I'm certainly not advocating that we pollute for fun. But if the choice is between polluting massively with fossil fuels or having people go cold and starve because there's not enough energy to produce fertilizer and heat people's homes, I'm saying it's downright immoral to prevent the former and cause the latter.

I'm not against green energy! By all means, build as many wind turbines and solar panels as we can. We need abundant, cheap, and ideally pollution-free energy; but until we can get there, burn as much fossil fuels as we need to alleviate human suffering and uplift the global poor.

> But if the choice is between polluting massively with fossil fuels or having people go cold and starve

These are definitely not the choices and using those a basis for logic leads to misguided opinions

A surprisingly large number of people are wanting us to burn zero fossil fuels in 2035. I don't think they know much about fertiliser production though... (other than that they dislike it and we should use natural farming)

2035 is the goal for carbon free electricity only.

Another way to look at it: burning coal produces natural resources, building powerplants from solar panels and wind turbines produces lots of non-recyclable plastic. Which one will pollute more once we generate energy from solar panels than coal plants? (serious question)