The Los Angeles Times says that blackouts have to increase in order to combat climate change, while stunningly acknowledging the policy may cost people’s lives. The newspaper has asked its dwindling audience to consider “a larger conversation” in which people become more accustomed to changing their expectations, including the idea of living without electricity for large parts of their lives so as to prevent “climate catastrophe.”
Author Sammy Roth presents the false dichotomy in his article: “What’s more important: Keeping the lights on 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, or solving the climate crisis?”
The piece also insists that “fossil-funded lies,” apparently spread by Republicans – such as the overall uselessness of solar farms and wind turbines – should not be considered within the discussion on how to address climate change. Instead, the conversation must be orientated towards adding “solar panels, wind turbines and all kinds of energy storage to the grid as fast as possible.”
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.
