It is impossible to have any serious discussion about environmentalism or now climatism as long as there isn’t a clear and obvious acknowledgment that they have absolutely morphed into both an ideology, just as rigid and aggressive as Marxism was, and above all a religion, complete with its own Inquisition. This is the situation that the mainstream media absolutely refuses to ever mention, even when things go to ridiculous levels (see Greta Thunberg).
I can only congratulate Mr. Roger Pielke Jr. For his constructive and respectful approach to these thorny issues, including his respect for the dubious proceedings of the IPCC, but unfortunately that ship has sailed a long time ago. Climatism has been pushed to an extreme and an intolerance level that has pulverized any trust and made any serious conversation extremely difficult. Only some kind of massive purge resulting from disastrous events might shake up things and restore the primacy of logic. I fear that such an event would be a massive defeat of the West at the hands of the revisionist, autocratic powers, a true existential threat to the West. One might have thought that the war in Ukraine and the resulting energy crisis in Europe would have provided a reality check on the loony “net zero” obsession, but that just wasn’t enough.
I am skeptical of most things climate. Including the inherent assumptions that CO2 is the boogeyman that climatists claim. The single worst decision the Supreme Court made was declaring CO2 a “pollutant”. This led to a number of dubious, misguided and harmful things being shoved down our throats in the name of “saving the environment”. When you dig into the logic, the science, and the economics behind many (almost all) of the claims, they just don’t wash. And it isn’t a function of “framing the message correctly”. The message is inherently wrong, and much of the time devious (example being the alarmist rhetoric on saving the planet or mankind, the earth burning, extinction is imminent, etc.). The whole thing has moved to politics, and as one comment mentioned, “religion”, and moved away from science (except where “science” is used as a cudgel to try to overwhelm people who logically disagree). This is why a fringe element of society constantly tries to demonize and even eliminate any discussion on the topic (the science is “settled”, right?) and even imprison those who disagree. Or sue them into oblivion.
Why should the public be willing to pay one read cent to alleviate climate change, when the "climatists" assured us their plan for our lives would be cheaper?
When environmalists promote clean energy policies that are likely to decimate delicate or endangered environments in the name of alleviating climate change, it becomes obvious the shark has been jumped. Build windmills on endangered sage grouse habitat because Climate Change! Bulldoze hundreds of acres of sensitive desert habitat for solar because Climate Change! Injure right whales to construct windmills off the Atlantic because Climate Change! I'm not opposed to any of these technologies. I am opposed to one trick ponies fondling my natural places.
Roger, I don't mean to be passing out homework assignments but there is a new paper by Nicola Scafetta which seems to incorporate many of the concepts you outline here on THB; abandoning RCP 8.5, realistic emissions and climate sensitivity estimates. Might be worth a look if you can spare the time. "Impacts and Risks of Realistic Global Warming Projections for the 21st Century", Geoscience Frontiers, 15(2), 101774, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101774
Today's 'environmentalism/climate change' central belief that yelling, screaming, and waving flags can somehow make a dropped ball go up instead of down. When the ball keeps refusing to go up, the 'environmentalists' redouble their efforts, believing that more volume and more money will surely get the ball's attention THIS time.
Environmentalism was largely about protecting humans from corporate pollution.
Climatism is almost the opposite. Blackrock's net zero will likely destroy the UK economy and cause huge distress just as surely as Milton Friedman's monetarism did in the 1980s.
Regarding this article and your previous post on the billion dollar climate crisis response. I was just reading about this very thing in the Daily Mail republished from CNN. This summer, it maintained, will set records for the number of billions lost because of climate change.
No mention of inflation, cooked numbers or common sense. Environmentalism is dead and the truth will die with it.
Great post Roger. I remember Michael S gave a preview DoE talk to us Switzer fellows that year at our retreat, about a month before they presented it to the environmental grant makers association. He presented some interesting marketing data they acquired to substantiate their point, which I’ve never seen make it into any other presentations or papers. Also worth remembering context and timing, dark days of Bush II administration, endless war on horizon.. They made a good case for how to get out of the nosedive.
Recall the Eric Hoffer quotation from The Temper of our Times? "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." In the case of environmentalism, I would add to that "...before morphing into a substitute for religion for the godless."
Great essay, sir. Thank you. Your colleague Mr. Texiera has squarely framed my dilemma in the upcoming election. I find Mr. Trump repugnant, but "rather than fighting climate change, [my] strong preference is for cheap, reliable, abundant energy. No wonder that, when asked whether they would support paying something extra on their monthly utility bill to combat climate change, working-class voters opposed even paying an extra one dollar.
Emmet Penney wrote recently (regarding a lawsuit filed by the City of Chicago) that "this lawsuit reveals climatism’s ultimate political logic: scapegoating and lawfare to avoid the difficult work of building and stewarding infrastructure. It’s a self-exculpatory justification for decline via the moral license of environmentalism."
Robert Bryce posted a similar essay several weeks ago. His conclusions comport with yours:
"America needs a new generation of activists who want to spare nature, wildlife, and marine mammals by utilizing high-density, low-emission energy sources like natural gas and nuclear energy. We need advocates and academics who will push for a weather-resilient electric grid, not a weather-dependent one. Above all, we need true conservationists who promote a realistic view of our energy and power systems. That view will include a positive view of our place on this planet, a view that seeks to conserve natural places, not to pave them."
Excelent piece, my only “comment” is that it’s 2024 not 20204. I will share the article with my friends who unbeknownst to them belong in the “climatists” bucket.
The environmental movement suffers from the same affliction that every other movement suffers, that is the "problem" largely gets solved but the momentum (and power) behind the movement never moves to do away with itself. Instead the movement moves from solving problems that the majority can see and feel to attaching it self to one political party to achieve its ever narrower ends. Obvious examples are the labor and LGBT movements. We solved the working conditions, hours and most pay issues in the middle of the last century, yet the labor movement hangs on as a vessel of the Democratic party. The LGBT movement for rights arguably ended with gay marriage. Movements exist to move problems of the majority resisted by a minority that have no economic interest (usually) to change. An outside force is required for change. But once the change happens the problem must become ever so marginal to continue the movement. In the '70's we had rivers catching on fire and so polluted you couldn't swim in them. We had soot, acid rain and all the issues with SOX and NOX. These problems were largely fixed by the '90's with regulation and technology. And yes Richard Nixon created the EPA. Now we regulate pollutants to smaller and smaller limits and have introduced CO2 as the greatest pollutant of all which the catastrophists scream will end nature despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Worst of all the environmental movement in an attempt to regulate and stimulate the problem away has hitched its wagon to one political party. This by definition alienates 1/2 the population. Climatism is a failed enterprise from the start as it has alienated 1/2 the population, resists the only viable solution to the problem, nuclear, and even with every weather event linked to climate change can't actually demonstrate the problem to the average Joe whose pocket book is being stolen as we try to solve the problem with a technically unworkable solution.
If the Breakthrough Institute punches above its weight, a vital question for me is how to increase that weight -- how to make its perspective a driving force in policy circles, not just an important outlier. On that point, I thought a recent essay for the Niskanen Center's Hypertext newsletter was helpful, https://hypertextjournal.substack.com/p/how-to-build-the-abundance-movement-1aa. It seems like their "abundance agenda" could serve as a good tool for organizing and advocacy to promote ecomodernism. I'm still not sure how to approach the uphill battle an abundance agenda faces against the fear-based, catastrophizing climate change narrative that seems to have the upper hand in so many US institutions, from the media to academia.
On a less gloomy note, newsletters like this one help me think about what a better way forward might look like. Your work is very much appreciated, thank you!
Schellenberger's book Apocalypse Never gave me insights on what at the time he wrote it were promoted as impossibly wonderful solar and wind developments and the reasons why nuclear power had to be taken more seriously. Bernard Nielsen also wrote an exposé of environmentalists that I read as a grad student in environmental science that gave me a more nuanced view of that narrative (1979: The Environmental Protection Hustle).
It is impossible to have any serious discussion about environmentalism or now climatism as long as there isn’t a clear and obvious acknowledgment that they have absolutely morphed into both an ideology, just as rigid and aggressive as Marxism was, and above all a religion, complete with its own Inquisition. This is the situation that the mainstream media absolutely refuses to ever mention, even when things go to ridiculous levels (see Greta Thunberg).
I can only congratulate Mr. Roger Pielke Jr. For his constructive and respectful approach to these thorny issues, including his respect for the dubious proceedings of the IPCC, but unfortunately that ship has sailed a long time ago. Climatism has been pushed to an extreme and an intolerance level that has pulverized any trust and made any serious conversation extremely difficult. Only some kind of massive purge resulting from disastrous events might shake up things and restore the primacy of logic. I fear that such an event would be a massive defeat of the West at the hands of the revisionist, autocratic powers, a true existential threat to the West. One might have thought that the war in Ukraine and the resulting energy crisis in Europe would have provided a reality check on the loony “net zero” obsession, but that just wasn’t enough.
Yes, Climatism has swallowed environmentalism. Easy to see. But is Climatism today still an ideology or has it turned into a new religion?
The original sin is still here, as emissions.
There is a crowd of devils here, CO2, CH4 and so on.
The path to salvation is here, called sustainability, emission cuts and various green deals.
Heaven is now the zero emissions society.
Salvation and arrival in Heaven is achieved by indulgence trade, as taxes and duties on almost everything.
The relics are here, as Climate (GCM) models
The priesthood is everywhere.
And we have the heretics, which must be burned at stake.
If it walks or flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is surely a duck.
I am skeptical of most things climate. Including the inherent assumptions that CO2 is the boogeyman that climatists claim. The single worst decision the Supreme Court made was declaring CO2 a “pollutant”. This led to a number of dubious, misguided and harmful things being shoved down our throats in the name of “saving the environment”. When you dig into the logic, the science, and the economics behind many (almost all) of the claims, they just don’t wash. And it isn’t a function of “framing the message correctly”. The message is inherently wrong, and much of the time devious (example being the alarmist rhetoric on saving the planet or mankind, the earth burning, extinction is imminent, etc.). The whole thing has moved to politics, and as one comment mentioned, “religion”, and moved away from science (except where “science” is used as a cudgel to try to overwhelm people who logically disagree). This is why a fringe element of society constantly tries to demonize and even eliminate any discussion on the topic (the science is “settled”, right?) and even imprison those who disagree. Or sue them into oblivion.
It was the EPA that declared it a pollutant, needs to be rescinded
Why should the public be willing to pay one read cent to alleviate climate change, when the "climatists" assured us their plan for our lives would be cheaper?
Yes, just one more illogical leap by them.
“Too cheap to meter” and yet somehow still requires massive endless subsidies.
If Trudeau and Guilbeault here in canada made two consistent, rational logical statements in succession they would wink out of existence
When environmalists promote clean energy policies that are likely to decimate delicate or endangered environments in the name of alleviating climate change, it becomes obvious the shark has been jumped. Build windmills on endangered sage grouse habitat because Climate Change! Bulldoze hundreds of acres of sensitive desert habitat for solar because Climate Change! Injure right whales to construct windmills off the Atlantic because Climate Change! I'm not opposed to any of these technologies. I am opposed to one trick ponies fondling my natural places.
Roger, I don't mean to be passing out homework assignments but there is a new paper by Nicola Scafetta which seems to incorporate many of the concepts you outline here on THB; abandoning RCP 8.5, realistic emissions and climate sensitivity estimates. Might be worth a look if you can spare the time. "Impacts and Risks of Realistic Global Warming Projections for the 21st Century", Geoscience Frontiers, 15(2), 101774, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101774
Today's 'environmentalism/climate change' central belief that yelling, screaming, and waving flags can somehow make a dropped ball go up instead of down. When the ball keeps refusing to go up, the 'environmentalists' redouble their efforts, believing that more volume and more money will surely get the ball's attention THIS time.
You only think the ball isn’t going up, because you trust your lying eyes instead of what the sacred texts (GCMs) reveal.
Who needs facts or data when the models reveal all.
You only think the ball isn’t going up, because you trust your lying eyes instead of what the sacred texts (GCMs) reveal.
Who needs facts or data when the models reveal all.
Well, enough hot air WILL lift a balloon.
Yes, but a 'balloon' isn't a 'ball' ;)
Environmentalism was largely about protecting humans from corporate pollution.
Climatism is almost the opposite. Blackrock's net zero will likely destroy the UK economy and cause huge distress just as surely as Milton Friedman's monetarism did in the 1980s.
Regarding this article and your previous post on the billion dollar climate crisis response. I was just reading about this very thing in the Daily Mail republished from CNN. This summer, it maintained, will set records for the number of billions lost because of climate change.
No mention of inflation, cooked numbers or common sense. Environmentalism is dead and the truth will die with it.
Great post Roger. I remember Michael S gave a preview DoE talk to us Switzer fellows that year at our retreat, about a month before they presented it to the environmental grant makers association. He presented some interesting marketing data they acquired to substantiate their point, which I’ve never seen make it into any other presentations or papers. Also worth remembering context and timing, dark days of Bush II administration, endless war on horizon.. They made a good case for how to get out of the nosedive.
Recall the Eric Hoffer quotation from The Temper of our Times? "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." In the case of environmentalism, I would add to that "...before morphing into a substitute for religion for the godless."
Great essay, sir. Thank you. Your colleague Mr. Texiera has squarely framed my dilemma in the upcoming election. I find Mr. Trump repugnant, but "rather than fighting climate change, [my] strong preference is for cheap, reliable, abundant energy. No wonder that, when asked whether they would support paying something extra on their monthly utility bill to combat climate change, working-class voters opposed even paying an extra one dollar.
Emmet Penney wrote recently (regarding a lawsuit filed by the City of Chicago) that "this lawsuit reveals climatism’s ultimate political logic: scapegoating and lawfare to avoid the difficult work of building and stewarding infrastructure. It’s a self-exculpatory justification for decline via the moral license of environmentalism."
Robert Bryce posted a similar essay several weeks ago. His conclusions comport with yours:
"America needs a new generation of activists who want to spare nature, wildlife, and marine mammals by utilizing high-density, low-emission energy sources like natural gas and nuclear energy. We need advocates and academics who will push for a weather-resilient electric grid, not a weather-dependent one. Above all, we need true conservationists who promote a realistic view of our energy and power systems. That view will include a positive view of our place on this planet, a view that seeks to conserve natural places, not to pave them."
Thanks again for your work.
Excelent piece, my only “comment” is that it’s 2024 not 20204. I will share the article with my friends who unbeknownst to them belong in the “climatists” bucket.
Thanks, I got a few millennia ahead of myself there 🤓
The environmental movement suffers from the same affliction that every other movement suffers, that is the "problem" largely gets solved but the momentum (and power) behind the movement never moves to do away with itself. Instead the movement moves from solving problems that the majority can see and feel to attaching it self to one political party to achieve its ever narrower ends. Obvious examples are the labor and LGBT movements. We solved the working conditions, hours and most pay issues in the middle of the last century, yet the labor movement hangs on as a vessel of the Democratic party. The LGBT movement for rights arguably ended with gay marriage. Movements exist to move problems of the majority resisted by a minority that have no economic interest (usually) to change. An outside force is required for change. But once the change happens the problem must become ever so marginal to continue the movement. In the '70's we had rivers catching on fire and so polluted you couldn't swim in them. We had soot, acid rain and all the issues with SOX and NOX. These problems were largely fixed by the '90's with regulation and technology. And yes Richard Nixon created the EPA. Now we regulate pollutants to smaller and smaller limits and have introduced CO2 as the greatest pollutant of all which the catastrophists scream will end nature despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Worst of all the environmental movement in an attempt to regulate and stimulate the problem away has hitched its wagon to one political party. This by definition alienates 1/2 the population. Climatism is a failed enterprise from the start as it has alienated 1/2 the population, resists the only viable solution to the problem, nuclear, and even with every weather event linked to climate change can't actually demonstrate the problem to the average Joe whose pocket book is being stolen as we try to solve the problem with a technically unworkable solution.
If the Breakthrough Institute punches above its weight, a vital question for me is how to increase that weight -- how to make its perspective a driving force in policy circles, not just an important outlier. On that point, I thought a recent essay for the Niskanen Center's Hypertext newsletter was helpful, https://hypertextjournal.substack.com/p/how-to-build-the-abundance-movement-1aa. It seems like their "abundance agenda" could serve as a good tool for organizing and advocacy to promote ecomodernism. I'm still not sure how to approach the uphill battle an abundance agenda faces against the fear-based, catastrophizing climate change narrative that seems to have the upper hand in so many US institutions, from the media to academia.
On a less gloomy note, newsletters like this one help me think about what a better way forward might look like. Your work is very much appreciated, thank you!
Schellenberger's book Apocalypse Never gave me insights on what at the time he wrote it were promoted as impossibly wonderful solar and wind developments and the reasons why nuclear power had to be taken more seriously. Bernard Nielsen also wrote an exposé of environmentalists that I read as a grad student in environmental science that gave me a more nuanced view of that narrative (1979: The Environmental Protection Hustle).