Social media users are criticizing the Los Angeles Times for a piece that wondered whether tackling climate change would be easier and less expensive if people accepted the occasional electrical grid blackout.
I pose a heretical question in my latest piece for @latimes…
Would it be easier and less expensive to fight climate change if we were willing to live with the occasional blackout?
Read the thing before yelling at me, and let me know what you think: https://t.co/vJdxwENqKw
— Sammy Roth (@Sammy_Roth) July 20, 2023
In a Thursday Los Angeles Times piece, writer Sammy Roth questioned what is more critical, “Keeping the lights on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, or solving the climate crisis?”
Last week, lawyers representing the Sierra Club and the California city of Glendale provided arguments over whether to continue operations on a gas-fired power plant located across the Los Angeles River. The city has argued the plant is needed to avoid blackouts and catastrophes for its nearly 200,000 residents.
A sustained urban blackout could kill thousands (or more) because there would soon be no water, and no gasoline or diesel so no way to go get it. Most people die in less than 3 days without water. The highest use of electricity is not lighting, it is pumping. I have thought about writing this up but it is too ghastly.
.@latimes article out today muses, "Would an occasional blackout help solve climate change?"
Ironically, it is actually net-zero policies – or decarbonization pushes – that lead to grid instability, energy insecurity, and blackouts. https://t.co/e6PxMKdWFI
— Gabriella Hoffman (@Gabby_Hoffman) July 21, 2023