The Western world has become considerably more prosperous in the past century due to the availability of reliable and affordable energy.
This prosperity ought to be used to finance technological progress to reduce climate casualties by adapting to changes in the climate.
Fear-mongering narratives about the effects of carbon dioxide have resulted in nonsensical expenditure of billions on the achievement of net-zero.
Attempts to mitigate changes in the climate have never yet saved a life or made any measurable difference.
In contrast, adaptation technology really can save millions of people from the effects of changes in our weather because we can now forecast the arrival days of extreme weather, sometimes weeks in advance, so that proper precautions can be taken.
In prosperous countries, dikes can be strengthened, houses can be better insulated and made much more resistant to hurricanes and even to earthquakes. Firebreaks can be created in forests to ensure that forest fires remain local, new water management techniques can be developed to collect excess rainwater to be used later in dry times, etc.
In the Western world, we hold endless meetings to discuss methods of controlling Earth’s climate. In those meetings, policy measures are invented about Earth’s climate by green politicians who have little factual engineering or scientific knowledge.
This is because they wish to be seen to lead a moral procession to ‘save the world’.
Countries such as China and India are watching us, with utter amazement, as we, and the EU, drive out our high-quality industrial production and jobs with foolish climate regulations.
They do not have any understanding or patience with our public welfare-destroying net-zero policies which they see as a foolish Western illusion that serves them well.
As a result, we see the West weakening economically as geopolitical relationships change in favour of emerging economic superpowers, such as India and China.
Why, oh why, are we in the UK and Europe working so hard to make ourselves even more economically irrelevant? — R. SHEPPARD, Beckingham
