Jean-Francois Mouhot compares the use of fossil fuels to slavery.
[…]today’s machinery – almost exclusively powered by fossil fuels like coal and oil – does the same work that used to be done by slaves and servants. “Energy slaves” now do our laundry, cook our food, transport us, entertain us, and do most of the hard work needed for our survival.
Intriguing similarities between slavery and our current dependence on fossil-fuel-powered machines struck me: both perform roughly the same functions in society (doing the hard and dirty work that no one wants to do), both were considered for a long time to be acceptable by the majority and both came to be increasingly challenged as the harm they caused became more visible.
Mouhot at least maintains that electricity enthusiasts aren’t as reprehensible as slave owners.
Obviously, there are differences between the use of slaves and of fossil fuels. Fundamentally, slavery is a crime against humanity.
Actually, so would burning fossil fuels, if certain eco-nuts got their way. Also, I would have thought that the fundamental difference was the exploitation of another human being and the denial of freedom, a crime to which coal-burning does not even compare. Mouhot admits that “fossil fuel use is not a moral evil”, yet contradicts this.
Consumers of goods made by slaves or absentee plantation owners who lived in Britain in the 18th century also benefited from the slave system without maintaining direct connections to it. Those beneficiaries can certainly be said to have committed a morally comparable sort of human transgression to that of people who benefit from fossil fuels today.
So driving a car is comparable to buying goods produced through slave labour?
Pointing out the similarities between slavery and the use of fossil fuels can help us engage with the issue in a new way, and convince us to act, as no one envisages comfortably being compared with a slave-owner.
That’s good. Compare people with slave owners so they’ll stop driving, heating their homes and turning on their lights. If the greenies do go with this tactic, people will call out this offensive hyperbole rather than change their behaviour. Name-calling, like alarmism, doesn’t work. I would have though they would have learnt this by now.
And just when we thought that Mouhot could go through the article without dropping the c-bomb.
It should thus come as no surprise that there is so much resistance to climate science. Our societies, like slave-owning societies, have a vested interest in ignoring the scientific consensus.
Similarly, it should come as no surprise that warmists have a vested interest in ignoring empirical evidence.