An especially odd feature in National Geographic begins “Not long ago Nature reported a disturbing study of the world’s youth – a survey of 10,000 people age 16 to 25, from 10 representative countries, for their feelings about climate change. Some 75 percent said the ‘future is frightening.’ Fear was more common in poorer, more vulnerable countries – but according to the study, 46 percent of young Americans, and 56 percent of youth worldwide, think that ‘humanity is doomed.’ Leave aside for now whether the forecast is accurate. Isn’t it heartbreaking that so many young people believe it?” Leave aside whether it’s accurate? No thanks. It’s the whole point. Jesting Pilate might shrug off the question. But we say if the forecast is inaccurate, as we believe it to be, it’s heartbreaking that so many young people have been force-fed it for so long they see no future. And National Geographic, who are climate panic peddlers of the first water, are implicated in the scandal.
So is NBC, for running articles like “The California Alisal Fire makes me ask whether I should have kids” by someone barely out of their internship with a BA in English and an “Extension” in creative writing they apparently employed to craft such sentences as “As I was growing up in California, the seasons ebbed and flowed with fires, droughts and mudslides, and the threat of extreme weather seemed to grow tenfold each year” and who admits to attending a Fourth of July celebration whose “invitation instructed us to ‘be hot in solidarity with our climate’” and who wants kids but “The choice of whether to have children is a deeply personal one that takes a hefty level of privilege just to ponder”. Which she apparently has, saying “it’s not about ‘the right time’ to add humans to the 8 billion or so already here or even about increasing our carbon footprint. It’s about whether I think it’s fair to raise children in a world becoming increasingly uninhabitable. In my hypothetical children’s or grandchildren’s lives, the planet might not actually become unlivable, but it certainly will become deadlier.”
The Spectator chimed in with a piece “Having a child is the grandest act of climate destruction” that started “About four years ago, my wife and I, who are both in our thirties, briefly thought we were having a baby. For the next few nights my dreams were of nuclear flashes lighting up the sky, of the earth cracking open and of waves lapping at the front door. Humans are swiftly making the planet uninhabitable. Why would we want to bring another human being into the world? I’ll admit that my climate anxiety is as melodramatic as it is severe. But polls show that I’m not alone and the figures of declining birth rates speak for themselves.”
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the planet is not becoming deadlier. On the contrary, deaths from natural disasters have plummeted even as population and atmospheric CO2 has risen. (In fact Willis Eschenbach just calculated that the “social cost of carbon” employed by the EU, US$68/tonne, relies on the idea that human CO2 has caused $97 trillion in natural disasters since 1950 even though the most comprehensive database he could find of all such disasters in that period totaled only $10 trillion.) If the youth of today believe otherwise, it is partly because the media is an echo chamber for them. To say nothing of social media.
Shame on them.