Natural Gas NOW
The Economist, a trendy journal read by those who consider themselves more worldly than the rest of us, says electricity doesn’t help the poor all that much.
One has to wonder if modern-day journalists give even a milli-second’s thought to what they write. The Economist, published out of London, is one of those media outlets that some folks like to let you know they read as a way of demonstrating their worldliness. It published a story earlier this year that tells us a lot about their writers and the mental blocks the politically correct have when it comes to energy.
The story, titled “Electricity does not change poor lives as much as was thought,” offers an inside look at the sort of reasoning, if you can call it such, that elitists employ when it comes to delivering the goods they enjoy to the masses they suppose are beneath them. We see it everyday with fractivists enablers and global warmists who do absolutely nothing to change their own lifestyles while lecturing others and funding those who would adopt their message as a religious cause. Revealingly, the story was originally headlined as “Light to all nations?” as if some would be better off in the dark.
The Economist tells us the following:
- “Getting a power connection to the poorest of the poor may be the wrong priority”…
- “…recent economic research shows that rushing to illuminate the world is a bad idea.”
- “Add up the mini-grids, the transmission lines, the new power stations and the credit lines to sellers of solar home systems, and Rwanda’s energy plan amounts to $3.1bn over six years. The entire government budget this year is $2.8bn.”
- “Solar lamps appear not to rescue people from poverty.”
- “Nor even does a grid connection… Offering cheap connections cut the proportion of people living on less than $2 a day from 93% to 90%—hardly a transformation.
- “Children’s lives changed, but perhaps not in a good way. Those who were connected …did even less housework than before.”
- “… electrification might mostly benefit businesses, and not at once. Moreover, countries will have to bring power to their people eventually. But to spend a lot of scarce cash doing so now, in the hope that benefits will turn up, hardly seems enlightened.”
The response on Twitter and elsewhere was appropriately brutal:
You. Used. Electricity. To. Post. This. Unbelievable. Crap.
— Reuenthal_800 (@MAurelius161180) October 10, 2019
Typed on a computer, in a room with electric lights and electric climate control https://t.co/UtfDR1WrI6
— Darth Paul (@PaulGofSec2814) October 10, 2019
Perhaps if these pundits had experienced growing up without electricity … and sewerage …
— Boltons Bore (@simmiMANYA) October 9, 2019
This isn’t very bright. https://t.co/whaHZUfYW8
— juliusagusta (@juliusagusta) October 10, 2019
Right, it’s just:
Time to complete tasks/study
Access to information
Reduced crime https://t.co/J6VISCKuJX
— Dead Agent (@Recursion_Agent) October 10, 2019
Log off your computer and go live in a mud hut from now on.
— Grand Admiral Nick (@admiral_nick) October 10, 2019
But, I think the best comment came on Instapundit which suggested there might be health benefits from all the exercise involved in producing and reading the “stone tablet edition of the Economist” when it comes out.
That’s well said, but isn’t it sad how blind journalism is to what it writes? Did no one at Economist appreciate the sheer condescension of the piece before publishing it? No, they did not because they and their readers are part of the same elite class who imagines themselves as Plato’s “guardians” in a world of privilege where they direct and manage the lower and middle classes, convincing themselves it’s all necessary as they violate every principle they espouse when it comes to their own lifestyles. Such is the opposition to natural gas development in the rural Northeast as princes from the Haas, Heinz, Park and Rockefeller families fund it and treat the victims of their policies as “collateral damage.”