Climate Change Alarmism Not Supported by the Facts

 

Environmental activists protest in Tel Aviv.

Americans are becoming neurotic worriers. Covid brought out the worst in us, as politicized medical leaders rushed us into a panic response that did far more harm than the disease itself without fundamentally affecting the net outcome of the pandemic.

But Covid is hardly the only example of Americans overestimating the dangers in their lives. We fret about everything from “Christian nationalism” arising from court decisions protecting religious freedoms to alien-bearing UFOs.

Many Americans fear police officers kill unarmed blacks by the thousands when the real number is about 10 to 20 annually. College students expect “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” to provide protection from exposure to opposing opinions and the literal physical harm they are thought to cause.

Part of the problem with imagining all these boogeymen is that real threats can get lost in the shuffle. Impending financial doom, a rapidly changing world order, and millions of unassimilated aliens crossing our borders could all use better focused attention.

There is no better example of the trivial deflecting us from the critical than climate change. Sixty percent of the developed world truly believes that it will spell the end of humanity.

The World Health Organization declared climate change the most important public health issue of the 21st century. The savants of the World Economic Forum named climate action failure the greatest policy risk of the next decade.

Third World countries, unfortunately for them, find most of their foreign aid these days linked with resources to address climate change, rather than more pressing needs like economic development, malnutrition, clean water, education, or healthcare.

The fact that some degree of warming is real and related to human activity hardly justifies the catastrophe narrative. Facts derived from official sources tell a different story; for example, 98 percent fewer people are dying from climate-related disasters than a century ago.

Those who express doubt about any aspect of the catastrophe narrative are dubbed “climate deniers” by the mainstream and depicted as science-adverse Neanderthals. Joe Biden claimed he could change their minds just by showing them the climate-related fires he had personally witnessed.

About those fires, Joe. The undisputed fact is that 4.2% of the land in the world burned yearly in the early 1900s. Today it has fallen to 3% due to less heating from open fires, better forest management, and more resources available for fire suppression. Tilting at climate change will produce far less harm reduction from fires than will common sense, risk management, and prevention.

Danish economist Bjorn Lonborg gives other reasons to doubt climate change deserves its reputation as an existential threat. Hurricanes, despite claims to the contrary, are not increasing. On the contrary, the number of hurricanes in 2022 was unusually low, the second weakest batch of hurricanes since satellite data became available in 1980.

Landfall hurricanes, the most accurate way of charting hurricane frequency, appear to have declined slightly since 1900. Hurricanes each year cost 0.04 percent of global GDP. Projections from the scientific journal Nature, taking into account changes in climate as well as improved ability to protect ourselves from hurricane harm, indicate that by 2100 the damage will be 0.02% even without new climate policies.

The WHO claims that 95,000 worldwide deaths annually from malnutrition will be attributable to unchecked climate change between 2030–2050. That sounds like a lot, but the global total of deaths from malnutrition is 30 million or so annually, a number that is sure to come down as crop yields increase and economic development improves.

Even polar bears, the subject of one of Al Gore’s apocalyptic predictions, are doing okay. Polar bear specialists estimate that, due to hunting limits, the worldwide population is 21,000 to 31,000, up from 12,000 in the 1960s.

Nobel prize winner William Nordhaus estimates that if we stand pat, climate change will cost 4% of GDP by 2100. But the UN predicts that global GDP will rise by 450% in that time, dwarfing the climate-induced harm.

Big-government tyrants love crises because of the power and prestige they bring. Instead of impoverishing ourselves with impractical boondoggles, we need to bear down on economic growth and innovation to pull us through. That’s what Americans do best.

Published in Economics, Environment
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 3 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    It’s the hockey stick 2.0

    • #1
  2. Hugh Inactive
    Hugh
    @Hugh

    Third World countries, unfortunately for them, find most of their foreign aid these days linked with resources to address climate change, rather than more pressing needs like economic development, malnutrition, clean water, education, or healthcare.

    This is real.  Africa needs more power plants and have lots of coal and natural gas.  However, the only power generation financing we can get from the West is for wind or solar (our choice). Luckily the Chinese are stepping in to fill this need and sell their power plant deigns and even build them for us.

    I’m not a fan of getting everything from the west and this is changing, oh so slowly, but it seems that the strings attached to any sort of aid is getting to be very woke.  If you want power it has to be solar or wind.  If you want health funding it has to include abortion.  If you want education funding it has to include other woke nonsense.

    Africa has been dealing with climate change for a lot longer than the west. We muddle through somehow.

    • #2
  3. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Columbo (View Comment):

    It’s the hockey stick 2.0

    I find myself wondering if newer  science textbooks for 6th, 7th and 8th graders now use the first chapter to tell their young audience that if a theory has a graph with hockey stick indications, then the theory has  irrefutable scientific proofs supporting the theory.

    • #3
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.