Close this search box.

LA Times article labeled ‘peak climate idiocy’ after floating ‘occasional blackout’ for ‘the greater good’

By Nikolas Lanum | Fox News

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.

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.
I would just add that this insanity about fossil fuels causing maybe 1-3 degrees of new warming never seems to mention that blackouts or simply no coal or gas electricity and no wind or sunshine during a heatwave would mean no respite from the scorching heat. No fans or AC would mean household temperatures would soar 20-30 degrees. So ten dead from global warming; ten million dead from blackouts, insufficient electricity and sweltering homes. Elderly and already I’ll people would suffer most. The very folks Green and other Democrats profess to care about the most. Hypocrisy? Or something much worse?