Economy
Climate researchers show we’re actually “safer than ever from climate” catastrophes
The climate safety denial movement
I and others have documented that we’re safer than ever from climate. Catastrophists can’t refute us, so they’re now saying that disaster deaths don’t matter!
|
|
For decades climate catastrophists have portrayed climate disasters as getting deadlier and deadlier.
Now that I and others have documented that we’re safer than ever from climate, catastrophists are saying that disaster deaths don’t matter!
 |
- Reuters says “Drop in climate-related disaster deaths not evidence against climate emergency.”
But a drop in deaths from something—here, a 98% drop—is obvious evidence against it being an emergency.
Would Reuters say: “98% drop in flu deaths not evidence against flu emergency”?¹
- Why is Reuters, along with The New York Times, PolitiFact, and USA Today, claiming that a 98% drop in climate disaster deaths doesn’t contradict their climate emergency narrative? Because it obviously does, and they can only save their narrative by intimidating us into denying the obvious.²
- The central narrative of climate catastrophists is that fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions are killing more and more people via climate disasters.
This narrative has always had a fatal weakness: it totally contradicts the data, which show plummeting climate disaster deaths.³
- Why are climate disaster deaths plummeting as fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions rise?
Because the enormous ability uniquely cost-effective and scalable fossil fuel energy gives us to master climate danger far outweighs any new climate challenges from CO2 emissions.
- An example of fossil-fueled climate mastery overwhelming CO2 impacts is drought.
Any contribution of rising CO2 to drought has been overwhelmed by fossil-fueled irrigation and crop transport, which have helped reduce drought deaths by over 100 times over 100 years as CO2 levels have risen.⁴
- Over the last decade, I and a number of others, including Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Shellenberger, have challenged catastrophism by pointing to declining climate disaster deaths.
Catastrophists couldn’t refute our argument. So instead they pretended it didn’t exist.
Until last year.⁵
- In 2023, climate catastrophists finally felt compelled to address the fact that climate disaster deaths have plummeted (driven by fossil-fueled climate mastery).
Because of honesty? No—because Presidential candidates started bringing it up and persuading people with it.
- Here is Vivek Ramaswamy during his Presidential campaign referring to a 98% decline in climate disaster deaths—and, crucially, giving fossil fuel energy credit.
- Here is Ron DeSantis during his Presidential campaign referring to a 98% decline in climate disaster deaths—and, crucially, giving fossil fuel energy credit.
- The 98% decline in climate disaster deaths, driven by fossil fuels, is a blockbuster fact: it shows that we are experiencing not fossil-fueled climate emergency but fossil-fueled climate safety.
But instead of being happy, catastrophists engage in climate safety denial.
- Here are 3 recent instances of climate safety denial—from Reuters, PolitiFact, and USA Today. All have long portrayed climate deaths as a fast-increasing problem. But now they claim deaths don’t matter.
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/drop-climate-related- disaster-deaths-not-evidence- against-climate-emergency- 2023-09-19/ - Climate safety denial utilizes 5 main myths to evade the decline in disaster deaths:
1. Fossil fuels don’t deserve credit
2. Weather forecasting deserves the credit
3. 100 years is a misleading period
4. Damages are drastically increasing
5. There’s a major increase in reported disasters - Myth 1: Fossil fuels don’t deserve much credit for plummeting climate disaster deaths; it’s “resilience.”
Truth: Uniquely cost-effective and scalable fossil fuel energy makes us resilient through plentiful infrastructure-building, heating and cooling, irrigation, transportation, etc.⁶
- Myth 2: Storm warning systems deserve the credit for plummeting climate disaster deaths.
Truth: Drought, not storm, deaths are the leading source of reduced climate deaths. And fossil fuels power storm warning and evacuation systems (and more resilient infrastructure).⁷
- Myth 3: 100 years is a misleading period to measure plummeting climate disaster deaths.
Truth: 100 years is a standard, very meaningful period to look at. While we have data going back an additional two decades, those tend to underreport due to less global communication.⁸
- Contrary to the claim that starting analysis of climate disaster deaths in the 1920s overestimates the decline, it actually likely underestimates the decline due to insufficient past reporting; data before WWII extremely likely underreport deaths compared to data after 2000.
- Myth 4: There is an alarming increase in reported disasters, revealing an underlying climate emergency.
Truth: The increase in reported disasters over time is due overwhelmingly to increased global communication. Changes in fundamentals, such as storms, are extremely modest.⁹
- The claim that more reported disasters show an increasingly dangerous climate is absurd in light of the fact that underlying data show massive increases in reporting before significant human climate impacts and the reporting trend also massively goes up for non-climate causes!
- Other biases might inflate the number of reported disasters. E.g., governments of poor countries have an incentive to declare more disasters with increasing international relief.¹⁰
- Using obviously problematic disaster frequency reporting instead of direct climatological evidence to try and show increasing climate danger is a revealing choice by catastrophists. They are making it because the climate change we’ve experienced has been very modest—and masterable.
Do Not Declare a “Climate Emergency”
·AUGUST 17, 2023Read full story - An example of unalarming climate fundamentals: neither the frequency nor the energy in global hurricanes has changed significantly relative to the noisy average. There is also little evidence for more landfalling hurricanes.¹¹
- The catastrophist attempt to undermine the 98% decrease in disaster deaths by pointing to the increased reporting of disasters is actually self-defeating.
If disaster deaths are plummeting despite incomplete past reporting, that means they’ve declined by even more than 98%.
- Myth 5: Climate damages are drastically increasing, revealing an underlying climate emergency.
Truth: Even though there are many incentives for climate damages to go up—preferences for riskier areas, government bailouts—GDP-adjusted damages are flat.¹²
- We often hear that “billion-dollar disasters” have increased significantly. But this is a bogus metric. Of course, as GDP grows we’ll have more billion-dollar disasters because there is more wealth for disasters to strike. But when we adjust for GDP there’s no increase in damage.¹³
- A Reuters “fact check” alarmingly claims a 151% growth in disaster damages from a period starting in 1978 to a period ending in 2017.
But they evade that the global economy grew by over 200% during that period!
(And they evade that disaster and damage reporting increased.)¹⁴
- The stupidest climate safety denial myth (used by The New York Times): 2 million people died from extreme weather in the last 50 years; that’s obviously an emergency.
Truth: 2 million in 50 years is a rate of 40,000 per year—far, far less than 100 years ago, thus confirming today’s climate safety.¹⁵
- The last-gasp climate safety denial myth: Okay, we’re safer than ever from climate disasters, and it is driven by cheap energy from fossil fuels, but we can easily replace fossil fuels with solar and wind.
Truth: For the foreseeable future there is no cheap global energy without fossil fuels.
The ultimate debunking of “solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels.”
·JULY 19, 2023Read full story - Observe that all these seemingly scientific outlets, such as The New York Times, Reuters, and PolitiFact are totally unable to refute the death-blow to their “climate emergency” narrative that is the drastic decline in climate disaster deaths.
Science requires that they admit defeat.
Popular links
- EnergyTalkingPoints.com: Hundreds of concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on energy, environmental, and climate issues.
- My new book Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less.
- Speaking and media inquiries.
“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.
Share Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
UC San Diego – The Keeling Curve
For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 per year during the 2010s.
Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).
Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.
Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data
Dale Swampy, founder of the National Coalition of Chiefs. Photograph for Canadian Energy Centre
From the Canadian Energy Centre
National Coalition of Chiefs founder Dale Swampy says Canada needs a more sustainable strategy for reducing emissions
The head of the National Coalition of Chiefs (NCC) says Ottawa’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap couldn’t come at a worse time for Indigenous communities.
Dale Swampy says the cap threatens the combined prospect of higher costs for fuel and groceries, along with fewer economic opportunities like jobs and revenues from involvement in energy projects.
“Any small fluctuation in the economy is affected on our communities tenfold because we rely so much on basic necessities. And those are going to be the products that increase in price significantly because of this,” says Swampy, who founded the NCC in 2016 to fight poverty through partnerships with the natural resource sector.
He says that of particular concern is the price of fuel, which will skyrocket under the emissions cap because it will force reduced Canadian oil and gas production.
Analysis by S&P Global found that meeting the cap’s requirements would require a production cut of over one million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boe/d) in 2030, and 2.1 million boe/d in 2035.
“Production gets reduced, and the cost of fuel goes up,” Swampy says.
“Our concern is that everything that has to do with both fuel for transportation and fuel to heat our homes is amplified on First Nation communities because we live in rural Canada. We live in isolated communities, and it costs much more for us to operate our daily lives because we have to travel much further than anybody in a metropolitan area. So, it’s going to impact us greatly.”
Indigenous communities are already stretched financially, he says.
“What you could buy in 2019 terms of meat and produce is almost double now, and even though the inflation rate is trending downwards, we still haven’t gotten over the impact of what it costs for a bag of groceries these days,” Swampy says.
“In our communities, more than half are under the age of 21, so there’s a lot of bigger families out there struggling to just get food on the table.”
The frustrating timing of the cap is that it comes amid a rising tide of Indigenous involvement in Canadian oil and gas. Since 2022, more than 75 Indigenous communities in Alberta and B.C. have agreed to become part owners of energy projects.
Three major projects – the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion, Coastal GasLink Pipeline and LNG Canada export terminal – together have spent more than $11 billion with Indigenous and local businesses.
“We’re at a turning point right now. There’s a real drive towards getting us involved in equity opportunities, employment opportunities, and contracting opportunities,” Swampy says.
“Everybody who didn’t talk to us in the past is coming to our front door and saying, ‘Do you want to work with us?’ It couldn’t come at a worse time when we have this opportunity. The emissions cap is going to reduce the amount of activity, and it’s going to reduce the amount of investment,” he says.
“We’re part of that industry now. We’re entrenched in it now, and we have to support it in order to support our people that work in this industry.”
Economic growth, and more time, is needed to fund development of low emissions energy sources without ruining the economy, he says.
“I think we need more consultation. We’d like to see them go back to the table and try to incorporate more of a sustainable strategy for emission reductions,” Swampy says.
“We’re the only country in the world that’s actually incorporating this type of legislation. Do you think the rest of the world is going to do this type of thing? No, they’re going to eat our lunch. They’re going to replace the production that we give up, they’re going to excel in the economy because of it, and they won’t talk about significant emission reduction initiatives.”
We’ve discussed the housing crisis before. That would include the destabilizing combination of housing availability – in particular a weak supply of new construction – and the immigration-driven population growth.
Parsing all the data can be fun, but we shouldn’t forget the human costs of the crisis. There’s the significant financial strain caused by rising ownership and rental costs, the stress so many experience when desperately searching for somewhere decent to live, and the pressure on businesses struggling to pay workers enough to survive in madly expensive cities.
If Canada doesn’t have the resources to house Canadians, should there be fewer of us?
Well we’ve also discussed the real problems caused by low fertility rates. As they’ve already discovered in low-immigration countries like Japan and South Korea, there’s the issue of who will care for the growing numbers of childless elderly. And who – as working-age populations sharply decline – will sign up for the jobs that are necessary to keep things running.
How much are the insights you discover in The Audit worth to you?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber.
The odds are that we’re only a decade or so behind Japan. Remember how a population’s replacement-level fertility rate is around 2.1 percent? Here’s how Canadian “fertility rates per female” have dropped since 1991:
 |
Put differently, Canada’s crude birth rate per 1,000 population dropped from 14.4 in 1991, to 8.8 in 2023.
As a nation, we face very difficult constraints.
But there’s another cost to our problems that’s both powerful and personal, and it exists at a place that overlaps both crises. A recent analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) frames it in terms of suppressed household formation.
Household formation happens when two more more people choose to share a home. As I’ve written previously, there are enormous economic benefits to such arrangements, and the more permanent and stable the better. There’s also plenty of evidence that children raised within stable families have statistically improved economic, educational, and social outcomes.
But if households can’t form, there won’t be a lot of children.
In fact, the PBO projects that population and housing availability numbers point to the suppression of nearly a half a million households in 2030. And that’s incorporating the government’s optimistic assumptions about their new Immigration Levels Plan (ILP) to reduce targets for both permanent and temporary residents. It also assumes that all 2.8 million non-permanent residents will leave the country when their visas expire. Things will be much worse if either of those assumptions doesn’t work out according to plan.
Think about a half a million suppressed households. That number represents the dreams and life’s goals of at least a million people. Hundreds of thousands of 30-somethings still living in their parents basements. Hundreds of thousands of stable, successful, and socially integrated families that will never exist.
And all that will be largely (although not exclusively) the result of dumb-as-dirt political decisions.
Who says policy doesn’t matter?
How much are the insights you discover in The Audit worth to you?
Consider becoming a paid subscriber.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Province “rewiring” Alberta’s electricity grid for growth
Kash Patel Reporting Most Media Missed
Verdict for Freedom Convoy leaders Tamara Lich and Chris Barber coming next spring
As Trump 2.0 Scrutinizes Canadian Fentanyl Networks, British Columbia Advances Forfeiture on 14 Properties Linked to Alleged PRC Triad Associate
-
MAiD2 days agoSaskatchewan seniors say they were offered euthanasia when faced with increased hospice costs
-
Business2 days agoArgentina’s First Budget Surplus in 123 Years
-
Business2 days agoBase Policies on Reality – Not Myths, Models, Misinformation and Fearmongering
-
Business1 day agoThe “GST Holiday”… A Smokescreen For Scandal
-
Fraser Institute1 day agoCanada’s median health-care wait time hits 30 weeks—longest ever recorded
-
Alberta1 day ago51 new officers, 10 surveillance drones, and patrol dogs to help Alberta to secure southern border with US
-
Business2 days agoEconomics professor offers grossly misleading analysis of inequality in Canada
-
COVID-192 days agoHealth Canada received over a million reports of COVID vaccine adverse events: records