All energy projects should get this kind of analysis.

Yep.

This project will kill over 400 Europeans. — Banno

Why limit your death analysis to climate change issues and not conduct it every time you build a car or road? People rarely die in open fields, but then you build a road and folks start get getting killed.

The solution wouldn't be the elimination of roads and cars, but in increased safety measures. Life is a dangerous venture, so we create seat belts and airbags. If it gets too hot, maybe we need more air conditioners.

If it gets too hot, maybe we need more air conditioners. — Hanover

This is the kind of analysis I would expect from Karoline Leavitt.

This is the kind of analysis I would expect from Karoline Leavitt. — Mikie

Science doesn't dictate action. It provides data from which to decide what is valued. That's always the case. Let's remove the question from climate change and just ask if we should produce trains. If each train results in X deaths, then we know that by not producing Y number of trains, we'll have XY less deaths. Certainly if one of my family members is destined for a train death, I'd like for there not to be deathtrains out there.

Saying something like “maybe we need more air conditioners” in relation to climate change is a dismissive, ignorant statement. And I’m sure you know it. So why say it?

Yes, there are trade offs to building things. The externalities involved in fossil fuel infrastructure, extraction, and use are enormous and destructive, and have existed for decades. The damage to the ecosystem, apart from the floods, droughts, wildfires, and agricultural destruction is beyond comprehension.

To wave all this off with “too hot? Try more air conditioners” is something I felt compelled to call out.