FAMOUS American environmental activist, writer, and anthropologist Michael Shellenberger stirred things up with his new text, which was formed somewhat as an apology because of the harmful climate alarmism to which, he pointed out, he contributed himself as a climate activist.

"Climate change isn't the end of the world; it's not even our most serious environmental problem" 

"On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the past 30 years," Shellenberger wrote for the conservative newspaper The Australian. The article was published in Forbes before, but it was removed, and then also in the Australian private online portal Quillette. 

"Climate change is happening. It's just not the end of the world. It's not even our most serious environmental problem," added Shellenberger in the introduction of a lengthy review that caught attention with its provocatively formulated theses and critics of many media and experts, even his close supporters.

An advertisement for the book "Apocalypse never"

Whatever you assess his text, Shellenberger succeeded in one important matter - he aroused interest for his new, just published book Apocalypse never: Why environmental alarmism hurts us all. Moreover, the text and its content seem like a cleverly thought advertisement for the book. Most of the environmentalists who commented on the text experienced it in that way.

The description of the book on Amazon is the following provocative interpretation: What's really behind the rise of apocalyptic environmentalism? There are powerful financial interests. There are desires for status and power. But most of all, there is a desire among supposedly secular people for transcendence. This spiritual impulse can be natural and healthy. But in preaching fear without love, and guilt without redemption, the new religion is failing to satisfy our deepest psychological and existential needs."

12 controversial thesis

At the very beginning of the text in the Australian (and on the website Environmental Progress), Shellenberger wrote 12 theses for which he knew it would spark controversies.

Here are some facts few people know: 

* Humans are not causing a "sixth mass extinction" 

* The Amazon is not "the lungs of the world"

* Climate change is not making natural disasters worse

* Fires have declined 25 percent around the world since 2003

* The amount of land we use for meat — humankind's biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska

* The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California

* Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany, and France since the mid-1970s

* The Netherlands became rich, not poor while adapting to life below sea level

* We produce 25 percent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter

* Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change

* Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels, and

Preventing future pandemics requires more, not less, "industrial" agriculture.

A controversy for the majority of green and left activists

Since he knew that the good part of these theses would represent a controversy for the majority of the green and the right environmentalists, as well as for many laymen exposed to such activism, Shellenberger at the very beginning starts proactively moving any doubt that he isn't some right-wing, scientifically misinformed anti-environmentalist which one could find on the paysheet of the fossil energy's lobby.

In defending the thesis mention above, he firstly points out that many facts written in the book are being confirmed by the scientific studies that are respected by the world institutions, such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

He also added his impressive career as an activist for the protection of social justice and nature in the manner of the greatest left or green activists. He pointed out that he lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista social revolution and small farmers on the edge of the Amazon who fought against deforestation, and he helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia, etc.

He claimed that he became an environmental activist at only 16; he helped raise funds for the Rainforest Action Network. When he was 27, he took part in saving the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California, and he also claimed that he helped persuade the Obama administration to invest 90 billion dollars in renewables. 

Shellenberger isn't a converted green, but a prominent ecomodernist 

At the very end of his environmental-activists resume, Shellenberger finally legitimized himself more precisely in offering a clearer glimpse of which environmental movement he belongs to by pointing out among his successes that in the last couple of years, he helped in stopping many nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels. Among the radical left-greens, it will hardly be perceived as credit. At the same time, among the uninformed, it will mostly cause confusion and curiosity due to a traditionally bad image that nuclear plants have in the environmental movements.

But therein lies the rub - Shellenberger has been seriously disagreeing with the radical left-greens for around 15 years. Not only does he disagree with them, but he often expresses argumentative criticism. Namely, Shellenberger is one of the founders and prominent figures of the so-called ecomodernism, a philosophy based on the idea that the solution of the environmental problems isn't and cannot be in the efforts of the humankind to return to some well-balanced pre-industrial coexistence with nature, but in the development of technologies that would minimize that human environmental mark.

Shellenberger: Greenpeace didn't save the whales, human greed did 

In his new book, Shellenberger illustrated the ecomodernist concept of preserving the environment through a chapter he devoted to the historical story of the survival of whales. His interpretation is that organizations such as Greenpeace didn't save these intelligent animals from extinction; human greed did. In other words, the insatiable human thirst for energy and the development of technology has resulted in the development of hydropower plants and power plants in various effective fuels, making whale hunting for oils pointless.

When it comes to climate change, ecomodernist basically support the technological development of renewables such as solar power plants and wind turbines, especially when combined with nuclear plants. The idea of fighting against climate change by combining various types of clean sources was supported by many scientific organizations, including the UN's IPCC.

Renewables as a huge business

Shellenberger is very critical towards huge money being invested in the subvention of renewables, which turned into a very profitable business with powerful lobbies. He pointed several times to the fact that electric energy in countries that accepted renewables to a great extend, such as Germany, have become more expensive instead of cheaper, and that some countries needed to close nuclear plants after being under pressure of the greens, and then compensate that by increasingly using fossil fuels, such as coal. 

"Had Germany invested 580 billion dollars on nuclear plants, instead of renewables, it would already have 100% clean power with zero-emission. It's quite an outstanding data when you think about how much of our energy - around one-third - we use for transport," warned Shellenberger in his review in Forbes in 2019.

Boost of climate alarmism criticism

In his new overview, he especially points out that the leading world environmentalists have recently taken the apocalyptic visions too far to warn about threats presented as climate changes:

"But then things spiraled out of control last year. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez said: 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.' Britain's most high-profile environmental group claimed 'climate change kills children.' Bill McKibben, the world's most influential green journalist, called climate change 'the greatest challenge humans ever faced' and said that it would 'wipe out civilizations.' Mainstream journalists repeatedly reported that the Amazon was 'the lungs of the world' and that deforestation was like a nuclear bomb going off. The result is that half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. In January, one out of five British children told in a poll that they were having nightmares about climate change," Shellenberger wrote.

The coronavirus pandemic is a serious threat

Even renewed world organizations such as the WHO and IPCC have been under fire from his critics.

"The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate 'crisis' into perspective. Even if you think that we have overreacted, COVID-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe. Scientific institutions, including the WHO and IPCC, have undermined their credibility throughout the repeated politicization of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform," he said.

Deniers of the human influence on climate change were expectedly thrilled by Shellenberg's article, especially the editors and readers of conservative newspapers in the country who is one of the biggest exporters of fossil fuel in the world. 

Criticism from climatologist and associates 

But critical reactions followed among the serious climate scientists, and it's interesting that even his close associates were somewhat reserved.

For example, the respectable MIT climatologists Kerry Emanuel, who is one of the scientific advisors in Shellenberger's Environmental Progress, spoke to the Australian Guardian and expressed his "worry" about the new article, and that he is consulting with other members of the advisory group before he decides whether he's staying there.

"No one has the right to speak on behalf of the entire environmental movement"

In commenting on the text, he said: "First of all, no one has the right to speak on behalf of the entire environmental movement."

He explained that Shellenberger is right in addressing some environmental activists' extreme statements, but he also added that he has, however, misunderstood some facts.

Ivan Güttler: Even people who aren't radical activists don't agree

Croatian climatologist Ivan Güttler, who follows Shellenberger's work, thinks that his new article in the Australian should above all be considered as an advertisement for his new book.

"I follow him on Twitter, and I've read his new text. I also read some critical reviews on RealClimate.org," said Güttler to Index.

"Climatologists there analyzed his 12 statements and showed that some things are true, some are partially true, and some aren't true at all. One of them is NASA's climatologist Gavin Schmidt, so they aren't some radical green activists. Critics especially criticize the fact that he denies that with climate change, extreme weather conditions such as heatwaves and drought are growing. On the other hand, experts agree that the risk in food production is not as high as sometimes is being pointed out in the media. 

"Also, scientists agree that climate changes don't lead to the future in which the earth is a burnt desert. But it's a fact that some species of mammals, especially more complex ones, are dying out a hundred times faster than they would without the human influence. 

Be that as it may, our climatologists concluded, Schellenberer's book will be interesting reading. Especially for those who are more familiar with the topic, because one should still read it with a grain of salt.