The Planet Will Be Fine & Here’s Why
The recirculation of the ongoing topic of climate change was recently catalyzed by Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, who quickly rose to prominence upon her demonstration outside Sweden’s parliament last year but particularly after her melodrama at the United Nation’s Climate Summit acting as the environmentalist movement’s newest spokesgirl. Although I, among others, do have moral qualms with the exploitation of children — especially the mentally ill — to further a political agenda, I would prefer to express instead my frustrations with the seemingly perpetual hysteria by debunking some of the common myths espoused by activists.
Probably the most oft-cited justification for this alarmism is global warming. While it is true that the average temperature of the United States has increased by almost two degrees Fahrenheit over the course of the past century, it was recently discovered that this has an insignificant effect on (ant)arctic ice. In fact, the polar ice caps have not receded since NASA began collecting images via satellite forty years ago. Although analysts concede to it having undergone a substantial ten percent relative decrease in size in 2005, it restored itself just seven years later and even managed to exceed the already abnormally large baseline size all the while posing no threat to humans.
Global warming’s effects on the polar vortices have simultaneously caused a decrease in the frequency of cold waves in recent years. This is projected to lead to a net decrease in mortality, as humans are more susceptible to excessive cold and comparatively can adapt more easily to the heat.
It may perhaps be contrary to popular belief that the rich actually care more about global warming than the poor, but it becomes commonsensical when one considers the latter’s higher prioritization of the escape from poverty as opposed to how relatively little is required of the former to contribute to the well-being of the environment. Put simply: The poor focus, understandably, on not starving instead of on the planet, which the wealthy have the means to improve should they feel so inclined.
One example of wealthier countries’ contributions can be seen in the reforestation movement. There exists a significant correlation between this and economic development among areas of low forest cover, i.e. low-income nations continue to deplete resources while high-income nations replenish forest as a result of higher agricultural yield and newfound attitudes toward the environment. Indeed, thoroughly industrialized countries experience a transition that demonstrates net afforestation, contradicting the assumptions made by many opponents of capitalism.
Among the other focal points of the climate debate is the reduction of greenhouse gases, even though (surprise) the United States led the world in reducing these and other pollutants the year proceeding their withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, while those of the others on the bill skyrocketed. It was proven over a decade ago that cutting carbon emissions would have little potential toward reducing loses by hurricanes; instead, infrastructural adaptation thereto can increase effectiveness fiftyfold.
Assessing the economic impact of this damage, one realizes that the projected drop of subsequent GDP cost by the turn of the century when accounting for inevitable prosperity — or the “fairy tales of eternal economic growth” Thunberg seems to so vehemently reprobate — so far exceeds the strengthening of (decreasingly frequent) cyclones that results from global warming. Now, I do mean “inevitable” on a global scale: Average income per capita has doubled since our parents were born.
What is important to be made abundantly clear is that we do, in fact, live in the greatest era in human history. Not only have there been fewer sightings of droughts of all official scientific categorizations since 1982, but also nine of every ten people now have access to improved water sources. Although there may be some marginal long-term ramifications to climate change, sufficient research exists to support the notion that encouraging economic growth to adapt a population to the natural disasters that will occur inevitably is the best way to preserve civilization. It would be a shame if we sacrificed arguably the most prosperous economies that ever thrived to yield negligible results through experimenting with solutions proposed by those convinced we are en route to Armageddon.
