How many of the following do you think are statements of demonstrable fact (or at the very least, are reasonably arguable):
-
Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
-
The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
-
Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
-
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
-
The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
-
The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
-
Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s
-
The Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level
-
We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
-
Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
-
Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
-
Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture
They are set out in an Environmental Progress post which is an extended mea culpa by Michael Shellenberger based on a new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. The post began: "On behalf of environmentalists everywhere I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we have created over the past 30 years. ...".
To be clear, this is not an expression of climate change scepticism or denial, but a regret over apocalyptic messaging over many years. You know, statements such "One year ago, I came to Davos and told you that our house is on fire. I said I wanted you to panic." Activists are apt to come out with alarmism rhetoric like this to get media attention even though "our house" – the Earth – is not burning.
The reason this list is in the news is that it was published on Forbes.com and then removed because it somehow breached editorial guidelines. This is Newspeak for pressure from activists which it caved in to.
You can be clear (as I am) that rapid climate change is a real phenomenon, and a profoundly problematic one that needs huge policy attention, whilst also being in favour of truth-telling about the nature of the problem, and clear-headed about what we should be doing. Both climate change alarmism and climate change denial get in the way of this.
Back to the list; I'm writing this because I think that, as far as they go, many of the statements are reasonable summaries of where we currently are, even if all would benefit from further explication. What about you?
Respond