Once too scared to speak out, finally, Michael Shellenberger, is explaining some inconvenient facts about environmentalism and how it is hurting our Earth in a new book published by Harper Collins.
In a synopsis Shellenberger articulates what I have known for so long:
● The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium.
[though it could be that hydrogen will be the solution at least for aviation, and this is all explained in chapter 15 of the book I’m editing]
● 100 per cent renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5 per cent to 50 per cent.
● We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities.
● Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4 per cent.
● Greenpeace didn’t save the whales — switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did.
[so pleased this is being acknowledged! and Patrick Moore as a founder and leader of Greenpeace so hurt the discipline of conservation biology, he should also apologise]
● ‘Free-range’ beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300 per cent more emissions.
[Yes, but I like the idea that cows can also get to see the Sun]
● 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.
It is also nice to finally hear an insider admit:
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 civilisation are behind much of the klonopin alarmism.
I knew that too.
Michael Shellenberger even apologies:
On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created over the past 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 the US congress to provide-objective testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to serve as a reviewer of its next assessment report, I feel an obligation to apologise for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public…
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 co-operatives. 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 $US90bn into them. Over the past 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 civilisation, 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.
He has some sobering comments in conclusion:
Once you realise just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavoury 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 alarmism — 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 politicisation 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 civilisation is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilisation that climate alarmists would return us to.
And bravo to The Australian newspaper for publishing something about this important new book.
It is good if the extent to which people have been misled begins to be acknowledged. But it is also so important that we know what we stand for, not only what we stand against.
More than anything else it is so important that individuals begin to speak from the heart about what they see in nature. That they begin to acknowledge the beauty all around them — that still exists in such abundance on this planet.
I look out over the ocean to see the sunrise, the moonrise and so often I see rainbows. How could anyone doubt the resilience of nature.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thanks, Jennifer.
A similar post featuring Schellenberger’s apology was pulled by FB before I could read it in its entirety. The Thought Police seem very active at the moment.
Yes, wonderful news Jennifer.
In reading Shellenberger’s epithany one realises the exceptional power of Cults, and how even some of the greatest minds can be manipulated to adopt, or support a position, and convince themselves against all logical reason, that even a ‘science can be settled’.
To break the shackles of a Cult, particularly one that has the support of exceptionally powerful and influential people and institutions, can only be described as extraordinarily courageous.
My question is, what influenced Shellenberger to change his mind. He has essentially kissed his rear end goodbye, at least until the powerful and corrupt players pushing Climate Alarmism are bought down. What is it that he might know, that we don’t know, other than AGW is part of an elaborate hoax on humanity?
Is there something far bigger unraveling?
Jennifer, thank you so much for holding the line. It’s those like you who are courageous, and who are the real hero’s.
Cheers
Mike
Hi Jen, good news, on the same day that I just read that both sides of the White House race intend draconian climate change measures , next term .
Democrats really terrible, but lots of Republicans are sympathetic.
I read recently that “sustainability” is the chosen key word and program for Agenda 21/30.
That even local councils are unwittingly following the program. When I looked around the word is everywhere, at all levels.
Let’s hope this is the start of a landslide of honesty we’ve been waiting so long for.
“But it is also so important that we know what we stand for, not only what we stand against.”
Patrick Moore, Michael Moore and now Michael Shellenberger (and others) have had the considerable courage to acknowledge some of the truth and reality surrounding this fraught area.
They have all realised that this is not a simple matter with a simplistic, populist solution.
The issue is so complex that no-one can claim to be an ‘expert’ in all the multiple faceted, interrelated, unpredictable regions involved.
There are many areas however where it is glaringly obvious that the patently superficial claims and ‘solutions’ proposed by many of the ardent proponents of ‘anthropogenic climate Change’, have now realised the embarrassing scale of the ‘emperor-with-no-clothes’ fantasy that it is, and the resulting unfortunate implications.
This, fortunately for mankind, is now beginning to be acknowledged by some of its former proponents who value the importance of truth above their own personal interests.
Well deserved congratulations to them.
Ta Jen for sharing. I’m listening to Michael’s book now!
Thanks Jen, and to all those interested in MS’s post, he reposted it here:
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2020/6/29/on-behalf-of-environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare
Discovering the pathology of apicalysism, the social disease that is destroying our society, is important. Finding effective therapies and ultimately a vaccine against this terrible is the only long term hope. That said, MS’s example of bravery and integrity is potentially an important light on this desperately needed path.
It is a widely accepted consensus view that China is the world’s most prolific polluter and yet the climate change /environmental activists are too scared and cowardly to go to China and protest in the streets, at academic institutions, and on the Chinese media because they know how their political friends in China view such protests and how they would treated by the authorities. If what these activists are saying was true even their communist friends might even take some notice.
I haven’t read the book, though I looked at the synopsis. In my view, it in no way explains the drought that occurred in eastern Australia. Despite Jennifer’s work which challenges BOM temperature records, I remain unconvinced that the climate is not changing and is not warming. Rainfall records seem to show changing patterns across Australia. Am I correct in thinking some of the west is receiving more rainfall, while the east is drying out?
My understanding of ‘alarmist’ predictions is that in an anthropogenic-climate-change model, extremes of weather events are also to be expected. It seems – from the latest bushfire season, that we have experienced that. Temperatures? Well, how does one take on board what is reported to be the warmest winter/spring on record in Eurasia? In Siberia, hottest-temperatures-ever have been recorded – and I don’t mean by a ‘BOM’ adjusted margin of 0.5 of one degree or so.
If I could make a criticism of Shellenberger’s synopsis … population is not mentioned, nor for that matter, is consumption.
Thank you, Jennifer, for your post.
I fully agree with some of what Shellenberger has to say and agree that climate change isn’t the greatest looming environmental disaster. Climate change is but one symptom of the greatest threat we face, which doesn’t appear in the synopsis, that of an overpopulated planet running on empty. All of what Shellenberger advocates is aimed at the endless growth model and that cannot keep working, unfortunately.
In reply to Garry Stannus.
This debate is not about wether the climate is changing or wether it is getting warmer, it is.
It is about the hypothesis that the current warming is principally the result of mankind burning fossil fuels, and releasing carbon dioxide (primarily), livestock emitting methane and land use change, etc.
The unequivocal fact is that the world’s climate is in a constant state of change with trend periods of rising and then falling temperatures over 1000 – 1500 year intervals.
To substantiate their claims they need good empirical evidence. There is none, quite the reverse.
They rely on unverified computer modelling, replete with assumptions and much programming guesswork and circumstantial evidence only. All their temperature projections have so far been proven to be wrong when compared to the actual recorded measurements.
There is little dispute that the worlds average temperature has been increasing since the ‘Little Ice Age’, well before the industrial revolution and the burning of coal etc., (but not before livestock and native animals).
Anyone who maintains that anthropogenic carbon dioxide has now become the principle driver of the current warming period, as the IPCC and its followers do, has no idea of how greenhouse gasses actually work in the real world, or they would not make their ignorance so obvious in the public forum.
They steadfastly refuse to debate the science however, because they know they do not have a scientific leg to stand on.
For anyone who would like a brief explanation of electromagnetic radiation and the role of greenhouse gasses in this, (the relevant science), I would be happy to Email them a copy of “CLIMATE CHANGE CONFLICT, Climate Change Believers and Sceptics Cannot Both be Right”, which deals with this issue.
My Email address is: ian@countrylivinginteriors.org
Thanks Jen for speaking up about the ever increasing scepticism and honesty that is dawning upon the more intelligent environmentalists.
When there is nothing happening today, climate-wise, that hasn’t happened for the last 10,000 years, when we have been both warmer and colder, had both higher and lower sea levels, higher and lower ice levels, higher and lower tree lines etc., it is very obvious that the climate we are getting today is well within the bounds of the natural climate variability we have had during this period.
The less honest and sceptical, of course, ignore this because they are not pushing a climate science agenda.
If the polls are correct, the US voters will elect a stupid fool in Nov and proceed to introduce the same energy policies as Germany.
Here’s some data and a glimpse of the mess these fools could get themselves into over the next few years. Let’s hope for their sake they wake up before Nov. Who knows?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/10/democrats-climate-policy-follows-germanys-failed-plan/
Chris Kenny interviews Michael Shellenberger about his new book “Apocalypse Never” and it is definitely worth 10 minutes of your time.
I’m convinced this bloke is genuine and has wrestled with his conscience for a long time. Of course he’s understood the data/evidence for many years but refused to condemn the fraudulent Malthusian donkeys until now.
He now considers that so called Green energy is a disaster for the environment and for very poor people around the world.
Just look at the S&W idiocy in the poorest countries and the German + EU stupidity over the last few decades. Then look at soaring co2 emissions from China and developing countries over the same period. Unfortunately all pain for ZERO gain and Lomborg’s team now claims this is costing 1 to 2 trillion $ per year. Will these so called Green fools ever wake up?
Here’s another 10 min interview with Shellenberger via the Outsiders team from Sky news.
It covers some of his struggles with the dopes from the Guardian and I hope he gets some satisfaction for his efforts.
Remember that Michael is an expert on energy and works as an expert reviewer with the IPCC and has appeared before Congress as he ramps up the pressure against the more extremist groups.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCnmmLY2Nbc
I was never frightened by these weirdos as their claims are still failing each and every day. Definitely afraid of the indoctrination of children in the school rooms that are fronted by the nation’s extremists.
How do you unwind these kids.
Even HRH stated we’ve only got 12 years left; that was 2 years ago. 10 years left?
Scientologists must be so envious of the CC Cult.