What a twisted a sickening view this article portrays. Killing 1.2 million people per year is not an acceptable "trade-off" for generating material wealth. Material wealth does people no good if they are sick. Poor people do not benefit in the long-run from increased air and water pollution and an unstable climate.



"For the foreseeable future, that electricity will be generated by fossil fuels." Not if common sense prevails and we stop heavily subsidizing the fossil fuel industry and instead choose to invest in clean energy. This is a choice that we get to make. Current cost should not be the one and only factor that we consider. To dismiss the idea that we take climate change seriously because it costs too much is ridiculous (but let's not forget why fossil fuels are still relatively cheaper - subsidies, which we have the ability to change). How do you think future generations are going to feel about that attitude? Do you think they will look at the destruction we left them and think we made the right choice? "Wow....those people in the past saved a lot of money by totally screwing us over! It's a good thing they didn't spend a little more to correct their destructive behavior and leave us with a healthier planet!"



"cheap, less-polluting shale gass"? Shale gas is absolutely not less polluting when you take the whole process into account. Try telling the people whose tap water is now combustible and burns their skin in the shower that shale is "less polluting". Then again, you don't care about those people - they are just a "trade-off" to you.