Michael D. Shellenberger, President of Environmental Progress, ripped the far-left extremist rhetoric parroted by fringe activist Greta Thunberg and socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) during his testimony in front of the House Committee On Science, Space, and Technology on the science of climate change.
Without using their names, Shellenberger — who is a regular contributor in some of America’s largest publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Forbes — ripped apart many of the extreme claims made by Ocasio-Cortez and Thunberg.
Shellenberger began by highlighting his background, telling the Committee:
“I am an energy analyst and environmentalist dedicated to the goals of universal prosperity, peace, and environmental protection. Between 2003 and 2009 I advocated for a large federal investment in renewables, many of which were made as part of the 2009 stimulus. And since 2013 I have advocated for the continued operation of nuclear plants around the world and thus helped prevent emissions from increasing the equivalent of adding 24 million cars to the road.”
“I also care about getting the facts and science right. I believe that scientists, journalists, and advocates have an obligation to represent climate science accurately, even if doing so reduces the saliency of our concerns,” Shellenberger continued.
“No credible scientific body has claimed climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species. And yet some activists, scientists, and journalists make such apocalyptic assertions, which I believe contribute to rising levels of anxiety, including among adolescents, and worsening political polarization.”
Shellenberger’s remarks are an apparent shot at Thunberg’s claim that “we are in the beginning of a mass extinction” and Ocasio-Cortez’ claim that “we have 10 years left to plan and implement a Green New Deal before cataclysmic climate disaster.”
“My colleagues and I have carefully reviewed the science, interviewed the individuals who make such claims, and written a series of articles debunking them,” Shellenberger continued.
“In response, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change invited me to review its next Assessment Report, and Harper Collins will publish our research findings this June.”
“While climate change may make some natural disasters more frequent and extreme, the death toll from extreme events could and should continue to decline, as it did over the last century by over 90 percent, even as the global population quadrupled,” Shellenberger continued.
“Does that mean we shouldn’t worry about climate change? Of course not. Policymakers routinely take action on non-apocalyptic problems. And the risk of crossing unknown tipping points rises with higher temperatures.”
It’s important to note that Shellenberger is not a climate change denier, rather, he looks at what the science says and does not over-exaggerate scientific findings to advance a political agenda.
Shellenberger noted that the most important measure that governments need to undertake in order to reduce climate change “is the expanded use of nuclear energy.”
“Thanks in part to decades of public and private investment in fracking, natural gas is today cheap and abundant and thus needs little in terms of new public policy,” Shellenberger continued.
“Solar and wind energy are popular but their inherent unreliability, large land use requirements, and large materials requirements mean they make electricity expensive, have large environmental impacts, and are inherently limited in their capacity to replace fossil fuels.”
“The U.S. invented nuclear energy for civilian use in the 1950s and yet over three-quarters of new nuclear reactors globally are being built by the Chinese or Russians,” Shellenberger continued.
“Everyone recognizes that for the US to compete in building nuclear plants abroad we must build them at home and yet electric utilities may close half of America’s nuclear plants over the next two decades.”
Shellenberger noted the following must happen to implement a “Green Nuclear Deal,” which Shellenberger noted is important national security, the economy, and the environment:
- First, there must be a significant program of domestic nuclear power plant construction to give US firms the experience they need to compete abroad.
- Second, the president must be directly involved in selling foreign leaders on US technology, just as President Eisenhower did in the 1950s, and Presidents Xi and Putin are doing today.
- Third, the US must offer competitive financing for such foreign plant construction.
- And fourth, the construction of nuclear plants abroad must be centralized under one or two entities at most, as the US did with General Electric and Westinghouse in the 1950s, and as China and Russia are doing with their state-owned firms today.
Read more at Daily Wire
Shellenberger is not just biased, he is on the nuclear industry payroll. Carbon has made them righteous. “Environmentalists” have seen the light ($). The nuclear energy adventure (fission and fusion) is a fool’s journey with tragic consequences.
I can just imagine the future world a mostly nuke plants with a few coal plants, and gas plants. Providing stable electricity throughout hurricanes, earthquakes, whether it might be day or night. The last thing you would want is to rely on intermittent energy to stop your nuke plants going Fukushima.
David … you did not listen to me before and you are duped by MDS. He is using the very effective and reasonable spin you highlight for one reason and one reason only; he is a shill for the global nuclear fuel cycle enterprise. AGW and ACC is good for one industrial and investment sector: nuclear power. And Shellenberger has been sucking on the tit for a while.
Private Citizen, what is it that I have not listened to in the past?
As far as Shellenberger goes, he may not be objective with nuclear power. However, does that mean that his statement, “No credible scientific body has claimed climate change threatens the collapse of civilization much less the extinction of the human species.” is wrong?
I’m sure you will correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember that you are a supporter of nuclear power.
Mr. Shellenberger’s testimony represents something very new in climate change politics. Unlike all Democratic presidential candidates he isn’t advocating an over the top solution of only relying on wind and solar power and he points out these are not feasible. Yet, he believes that climate change is a problem despite the poor correlation between carbon dioxide levels and the earth’s temperature, and the high correlation with solar output. This puts Mr. Shellenberger in a middle ground among the radicals, a position that up to this point has been vacant. Nuclear power should be part of our energy mix. However, it should not and can not replace fossil fuels. One, nuclear energy is a lot more expensive to use, though not nearly as bad as wind and solar. Second, as has been pointed out many times on this website, replacing fossils fuels with nuclear would require one nuclear power plant to come on line each and every day between now and 2030. Just as Mr. Shellenberger points out that wind and solar are not feasible, total conversation to nuclear is not feasible.
And a expert knows a heck of a a lot more then some liberal democrat and career politician like AOC
You got that right.
Shellenberger might get labelled as a denier by the alarmists, because he is not alarmed by the current rate of climate change.
Will the MSM give him fair coverage? I doubt it. The fans of electric vehicles are, generally,
no – nukes. If the push for EV’s maintains its momentum, sunbeams and butterfly’s won’t supply enough juice.
Nuclear plants require long lead-times before shovels start digging. Time to get serious.
Greta and AOC are being responsible citizens who understand the possible consequences of softening ice caps and insulating effects of GHGs in the upper atmosphere.
We need to hear from Shellenberger about how the world can organize to put the fast breeder thorium reactor into widespread use by mid century.