The Nobel Peace Prize, previously awarded to Barack Obama before he chose to continue a lot of wars and increase the drone attacks, the EU for being, basically, the EU, Wangari Maathai who believed the conspiracy theory that HIV was man-made, Aung San Suu Kyi who silently allows a genocide in her country, was this time awarded to Abiy Ahmed, who at least at this time seem to deserve it. Maybe it would be better to wait a couple of decades before awarding the prize, as with the scientific prizes (I have suggested doing it posthumously)?
Anyway, some people apparently believed that a young, uneducated, radical green activist should have been awarded it instead, despite her not having accomplished anything and despite her misunderstanding or misrepresenting the science behind her claims.
So much so that Newsweek chose this headline:
As it was so ridiculous, they changed it:
It’s probably necessary to add this disclaimer: We are experiencing climate change and it is primarily anthropogenic climate change – we are causing it. It’s global warming. It is a problem and we need to work on it. It is however impossible to reach zero emissions in a decade without causing continent-spanning famines and, of course, making a significant part of the world’s population extremely poor again. On the other hand, it is possible to adapt to some changes in climate, while still feeding the world, reducing or perhaps even eliminating extreme poverty, thereby stabilising the world population and, incidentally, allow us to save a lot of animal species that have been facing extinction by humans. I opt for the latter option.
Furthermore, the challenges of climate change cannot be mitigated by changes to the lifestyle of the middle class. We are facing a 3.5℃ rise in global temperatures and even if all passenger airplane flights were stopped now and didn’t start again, by 2100 we’d still be facing a 3.5℃ rise. 4.5 billions passengers transported by plane every year for 8 decades would only account for 0.03℃.
Note: Fixed a typo.