Brad says the following-
As a communicator myself, I’d like nothing better than for thousands of middle-class white people to die in an extreme weather event—preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it—live on cable news. Tomorrow. The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone. And just between us, let’s be honest: the average member of the public is a bit (how can I put it politely?) of a moron. It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is a bigger threat than Fascism was, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence. Cognitologist C. R. R. Kampen thinks the annihilation of a city of 150,000 people might just provide the teaching moment we need.
Those numbers of people have died before in energy and environmental situations.
The Banqiao dam broke 1975 and killed 170,000 people. This has not changed hydro-electric dam construction in China or anywhere in the world.
Energy kills millions of people every year.
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) OLD Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal – China 278 Coal – USA 15 Oil 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
Brad is looking at global warming which is a "problem" that cannot prove deaths now.
Meanwhile Climate Nuremberg ignores the 7 million deaths per year from air pollution.
Those air pollution deaths include hundreds of thousands of white people in Europe and the United States. Where is the attention from "global warming environmentalists" ? Where is the teachable moment ?