineered) by ruling elites to push through restructurings of the capitalist system — usually by concentrating capital and power in the hands of fewer and fewer people in a manner that would likely face unsurmountable popular opposition in “normal” times. We saw it happen with the financial crisis, with the pandemic, with the war in Ukraine. Now it is being repeated with the climate crisis... there’s one thing that more than any other raises doubts about [elites'] good faith: the fact that while they keep coming up with increasingly fantastical solutions to CO2 emissions, they largely keep ignoring the only existing technology that can help us rapidly phase out fossil fuels once and for all — without disrupting Western societies, and without denying the rest of the world the living standards they legitimately aspire to. I’m talking, of course, about nuclear energy. The reason nuclear energy is largely absent from the decarbonisation debate is that the latter is based on a lie: that we can generate all the world’s energy needs from renewable sources — primarily wind and solar power. This has become a mantra for much of the climate movement, but it’s a delusion. Aside from the problems arising from covering colossal tracts of land with wind turbines and solar panels (which require hugely polluting rare earth elements, most of which are in China) to meet the world’s growing energy needs, the fact is that both are intermittent and energy storage technologies don’t come close to what would be needed. Even with a high percentage of renewables, a stable, constant source of energy would still be needed — and that’s either going to be fossil fuels or nuclear energy. As James Hansen, the Nasa climate scientist who first warned the world about the dangers of climate change in the Eighties, has pointed out, nuclear is “the only viable path that has been proposed for rapid global decarbonisation”. This, then, is the great Net Zero lie: it’s primary goal isn’t remedying the climate crisis. After all, a solution to the crisis stands right in front of us — only to be ignored by our political and financial elites. Faced with such deception, it’s hardly surprising that many are starting to question their motives; and in more and more countries, are starting to let it be known that they have had enough."
Meme - Bjorn Lomborg: "Alarmists: "World on fire!" Reality: By Aug 5, global burned area likely never lower than 2026. Disasters in France, Spain & Canada are tragic-but climate is global. Cherry-picking isn't science. Climate policy does near-nothing for fires. We need better fire policy (prescribed burns, let some burn) and better climate info"
"7 months through 2026: Record-low Global Burn. By August 5 2026, the world has burned less than any year, 2012-25"
Despite What You’ve Heard, the World Isn’t on Fire - WSJ - "As smoke from Canadian wildfires poured into American cities last month, the headlines poured out equally fast. Most blamed climate change. Canada’s public broadcaster informed readers the smoky skies had “only one true fix”: Stop burning fossil fuels. But the headlines seem to have missed the most remarkable fact about the wildfires: Canada is having a below-average fire year. In fact, the world is on track to a record low in area burned. Ottawa’s own tally released July 9 showed 1.4 million hectares burned—less than a third of the 4.6 million hectares burned by the same date last year. Tucked into the “quick facts” of the government’s press release, beneath ministerial quotes about climate change driving ever more severe disasters, was the quiet admission that wildfire activity “remains below the five-year average.” That’s understating it: Satellite data weekly updated by the European Union confirm that Canada’s total burned area in 2026 by Aug. 5 was below the 2012-25 average the EU uses as a baseline. And the statistical good news keeps coming. The U.S. this year has remained below its 2012-25 average, with its most recent measurement 20% below average as of Aug. 5. North America and South America are at a record-low burn since 2012. Every continent on the globe is burning less—some much less—than usual. As of Aug. 5, Oceania has burned 14% less than its 2012-25 average and Europe has burned 35% less. Asia has a near-record low of burned area since 2012, clocking in at 41% below average. Africa is at a record low, with current burn at 44% below average. Globally, we’re on trend for the lowest burn since the collection of that satellite data began in 2001, and likely the lowest since 1900. In the early 1900s, nearly 4% of global land burned annually, nearly double today’s rate. American annual burned area in the 1930s was about five times as large as its modern annual burned area. The deadliest aspect of fires has declined, too: smoke deaths. Air pollution from fires kills roughly 20,000 times as many people as the fires themselves. As fires have declined, the rate of annual deaths from landscape-fire air pollution has fallen substantially since 2000, according to a 2024 Lancet study. Given the current global population, that means fire pollution kills about 1.6 million—400,000 fewer than would have been the case had the 2000 death rate remained. You wouldn’t know any of this from most media reports. Too much coverage cherry-picks smaller areas that happen to have lots of fire, ignoring everything else. With Canada this summer, scary pictures won out over compelling statistics. In Europe, wildfires in France and Spain repeatedly make headlines; that the Continent’s fires are significantly below average doesn’t. One of the most egregious examples of this narrow reporting was the coverage of the “black summer” fires in Australia in 2019 and 2020. The headlines were apocalyptic. But while the fires did come near heavily populated areas—such as Melbourne and Sydney, where many media outlets are based—the total national burn was “well below average,” according to the government’s annual environmental overview. This sort of media coverage leaves the public with the impression that the planet is ablaze when the evidence shows the opposite. The positive news in fire statistics should give pause to climate alarmists and those in the media promoting their cause. To be logically consistent, if climate change gets the blame for every fire, it should also get credit for burn declining. The truth is that climate change isn’t the main determiner either way. A warmer planet does lengthen fire seasons and dries out vegetation faster, tilting the odds toward more dangerous fire weather. But weather only sets how easily a landscape can burn. Whether it burns—and how badly—depends mostly on people: how much fuel we let accumulate, how quickly we detect and douse flames, and how much land we farm, fragment and pave. The significant decline in area burned is due to a century of better land management, agriculture and firefighting. The main culprits of the bad fire seasons Canada suffered in 2023 and 2025 are homegrown. A nation can have less fire overall but still impressive blazes: The same decades of aggressive firefighting that drove total burned area down also let fuel pile up. Canada has all but abandoned prescribed burning—deliberate, controlled fires that clear out the deadwood and undergrowth that turn ordinary fires into monsters. By one measure, the area in Canada treated with prescribed burns annually collapsed from more than 35,000 hectares in 1990 to 182 hectares in 2023, a 99.5% decline. The stock response from climate activists—that the only real fix is decarbonization—fails elementary arithmetic. Even if the entire wealthy world went net-zero by 2050, an astoundingly improbable and expensive policy, temperatures would change less than 0.2 degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century, with near-zero effect on fire risks. Adaptation is what makes the difference. Modeling of Los Angeles’s Palisades fire shows that with no climate action, a similar fire in 2050 would burn about 7.2% more intensely. Yet even if the entire world managed dramatic emission cuts, the fire would still burn 5.5% more intensely in 2050. On the other hand, adaptation—prescribed burns, mechanical thinning, fire-resistant building codes and smarter zoning—could make that fire about 15.4% less severe in 2050 than it was in 2025, at a tiny fraction of the cost massive decarbonization poses. Canadians and Americans who spent July coughing on smoke deserve better than a false diagnosis. Better forest management—particularly prescribed burns—will do more for next summer’s air than any emissions target."
No To LNG - Squamish | Facebook - "Hey Carney. If you think renewables can’t dramatically power a country, then look at China. The grid is the problem. Not the inability to create renewable energy. Stop putting money into fossil fuels. Put it into renewable energies and the means to get it to our communities: “China turned away enough clean energy to power Mexico for a year in the six months through June as its grids hit their limits, while networks in many other nations such as Australia and Japan also failed to keep pace with a surging renewables buildout. Curtailments, or the pre-emptive rejection of wind or solar power because a grid reaches capacity, are emerging as a growing challenge to renewables globally and underscore continued reliance on fossil fuels.”"
Climate change hystericists are ignorant and don't realise this actually illustrates why renewables are bad because of intermittency meaning you need tons of wasted capacity and the implications for grid stability. Hell, the article already tells you it's a challenge to "renewables"
Meme - "Material per AVERAGE Terrawatt-hour per DOE Quadrennial Review
Metric Tons per AVERAGE TWh
Wind: 11x nuclear. Solar: 18x nuclear
Solar PV - >16,000
Hydro - 14,000
Wind - 10,000
Geothermal - ~5,000
Coal - ~1,000
Nuclear - <1,000
NGCC - 500?
DOE Estimate of Resources per Terrawatt-hour"
"Green" energy sure does require a lot of resources
A landfill of “renewables” = a land full of poison. - "Millions of solar panels are hitting their end-of-life cycle, and the world is completely unprepared for the coming toxic avalanche. By 2050, projections estimate up to 78 million metric tons of solar e-waste globally. This isn’t just a pile of debris — it’s the future of green energy waste hidden in plain sight. While renewables promise a clean transition, their end-of-life realities reveal massive logistical, economic, and environmental challenges. The industry often boasts that solar panels are “95% recyclable” in theory because of their glass, aluminum, and copper components. Yet economics consistently overrides technical feasibility. Proper disassembly and recycling of a single panel can cost $20 to $28 in places like Australia and the United States, while landfilling runs as low as $4. Without strong financial incentives or mandates, up to 90% of decommissioned panels end up in landfills rather than recycling streams. Each solar panel functions as an industrial “sandwich,” with layers tightly bound by heavy polymers and encapsulants. Extracting the microscopic amounts of silver and high-purity silicon requires energy-intensive chemical processes or thermal treatments that often exceed the value of the recovered materials. Newer, cheaper panels use less silver and thinner wafers, further eroding recycling economics and leaving valuable fractions locked away. When panels fracture or are crushed in landfills, heavy metals like lead and cadmium can leach into soil and groundwater. This creates the prospect of multi-generational contamination from dispersed, unmanaged waste sites. The shift from “clean energy” to persistent hazardous legacies becomes real if proper management fails at scale. The crisis accelerates faster than many models anticipated. Solar cells naturally degrade over 25-30 years, but economic pressures drive even earlier retirements. Newer, higher-efficiency or cheaper panels prompt solar farms and homeowners to replace functional systems a decade or more ahead of schedule. This compressed lifecycle shatters the narrative of durable, long-term green assets and fuels an endless loop of waste generation. Wind turbines add another dimension to the problem, particularly their massive blades made of fiberglass and epoxy resins. These durable structures resist easy recycling due to cross-linked polymers that cannot be readily melted or reformed. By 2050, significant volumes of blade waste are expected, much of it destined for landfills where the non-biodegradable materials will occupy vast space for centuries. Transporting blades longer than 50-100 meters creates additional logistical nightmares. Electric vehicle and grid-scale batteries introduce further complexity. Lithium-ion packs contain valuable metals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel, yet global recycling rates remain low despite high potential recovery in advanced facilities. Varying chemistries, glued assemblies, and fire risks during disassembly make processes expensive. Improper disposal risks toxic leaks, even as second-life applications try to extend their usefulness... Environmental trade-offs extend beyond local landfills. While renewables reduce operational emissions, their full lifecycle — including mining rare materials, manufacturing, and disposal — generates industrial waste streams that challenge sustainability claims. Scaling to meet climate goals without parallel advances in circular design risks trading one pollution problem for another, with cumulative impacts on land use and resources."
"Cheap" "renewable" energy isn't so cheap once you take into account recycling and waste management costs
The Dutch are filling gas wells with cement - "Readers will be familiar with the German nuclear phase-out. The Merkel and Scholz governments prematurely shut down twenty gigawatts of nuclear power. Those plants provided energy for 38 million households for less than twenty percent of the cost of gas. The Scholz government closed one power plant thirteen years before its expected retirement date. But few know that the Dutch government is doing something similar: it is pouring cement down the country’s gas wells. These wells are already inactive; destroying them doesn’t do anything for safety or the environment. The government is demolishing the wells to prevent a future government from reconsidering its decision to stop producing gas. The wells are located in Groningen, a province in the north of the country. Prospectors discovered the gas field in 1959 and soon realized it was the largest in Europe. Over the next 60 years, they extracted 2.2 trillion cubic metres of gas. Groningen earned the treasury lots of money – 363 billion euros – and gave Dutch utilities the ability to generate power without relying on foreign countries. But gas production in Groningen had local downsides. The field is large, shallow, and crossed by small faults, so extraction caused bits of it to shift. In 1986, the region started experiencing small earthquakes. The majority of these quakes registered beneath 1.5 on the Richter scale, too faint for most people to notice. But a small number exceeded 2.0, and a tiny handful 3.0. The earthquakes led vocal Groningers to demand an end to the drilling. Jesse Frederik, a smart Dutch journalist, has argued that locals greatly exaggerated the harmfulness of the earthquakes. But even if they hadn’t, there was a good case to keep drilling. The remaining reserves, some 500 billion cubic metres, are worth around €200 billion at current wholesale prices – enough to pay every single resident of the province €150,000 as compensation and still have 110 billion euros. And while gas alone is not good for the environment, more gas usually results in less coal usage, not less renewable generation. Norway is one of the world’s largest gas exporters despite its sincere concerns about climate change. (The enlightened Norwegians opened seventy more sites for drilling this past May.) But like many modern Western countries, the Dutch are increasingly unable to pursue policies with huge numbers of winners and small numbers of concentrated losers. Rather than buy off the Groningers, the cabinet decided to give in to them. In 2018, the cabinet promised to end gas production by 2030. In 2019, it accelerated that deadline to 2023. The concessions to the losers continued. In 2023, a parliamentary commission released a report announcing that the Dutch government had a ‘debt of honour’ to the people of Groningen, and that economic interests had superseded the interests of Groningers for too long. Hans Vijlbrief, the D66 minister responsible, then decided to fill the wells with 500 metres of cement. The Mining Council opposed the decision: they said that it was possible and preferable to mothball the facilities. The main scientific advisor to the government also opposed the decision: they argued (and continue to argue) that pausing production was no worse for the environment than plugging the wells was, and preserved much greater flexibility for the government in case of geopolitical necessity or economic crisis. The Groningen gas field still holds twice as much gas as the EU has imported from Russia since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. At market value, that gas would be worth enough to increase the Netherlands’ aid to the Ukrainian government thirteenfold. But the politics of the ‘debt of honour’ overcame the national and European interest. A specialised machine is now travelling around the province ripping out kilometres of pipes and filling what is left with thousands of tonnes of cement. It has destroyed 70 of the 300 wells this way so far. This is a story of a few concentrated losers defeating a very diffuse majority of winners. But it is also a story of a government proactively choosing to limit the country’s options. Destroying the wells does not change the likelihood of additional earthquakes. It does not change the world’s emissions pathway either, given that production had stopped. Its only purpose is to ensure that a future government, faced with different circumstances – a collapse in global LNG production – or different preferences – the Groningers decide that they would rather have more money than fewer tremors – has no ability to change course. The situation in Groningen is unique, but the effort to reduce options is not. The German Greens chose to speed through the nuclear phase-out, rejecting a pause proposed by their partner in government, the FDP. In the case of one reactor, Neckarwestheim 2, they issued the dismantling permit before the reactor even shut down. An Austrian Green minister cast the pivotal vote in the European council for the European Nature Restoration Laws against the wishes of their coalition, weeks before an election they lost. Restricting optionality ‘works’. Friedrich Merz opposed Olaf Scholz’s decision to shut down Germany’s remaining nuclear reactors in April 2023, but now says that it is too late to restart them. Future governments do find it difficult to reverse course if the alternative course has become impossible. But it comes at a cost. The impulse to make a decision irreversible signals a lack of confidence in one’s decisions. If a decision is good, it should be capable of surviving the judgement of voters. That the government feels the need to shield it from such judgement suggests that they are not sure it would. It is an act of institutional vandalism, raising the stakes of elections. It is also inefficient. Sometimes circumstances change in unforeseen ways. The demand for data centres has suddenly increased the usefulness of baseload power. Though Japan closed every reactor after Fukushima, it dismantled few; more than a dozen have since restarted. Michigan’s Palisades plant closed in 2022; it is now in the final stage of a restart. (Although it didn’t require much foresight in 2023 to think that gas might be geopolitically useful.) Options are valuable. It would be good for the current Dutch government to prioritize the interests of the Netherlands and Europe over that of Groningen. Failing that, it would be nice for it to allow future governments to reconsider its priorities. For now, the cement-pouring machine is destroying more wells."
Left wingers want to destroy their countries and they are so closed minded and unimaginative they can never imagine changing their mind or the world changing
Meme - "I am 99% sure that climate change is the universe's way of giving us a deadline to end capitalism"
earthlyeducation: "extreme heat, drought and consequently wildfires are wreaking havoc all over the world. this video is from Serbia.... See more"
The left wing agenda is all connected. This is why they keep pushing climate change hysteria. It's easier to manipulate scared people too
Tangwa Abilu.🌿🌏🌾🍀🍃.SDG's. on X - "Stop asking what YOU can do for the climate. Start demanding what SHELL, TOTAL and 100 other corporations will do to PAY for the damage."
Climate hystericist logic: China is not responsible for its carbon emissions because supposedly this is because it produces stuff for the rest of the world. Even if only 10% of their carbon emissions are caused by that. But oil companies are responsible for their emissions even though almost all of them are linked to those who consume their products. Left wingers just hate the West
New/Mode | Make your voice impossible to ignore - "Tell the Canada Pension Plan to stop investing in fossil fuel expansion... CPPIB owes all of us a duty to maximize our returns without undue risk of loss. Fossil fuel expansion simply cannot be a responsible investment, with the high risk of assets becoming stranded as the global economy moves away from fossil fuels"
Yet left wingers bitch about how oil companies will profit from pipelines. Their claims are incoherent
Meme - blackleftiss: keeps mixing up coinstar & cointelpro @Boringstein: "youre going to see a lot of people saying this, to the point where it might feel trite from overexposure, but it remains true: the single most impactful action the earth could take to fight climate change would be the disbanding the US military"
The left wing agenda is all connected
Meme - "Africa: Climate Low Priority
Africans from 39 countries worry about unemployment, economy, health, water roads, education, crime, hunger, electricity, poverty, and corruption - but not climate
Percent cite as one one of top top 3 priorities
Unemployment 32.1%
Management of the economy 30.2%
Health 26.3%
Water supply 22.6%
Infrastructure/Roads 22.1%
Education 19.7%
Crime and security 19.3%
Food Shortage/Famine 14.1%
Electricity 12.6%
Poverty/Destitution 12.1%
Corruption 11.6%
Farming/Agriculture 6.5%
Wages, incomes, and salaries 5.5%
Democracy/political rights 3.9%
Services (other) 3.6%
Transportation 3.1%
Housing 2.7%
Political instability/Political... 2.5%
Rates and taxes 2.4%
Agricultural marketing 2.3%
Civil war 2.0%
Discrimination/inequality 1.9%
Loans/Credit 1.7%
Drought 1.5%
Gender issues/Women's rights 1.2%
COVID-19 1.2%
Land 1.1%
Communications 0.8%
Political violence 0.7%
Orphans/Street children 0.7%
Climate change 0.6% 31st of 34th
Sickness/Disease 0.5%
AIDS 0.1%
War (International) 0.1%"
Clearly, Africans are too ignorant to know that climate change will end the world and that they will pay the highest costs for it. They need to be educated on what's good for them.
