'Peak Climate Idiocy': LA Times Writer Opines That Power Blackouts Might Be Worth It to Stop Warming

(AP Photo, File)

I canceled my subscription to the LA Times 15 or so years ago, maybe 20. When I first moved here in the early ’90s, I found it to be a solid source of news, sports, and commentary. Those days are long gone. Over time, I noticed that the front page was covered with sad stories about the plight of illegal immigrants and favorable articles about the porn industry, which didn’t bother to even mention that what these outfits produced was… hard-core pornography.

Like the leftwing propaganda machine, the New York Times, it morphed from a news outlet into a highly politicized source of agitprop.

Now while I’m not so cold-hearted that I can’t feel pathos for the hardships of families who entered this country illegally (some of their stories are unquestionably moving), it nevertheless started to seem like that’s all the outlet ever covered. I don’t ever remember a single story about suffering middle-class Americans in the Midwest as manufacturing collapsed in places like Detroit and Ohio.

Since then, the paper has become an unreadable woke screed, and Thursday was no exception as staff writer Sammy Roth penned an article titled, “Would an occasional blackout help solve climate change?” He wondered:

Again and again, I’ve found myself asking: Would it be easier and less expensive to limit climate change — and its deadly combination of worsening heat, fire and drought and flood — if we were willing to live with the occasional blackout?

There is so much wrong with this framework, but no, Sammy, California blackouts would do nothing to solve climate change—if it’s even a real thing—since, among other things, China is producing coal plants at a record pace.

Two, the author implies that not having air conditioning for a short period is not that big a deal, having no lights in your house is not the end of the world, and maybe you can live without watching TV for a bit. What he completely misses: blackouts cause death. Here’s a former member of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s board of commissioners weighing in:

Why do blackouts cause death? For a variety of reasons, but let’s start with the simple fact that life-saving machines suddenly don’t work. Sure, generators can help—most of which run on fossil fuels by the way—but not everyone can afford them. The moment the power fails, gas-powered generators fire up around the state—is that what they wanted?

And what if you live in an apartment building where it’s not possible to have your own generator, what then?

After power outages in New York City in 1999 and 2006, officials noted “an increase in hospitalizations for respiratory disease, renal (kidney) disease, and an increase in all-cause mortality (deaths).” I guess that’s worth it in the sacrifice to the cult?

Meanwhile, mayhem occurs on the streets when the traffic lights stop working, and accidents are common. Gas stations and charging stations can stop working, which is why I try to always keep a full tank. Street lights go out, turning your darkened neighborhood into an obvious target.

Meanwhile, the food in your refrigerator—which cost you a ton of money due to Bidenflation—can go bad during periods without electricity. You could eat it and risk stomach poisoning or simply throw it all away. Can’t imagine that would help the environment since all the energy used to produce that food has now been summarily wasted, and if you want to survive, you have to replace it.

I’ll give the writer some credit: he owned up to the fact that his ideas were rejected by a majority of people (emphasis mine): “Of the hundreds of people who responded to my question,” he wrote, “most rejected the idea that more power outages are even remotely acceptable — for reasons beyond mere convenience.”

Nevertheless, it was too late for him to avoid the heat of the internet.

Others also weighed in unfavorably:

Junk Science Founder Steve Milloy called the article “peak climate idiocy.”

Energy-related public policy analyst David Blackmon claimed the article was part of a “propaganda campaign” designed to “condition” people to believe they have no choice but to live with and accept frequent blackouts. He also suggested the LA Times was finally saying “the quiet part out loud.”

“This is classic religious cult propaganda,” Blackmon added. “We have seen it a thousand times down through history. And it appears the entirety of our legacy media is totally down with it.”

Climate analyst Ryan Maue also weighed in on the article with a simple “yikes!”

What’s so odd about the climate cultists and the left is that they’re openly advocating for the nation to roll back progress. “Forget all the wonderful advances we’ve made,” they seem to say. “We need to turn back the clock and go back to a different, less-advanced time.” Perhaps they’d be happier if we went back to living in caves and warming our food over campfires.

Wait, no. Campfires create pollution, we can’t do that. The truth is, there is nothing that would make them happy, and the hypocritical Greta Thunbergs and John Kerrys of the world would move to ban the next modern invention on their list.

Their next slogan might be, “Let’s pull back on indoor plumbing—it’s a menace.”

Read: Our own Jim Thompson writes about his own experience as a cartoonist for the LA Times and how he personally watched it spiral into a self-inflicted decline into irrelevance:

News That’s Not Fit To Print – New York Times & LA Times Dump Sports Reporting

More LA Times Tomfoolery:

LA Times: Never Mind, Those Big California Rainstorms Weren’t Caused by Climate Change After All

Now They Want More: LA Times Urges Biden to Declare a ‘Climate Emergency


Trending on RedState Videos