And, the “fixation” has consequences.
=============
For a long time, I’ve been lukewarm on the climate control hysteria … and recently, I’ve argued that Putin’s nukes pose a more likely (and timely) existential risk than climate change
See: 16 Reasons why I’m lukewarm on climate change and Greater threat to the planet: Putin or climate change?
On cue, the WSJ published a great minds, same track opinion piece:
Russia’s invasion should be a wake-up call that war is still a serious danger that requires democratic nations’ attention.
Nuclear weapons — not climate change — are posing the biggest risk of literal mutually assured destruction in half a century.
More broadly they opine:
There are many serious threats in the world today.
But most won’t get the attention they deserve until the political classes drop their hyperbole about climate change
It should be treated like what it actually is — only one of the many problems to be solved in the 21st century.
in the world’s poorest countries, the international community’s focus on putting up solar panels coexists with a woeful underinvestment in solutions to massive existing problems.
Beyond the nuclear geopolitical threats are infectious diseases like tuberculosis and malaria that kill millions; malnutrition that afflicts almost a billion people; and more than three billion lack access to any form of reliable energy.
Couldn’t have said it better…
The Homa Files 