AOC was telling people two years ago we have 12 years left … remember that? So what, does that mean we only have 10 years left?
Or was she using some sort of special socialist math that will never add up?
We’re going to go with she has no idea WTF she’s talking about and leave it at that.
Especially after reading this fairly exceptional thread on climate change from lifelong environmental activist, Mike Shellenberger:
As a lifelong environmental activist I am horrified that some young people say they may not have children because of climate change
The truth is that *most* trends relating to climate change & the environment are headed in the right direction!
THREADhttps://t.co/6aXBoPLjz8
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
But climate change and stuff!
First, some context: humans are doing better than ever:
– extreme poverty declined from 44% to 10% btwn 1981 – 2015;
– infant mortality declined from 43% to just 4%!
– Life expectancy rose from 40 to 70
– Human population growth rate has crashed; we're having fewer children pic.twitter.com/w3B08i3ZHq
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
Whoa.
Keep going.
We are more resilient than ever:
– Deaths from natural disasters declined over 90%
– We produce 25% more food than we need — our largest surpluses in history
And there is no scientific scenario for either of those trends to reverse themselves, even with high levels of warming pic.twitter.com/kVLNsp9g9f
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
But we’ve been told our time is running out.
Or something.
It's true that hurricanes and other natural disasters are causing more economic damage, but that increase can be entirely explained by increased wealth pic.twitter.com/L9FM8rhS5a
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
And more building … who knew?
Neither the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) nor any other reputable scientific body predicts a reversal in the long-term trend of declining deaths, even if temperatures rise another three degrees or more.
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
“If you read IPCC reports, there’s no hint that we will be overwhelmed and incapable of responding,” notes leading expert @RogerPielkeJr
“Even under the most extreme scenarios of climate change, future disasters will look a lot like today’s.”
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
The US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicts the maximum intensity of Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms will rise 5% in the 21st Century, but their frequency will decline 25%.https://t.co/7XFSeY4ypA
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
“Hurricanes in the future may be more intense than today’s hurricanes,” said Pielke, “but in the context of a 90% reduction in vulnerability, our disaster preparedness dwarfs the change in whatever your favorite hurricane metric is.”
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
What about fires?
– Recent fires in California prove that well-managed forests survive high-intensity fires
– Research finds that the only statistically significant factors for the frequency & severity of fires were population and proximity to development. pic.twitter.com/m4tGTDW71f
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
Well-managed forests.
Newsom should pay attention.
What about sea level rise?
It's the climate impact that worries me the least
Even if IPCC’s prediction of 0.6 meters (~2 feet) by 2100 under-estimates the change, the slow pace gives time to adapt
And the Netherlands proves that nations thrive even at 7 meters below! pic.twitter.com/YeyRgnG0dX
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
What about the risk of climate catastrophe from crossing tipping points?
The best book on the subject ranked climate catastrophe risk lowest in terms of fatalities & probabilities compared to other risks eg wars, disease, volcanoes, tsunamis, asteroidshttps://t.co/jKIDhHHS4L pic.twitter.com/q8ojTbbgXe
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
We still have big environmental problems:
– Wild animal populations declined 50% since 1970
– Critical habitat still at risk in developing world
– Humans use a shocking 25% of Earth's ice-free land surface for cattle pasture pic.twitter.com/uM3T3eoB8e
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
Wow.
That’s a lotta beef.
And we are eating too many fish, and failing to protect sea life
– 33% of global fish stocks are over-fished
– We have tripled the share of over-fished stocks since 1975
– Demand for fish will double by 2050
– Just 8% of oceans are protected pic.twitter.com/jShVOXdtXw
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
But many conservation trends are going in the right direction
– We kill 97% fewer whales than in 1960
– Deforestation in Brazil remains at decade-long low
– European & other developed nations are re-foresting
– There are 25x more protected areas today than existed in 1960 pic.twitter.com/DXLmdJHeXe
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
So we’re doing pretty good.
Gosh, who knew?
Humans are NOT causing a "sixth mass extinction," nor will we
– Just 0.8% of documented plant, animal, and insects have gone extinct since 1500
– Three-quarters of species are *not* threatened
– Species are far better at surviving at low numbers than we thought pic.twitter.com/wh5qtc1x76
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
The reason we know humans won't cause a sixth mass extinction is because the land we use for meat & agriculture has peaked & is declining
– Since 2000, area humans use for pasture declined an area 80% the size of Alaska
– Total land for ag & wood fuel is at or near peak pic.twitter.com/z4LRAorx4z
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
The carbon intensity of energy has been declining for 150 years, and global carbon emissions either have peaked or will peak soon, such as within the next decade, as we transition from coal to natural gas and nuclear pic.twitter.com/fBsN1ujtOq
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
This is fascinating.
Seriously.
So please don't believe the hype. We have good reason to believe that we can and will leave our children a better natural environment than the one we inherited.https://t.co/6aXBoPLjz8
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
But shouldn't we exaggerate environmental problems to motivate action on them? No! We should tell the truth as a matter of principle, and because it is more inspiring, as the new study proves, than environmental alarmism.
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
Tell the truth?! Get outta here.
Consider how much we are improving cancer treatments, reducing mortality by turning the disease into a chronic illness. We are doing the same thing with climate change. We should celebrate and build on those successes, not deny that they exist!
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
Imagine the reaction from cancer doctors if there were a movement that actively denied the progress we are making, and insisted that "billions will die" from cancer in the future.
Cancer doctors would be outraged at the slander against their work!
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
The fact of the matter is that humans are doing remarkably well at reducing pollution and reducing land required for agriculture. pic.twitter.com/78AMqnKix0
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
And we can do even better as those energetic and agricultural successes spread from the developed world to the developing world! pic.twitter.com/sU8mRUINTY
— Mike Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) November 30, 2020
Told ya’. If more ‘climate’ activists wrote and ‘spoke’ like this, there would be far more discussions on what we really do need to get done for our planet. Sure, it’s not nearly as melodramatic or angry, it’s just facts and reality.
Two things we’re sorely lacking when it comes to this debate.
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member