WHY DO MASS MEDIA CENSE UNCOMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENTALISTS? Forbes freezes “Environment Hero” article

Michael Shellenberger is a well-known environmental guru chosen by Times magazine as one of the "Heroes of the environment" in 2008. His book "Break through" won the "Green book" award of the same year. Founder of the Breakthrough Institute he collaborated with Ted Nordhaus and is called an "Eco-modernist". He recently published "Apocalypse never", reviewing some of his more radical visions. Now one of his articles published in Forbes , in which he apologized for the excesses of ecology, has been inexplicably censored. Thanks to Zerohedge we present it to you.

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

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

But as an energy expert asked Congress to provide objective expert testimony and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as an expert reviewer of his next assessment report, I feel obliged to apologize for as much as we environmentalists we made a mistake the audience.

Here are some facts that few know:

  • Humans are not causing a "sixth mass extinction"
  • The Amazon is not "the lungs of the world"
  • Climate change is not worsening natural disasters
  • Fires have fallen 25% worldwide since 2003
  • The amount of land we use for meat – humanity's largest land use – has decreased by an area almost as large as Alaska
  • The accumulation of firewood and other houses near the forests, not climate change, explains why there are more and more dangerous fires in Australia and California
  • Carbon emissions have been declining in most wealthy nations and have declined in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s
  • Adapting to life below sea level has made the Netherlands wealthy not poor
  • We produce 25% more food than we need, and food surpluses will continue to increase as the world gets hotter
  • Habitat loss and direct killing of wild animals pose a greater threat to species than climate change
  • Wood fuel is much worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
  • Preventing future pandemics requires more ", no less," industrial agriculture ".

I know the above facts will sound like "climate denial" for many people. But this only demonstrates the power of climate alarmism .

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

Some people, reading this, imagine that I am a 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 funds for Guatemalan women's cooperatives. At the beginning of the 20s, I lived in the semi-Amazon, doing research with small farmers who fought land invasions. At 26, I helped expose bad conditions in Nike factories in Asia.

I became an environmentalist when I was 16 when I launched a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last ancient unprotected redwoods in California. At thirty, I supported renewable energies and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to invest $ 90 billion in them. In recent years I have helped save enough nuclear power plants from replacing fossil fuels to avoid a sharp increase in emissions, but until last year, I have mostly avoided talking against climate fear. In part it is because I was embarrassed. After all, I am guilty of alarmism like any other environmentalist. For years I have called climate change an "existential" threat to human civilization and have called it a "crisis".

Above all, I was afraid. I was silent on the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding . The few times I have summoned up the courage to defend climate science from those who have misrepresented it, I have suffered serious consequences. And so I mostly stayed close and did almost nothing while my environmental colleagues terrorized the public.

I have also been alongside people in the White House and many in the media have tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, a good man and a friend of mine, Roger Pielke, Jr., a permanent progressive progressive and environmentalist who testified in favor of carbon regulations. Why did they do it? Because his research shows that natural disasters are not getting worse.

Then things went out of control last year.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: "The world will end in twelve years if we don't face climate change." Britain's highest profile environmental group said "Climate change kills children."

The world's most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the "biggest challenge humans have ever faced" and said it would "wipe out civilizations."

Mainstream journalists have reported repeatedly that the Amazon was "the lung of the world" and that deforestation was like an exploding nuclear bomb.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they believed that climate change would extinguish humanity. And in January, one in five British children told pollsters that they have nightmares about climate change.

. I have to admit that I can be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about science, she was reassured, but her friends are deeply uninformed and therefore understandably frightened.

So I decided I had to talk. I knew that writing some articles would not be enough. I needed a book to properly arrange all the evidence.

And so my formal apologies for the fear that surrounds us come 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, including 100 notes, Apocalypse never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialization, meat, nuclear energy and renewable energies.

Some highlights of the book:

  • Factories and modern agriculture are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
  • The most important thing to save the environment is to produce more food, especially meat, on less land.
  • The most important thing to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions is to switch from wood to coal, from oil to natural gas, to uranium
  • 100% of renewable energy would require an increase in the land used for energy from 0.5% to 50% today
  • We should want cities, farms and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
  • Vegetarianism reduces emissions by less than 4%
  • Greenpeace did not save whales from whale oil to palm oil and palm oil
  • Free-range beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300% more emissions
  • Greenpeace's dogmatism has worsened the fragmentation of the Amazon forests
  • The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo has produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants

How did they deceive us?

In the last three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the financial, political and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in interest on fossil fuels. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs have forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and make poverty "sustainable". And the state of anxiety, depression and hostility towards modern civilization are the basis of much of the alarmism

Once you realize how misinformed we have been, often by people with blatantly unpleasant or unhealthy motivations, it's hard not to feel deceived.

Will Apocalypse (your book) ever make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it.

The media have made apocalyptic statements on climate change since the late 1980s and appear unwilling to quit.

The ideology behind environmental alarms – Malthusianism – has been repeatedly dispelled for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.

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

The coronavirus pandemic is a real crisis that puts the climate "crisis" in perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, Covid-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and destroyed economies around the world.

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

The facts still matter, and social media are allowing a wider range of new and independent voices to overcome alarmist environmental journalists in legacy publications.

Nations are openly returning to national interest and far from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, in favor of nuclear power and against renewable energies.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization in which climate alarmists would bring us back.

The IPCC and Congress calls are signs of a growing openness to new ideas on climate change and the environment. Another was the answer to my book of climate scientists, environmentalists 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 could 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 who have antithetical ideas to ignore science and are likely to be biased," wrote former The Nature Conservancy chief Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same thing. Shellenberger offers "hard love:" a challenge to rooted Orthodox and rigid, self-injurious mentalities. Apocalypse Mai occasionally serves pungent, but always well-made, evidence-based viewpoints that will help develop the "mental muscle" we need to imagine and plan not only a future full of hope, but reachable ".

This is all I hoped to write it. If you have come this far, I hope you will agree that perhaps it is not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist, progressive and climate activist has felt the need to speak out against alarmism.

But please accept my apologies.


Telegram
Thanks to our Telegram channel you can stay updated on the publication of new articles of Economic Scenarios.

⇒ Sign up now


The article WHY DO MASS MEDIA CENSE UNCOMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENTALISTS? Forbes blocks the "Hero of the environment" article comes from ScenariEconomici.it .


This is a machine translation of a post published on Scenari Economici at the URL https://scenarieconomici.it/perche-i-mass-media-censurano-gli-ambientalisti-scomodi-forbes-censura-un-eroe-dellambiente/ on Tue, 30 Jun 2020 08:29:55 +0000.