Over the last few years, most people have been less and less worried about anthropogenic climate change. Perhaps that's because people in general are smart enough to see that the costs to reduce our impact aren't worth the benefits from that reduction. Perhaps it's because the frantic predictions of the climate scolds never seem to come true.
Perhaps it's just because the most frantic of the scolds are really annoying, and people are tired of idiots gluing themselves to roadways and throwing tomato soup on priceless works of art.
So now, predictably, the claims of the scolds are becoming more and more frantic, their predictions more dire, as they seek to regain some relevance. In the latest such example, a piece in the UK Guardian has sounded a really Chicken Little-like tone; there's just one problem.
The planetary life support systems relied upon by humans have deteriorated to their worst levels ever recorded amid ongoing pollution and habitat destruction, according to a key yet grim annual update by scientists.
Of the nine “planetary boundaries” that help determine whether life can flourish on Earth, seven are being breached at their highest ever levels of transgression, according to the latest planetary health check, a process that was established in 2009.
The seven key indicators in the danger zone include climate change, change in biosphere integrity, land system change, freshwater change, modification of biogeochemical flows, introduction of novel entities and, for the first time last year, ocean acidification.
There's just one problem. The claims here are, as my Brit friend would say, bollocks. Over at Climate Realism, the inestimable Anthony Watts has some thoughts.
The Guardian claims in ‘Planetary boundaries’ necessary for flourishing of life have been massively breached, scientists warn, that seven of nine supposed “planetary boundaries” necessary for life to flourish have been breached, leaving Earth outside a “safe operating space” as “climate disaster looms.” This is grossly misleading. Real-world measures of human and ecological welfare show a planet on which human population, life expectancy, agricultural production, protection from natural disasters, and even global vegetation have increased dramatically during the very period in which The Guardian says conditions for flourishing have been collapsing.
There are legitimate environmental problems involving pollution, habitat destruction, species loss, and land use. Those deserve serious discussion. But The Guardian does something quite different. It bundles a collection of environmental indicators into a conceptual framework called “planetary boundaries,” labels seven of them breached, and leaps from that to rhetoric about deteriorating “planetary life support systems” and the world “standing on the edge of the abyss.”
In other words, they are making up new metrics, more danger zones, out of whole cloth. Let's look at some of these key indicators:
Climate change. As I have continually written and spoken for years, yes, the climate changes. It always has, and it always will. Yes, humans have some impact on that change. But our influences on a planetary climate are not worth diminishing or abandoning our modern lifestyle, and in fact, there are many indications that a slightly warmer climate is good, not bad, for humans.
Change in biosphere integrity. Wait, what? Again biomes change continually. 20,000 years ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered in mile-thick ice sheets. California was a land of dry, warm savannahs. Again, the question is this: How do we know the "correct" settings for this piece of vagueness?
Land system change: Presumably like this, they mean changes in how humans use land. Yes, this is a problem in some places, like the forests of the Amazon basin, where most notably balsa trees are being mass-harvested - for windmill blades. But in the meantime, crop yields are up, because of increased CO2 and a warmer climate. These are facts.
Freshwater change: Yes, indeed, freshwater system in the developed world has vastly improved over only half a century ago.
Modification of biogeochemical flows: I'm not even sure what they mean by that. It's certainly not a term I ever heard in my education in biology, which admittedly was some years ago — but I do endeavor to stay current, and am inclined to file this one under "horse squeeze."
Introduction of novel entities: Like what? Invasive species? Plastics?
Ocean acidification: Yes, this is a valid point. Ocean pH levels have been falling, slowly. It's happened before, and it can be catastrophic; in the Permian mass extinction, volcanic activity acidified the oceans to the point where nearly 90 percent of ocean life died. But that was also the result of an entire continent being consumed by massive volcanic eruptions the like of which we struggle to imagine today.
The question is this: How does the Guardian propose we deal with these issues? Left alone, these systems change but trend toward moderation. That's what's happening now, with the planet slowly trending toward an interglacial high, as it has been doing, with some dips and spikes, since the last major glaciation ended. That's all. No need to panic.
Finally, as Mr. Watts points out:
The first problem is that planetary boundaries are not physical tripwires beyond which humans suddenly cannot flourish. The framework was created to define a precautionary “safe operating space” based on selected Earth-system processes. Even the scientific literature describes it as a framework based on an evolving understanding of Earth-system resilience, not a set of experimentally demonstrated points beyond which human civilization ceases to prosper.
And, we're nowhere near that point. Humans lived through the Roman Warm Period, and prospered. We lived through the Little Ice Age, and that time was marked by crop failures and disease. Life on Earth lived through the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when there were forests in Antarctica and tropical jungles in Germany. Life on Earth lived times in the Mesozoic when temperatures and CO2 levels were far higher than now.
The planet and the life it bears isn't anywhere near as fragile as the scolds claim. And, frankly, the Guardian does its readers a disservice with this kind of panic-mongering.
