4 ms·

In fact, one might say that the easiest bang for the Gates buck in terms of addressing climate change is pulling their anti-malaria funding. ;-)

• valarauko 4y ago
  As glib as that option might be, the people most affected by malaria are disproportionately the ones least contributing to Climate Change in the first place, and tend to live in regions most affected by CC. I'd imagine the Gates could get far more bang for their CC bucks by lobbying for revoking the EPA/FDA/OSHA/VA. A few billions in the right super PACs and CC might be reversed ;-)
  • formerkrogemp 4y ago
    > I'd imagine the Gates could get far more bang for their CC bucks by lobbying for revoking the EPA/FDA/OSHA/VA. A few billions in the right super PACs and CC might be reversed. So, your claim is that if we didn't have the FDA or EPA, then we wouldn't have climate change? I haven't such a ridiculous claim in awhile. What's the logic here? Even disregarding the other Federal agencies that you seem to dislike, how does the end of the Environmental Protection Agency hinder climate change in any capacity whatsoever? Is this just sarcasm implying that if more people die due to the absence of these agencies, then there will be less of a collective carbon footprint?
    • valarauko 4y ago
      > Is this just sarcasm implying that if more people die due to the absence of these agencies, then there will be less of a collective carbon footprint? Yes - see the parent comment I was replying to.
      • formerkrogemp 4y ago
        Ah, I misunderstood. I apologize.