A collection of 16 posts
Climate change makes fires more dangerous. Government competence matters. And preventing catastrophic fires requires expensive, unpopular measures.
Activists of all stripes will continue to preach that the end of the world is nigh, but that doesn’t mean that we should take them seriously.
Sustainable progress requires that ecological concerns be taken seriously and addressed rationally.
The cure for poverty and climate change is nuclear.
Much of the tragedy resides in our collective response to the meltdown.
The day is coming when nuclear energy will transform our planet.
The opposition to nuclear energy is not the only way in which mainstream environmentalists have, with the best of intentions, hurt the cause of climate action.
What, exactly, had I said that was so dangerous as to lead Democrats to engage in character assassination and undermine liberal democratic norms? Nothing I hadn’t already said last January when I testified before Congress about climate change and energy.
Michael Shellenberger, President of Environmental Progress, talks to Jonathan Kay about global warming, natural disasters, media scaremongering—and why the world is actually getting safer, notwithstanding the scaremongering of Extinction Rebellion. An extract from his new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, recently appeared in Quillette.
The Congo has a way of putting first-world prophecies of climate apocalypse into perspective.
Globalization has made our food ridiculously cheap compared to previous eras. But perhaps that’s part of the problem.
Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests.
A consensus has grown in the UK among Conservatives and much of Labour that it needs nuclear not just for climate change but also to reduce its dependence on imported natural gas.
Progressive environmentalists should welcome the addition of young conservatives to the broader environmentalist movement, but they must check some of their legislative ambitions at the door in order to pass meaningful, effective environmentalist policies.
Our decisions tend to be rooted not in scientific analysis but in emotional reaction; and we tend to see protest not as a tool for social or legislative change, but simply as a chance to upset the status quo.