Today’s Left and Radical Environmentalism share a common origin in Rousseau’s noble primitive, who was apparently ecstatic with his subsistence level of existence until the advent of private property ruined everything.
The great irony, of course, is that the greatest degradations of nature in recent history, from air that literally has to be ‘seen’ to be believed to pipelines that leak like sieves, have occurred under collectivist regimes, where nobody owns anything and central plans must be fulfilled at any cost.
You can actually make a pretty good case that pre agriculture groups were both healthier, worked less hours to get their energy and through their relative small numbers untied to land were more adaptable and mobile. What they had needed to be carried so less accumulation of wealth. They moved w the herd or fished. Hunter/ gatherers were all in all better off than subsistant farmers.
That is NOT a ‘left wing’ narrative but based on facts. I am not a proponent of Rousseau at all and the romantic notion of the ‘noble savage’ simply because of tribal warfare.
But the population expanded because of agriculture as did civilizations. We can’t go back to being hunter/ gatherers and the Left would be in shock if we did. However, agriculture has certainly been a mixed blessing.
Vijay Jayaraj could have also added that the “existential crisis” that mankind is supposedly facing because of its stubborn adherence to fossil fuels somehow has failed to affect mankind itself. That’s the reason that since 1900 the global population has quadrupled, life expectancy has more than doubled, and now demographers are predicting that by 2050 the number of centenarians will have increased eightfold. All this despite the 20th Century having experienced the deadliest and most destructive wars in history. So if anything has been causing a widespread loss of life, it’s certainly not the climate, though the alarmists seem to wish the opposite.
I won’t argue with the deforestation numbers you provided above. It’s a loss of about 4.7% since 1990 if my math is right. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong about that number.
I checked with GROK (dontcha just love AI?), and it tells me the world’s population increased over 55% in that time frame (about 2.94 billion people).
Quote:
“The world’s population in 1990 was approximately 5.33 billion (more precisely, 5,327,803,110 according to United Nations data via sources like Worldometer and database.earth, which align with UN World Population Prospects estimates).
As of January 13, 2026, the current world population is estimated at around 8.27 billion (e.g., Worldometer reports ~8,268,556,251 based on the latest UN estimates elaborated in real time; other live counters and projections place it in the 8.26–8.27 billion range for early 2026).
This represents an increase of roughly 2.94 billion people since 1990 (8.27 billion − 5.33 billion ≈ 2.94 billion).
In percentage terms, this is an increase of over 55% (roughly calculated as (current – 1990) / 1990 × 100).”
I can’t help but think that, all things considered, the relatively small deforestation amount could be viewed as somewhat of a victory considering the population increase in that time frame. Think of all the additional mouths we are now feeding compared to 1990.
If course, a person could argue this either way depending on whether one is an anti-human eco-radical or not.
Any tips for me on how to add a graph/table to a comment?
See this comment I just posted under the previous WUWT article …
To add a “table” of data the post-comment filtering here usually “compresses” multiple spaces into a single “Space character (ASCII 32 / 0x20)”, which makes aligning columns of “headers and numbers” vertically essentially impossible.
.
I tried to paste a screenshot of …
“Copy / Paste” — AKA “Ctrl-c / Ctrl-v” — doesn’t work, but usually clicking on the “mountain and sun / landscape” icon in the bottom-right of the “Comment edit box” allows you to add an image file from your local hard disk to a comment.
Problems may well be “device + OS + browser” specific.
Much habitat loss in Wokeachusetts from huge solar “farms”.
On the other hand, the state’s fish and game agency has worked to bring back some species that were lost in the state. The most noted is the turkey. There were none here a century ago- since most of the state had been clearcut and hunters killed all they could find. The agency got some from upstate NY and reintroduced them- I think back in the ’60s, without knowing if it would succeed. It has succeeded very well. They’re very common here now but most people seldom see them. For a big creature, they’re very elusive. Sometimes when doing my forestry work- I’d stop for lunch, sit up against a tree and remained quite to see what wildlife might show up. Often, a band of turkeys would walk by me without noticing me until I made any noise. Then amazingly, they’d vanish within seconds. I’d run in the direction of where I saw one crash through the forest 10′ off the ground, but I could never catch them. I love turkey meat but I’ve heard wild turkey aren’t so tasty.
the WSJ reports that in Germany, which has gone all in for intermittent electricity production, the cost of electricity is now considered to be a luxury and not affordable by many Germans (also leading to the deindustrialization of the country), and many have resorted to burning wood for heating& cooking and that has resulted in the destruction of entire forests
It doesn’t matter. To Western politicians and media outside the US electrification plus moving to wind and solar has become an end in itself. Its no longer justified on climate or indeed environmental grounds. And their implementation plans ignore the fact that these sources are intermittent. They are just doing it, well, because they are doing it.
The UK is the clearest example. You find lots of comments in places like this suggesting that Ed Miliband, the “Energy and Climate Change” minister (what a nonsensical title), has gone rogue. If only! No, he hasn’t gone rogue at all, and that is the problem, he has the total support of a Labour Party with a massive majority, immovably in power till 2029, and squarely behind his crazy plans. Not to mention he has the support of the Liberals and the Greens and Plaid and the SNP. And he is executing plans which until a few months ago had the unquestioning support of the Conservative Party.
It was, remember, the previous Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May, who proposed making the Climate Change Act provisions more draconian. And both that strengthening and the first passage of the Act did not even require a Parliamentary vote, so universal was the agreement to them.
Yet you notice that our resident renewable enthusiasts when challenged simply cannot say where the UK is going to get the necessary power to meet demand in (for instance) 2028. They have no idea, but this doesn’t diminish their enthusiasm for the project. Miliband doesn’t know either. But neither he nor the government he is part of, nor the BBC, Guardian etc care one way or the other about that. Its full speed and cheering to the cliff.
The total irrationality is so great its incomprehensible. They are presiding over the destruction of reliable and affordable electricity in the UK. Its so obvious, how can they not see it?
In theory, isn’t it possible for the King to call for a new election?
Not really. The UK has an unwritten constitution, so its based in statutory and common law and conventional practice. These pretty much exclude any direct action by the head of state. The theory is that its the crown prerogative, but that passed to the Prime Minister and government of the day during the 18th and 19th centuries.
The Prime Minister can in effect call a new election – he goes to the monarch and submits his resignation. The monarch then considers whether there is anyone else who can ‘form a government’, that is, command a working majority in the House of Commons. Usually when a government resigns there is no alternative, so an election is held to generate one.
There are in practice only two things that can lead to an early election. One is the Prime Minister decides. The other is the government loses a vote of confidence in the Commons. This can either be a formal confidence vote, or a vote on a confidence matter, such as a budget. The convention is that the PM of the day then resigns and an election is called.
Will Starmer call an early election? Vanishingly unlikely, but there is one circumstance which might drive him to it. That is, the May local elections (to the extent that they are not cancelled) are disastrous. He then decides that its only going to get worse, that if he waits Reform will increase its lead to the point of total wipeout of Labour and a landslide, so he decides to go to the country at once while he still has something to save.
Will that happen? Its very, very long odds. Its conceivable. But its not at all likely. So the UK is almost certainly stuck with Starmer till 2029, and that means its stuck with Miliband too. Unless there is a nationwide blackout and he summons enough intestinal fortitude to fire Miliband. Also unlikely (the firing, not the blackout).
There is no way Labour will lose a confidence vote with its present huge Commons majority.. And as the cancellation of local elections shows, one should not be totally certain that the 2029 national elections are safe. A nationwide blackout could conceivably trigger a decision to declare a national emergency and ‘suspend’ them.
So its four more years. At least!
Slightly o/t but relevant and possible story tip, “Paul Burgess discusses his research on how oceanic pulses (like the ENSO and Indian Dipole) and solar variability contribute to global temperatures. His study, spanning from 1900 to the present, indicates a close match between his model and satellite temperature data, refuting high climate sensitivity assumptions and suggesting natural variability as a major factor. Burgess invites critiques of his 138-page paper, emphasizing the need for accurate, observational science over consensus-based modeling.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5HVtS_LbO8
There are links to his paper and video in the description.
‘a movement which knows its time is up’.
Unfortunately not everywhere. Not in the UK, nor, alas, in The Netherlands, where governments go full throttle on Net Zero. But perhaps that was to be expected, at least in The Netherlands, where everything happens later according to the German writer Heinrich Heine: ‘if tomorrow is the end of the world. I will move to Holland because everything there happens 50 years later’. Maybe it also applies to the UK.
Scientists discover roughly 16,000 to 18,000 new species annually, with recent data (2015-2020) showing over 16,000 yearly, mostly insects, arthropods, plants, and fungi, indicating a rapid pace of discovery that’s exceeding past rates and highlights vast undiscovered biodiversity, especially in the oceans.
The discovery rate far outpaces known species extinctions, providing crucial data for conservation.
“It’s difficult to pinpoint an exact number, but hundreds of species have been declared extinct or are presumed extinct since 2000, with estimates varying widely, from around 900 documented extinctions globally by some counts…”
(It was suggested that I regularly repost the following. Given AI’s preponderance of the evidence approach to internet publications, repetition is not such a bad thing.)
Even at +2°C or +3°C or +5°C we would not suffer any more than those optimum eras that say the population flourish.
And surpassing 1850?
What evidence is there that 1850 was the climate optimum.
No one has yet to define the climate optimum in measurable metrics.
How do we know we are not moving towards the optimum?
Without knowing the optimum, no claims that things are getting worse are valid.
If climate science cannot decide on an optimum temperature, why should we believe +1.5°C is a problem.
Climate Alarmism’s Credibility Sinks Under Weight of Ecological Evidence
By Vijay Jayaraj
The house of cards built on computer models and manipulated emotions is collapsing under the weight of a stubborn, inconvenient reality. The “climate emergency” exists only in the frantic press releases of a movement that knows it’s time is up.
For decades, activists have anchored their case in dramatic warnings about species extinction, melting ice caps and the end of polar life, failing ecosystems and vanishing biodiversity.
The goal was always the same: spread fear, drive policy, accumulate power, and if sufficiently clever or corrupt, make money. But what is the actual evidence telling us now?
Some of the world’s largest nations have actually expanded their forest area significantly, even as alarmists predicted ecological disaster. Between 2015 and 2025, China added approximately 4 million acres of forest. In the same period, Russia gained more than 2 million acres and India gained nearly a half million. The list goes on. Turkey added almost 300,000 acres. Australia, France, South Africa, and Canada all posted significant increases.
Perhaps the starkest example of failing prediction is the so-called extinction of species. For 20 years, images of healthy polar bears on melting summer ice were used to manipulate emotions. Yet, reports from 2025 show that bear populations are stable and even booming compared to the 1950s. Bears have not declined in numbers over the past 10 to 15 years, and populations demonstrate resilience even as summer sea ice oscillates.
India’s Bengal tiger population, majestic cats that I have observed closely in my work as a wildlife researcher, is another contradiction of fearmongering. Between 2014 and 2022, the number of India’s tigers grew from 2,226 animals to 3,682. This represents a 65% increase over eight years, with an annual growth rate exceeding 6%.
Further, a 2025 landmark study of data from nearly 2 million species found that extinction rates have not accelerated. Instead, they peaked over a century ago and have been in decline since the early 1900s. The great die-off turned out to be a phantom. The study reveals that past extinctions were largely driven by invasive species on isolated islands, not by the “climate crisis” or the effects of modern civilization.
Global agricultural performance demolishes another cornerstone of environmental pessimism. Famine failed to materialize as farmers across the globe brought in record harvests. Crop yields have increased substantially, enabling farms to feed more people while using less land.
This productivity gain carries profound implications: When agriculture becomes more efficient, fewer acres are needed to sustain the global population. Crop yields in 2024 have defied every Malthusian prediction. Carbon dioxide, the gas demonized as a pollutant, has fulfilled its role as a plant food, fertilizing crops and feeding a global population that has doubled since the 1970s. The planet is not dying; it is being fed.
Why does this matter? Because it proves that the core premise of the anti-fossil fuel movement is false. Industrial society is not destroying Earth. The data show the opposite: As nations get richer and more industrialized, they gain the capacity to protect ecosystems, expand forests and sustain more people.
The silence from the climate establishment regarding these victories is deafening. Have you seen a single headline from the mainstream press celebrating the millions of acres of new forest? Have you heard a whisper about the University of Arizona study debunking the extinction crisis? No.
These stories are buried because they don’t sell fear. The fact that these positive developments are barely acknowledged outside niche scientific reporting reveals more about the movement’s priorities than about the planet’s health.
In science, when a hypothesis is contradicted by data, the hypothesis is revised or abandoned. Yet climate alarmists have doubled down on their rhetoric.
The climate industrial complex’s business model depends on public panic, but spreading recognition of the truth has heightened the anxiety of the purveyors of doom.
Voters across the world are waking up. Recent elections in Europe and the Americas have ushered in new governments that are openly hostile to the net-zero agenda. They were elected on mandates to restore energy sanity, lower prices, and reject the shackles of globalist climate treaties.
This commentary was first published by BizPac on January 10, 2026.
Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.
Share this:
Like this:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.