No, climate change does not cause more deaths

Cold kills 4.5 million people each year. Heat kills less than 500,000.

Although they try to sell us that climate catastrophes cause more deaths every day, the truth is that we are at historic lows. Environmentalist alarmism tells us that climate change is man's fault. And what is worse, that it is deadly. But if we stick to the data, the truth is that climate change does not cause more deaths. This clashes with the unitary message from important institutions, such as the United Nations. According to the UN, global warming had direct effects on "the health, food and homes of millions of people around the world". One wonders why this is the message that is getting through, and how much money is being spent on it.

Climate alarmism

The first thing that strikes the eco-alarmist arguments is that heat kills more than cold. And it is the famous global warming the cause for concern. The rise in the Earth's temperature leads to talk of the melting of the poles, the rise of the seas and an endless number of climatic catastrophes. However, no one focuses on the cold. The truth is that more than 4.5 million people die from the cold, as reported in The Lancet, compared to less than 600,000 who die from extreme temperatures. So says Bjong Lomborg, professor at the Copenhagen Business School (CBS), and one of the biggest critics of climate alarmists.

Other scientists have spoken along the same lines, warning that this supposed climate apocalypse is not such.  John R. Christy, professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Alabama, also agrees with the same diagnosis. His report entitled "Falsifying the climate alarm" has raised blisters in the scientific community, for contradicting the single message.  Although the evidence shows that climate alarmism is a political dogma, the consequences of breaking with the imposed doctrine are usually silencing (the cancellation culture).

Gráfico sobre el descenso de muertes por cambio climático



Energy crisis leading to impoverishment

Climate alarmism is leading us into an unprecedented global energy crisis. We see how institutions pretend to save the planet from a supposedly man-made problem, but what the data show is not real. And this "voluntary" energy crisis (due to climate change) is leading us to impoverishment, which will trigger a totally unnecessary economic crisis. Green doctrines prohibit us from making the most of our energy resources, in case this harms the climate, nature or ecosystems.

Unfortunately, the message has taken hold despite the lack of corroborating data. And the mother of all battles is getting energy to move the world. This alleged climate apocalypse is the one that vetoes fossil fuels, prevents the extraction of gas from the ground via fracking, invites the dismantling of nuclear power plants and penalizes spending on air conditioning, transportation, the use of disposable materials.... In short, everything that progress has brought and that increases our quality of life thanks to evolution, must be subjected to the false problem of climate change.

Faced with this situation of impoverishment (energy, social and economic), the public authorities insist on making recommendations to avoid harming the planet, instead of improving people's lives. The advice given is to use the car less, not to overdo it with the air conditioning, to try not to turn on the heating too much... in other words, to live in worse conditions and may you be the one to flagellate yourself because of how we "mistreat" mother earth.

Public policies against alleged climate change

Let's go to the numbers: President Biden pledged to double the amount earmarked to fight climate change. We are talking about $11 billion a year, until 2024, for climate aid alone. As Benjamin Zycher (economist at the American Enterprise Institute) points out, environmental policies are costing us more and more money every year, when the supposed benefits are practically negligible.

The Green New Deal (GND) seeks to ameliorate an alleged climate crisis through policies that would reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (also called carbon footprint) to zero by 2050. The direct spending of the electricity sector part of the Green New Deal costs $490.5 billion a year, or: $3,845 a year per household.

And this investment is aimed at ensuring that the temperature of the planet does not rise by a few thousandths of a degree in 70 years (from 0.083° C to 0.173º C). Therefore, while a huge amount of public money is allocated to the alleged global warming, the worsening of the lives of citizens continues. And instead of betting on efficiency improvements, it is supported the reduction of energy consumption and impoverishment .

Limits of climate policies

Under the mission of protecting human health and the environment, Biden decided to fatten the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a leadership team (as they called it) to control and penalize actions that go beyond their climate dogma. This is the case with programs such as the so-called "Clean Air Plan," for which Virginia (along with other states) took the EPA to court.

The EPA has recently been censured by the U.S. Supreme Court for overstepping its control duties. In particular, it points out that it has no governmental authority to regulate emissions from power plants. The high court points out that the transformative power to decide important issues such as these, belongs to the American people, not to bureaucrats. This demonstrates the profound significance of these measures, which determine the future of society and set the direction of the country.