We have seen plenty of hand-wringing on the threats of climate change not only from climate activists but many in our own, United States government. We are hectored almost daily about the risks we face by our refusal to surrender cheap, abundant energy and our modern technological lifestyle; we are told we risk literally setting the planet on fire.
Now, plenty of us are skeptical about that. Plenty of us have looked into the issue and realize that, yes, the climate is changing; it always has, it always will. Sure, humans have some effect, although one good volcano can blow us away - not to mention a major asteroid impact, like the one that ended the Cretaceous, that impact being the reason you aren't dodging T-Rexes every time you go for a morning walk.
Now, a report required by the U.S. government per the 2022 Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act has given us an assessment of the various risks humanity faces. Climate change didn't make the cut.
Global catastrophic and existential risks hold the potential to threaten human civilization. Addressing these risks is crucial for ensuring humans' long-term survival and flourishing. Motivated by the gravity of these risks, Congress passed the Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act in 2022, which requires that the Secretary of Homeland Security and the administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency coordinate an assessment of global catastrophic risk related to a set of threats and hazards. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate and the Federal Emergency Management Agency requested the Homeland Security Operational Analysis Center's support in meeting this requirement. The authors of this report document findings from the resulting analysis.
This report summarizes what is known about the risks associated with six threats and hazards: artificial intelligence; asteroid and comet impacts; sudden and severe changes to Earth's climate; nuclear war; severe pandemics, whether resulting from naturally occurring events or from synthetic biology; and supervolcanoes.
The risk summaries cover the following aspects: where feasible, estimates of the likelihood and potential consequences of each risk; factors causing the risk and associated uncertainties; and whether the risk is likely to change in the next decade.
The raw data isn't presented on that Rand site, but on his Substack, writer Roger Pielke Jr writes that he has seen the results--and shares some interesting data:
Congress requested that the assessment focus on six areas of risk:
- the use and development of artificial intelligence (AI);
- asteroid and comet impacts;
- sudden and severe changes to Earth’s climate;
- nuclear war;
- severe pandemics, whether resulting from naturally occurring events or from synthetic biology;
- supervolcanoes;
Using the key definitions across these six categories, the table below summarizes my reading of the report.
Here's the table:
Note the conclusions: There are three categories of risk. Existential risk, global catastrophic risk, and global catastrophic and existential threats - both. Artificial intelligence, asteroid and comet impacts, nuclear war, pandemics, and supervolcanoes rated a "yes" in all three risk categories.
The only one that rated a "no" was climate change.
Mr. Pielke, in his Substack piece, presents the table of key findings; here's what the report says on climate change. (Click to embiggen.)
— Ward Clark (@TheGreatLander) November 14, 2024
In summary: This report, carried out under legislation passed by the U.S. Congress, assessed a variety of possibly existential and global threats to humanity, and the only one they found to not represent such a threat was climate change.
See Related: Biden, on His Way Out the Door, Slams Energy Sector With Methane Tax
WATCH: After Demanding Meat Tax, Activists at UN COP29 Climate Conference Won't Go Near Vegan Buffet
Mr. Pielke's entire analysis is certainly worth reading, and I encourage you to do so. But there's a conclusion we can draw from this report, and it's the same conclusion anyone who takes an impartial look at the data would reach: The climate changes. It always has and it always will. But the human impact on those changes is not only small compared with some major natural events, like a large volcanic eruption or an asteroid strike, but they also do not justify a dramatic alteration of our lifestyle.
Our modern lifestyle is dependent on technology - and affordable and abundant energy. Humans in general live longer, more pleasant, and healthier lives than at any time in human history, largely because of our modern technology. It affects everything in our lives, from transportation to health care to housing to education. Climate scolds would have us surrender this quality of life - and now, a study done under the direction of the United States Congress makes a compelling argument that it isn't necessary.
Remember that at Thanksgiving dinner, when someone starts shouting about setting the planet ablaze.
