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.

"Under a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, warming contributed by Scarborough would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe alone by the end of the century, the researchers calculated. Taking into account a reduction in cold-related deaths in Europe, they estimate a net contribution of 118 additional deaths."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/13/woodside-scarborough-gas-project-emissions-could-cause-heat-deaths

That's about 1.5 European deaths a year from this project. Hanover is right. The average person is not going to be alarmed by that, nor should they. People know there is an inherent risk to everything, and a handful of deaths a year is a piddling human cost to pay for providing cheap electricity to a huge number of people. On a utilitarian calculus, how does 1 or 2 deaths (let's say it's 10 worldwide) a year compare to the utiles of providing electricity to, say, 100,000 extra households a year? How many lives will be saved/vastly improved by that increase in access to electricity every year?