Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

Leading environmentalist apologizes for “The Climate Scare”

Published

14 minute read

MICHAEL SHELLENBERG IN MARANHÃO, BRAZIL, 1995

In 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change invited Michael Shellenberger to serve as an independent Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report.

He’s been named “Hero of the Environment,”  by Time Magazine.  He’s a Green Book Award winner,  He founded  Environmental Progress.  Now… He’s sorry.  

This week, Shellenberger posted this apology on his website.  It’s important.  Really important. 

From Michael Shellenberg


On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by Congress to provide objective expert testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know:

  • 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

  • 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

I know that the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.

In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and other leading scientific bodies.

Some people will, when they read this imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s cooperatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $90 billion into them. Over the last few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilization, and called it a “crisis.”

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the news media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse.

But then, last year, things spiraled out of control.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “Climate Change Kills Children.”

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilizations.”

Mainstream journalists reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world,” and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence.

 And so my formal apology for our fear-mongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

  • Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress

  • The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land

  • The most important thing for reducing air pollution and carbon emissions is moving from wood to coal to petroleum to natural gas to uranium

  • 100% renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5% to 50%

  • We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities

  • Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4%

  • Greenpeace didn’t save the whales, switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did

  • “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions

  • Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon

  • The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants

Why were we all so misled?

In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political, and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable.” And status anxiety, depression, and hostility to modern civilization are behind much of the alarmism

Once you realize just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavory or unhealthy motivations, it is hard not to feel duped.

Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.

The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop.

The ideology behind environmental alarmsim — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.

But there are also reasons to believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.

The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform.

Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.

The invitations from IPCC and Congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists, and environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science Tom Wigley.

“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same.  Shellenberger offers ‘tough love:’ a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets.  Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”

That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree that it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive, and climate activist felt the need to speak out against the alarmism.

I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.

 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Energy

China undermining American energy independence, report says

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

The Chinese Communist Party is exploiting the left’s green energy movement to hurt American energy independence, according to a new report from State Armor.

Michael Lucci, founder and CEO of State Armor, says the report shows how Energy Foundation China funds green energy initiatives that make America more reliant on China, especially on technology with known vulnerabilities.

“Our report exposes how Energy Foundation China functions not as an independent nonprofit, but as a vehicle advancing the strategic interests of the Chinese Communist Party by funding U.S. green energy initiatives to shift American supply chains toward Beijing and undermine our energy security,” Lucci said in a statement before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee’s hearing on Wednesday titled “Enter the Dragon – China and the Left’s Lawfare Against American Energy Dominance.”

Lucci said the group’s operations represent a textbook example of Chinese influence in America.

“This is a very good example of how the Chinese Communist Party operates influence operations within the United States. I would actually describe it as a perfect case study from their perspective,” he told The Center Square in a phone interview. “They’re using American money to leverage American policy changes that make the American energy grid dependent upon China.”

Lucci said one of the most concerning findings is that China-backed technology entering the U.S. power grid includes components with “undisclosed back doors” – posing a direct threat to the power grid.

“These are not actually green tech technologies. They’re red technologies,” he said. “We are finding – and this is open-source news reporting – they have undisclosed back doors in them. They’re described in a Reuters article as rogue communication devices… another way to describe that is kill switches.”

Lucci said China exploits American political divisions on energy policy to insert these technologies under the guise of environmental progress.

“Yes, and it’s very crafty,” he said. “We are not addressing the fact that these green technologies are red. Technologies controlled by the Communist Party of China should be out of the question.”

Although Lucci sees a future for carbon-free energy sources in the United States – particularly nuclear and solar energy – he doesn’t think the country should use technology from a foreign adversary to do it.

“It cannot be Chinese solar inverters that are reported in Reuters six weeks ago as having undisclosed back doors,” he said. “It cannot be Chinese batteries going into the grid … that allow them to sabotage our grid.”

Lucci said energy is a national security issue, and the United States is in a far better position to achieve energy independence than China.

“We are luckily endowed with energy independence if we choose to have it. China is not endowed with that luxury,” he said. “They’re poor in natural resources. We’re very well endowed – one of the best – with natural resources for energy production.”

He said that’s why China continues to build coal plants – and some of that coal comes from Australia – while pushing the United States to use solar energy.

“It’s very foolish of us to just make ourselves dependent on their technologies that we don’t need, and which are coming with embedded back doors that give them actual control over our energy grid,” he said.

Lucci says lawmakers at both the state and federal levels need to respond to this threat quickly.

“The executive branch should look at whether Energy Foundation China is operating as an unregistered foreign agent,” he said. “State attorneys general should be looking at these back doors that are going into our power grid – undisclosed back doors. That’s consumer fraud. That’s a deceptive trade practice.”

Continue Reading

Energy

Carney’s Bill C-5 will likely make things worse—not better

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Niels Veldhuis and Jason Clemens

The Carney government’s signature legislation in its first post-election session of Parliament—Bill C-5, known as the Building Canada Act—recently passed the Senate for final approval, and is now law. It gives the government unprecedented powers and will likely make Canada even less attractive to investment than it is now, making a bad situation even worse.

Over the past 10 years, Canada has increasingly become known as a country that is un-investable, where it’s nearly impossible to get large and important projects, from pipelines to mines, approved. Even simple single-site redevelopment projects can take a decade to receive rezoning approval. It’s one of the primary reasons why Canada has experienced a mass exodus of investment capital, some $387 billion from 2015 to 2023. And from 2014 to 2023, the latest year of comparable data, investment per worker (excluding residential construction and adjusted for inflation) dropped by 19.3 per cent, from $20,310 to $16,386 (in 2017 dollars).

In theory, Bill C-5 will help speed up the approval process for projects deemed to be in the “national interest.” But the cabinet (and in practical terms, the prime minister) will determine the “national interest,” not the private sector. The bill also allows the cabinet to override existing laws, regulations and guidelines to facilitate investment and the building of projects such as pipelines, mines and power transmission lines. At a time when Canada is known for not being able to get large projects done, many are applauding this new approach, and indeed the bill passed with the support of the Opposition Conservatives.

But basically, it will allow the cabinet to go around nearly every existing hurdle impeding or preventing large project developments, and the list of hurdles is extensive: Bill C-69 (which governs the approval process for large infrastructure projects including pipelines), Bill C-48 (which effectively bans oil tankers off the west coast), the federal cap on greenhouse gas emissions for only the oil and gas sector (which effectively means a cap or even reductions in production), a quasi carbon tax on fuel (called the Clean Fuels Standard), and so on.

Bill C-5 will not change any of these problematic laws and regulations. It simply will allow the cabinet to choose when and where they’re applied. This is cronyism at its worst and opens up the Carney government to significant risks of favouritism and even corruption.

Consider firms interested in pursuing large projects. If the bill becomes the law of the land, there won’t be a new, better and more transparent process to follow that improves the general economic environment for all entrepreneurs and businesses. Instead, there will be a cabinet (i.e. politicians) with new extraordinary powers that firms can lobby to convince that their project is in the “national interest.”

Indeed, according to some reports, some senators are referring to Bill C-5 as the “trust me” law, meaning that because there aren’t enough details and guardrails within the legislation, senators who vote in favour are effectively “trusting” Prime Minister Carney and his cabinet to do the right thing, effectively and consistently over time.

Consider the ambiguity in the legislation and how it empowers discretionary decisions by the cabinet. According to the legislation, cabinet “may consider any factor” it “considers relevant, including the extent to which the project can… strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security” or “provide economic benefits to Canada” or “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples” or “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.”

With this type of “criteria,” nearly anything cabinet or the prime minister can dream up could be deemed in the “national interest” and therefore provide the prime minister with unprecedented and near unilateral powers.

In the preamble to the legislation, the government said it wants an accelerated approval process, which “enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence.” In all likelihood, Bill C-5 will do the opposite. It will put more power in the hands of a very few in government, lead to cronyism, risks outright corruption, and make Canada even less attractive to investment.

Continue Reading

Trending

X