A Bozeman Paper Wouldn’t Publish THIS Letter?
One of our radio listeners, Kendall in Laurel, made a really good point about the climate kids lawsuit in Montana known as the Held v. Montana case. This is the case where kids are being used as props by their wealthy white liberal parents and a special interest group known as Our Childrens Trust to push a radical climate change agenda.
More simply put, these folks are using children as human shields in their war on American energy.
The group is pushing all sorts of phony narratives in their case. One is a kid who claims that climate change will make it harder to be a cattle rancher in the future. As Kendall in Laurel pointed out- you do realize that one of the industries the Left is blaming for climate change is cattle ranching, right? The climate alarmists are literally trying to drive cattle ranchers out of business.
Paul in Bozeman makes another good point. If you're a ski instructor at a posh local ski resort, and you say you're worried about climate change...you realize that driving up the cost of energy will drive people away from your ski hill, right?
It's also worth noting that we LOWERED carbon dioxide emissions in America by increasing domestic energy production with fossil fuels like oil and gas. These are the very projects the climate alarmist Left wants to stop.
Check out the below letter to the editor that Paul submitted to The Bozeman Daily Chronicle. He was attempting to respond to this article by the Chronicle: 'I cried like 10 times': Bozeman plaintiffs reflect on youth climate trial
Paul says the Chronicle would not print his letter.
Here is the letter Paul said he sent to the Chronicle:
In the wake of Montana’s “kids against climate change” trial (Held v. Montana), Chronicle reporter Isabel Hicks (June 24) quoted reactions of several plaintiffs from the Bozeman area. I was struck by what two of these plaintiffs told Hicks.
The two emphasized personal burdens they fear from climate change. One said that “low snowpack impacted her ability to teach skiing at Big Sky.” (Perhaps the story was different for Winter 2022-2023?) The other also “focused mostly on the declining snowpack and warm temperatures that carry impacts to the ski industry.”
Unsurprisingly, their proposed remedy against such impacts is the rapid diminution or even termination of hydrocarbon (“fossil”) fuel use, since these fuels’ consumption dumps greenhouse-gas CO2 exhaust into the atmosphere.
Likely, though, neither plaintiff realizes that if hydrocarbon fuels go away, so do downhill-skiing jaunts for anyone but the super-wealthy. Why? Because running the lifts, making snow, and mere travel from Bozeman to the slopes are all energy-intensive operations.
More consequential than ski vacations becoming luxuries, however, will be the effects of these fuels’ absences on everyone's daily life: Enormous reductions in food availability, especially food transported from afar. Drastic declines in personal mobility. The disappearance of most mass-produced goods. An end to hot showers! Overall, a great localization and primitivization of society.
Those plaintiffs would do well to contemplate the information trove at the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s web page “U.S. energy facts explained.” They’ll see, for starters, that coal, petroleum, and natural gas comprised 79% of “primary” energy in 2021. It’s fantasy to think these fuels can be replaced by solar- and wind-driven electrification of the entire economy. This is a practical matter of physics, chemistry, and engineering, not “constitutional rights.”