By Matt Ridley (originally in the Wall Street Journal, sent to WUWT by the author)
‘We’ve heard these same stale arguments before,” said President Obama in his speech on climate change last week, referring to those who worry that the Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon-reduction plan may do more harm than good. The trouble is, we’ve heard his stale argument before, too: that we’re doomed if we don’t do what the environmental pressure groups tell us, and saved if we do. And it has frequently turned out to be really bad advice.
Making dire predictions is what environmental groups do for a living, and it’s a competitive market, so they exaggerate. Virtually every environmental threat of the past few decades has been greatly exaggerated. Pesticides were not causing a cancer epidemic, as Rachel Carson claimed in her 1962 book “Silent Spring”; acid rain was not devastating German forests, as the Green Party in that country said in the 1980s; the ozone hole was not making rabbits and salmon blind, as Al Gore warned in the 1990s. Yet taking precautionary action against pesticides, acid rain and ozone thinning proved manageable, so maybe not much harm was done.
Climate change is different. President Obama’s plan to cut U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions from electricity plants by 32% (from 2005 levels) by 2030 would cut global emissions by about 2%. By that time, according to Energy Information Administration data analyzed by Heritage Foundation statistician Kevin Dayaratna, the carbon plan could cost the U.S. up to $1 trillion in lost GDP. The measures needed to decarbonize world energy are going to be vastly more expensive. So we had better be sure that we are not exaggerating the problem.
But it isn’t just that environmental threats have a habit of turning out less bad than feared; it’s that the remedies sometimes prove worse than the disease.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a case in point. After 20 years and billions of meals, there is still no evidence that they harm human health, and ample evidence of their environmental and humanitarian benefits. Vitamin-enhanced GM “golden rice” has been ready to save lives for years, but opposed at every step by Greenpeace. Bangladeshi eggplant growers spray their crops with insecticides up to 140 times in a season, risking their own health, because the insect-resistant GMO version of the plant is fiercely opposed by environmentalists. Opposition to GMOs has certainly cost lives.
Besides, what did GMOs replace? Before transgenic crop improvement was invented, the main way to breed new varieties was “mutation breeding”: to scramble a plant’s DNA randomly, using gamma rays or chemical mutagens, in the hope that some of the monsters thus produced would have better yields or novel characteristics. Golden Promise barley, for example, a favorite of organic brewers, was produced this way. This method still faces no special regulation, whereas precise transfer of single well known genes, which could not possibly be less safe, does.
Environmentalists are currently opposing neonicotinoid pesticides on the grounds that they may hurt bee populations, even though the European Union notes that honeybee numbers have been rising in the 20 years since they were introduced. The effect in Europe has been to cause farmers to return to much more harmful pyrethroid insecticides, which are sprayed on crops instead of used as seed dressing, hitting innocent bystander insects. And if Europeans had been allowed to grow GMOs, then less pesticide would be necessary. Again, green precaution increases risks.
Nuclear power has been energetically opposed by the environmental lobby for decades, on the grounds of danger. Yet nuclear power causes fewer deaths per unit of energy generated than even wind and solar power. Compared with fossil fuels, nuclear power has prevented 1.84 million more deaths than it caused, according to a study by two NASA researchers. Opposition to nuclear power has cost lives.
Likewise widespread opposition to fracking for shale gas, based almost entirely on myths and lies, as Reason magazine’s science correspondent, Ronald Bailey, has reported. This opposition has substantially delayed the growth of onshore gas production in Europe and in parts of the U.S. That has meant more reliance on offshore gas, Russian gas, and coal—all of which have greater safety issues and environmental risks. Opposition to fracking has hurt the environment.
In short, the environmental movement has repeatedly denied people access to safer technologies and forced them to rely on dirtier, riskier or more harmful ones. It is adept at exploiting people’s suspicion of anything new.
Many exaggerated early claims about the dangers of climate change have now been debunked. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has explicitly abandoned previous claims that malaria will likely get worse, that the Gulf Stream will stop flowing, the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice sheet will disintegrate, a sudden methane release from the Arctic is likely, the monsoon will collapse or long-term droughts will become more likely.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the ledger, in contrast to our experience with acid rain and the ozone layer, the financial, humanitarian and environmental price of decarbonizing the energy supply is proving much steeper than expected. Despite falling costs of solar panels, the system cost of solar power, including land, transmission, maintenance and nighttime backup, remains high. The environmental impact of wind power—deforestation, killing of birds of prey, mining of rare earth metals—is worse than expected. According to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy, these two sources of power provided, between them, just 1.35% of world energy in 2014, cutting emissions by even less than that.
Indoor air pollution, caused mainly by cooking over wood fires indoors, is the world’s biggest cause of environmental death. It kills an estimated four million people every year, as noted by the nonprofit science news website, SciDev. Net. Getting fossil-fueled electricity and gas to them is the cheapest and quickest way to save their lives. To argue that the increasingly small risk of dangerous climate change many decades hence is something they should be more worried about is positively obscene.
Mr. Ridley is the author of “The Rational Optimist” (HarperCollins, 2010) and a member of the British House of Lords. His family leases land for coal mining in northern England.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
On an ‘if’ or a ‘maybe’
We condemn millions to die,
Isn’t it time
We began to ask ‘why’?
“The Pseudo Morals of a Pseudo Science”
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/2015/08/08/the-pseudo-morals-of-a-pseudo-science/
Indeed, or on a “has not been proven” that it is not safe
Seems quite a bit different than, has been proven to be safe.
What has ever really been “proven to be safe”?
You are ignoring cost/benefit analysis. The downside is composed of assertions, with no real evidence that GMOs are harmful for human consumption.
But the upside is huge. Humans have always genetically engineered plants. You think corncobs were always 8 inches long? GMO crops are the same result, only we have learned how to greatly speed up the process.
By opposing these crops you are effectively consigning the world’s poor to more poverty. To me, that is the central evil in the green/eco movement. Enviros do not care that their narrative causes starvation and misery. They are the world’s top hypocrites in that regard.
Don’t be those guys. Any group that insists that carbon dioxide — a tiny trace gas as essential to life as H2O — is a “pollutant”, is deliberately cauing misery for their own self-serving reasons. How are they any different from Judas and his 30 pieces of silver?
Dihydrogen Monoxide is one of the most lethal substances to man when used improperly, yet nearly everyone is perfectly convinced that it is completely safe when used properly.
@dbstealey, I am 100% a non CO2 “its a big problem” type of guy, I am a coolista. But also a bit worried about the oceans becoming less basic than they were.
We put GMOs in our bodies. Now 20% of our countries GDP goes to health care. It does seem rational to question why we have had a massive increase in health problems. Serious scientists, including those at FDA, have serious negative issues with GMO’s, just waving the hands and saying progress is necessary, its all good— is a foolhardy trust in science.
And that was before you played the “poor card” AND the “Judas 30 silver” card
stock says:
It does seem rational to question why we have had a massive increase in health problems.
Then explain why people are living much longer, healthier lives than ever before.
Fact, is, the gov’t has been shoveling money into the health sector for years. Doctors and scientists are recipients of that taxpayer loot — and you can be sure that they are being paid to find problems wherever they can, whether they are real problems or a hangnail caused by ‘climate change’.
It’s like education. The gov’t funnels ever more money into student loans. That easy money makes it possible for universities to raise tuition costs — which then requires more student loan money.
It’s a racket.
We are living longer, but not healthier…..20% of GDP to healthcare, that is beyond absurd, if it was 5% I would be saying far too much. There is disease everywhere you look.
How many people do you know who have cancer?
There’s no evidence that GMOs are not safe. There’s no correlation with human pathology or disease.
Stock,
The main reason 20% of the population will eventually, at some point in their lifetimes, get some form of cancer is simply BECAUSE WE ARE NOW LIVING SO MUCH LONGER! When people had a life expectancy of 35 or 40 years, their bodies didn’t have time to develop cancer – they died of something else first. Now that people are living to 80 (and in many cases well beyond), age and cellular breakdown cause a lot of the population to get some form of cancer or other. Certainly, environmental factors can be involved in carcenogenisis, but overall, I prefer people living to 80 and having a higher cancer risk compared to people only living to 35 or 40, which is what life expectancy was 200 years ago.
“President Obama’s plan to cut U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions from electricity plants by 32% (from 2005 levels) by 2030 would cut global emissions by about 2%.”
This should read:
“President Obama’s plan to cut U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions from electricity plants by 32% (from 2005 levels) by 2030 would cut global ANTHROPOGENIC emissions by about 2%.” TOTAL Global CO2 emissions (Natural+Anthropogenic) will only be reduced by ~0.125% by his plan.
What does a community organizer know about climate? He also doesn’t know much about most aspects of his job, but he has only 6 years training for the most important role on earth. Mistakes should not be unexpected. He is well on his way toward replacing Jimmy “The Peanut” Carter as the most ignorant politician ever to have shat between two feet. I’d say I’m concerned about that but don’t want to appear to be a concern troll and draw the wrath of the Courtney clown.
“environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.”
Yep, there’s even a version of Original Sin, man is by nature evil. Every out-breath adds more CO2 to the atmosphere helping destroy the planet. So if you want to be virtuous stop breathing out. If you refuse to do that, then feel guilty and fund Greenpeace to assuage your guilt (The Vatican does the same psychological manipulation with sex – find something people can’t NOT do and make them feel guilty and give you money/power.).
What message are we teaching children – that breathing is sinful and we’re evil?
Of course no one explicitly says that, it’s too stupid, but it’s an inevitable logical consequence of those beliefs.
On a very mundane note – this religion of reducing CO2 is making electricity, here in the UK, VERY expensive which is changing the population’s habits. A minority now cook with raw produce to make a meal but now buy ready-made meals to heat, just to save energy. This is not as nutritious nor as tasty. Our energy bills are going through the roof !
Another fine piece from Lord Ridley which completely exposes environmentalists for the accuracy-free hysterical buffoons they are. In the interests of balance it may be an idea to list the major predictions of environmentalist doom that actually DID come true, but I suspect it would be a very short list.
Fracking is not new. It was patented by a retired Civil War officer in 1865 as a way to improve water flow from wells. Then, they used gunpowder to blast and fracture the formation. When oil and gas was discovered, they developed “torpedos” which were nitro-glycerine bombs to do the same thing. These were used until the late 1960s – by then, over a century of use and the practice was used worldwide. In 1947, a new method, hydraulic fracturing, which can be used with considerably more precision than torpedoing, which had killed a number of workers over the years. This was in a conventional but low yielding gas field near Hugoton, Kansas. The new practice grew, nearly all with conventional O and G at first until success with hydrocarbon bearing shales began to be successful in the 1980s and 90s.
That’s when environmentalists and the public became aware of this 150yr old evolving technique. Anti-fossil fuel nuts saw this as the undoing of all their ‘good’ work. They had virtuously been using peak oil as a strong case for renewables – then the sheeps clothing came off. Technology and humankind’s ingenuity, the number one principal component, is never taken into consideration by linear-thinking Malthusians. They have raised a big fuss about the dangers of dirty fracking water and have coerced restrictive regulations. But guess what? Researchers using liquid nitrogen as a fracking fluid have been successful and it is now offered for sale for the purpose! This is an example why those who would put us in an economic straight jacket will always be miles behind.
http://www.airproducts.com/industries/energy/oilgas-production/oilfield-services/product-list/nitrogen-fracking-energy-oilgas-production.aspx?itemId=396A3CBAB15846BF8FDAEA963586E80D
Speaking from personal experience – while driving on a highway, in the old days before air conditioning in vehicles became a standard, I rolled down my window on a misty morning. I could taste the acid in the air. Literally. When I first came to this city. The air over one of our highways was blue from exhaust. So I can say that cleaning up REAL pollution does have an effect on air quality. The thing is that Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant and anybody who says so should go back to chemistry class (before they rewrite all of the books.)
In England when the train was introduced there were warnings that if you traveled faster than a horse could run (since that is “natural”) then it would kill you. Some people were against electricity 100 yrs ago. Of course automobiles were “unnatural” and were opposed. Probably there was a cave man (the original hipster) who did not want to adopt clothing.
What is the ideal weather? Look up the lyrics to the weather song in the Camelot musical.
The acid rain ‘scare’ led to the clean-up of many SO2 emitting sources to the extent that farmers in the UK now have to apply additional sulphur in their fertlisers especially for brassicas, wheat and multi-cut grass.
Stop confusing them with facts! We know much of the green screed is based upon emotion, believing reality should be based upon what they feel rather than what is. It doesn’t matter one iota to them that they’re wrong as long as they feel good about it.
Well, until we make green activists criminally and civilly liable for the damage from their false statements the games will continue.
Modern nuclear, as evidenced by real numbers from Vogtle 3 and 4 in Georgia show a kWH cost around 15 cents. This is the generation cost, neglecting cost of transmission, overhead and profit, insurance, long term storage, and risk of accident.
The people of Georgia have already been fleeced for $1B in fees, but their best choice is to just stop the plant, because it is going to double or triple the rate they pay.
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2015/08/what-is-real-kwh-cost-of-new-generation.html
Wagen on August 17, 2015 at 4:50 pm
100% hydro. Lines have been around a long time. Transport? Public transport (good connections). were responding to?
Ahhhh. A Lotusland Vancouverite. Suzukiville. (With apologies to all my west coast friends.)
Vancouverite? Nope.
Good sense risk prioritization, thy name is Matt Ridley. Would that the green blob could actually listen and understand you.
I distinctly remember the lobbyist claim that changing Freon coolant gases in cooling equipment would only cost pennies from the policy change. That was before reality agents in the form of HVAC service companies explained how much more expensive the equipment to handle the new coolant was and how industry was slowly adapting with phases of model changes and higher prices. And that maintenance contracts on the new equipment are now much more necessary today for the higher failure rate of the coils. That was no mere sales job, it was explained in detail. Regardless of the merits of policy campaigns and reforms, fewer lies would help all around.
We got a bit off topic with the trolls but an out of print book, NONE DARE CALL IT A CONSPIRACY made the point that often the ‘unintended consequence’ was actually the intended result. The Greens really want expensive energy and people to be dead or poor and ignorant, thus easy to control. They make no secret of their desire to eliminate the human virus from the earth. Obama has praised China vs the USA and enacts policies that favor China. He was the real Manchurian Candidate. Had the MSM done their job and voters bothered to think we would have avoided this mess. Now the favored candidate has failed at every job she has held.
Clearly the biases of the author are distorting his objectivity vis-a-vis the very real concerns surrounding GMOs and herbicides. Such aspersions directed upon those who proffer reasonable criticisms of scientific and political debate only undermine the credible lines of debate established by this and other climate change focused platforms.
Get your head out of the $$$ clouds and try again.
Every time I have looked for information about the ‘dangers’ of GMO’s, I find an endless cycle of hype websites and articles all citing each other. If I dig enough, I end up with ONE study, thoroughly debunked, that did their testing on ‘used’ lab rats.
Do you have any hard evidence you can show me? Somthing that isn’t part of that mess?
From my (albeit modest) investigations, “thoroughly debunked” does not accurately represent the Séralini study. I shouldn’t yield to disparaging comments myself, however I get tired of money being the arbiter of fact.
Certainly the state-of-the-art is progressing – I was in favour of GMOs until I learned what the process was. The technology isn’t there yet. There are hazards, whether we’re honest about them or not.
Nothing in your reply addresses anything I said.
Can you point to ANY other hard evidence? Even assuming that one study was completely good, one study proves nothing. So, what else do you have? ANYTHING other than accusations and innuendo? ANY PROOF that there are dangers?
Prove it, with real, measurable evidence – you’ve got a convert. I’ve been asking people this question for quite some time and still haven’t see any proof.
“Nothing in your reply addresses anything I said.”
I addressed the study you blithely say means nothing.
“ANYTHING other than accusations and innuendo?”
As is true of any honest discussion here, I too rely on expert investigation and interpretation. I have not made accusations, other than directing scepticism toward certain dubious assertions on the part the author, for instance concerning GMOs.
“ANY PROOF that there are dangers?”
The burden of proof clearly and unambiguously lies upon the persons making claims of safety, not the other way around. There is an immense body of anecdotal evidence, as you point out, but how about the following:
http://www.agweb.com/assets/import/files/58P20-22.pdf
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/food-agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering-agriculture#.VdZ2X7OZEU5
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf
http://www.biosicherheit.de/pdf/aktuell/zentek_studie_2008.pdf
This ends my posting here because I will not allow this to discussion to be skewed into a defense of my person – make up your own mind.
GMOs and herbicides (and pesticides) increase crop yields, and in the VAST majority of cases increase the nutritional value of the crop. Those benefits FAR outweigh the extremely slight and highly over-exaggerated risks associated with them. Without such things, it would be impossible to feed the number of people that now inhabit the planet.
And on and on they exaggerate and hyperventilate and wonder why less and less they’re believable-
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/technology/experts-are-warning-that-more-intense-el-nino-and-la-nina-events-are-coming/story-fnjww4qb-1227489478977
Global warming to climate change and now extreme weather in their desperation not to look completely gullible and stupid.
Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
It’s old crying wolf problem. If you do it too often you lose you credibility and nobody listens anymore. The ‘experts’ have been saying that doom is coming as long as I’ve been alive and yet somehow thing seem to not change very much. So where is their credibility and why does anybody still believe them?