“Peak Negativity”: Climate Fear Doesn’t Work Unless you also Tell People What to Do

World Energy Consumption
World Energy Consumption. Notice the thin green smear on the bottom, the outcome of all the billions spent to date on renewables. By Con-structBP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

According to The Conversation, there is no point journalists frightening people into obedience if they don’t also include clear instructions on what they should do to alleviate that fear.

Climate change or climate crisis? To really engage people, the media should talk about solutions

May 30, 2019 10.33pm AEST

Dimitrinka Atanasova Lecturer in Linguistics, Lancaster University
Kjersti Fløttum
Professor of Linguistics, University of Bergen

Days after the British parliament declared a “climate emergency”, The Guardian announced that it would start using “stronger” language to discuss the environment. Its updated style guide states that “climate change” no longer accurately reflects the seriousness of the situation and journalists are advised to use “climate emergency”, “climate crisis” or “climate breakdown” instead.

But the “strong” language of “breakdown”, “crisis”, “emergency” and “war” may have unintended consequences.

Fear appeals might also have the opposite effect to what is intended, causing indifference, apathy and feelings of powerlessness. When people see a problem as too big, they might stop believing that anything can be done to solve it. If fear is to motivate people, then studies suggest that a solution must also be presented to focus minds on action.

Informing people about wars, crises and emergencies is an important part of the media’s role, but we may have reached “peak negativity”, where the news is so full of serious crises that people are increasingly avoiding it. They are left feeling disengaged, demotivated and depressed about the state of the world and their role in it.

Constructive journalism should take a solution-focused approach that covers problems with the appropriate seriousness, but also answers the inevitable “what now?”, by describing how similar problems have been addressed elsewhere in the world. Awareness of climate change is high and growing, but the potential solutions need more attention.

Read more: https://theconversation.com/climate-change-or-climate-crisis-to-really-engage-people-the-media-should-talk-about-solutions-118004

Leaving aside the in my opinion repugnantly casual academic acceptance of climate fear campaigns as a political tool, the real reason none of this is working is that climate scientists and greens don’t have any solutions to their fake emergency.

Greens won the battle. For decades greens held the upper hand. In some countries they still hold the upper hand. They successfully convinced Western and even some Asian governments to squander billions, maybe even trillions of dollars on their useless “solutions”.

The result has been less than impressive. All we have to show for all that money and sacrifice is unaffordable electricity bills in the places which spent the most money on green energy, and soaring global reliance on cheap fossil fuel (see the graph at the top of the page).

People aren’t fools. On some level I suspect most people are aware renewable energy is an utter failure.

Unless greens think of something new, presenting more of the same failed green “solutions” to their fake emergency is going to create the very despair they claim they want to avoid, the kind of despair which keeps green voters at home on election day.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 31, 2019 6:42 pm

They can’t tell people what to do because any actually effective solutions would be unpalatable.

Given the untrammeled consumption of coal by China and India, the first thing we must do to meaningfully control anthropogenic CO2 is to nuclear bomb China and India and reduce their population and therefore CO2 production to zero. If we don’t do that, nothing else we do matters. See what I mean? Almost nobody is willing to do that. /sarc

Reply to  commieBob
June 1, 2019 6:59 am

Asia only needs so much energy because they have to make all our Stuff(tm). And they imported all the environmental disasters that come with making Stuff(tm) on the cheap. If the West implements a 1000% import tariff, then it will become economically viable to make Stuff(tm) at home, using sustainable methods.

Just like the shortage of Whale Oil sparked the refining of Kerosene, the shortage of Cheap Stuff(tm) will spark some technology that can produce Stuff(tm), while still complying with stifling regulations. Would divesting of fishing vessels and slowly increasing taxes have saved the Whales?
/drank too much fermented Unicorn Milk.

Reply to  commieBob
June 1, 2019 10:03 am

Excerpt from the article:
“People aren’t fools. On some level I suspect most people are aware renewable energy is an utter failure.”

Don’t be too sure – half the population are of below-average intelligence, and about 30% are congenital idiots – they actually believe this nonsense. They are ‘way too stupid to vote, but they do.

Every day, warmists makes statements that are so utterly stupid they suck all the light out of the universe – the ultimate “black holes” of stupidity.

In Canada, the Heart of Darkness is centered in Ottawa, where Trudeau Fils and Climate Barbie are a cornucopia of false climate catastrophe. Their campaign slogan is “Vote for us or you’re all gonna burn in hell!” …and the imbeciles out there actually believe them and vote for them!

That is how socialist disasters like Venezuela happen. Canada has departed down that dark road – we are Canazuela!

June 1, 2019 12:59 pm


It’s a fad. Like children with their toys.

What we should hope for is that the world crashes through the 1.5C barrier asap and, as we know, nothing will happen.

These idiots are digging their own grave. Let them do it, in fact, we should be encouraging them. They’ll spend the money anyway, people will die unnecessarily because they will crusade about something else.

Lets goad them with Trump and Putin’s nuclear space programs.


June 1, 2019 1:55 pm

Allan MacRea, you are the Dave Barry (very funny American writer) of climate science, and I’m really impressed that you used an unusual word like “cornucopia”, and spelled it right, and “Canazuela”, which I had never heard before.

Reply to  Richard Greene
June 1, 2019 7:07 pm

Hi Richard – this scenario is what I’m trying to avoid.
If the warmist psychos succeed, it’s not all that funny.
Thanks to W B Yeats for the foresight.
Best, Allan

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

June 1, 2019 3:26 pm

There’s an election coming in October. Trudeau Jr. is low in the polls. Canadians, not being completely stupid, are very unhappy. link

John Endicott
June 3, 2019 8:44 am

Don’t be too sure – half the population are of below-average intelligence

Is that the African median or the European mean swallow average? 😉

R Shearer
May 31, 2019 6:46 pm

Katharine Hayhoe can tell everyone what to do, such as eat healthy and exercise so as not to turn into a pig.

May 31, 2019 6:52 pm

We can only hope they stay home in the 2020 US election but the number appear to show they came out in the EU elections.

May 31, 2019 6:55 pm

What is the difference between a conservative and a socialist?

If a solution to a real world problem doesn’t work after a lot of money is spent on it, a conservative tries something else.

If a solution to an invented problem doesn’t work after a lot of money is spent on it, a socialist claims it needs more money spending on it.

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 31, 2019 8:51 pm

They market the tax increases by saying the money is needed to solve problems they themselves created. For example, the “housing crisis” in California, which is a result of over-regulation of land use and housing production.

Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
June 1, 2019 4:55 am

Bringing in a few million people that shouldn’t be in this country, let alone that state, probably contributed to the housing shortage.

Reply to  Spetzer86
June 2, 2019 8:38 am

Same in The UK.
St. Anthony the B-Liar invited half the Third World to stay.
No provision for housing starts to increase, and very little for Health or Education, either.
Many of our new compatriots now live in garden sheds in Ealing and elsewhere, even whilst helping in the NHS and elsewhere.

Auto – well aware that our pernicious planning ‘system’ doesn’t help one iota.

Reply to  Leo Smith
June 1, 2019 7:52 am

For several years, I believe it was the 1990s, most Democrat politicians had an operative phrase for any problem: “What is serious problem (or crisis) needs is a greater infusion of federal dollars.”

I ran programs that were all but failures. When I tried to reorganize, redirect and even reduce the program Democrat Legislators, supported by outside NGOs, would just give us more funds. They seldom agreed to reorganization, etc. In fact they would actually ask in committee how much more money it would take to “fix” the program. One of their biggest concerns was what might happen to the career employees in the program. A new Democrat Governor came in with a Republican Legislature and they began restructuring programs. Sadly, most still could work a whole lot better than they do.

William Astley
May 31, 2019 7:06 pm

It is not just telling people what to do.

People do not want 25% of a budget spend on stupid stuff that makes no measurable difference except to make electricity very expensive.

People want stuff they care about such as health care, road repair, or education.

Germany has spent billions and billions of dollars installing sun and wind gathering. They have reached the idiotic limit of that power scheme. Further spending on the same stuff does and will not reduce CO2 emissions. There problem will get worse when their nuclear reactors are shut down.

The cult of CAGW have created a fake problem which is impossible to ‘solve’ with the ‘green’ energy schemes even if there was no limit in money to spend.

The cult of CAGW have no plan that works, beyond spending more money on idiotic schemes, 25% of the EU budget on whatever the heck ‘climate action’ is.


The clean energy transition and other initiatives to decarbonise Europe’s economy will represent 25% of EU spending under a seven-year EU budget plan put forward by the European Commission on Wednesday (2 May).

Climate action will be mainstreamed across all EU programmes, with a target of 25% of all expenditure contributing to climate objectives, said Miguel Arias Cañete,‏ the EU Commissioner in charge of climate action.

This is up from 20% in the current budget, which covers the years 2014-2020, the Commission said.

May 31, 2019 7:09 pm

I am getting a bit sick of saying it, but sadly we my have to just wait until
the Light start to go out.

I had hoped that by now President Trump had commenced his Red Team
Blues team senario, or at least have a reputed scientist or two tell us what
the cornerstone of this whole mountain of nonsense, the properties of
CO2. really are.

We need well funded “Properganda”which tells the truth from our point of
view rather than the clearly well funded propaganda from the warmers side.

Otherwise come the next elections in 2020, or if Trump survives, then 2024
the USA, an the world may well see another Democrat in office in the White
House. I world love to be around by then, but the odds are against it.


Reply to  Michael
May 31, 2019 8:58 pm


The lights have pretty well started to go out in the UK.

British Steel has gone into receivership because energy prices are too high thanks to EU regulations.

Reply to  HotScot
May 31, 2019 9:47 pm

A few companies going broke isn’t going to cut it. Regular blackouts and brownouts that force all shops to close, and people to use flashlights are required.

When ordinary citizens find out that the likes of Justin Trudeau, Al Gore, etc. are not sharing the pain (having back up generators), then something may happen.

I live in Calgary. Four degrees Celsius warming means we’ll still be cooler than Denver. I can live with that.

A warmer planet is better than one that enters another ice age.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  joe
May 31, 2019 10:22 pm

“joe May 31, 2019 at 9:47 pm

Regular blackouts and brownouts that force all shops to close, and people to use flashlights are required.”

Reminds me of Addis Ababa in Ethiopia. Out at a bars at night, eating, drinking, having fun with friends, lights go off for hours at a time, life still goes on.

Reply to  joe
May 31, 2019 10:41 pm


British Steel isn’t just “a few companies”. It’s one of the few remaining steel producers in the UK. It provides employment for thousands in the area and is a big deal here.

Trudeau and Gore will never be exposed any more than they have been already, and has it done any good?

People are asking questions in the UK and that’s what we want.

Reply to  HotScot
June 1, 2019 1:07 am

The vast majority of the public that supports action on climate change think that said action won’t affect them.

I don’t want any action on climate change.

Sadly British Steel is one company. And I feel bad that 5000 are out of work.

In Canada, our jerk of a Prime Minister has imposed a carbon tax of $20/tonne, increasing by $10/tonne each year. But then he gives 80% of the population their CO2 tax money back so they can still heat their homes and fuel their vehicles. It’s all virtue signalling.

Most of the climate action supporters want action, as long as it doesn’t affect them. Only when it really affects them will they squeal.

Reply to  HotScot
June 1, 2019 1:13 pm


Nothing will happen that’s the point; except skinning people for taxes, and when did that ever change the climate?

We are not going to sleepwalk into socialism because of these goons. Many have tried to bludgeon us into it and that didn’t go down well.

They imagine the hold the intellectual and moral high ground, but socialists have always believed that, it’s never really gotten them anywhere though.

Sure, Russia and China were mugged off, but they came to their senses. So we are left with N. Korea, Cuba and Venezuela and a few other loony tune dictatorships; but the world have NEVER been as peaceful a place as it is now. And that has nothing to do with socialism.

As I have said elsewhere to Allan, give the morons something else to obsess over, like the nuclear space program. Perhaps The Donald can rustle up a few more diversions; and there’s nothing less effective than an enemy fighting a battle on numerous fronts.

William Astley
Reply to  joe
May 31, 2019 10:41 pm

Where is the warming? If this was normal science, the end of warming and observations such the IPCC predicted tropical tropospheric hot spot not being observed would have falsified the theory.

There no evidence of any more warming besides in IPCC models.

comment image


• Summer average temperatures for 2018 were lower than the 2008-2018 average by more than one standard deviation
• In 2018, 26 of Greenland’s 47 largest glaciers were either stable or grew in size.
• Overall, the 47 glaciers advanced by +4.1 km² during 2018. Of the 6 largest glaciers, 4 grew while 2 retreated.

Scouser in AZ
Reply to  HotScot
May 31, 2019 10:47 pm

So steel will be imported from outside the EU from countries that are not signing on the the Paris Agreement?

Reply to  Scouser in AZ
May 31, 2019 11:57 pm

And has been produced with less concern for the environment.

Reply to  StephenP
June 1, 2019 6:43 am

Predictably the Financial Times and BBC have reported very little on the effect of excessive power prices as a cause of closure. (German producers pay less and French producers much less.) The constant bleating is of “Brexit uncertainty”, but I’m fairly sure most of the 5000 unfortunates whose jobs are on the line are only too aware of the true cause of their misfortune.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Michael
June 1, 2019 6:35 am

Michael – May 31, 2019 at 7:09 pm

We need well funded “Properganda” which tells the truth from our point of
view rather than the clearly well funded propaganda from the warmers side.

I would like to remind some of you ……. “tells the truth from my point of view”, to wit:

I compiled the following statistics via reliable sources, to wit:

Increases in World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade

year — world popul. – % incr. — Dec CO2 ppm – % incr. — avg increase/year
1940 – 2,300,000,000 est. ___ ____ 300 ppm est.
1950 – 2,556,000,053 – 11.1% ____ 310 ppm – 3.3% —— 1.0 ppm/year
[March 03, 1958 …… Mauna Loa — 315.71 ppm]
1960 – 3,039,451,023 – 18.9% ____ 316 ppm – 1.9% —— 0.6 ppm/year
1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 21.9% ____ 325 ppm – 2.8% —— 0.9 ppm/year
1980 – 4,453,831,714 – 20.1% ____ 338 ppm – 4.0% —– 1.3 ppm/year
1990 – 5,278,639,789 – 18.5% ____ 354 ppm – 4.7% —– 1.6 ppm/year
2000 – 6,082,966,429 – 15.2% ____ 369 ppm – 4.2% —– 1.5 ppm/year
2010 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 389 ppm – 5.4% —– 2.0 ppm/year
2017 – 7,550,262,101 – 9.80 % ____ 407 ppm – 4.4% —– 1.8 ppm/year

Source CO2 ppm: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

Based on the above statistics, to wit:

Fact #1 – in the past 77 years – world population has increased 228% (5.3 billion people) – atmospheric CO2 has increased 35.7% (107 ppm)

Fact #2 – human generated CO2 releases have been exponentially increasing every year for the past 60 years (as defined by the population increase).

Fact #3 – the burning of fossil fuels by humans has been exponentially increasing every year for the past 60 years. (as defined by the population increase).

Fact #4 – a biyearly or seasonal cycling of an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently occurring each and every year for the past 60 years (as defined by the Mauna Loa Record and Keeling Curve Graph).

Fact #5 – atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently increasing at an average yearly rate of 1 to 2 ppm per year for each and every year for the past 60 years (as defined by the Mauna Loa Record and Keeling Curve Graph).


Given the above statistics, it appears to me to be quite obvious that for the past 77 years (or the 60 years of the Mauna Loa Record) there is absolutely no direct association or correlation between:

#1 – increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm and world population increases:

#2 – the biyearly or seasonal cycling of an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 and world population increases;

#3 – the biyearly or seasonal cycling of an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 and the exponential yearly increase in fossil fuel burning;

#4 – the average yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 of 1 to 2 ppm and the exponential increase in fossil fuel burning;

#5 – there is absolutely, positively no, per se, “human (anthropogenic) signature” to be found anywhere within the 60 year old Mauna Loa Atmospheric CO2 Record.

paul courtney
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
June 1, 2019 8:11 am

Mr. Cogar: That sort of truth can only yield one conclusion: NOAA needs to adjust those population numbers down!

Geoff Sherrington
May 31, 2019 7:14 pm

There is no “solution” that can be proposed by these unscientific propagandists because there is no proven problem that demands a solution.
At the most basic level, the surmised problem is that increasing CO2 in our air will raise its temperature, with numerous imagined consequences. The temperature rise per doubling of CO2 is (roughly) termed equilibrium climate sensitivity, ECS.
After 40 years of scientific research, there is no accepted single value of ECS. Only a useless large range of values.

There can be no honest, competent scientist who should accept the fundamental hypothesis of global warming. There could hardly be a more clear, complete demonstration of the fundamental failure of the whole grand scheme than this ECS failure. Nothing more is needed to blow this global warming idea out of the water.

Its time is over. From now on, do not feed it. Ridicule it or ignore it while showing others why it has proven itself so stupid. Geoff.

May 31, 2019 7:22 pm

Maybe people don’t understand how robbing them will avert Carbogeddon.

May 31, 2019 7:44 pm

Climate Change Denial
Facing a reality too big to believe

That a few misguided politicians believe climate change predictions are exaggerated or even fabricated is lamentable. But perhaps more puzzling is the lack of alarm among the general public
“The overarching threats of a changing climate, can also incite despair and hopelessness as actions to address the ‘wicked problem’ of climate change seem intangible or insignificant in comparison to the scale and magnitude of the threats.”
Organizations like Climate Psychiatry Alliance and Climate Psychology Alliance have been formed not only to point out the severe consequences of climate change for emotional and behavioral health but also to lend expertise in determining how best to overcome climate change denial.

I struggle to find words to characterize this. We have sane, normal people who haven’t bought into the alarm. These shrinks wonder why the propaganda hasn’t worked on them. And want to get them out of their “denial” and terrify them. Then these shrinks have work to do to help them cope with despair and hopelessness.
This is far beyond Orwellian

Dr Richard Lindzen
“And it’s part of NSF’s big mobilization. They are spending quite a lot of money to find out why people aren’t buying the alarm. And this harkens back to my personal attitude. Ordinary people have sense; Academics don’t. “
12 minutes

Alarming Global Warming: What Happens to Science in the Public Square. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.

Gary Pearse
May 31, 2019 7:52 pm

The cheerleaders have filled the stadium with sound, light and frenzy but there is no game. Is it only the few that realize nothing is really going to be done about climate? I think the main actors do know this fact and the fear is that nothing bad is going to happen to the planet, biodiversity, species, the chemistry of the ocean, polar ice caps, etc. with business as usual.

After predictions (latterly downgraded to “projections”) proved to be over 300% too high, and the ante upped by a neurosis-inducing Dreaded Pause, there is desperation to get policy enacted, even if it is to make everybody wear a white hat, so that they can claim credit for the benign climate we are going to enjoy anyway. Hey these guys caused the waste of trillions of dollars and death from resultant impoverishment and denial of cheap reliable energy to the Third World. Yeah, they are worried.

NZ Willy
May 31, 2019 7:57 pm

People won’t feel “powerless” for long, as human psychology dictates it will turn into disbelief of the pablum. The “fake news” concept will become the norm for the masses. The solution to the alarmism, as always, is electricity blackouts. Nothing so awakens the “woke” to the consequences of their destructive ideology as cutting off their electricity. And the sooner the better, because it’s OK to have recoverable crises, but not OK to put it off until it becomes an unrecoverable collapse.

Coeur de Lion
May 31, 2019 9:46 pm

Scientists say that 13% of global warming is caused by mobile telephones. Drop yours off here.

paul courtney
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
June 1, 2019 5:46 am

Coeur: Good on the “solution” part, but not scary enough. Better make that percentage of scientists alot higher. After you set the number, you can do the poll!

May 31, 2019 11:11 pm

“People aren’t fools.”

It’s pretty clear that a fair amount of them are. One glaring example is the guy who was going to super glue himself to an automatic door. Fool. Extinction Rebellion. Fools. Anyone who believes Greta. Fools. The list goes on and on.

Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 1, 2019 12:59 am

Eric Paul Homewood has exposed the whole Greta scam in ‘Not a lot of people know that’ worth a read it’s dynamite.

Jim Masterson
Reply to  Eric Worrall
June 1, 2019 2:43 am

. . . the reason they are so drawn to her, is that she really believes.

It’d probably because Greta’s channeling Al Gore.


June 1, 2019 12:33 am

Has nobody read ‘Greta’s very corporate children’s crusade’ by Paul Homewood in ‘Not a lot of people know that’

It’s dynamite, exposes the whole set up, and demonstrates how Greta was manipulated, both by her parents, and the big money guys.

June 1, 2019 3:34 am

Re. What is the difference between a Socialite and a Conservative, its in
the meaning of the word itself. To Conserve is to keep, i.e. hopefully that
means retaining what is good, discard what is not good.

Whereas the word Socialist is not as clear, to socialise, i.e. to come together
, to be social, i.e. lets be friends.

So like so much from the Left, its meaningless, which just about sums up
their way of thinking.


June 1, 2019 4:14 am

Until we realize that the purpose for the climate scare and “clean green renewable energy” is not to to find solutions but to de-industrialize and as a consequence to depopulate then we are missing the real war that’s being waged. Several have made this evident in their writings:

“We need to get some broad based support,to capture the public’s imagination…So we have to offer up scary scenarios,make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balance between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University

“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
– Al Gore,
Climate Change activist

“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
-professor David Botkin

“A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income. Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism can permit mankind to negotiate this transition.”
– Club of Rome
United Nations Think Tank

“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
– David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth

“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
– Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First!

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“Human beings, as a species,
have no more value than slugs.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many
apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb

“I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the cull to the size of the surplus population.”
– Prince Philip,
preface of Down to Earth

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty,
reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations,
Global Biodiversity Assessment

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major UN donor

“the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind UN Think Tank

“One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladesh’s. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
patron of the World Wildlife Fund

“I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!

“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth – social and environmental.”- Ingrid Newkirk,
former President of PETA

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
– David Brower,
first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

Reply to  Republicae
June 1, 2019 8:26 am

Good quotes. Thank you.

Ronald Havelock
Reply to  Republicae
June 1, 2019 9:33 am

Thank you, Republcae, whoever you are.
This is a great list of quotes from the true enemies of humanity.
I think you could add some quote from Adolf Hitler to your list because he was a great depopulator, maybe the greatest.

John Endicott
Reply to  Ronald Havelock
June 3, 2019 9:07 am

His ideas would certainly feel at home amongst those already quoted.

June 1, 2019 4:26 am

They gave us their solution as well: grey energy – unreliables.

The public aren’t fooled by it.

June 1, 2019 4:46 am

That’s so sad to me. The curve for nuclear should be so much steeper.

Reply to  Aeronomer
June 1, 2019 5:42 am

The climate crisis, and decarbonization have never been about CO2, or climate change. They promote a Malthusian energy agenda through fear, and social control. Because energy is the master resource upon which wealth depends. Every encounter with climate campaigners I’ve had taught me this.

June 1, 2019 6:43 am

The problem with messaging is that that you don’t know if you are getting through to your audience until they ask how much it will cost. (People with casual interest don’t care about cost because they are not buying.) Unfortunately for climate alarmists, the costs of climate mitigation are already showing up in their energy bills while the effectiveness of the mitigation solutions are shown to be wanting. It’s no surprise that the people who struggle to pay their energy bills are the first ones to rebel against those climate policies. Better solutions are needed (and often blocked by environmentalists) not a louder voices.

June 1, 2019 7:25 am

‘Its updated style guide states that “climate change” no longer accurately reflects the seriousness of the situation and journalists are advised to use “climate emergency”, “climate crisis” or “climate breakdown” instead.’

They were quite happy for climate change to replace CAGW when it suited them to make it all encompassing like motherhood and world peace but now that’s not cutting through. Howsabout back to the original global warming meme chaps or is that a bit too specific and testable for you?

George Daddis
June 1, 2019 7:30 am

The explanation for public indifference is very simple; they are on hyperbole overload.

If someone warns me to be careful at the next intersection because the traffic lights are malfunctioning and there have been a lot of pedestrian accidents, I’ll pay attention. But if I’m told that if I put just one foot on that street I’ll die immediately; I’ll tell them to buzz off.

As usual, these “communication” specialists on the alarmist side are starting with a false premise; that the public believes the danger – and now we just have to get them to act on that belief.

Emotion and arm waving are no longer effective in convincing folks calamity is about to occur.

June 1, 2019 8:48 am

The easiest thing to do is to caricature your opponent and argue with the caricature. Renewables are growing exponentially from a small base, but we have already deployed 1 terawatt of renewable power, and both solar and wind are very cheap in good locations and getting cheaper every year. The new GE wind turbine has 12 megawatt capacity, costing about 25 million dollars. That price should decline with time and volume of sales. If the US spent 50 billion a year deploying those turbines (about what is spent every year on the military in Afghanistan, less than .25% of GDP) you could have over 500 gigawatts of capacity in 20 years. The future is baked in. By 2050 the world will be powered by solar/wind/nukes/hydro. Storage and gas peakers to cover any shortfall. All cars will be electric. The problem is solving itself, and in exchange we get rid of air pollution and the power of the oil exporters. Win win win.
As it is, China, India, Europe, and the big blue states will get rid of gas powered cars in the next 2 decades. The world auto industry will not maintain two different systems of gas and electric vehicles, the gas vehicles will be gone, and faster than anyone thinks.
A few years ago we got rid of our Lincoln Navigator getting 11 mpg and replaced with a Lexus Hybrid SUV getting 33 mpg. If an electric option was cost competitive and available, we would gotten that. I have several colleagues here in California that can buy whatever car they want and have electric vehicles already.

Reply to  Stockdoc77
June 1, 2019 10:38 am

I think your scenario is a caricature of reality.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Stockdoc77
June 1, 2019 11:48 am

“If the US spent 50 billion a year deploying those turbines you could have over 500 gigawatts of capacity in 20 years.”

Capacity is irrelevant because wind turbines only supply about 25% of rated capacity. Your suggestion boils down to spending 1000 billion to have about 125 gigawatts of capacity.

That would be in theory. Reality is that the turbines installed in the first few years of that 20 year span will have failed by then. After about 15 years that 50 billion per year would be spent replacing failed turbines, not installing additional turbines. Actual output might peak at around 95 gigawatts of capacity, with no further increase despite continuing to spend that 50 billion a year.

David Wojick is right.


Steve Reddish
Reply to  Stockdoc77
June 1, 2019 11:54 am

” If an electric option was cost competitive and available, we would gotten that.”

Not gonna happen when you consider adding infrastructure costs to vehicle costs. Another example of your disconnect from reality of real costs.


Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Stockdoc77
June 1, 2019 1:16 pm

Stockdoc77 – June 1, 2019 at 8:48 am

The future is baked in. By 2050 the world will be powered by solar/wind/nukes/hydro. Storage and gas peakers to cover any shortfall. All cars will be electric.

As it is, China, India, Europe, and the big blue states will get rid of gas powered cars in the next 2 decades (20 years). The world auto industry will not maintain two different systems of gas and electric vehicles, the gas vehicles will be gone, and faster than anyone thinks.

I have several colleagues here in California that can

Shur nuff, ….. Stockdoc, ……. and along with your brilliant thinking to help, ….. California will surely be enjoying a Surplus Budget in 20 years.

But Stockdoc, ……. just what is your brilliant plan for “ridding n’ replacing” all of the following denoted “fossil fuel burning vehicles” ……. during the next 20 years, to wit:

In 2017, some 11.2 million motor vehicles were produced in the United States, and 97.3 million motor vehicles were produced worldwide

Number of registered vehicles in U.S., 2017 —- 270.4 million

It is estimated that over 1 billion passenger cars travel the streets and roads of the world today, Mar 2, 2018

Are you going to donate a portion of your hoard of California gold to all the “poorer-than-you” folks so that they can buy themselves a new EV?

And good luck at building 1+ BILLION ….. EV’s during the next 20 years.

“HA”, ….. California and its citizens have morphed into being actual, factual “real life” science fiction that was once reserved for TV and movie “entertainment” productions.

John Endicott
Reply to  Stockdoc77
June 3, 2019 8:52 am

As it is, China, India, Europe, and the big blue states will get rid of gas powered cars in the next 2 decades

Only if they do so through at the barrel of a gun (ie the force of law). EVs remain a miniscule fraction of the car market for a reason – the populace doesn’t see much if any advantage to voluntarily buying one at market prices. And if they do mandate “EV only” cars through force of law, that will only make the poor poorer as they can’t afford a new EV and there aren’t enough old EVs to replace all the old cars the poor currently rely on. In a country like the US, if you don’t have a car, you can’t survive outside the slums of the big cities and you can’t better your place in society if you are relegated to living in the feces and needle strewn slums of the big cities.

June 1, 2019 11:09 pm

You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater because it might incite panic. Yet, leftists can spend day after day, month after month, year after year doing their very best to try to incite panic over global warming.

Funny that.

Reply to  KTM
June 2, 2019 2:01 am

Beg to differ.
Not funny
I know many readers of these articles are of similar age to me and will recall the UK government’s advice and frequent leaflet distributions about the action to take should nuclear war occur. The line drawings of families huddled under kitchen tables with doors to rooms removed and placed to add “blast protection” are still quite vivid in my mind some sixty years on.
I was fortunate, my parents were reassuring and comforting and, as I recall, the possibilities of armageddon were downplayed and even dismissed – despite my memory of dad removing all but one screw from all the door hinges in readiness.
This generation of kids do not have that reassurance. Their parents, teachers and every contact they have on social media is reinforcing the message that they have no future “because climate”. The mental problems this causes are now being fortified and bolstered by a new cohort of psychiatrists especially trained in “climate anxiety”. Innocence is lost, childhood gone. Every adult neurosis there is is now being foisted on our children from white male guilt to gender fluidity. I feel only disgust for the people, mainly left-leaning, who are robbing a whole generation of their childhood, and in extreme cases, their lives.

John Endicott
Reply to  PeterGB
June 3, 2019 8:55 am

PeterGB, I’m pretty sure KTM didn’t mean funny as in “ha ha, joking and laughing” but rather funny as in “peculiar, strange, odd”

michael hart
June 1, 2019 11:32 pm

Like all those Artsy academic departments that call themselves ‘something-science’ for no good reason, The Conversation is exactly what they don’t want to allow. It’s an oxymoron.

However, one productive conversation they could be having is that, after a few decades of only having about 5 years to save the entire planet, declaring a climate emergency must surely be a sign that things are now improving?

June 4, 2019 12:14 pm

I used to try more of the solutions the greens told me to do. I recycled 90% of my garbage. We took the bus for years and when we got a car, we bought a hybrid car. I also have a bike for shorter errands. I bought LED lightbulbs instead of florescents. We have a garden. Etc and so on.

Now they say none of this is enough, our curbside recycling is being reduced to nothing, our efforts are being insulted. What is it they want? Apparently we should live on scraps we gather from landfills that we bring back to our un-airconditioned cave.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights