That's a misrepresentation of what they did. They said it was OK if it replaced certain stuff temporarily, not that you could just keep on building gas plants for ever and ever.
The recent attention that "the environment" has been getting is a direct result of this, and you mustn't confuse it for a general interest in green politics.
Frankly, I really do not care about "the environment". I care about people, and they obviously have a need for the environment. But the reason we have to take climate action is that it would be unpleasant for people's lives if we did not, not because it would hurt the trees.
If you suggest to reduce people into poverty so that they do not suffer extreme weather, is this really an improvement? Or are some people to be reduced into poverty, so that some other people do not suffer extreme weather?
If the trade-off is that I do not have a job, a place to live, heating, electricity, etc, but the weather is normal, I think I would prefer to have wildfires and flooding but otherwise a normal life. Most people would sooner live in California or Florida or Australia than Belarus or Moldova, no?
(That's not to say all action on climate policy looks like this. But when you have people talking about "degrowth" or blowing up oil pipelines, that very much seems to be the ethos. Lebanon had to make an unplanned transition away from oil on short notice. Should we strive to be like them?)
The recent attention that "the environment" has been getting is a direct result of this, and you mustn't confuse it for a general interest in green politics.
Frankly, I really do not care about "the environment". I care about people, and they obviously have a need for the environment. But the reason we have to take climate action is that it would be unpleasant for people's lives if we did not, not because it would hurt the trees.
If you suggest to reduce people into poverty so that they do not suffer extreme weather, is this really an improvement? Or are some people to be reduced into poverty, so that some other people do not suffer extreme weather?
If the trade-off is that I do not have a job, a place to live, heating, electricity, etc, but the weather is normal, I think I would prefer to have wildfires and flooding but otherwise a normal life. Most people would sooner live in California or Florida or Australia than Belarus or Moldova, no?
(That's not to say all action on climate policy looks like this. But when you have people talking about "degrowth" or blowing up oil pipelines, that very much seems to be the ethos. Lebanon had to make an unplanned transition away from oil on short notice. Should we strive to be like them?)