Oh, the audacity of even asking such a question!

So, it appears we’ve now reached a stage where we’re being asked to weigh our climate crisis against…wait for it…having consistent access to electricity!

And here I was, thinking we were advanced enough to, you know, juggle multiple tasks at once.

Apparently not.

Don’t get me wrong; the climate crisis is a pressing issue.

But, my dear friends, is it really fair to ask us to just embrace blackouts as the new normal?

Are we just expected to say, “Oh, sorry little Timmy, no more video games or homework after sundown, we’re doing our bit for the environment!”?

Or maybe, “Sorry, Grandma, you’ll have to navigate those stairs in the dark, we’re saving the planet!”

No, just no.

And while we’re on this topic, let’s not forget who the biggest polluter in the room is.

Last I checked, it wasn’t California, it was China.

If we’re really trying to tackle this crisis head-on, shouldn’t we be focusing on the most egregious offenders?

Instead, it seems the focus is always on how we can limit ourselves, how we can give up our comforts and modern conveniences.

Climate change is a global issue.

So why do our solutions always seem to involve shutting down our economy and way of life?

Shouldn’t we instead be innovating, creating cleaner, greener energy solutions that allow us to keep our lights on and our air clean?

It’s time we stopped accepting these false dichotomies and started demanding better.

This is the proposal as written in the LA Times:

What’s more important: Keeping the lights on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, or solving the climate crisis?

That is in many ways a terrible question, for reasons I’ll discuss shortly.

But it’s been on my mind as a ferocious heat wave roasts California and other states — and as I’ve watched Glendale respond to a Sierra Club lawsuit over the fate of the city’s gas-fired power plant, just across the L.A. River from Griffith Park.


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?


Could we get started ditching gas sooner — and save some money — by accepting a few more blackouts for the next few years?

Well, well, well, did they forget?

Every time there’s a blackout, someone dies.

Yes, you read that right.


And this isn’t just some wild rumor, it’s coming straight from the mouth of the director of reliability assessment and performance analysis at the North American Electric Reliability Corp, John Moura.

So, with that cheery fact in mind, let’s revisit the idea that we should willingly accept more blackouts to tackle climate change.

What? Does that seem a bit off to you?

Because it sure does to me.

We’re essentially being asked to play a high-stakes game of Russian roulette with our lives for the sake of climate action. But hey, as long as the lights go out, right?

And this isn’t the only extreme measure being pushed down our throats.

Some folks actually want to change our working hours from 9 am-5 pm to 6 am-2 pm.

I don’t know about you, but that just screams ‘freedom’ and ‘personal choice’, doesn’t it?

The worst part is that the LA Times knows that blackouts kill people.

Yet they still published this proposal.

The National Pulse reports:

The newspaper also recognizes the risk of such a policy as it reports that someone dies every time there is a blackout, and includes a quote from the director of reliability assessment and performance analysis at the North American Electric Reliability Corp, John Moura, that “it’s not really about keeping the lights on. It’s about keeping people alive.”

Accepting increased blackouts is yet another extreme measure being suggested to tackle climate change. One recent study suggested changing working hours from 9 am to 5 am to 6 am to 2 pm.

I mean, seriously, where does it end?

How far are we willing to bend over backwards, compromise our lifestyles, and even risk our lives in the name of ‘tackling climate change’?

We can’t continue to gloss over the real consequences of these radical ideas.

It’s high time we called out these dangerous, ill-thought-out proposals for what they are – shameless, life-threatening absurdities!

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.