It’s very amazing how brave that question was asked!
We must now decide whether to put the climate catastrophe first or guarantee dependable access to power.
It is disheartening to learn that, despite our alleged progress, we still have trouble multitasking.
Evidently, no.
There is no way to overstate how urgent the climate problem is.
But is it reasonable to ask us to accept blackouts as the new standard, my dear friends?
Do we just have to say, “Oh, sorry little Timmy, no more video games or homework after sundown, we’re doing our bit for the environment!”?
Or maybe, “Sorry, Grandma, you’ll have to navigate those stairs in the dark, we’re saving the planet!”
Simply no.
As we talk about this, let’s not forget about the greatest polluter in the room.
The last place I confirmed was China, not California.
Shouldn’t we give the most serious offenders top priority in order to successfully handle this crisis?
The present emphasis appears to be on self-imposed restrictions, forgoing contemporary conveniences and comforts.
WATCH: Church Leaders PRAYED you’d never see this…
An international issue is climate change.
Why do all of our remedies necessitate the collapse of our society and economy?
Why aren’t we putting our efforts into creating novel, environmentally friendly energy solutions that guarantee access to electricity while protecting the environment?
Recognizing these deceptive decisions, resisting them, and stating our desire for improvement are essential.
According to the LA Times, the suggestion is as follows:
Which is more important: ensuring constant illumination throughout the day, every day, or responding quickly to the climate crisis?
There are a number of issues with the current question, which I will go into momentarily.
My attention is called to Glendale’s reaction to a Sierra Club lawsuit questioning the future of the city’s gas-fired power plant, which is located next to Griffith Park and is only across the L.A. River, while a searing heat wave that is burning California and other states continues to worry me.
If we were ready to put up with the odd blackout, might it be simpler and less expensive to restrict climate change and its deadly concoction of escalating heat, fire, drought, and flood?
Is it conceivable to endure a few more blackouts in the upcoming years in order to hasten the switch away from gas and save money?
Do they still remember?
Every time one happens, blackouts result in fatalities.
Indeed, you are not seeing things.
Dies.
The following is confirmed by John Moura, director of reliability evaluation and performance analysis at the North American Electric Reliability Corp. It’s not just a rumor, either.
Let’s rethink the idea of supporting further blackouts as a strategy to combat climate change in light of this alarming truth.
Do you find that surprising?
It certainly does in my opinion.
In the name of addressing climate change, we are being compelled to take a risky bet with our lives. However, it appears that we are prepared to take these chances as long as the goal of lowering energy usage is met.
Additionally, this is not the only drastic measure that is being compelled upon us.
A suggestion has been made to change our working hours from 9 am to 5 pm to 6 am to 2 pm.
That really embodies “freedom” and “personal choice,” doesn’t it? Tell me if you concur.
The LA Times is aware that power outages may be fatal.
The proposal was nonetheless released in spite of this.
According to The National Pulse:
The publication acknowledges the danger of such a strategy as well, noting that someone perishes every time there is a blackout and quoting John Moura, director of reliability evaluation and performance analysis at the North American Electric Reliability Corp, who claims that every time there is a blackout, someone dies. “It’s not really about keeping the lights on. It’s about keeping people alive.”
Experts are suggesting a novel and unorthodox solution to the pressing problem of climate change: embracing more frequent blackouts. Even changing our working hours from 9 am to 5 am to 6 am to 2 pm is recommended as a feasible technique in an insightful research. By shedding some light on this alternate strategy, we can investigate ways to stop the worsening climate disaster.
What comes to an end?
How much are we ready to sacrifice, alter our way of life, and even put our lives in danger to “tackling climate change”?
The full significance of these radical ideas must be acknowledged and addressed.
It is imperative that we publicly denounce these careless and ill-considered plans for what they are: dangerous, shambolic nonsense.
