Economy
Climate researchers show we’re actually “safer than ever from climate” catastrophes
The climate safety denial movement
I and others have documented that we’re safer than ever from climate. Catastrophists can’t refute us, so they’re now saying that disaster deaths don’t matter!
|
|
For decades climate catastrophists have portrayed climate disasters as getting deadlier and deadlier.
Now that I and others have documented that we’re safer than ever from climate, catastrophists are saying that disaster deaths don’t matter!
 |
- Reuters says “Drop in climate-related disaster deaths not evidence against climate emergency.”
But a drop in deaths from something—here, a 98% drop—is obvious evidence against it being an emergency.
Would Reuters say: “98% drop in flu deaths not evidence against flu emergency”?¹
- Why is Reuters, along with The New York Times, PolitiFact, and USA Today, claiming that a 98% drop in climate disaster deaths doesn’t contradict their climate emergency narrative? Because it obviously does, and they can only save their narrative by intimidating us into denying the obvious.²
- The central narrative of climate catastrophists is that fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions are killing more and more people via climate disasters.
This narrative has always had a fatal weakness: it totally contradicts the data, which show plummeting climate disaster deaths.³
- Why are climate disaster deaths plummeting as fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions rise?
Because the enormous ability uniquely cost-effective and scalable fossil fuel energy gives us to master climate danger far outweighs any new climate challenges from CO2 emissions.
- An example of fossil-fueled climate mastery overwhelming CO2 impacts is drought.
Any contribution of rising CO2 to drought has been overwhelmed by fossil-fueled irrigation and crop transport, which have helped reduce drought deaths by over 100 times over 100 years as CO2 levels have risen.⁴
- Over the last decade, I and a number of others, including Bjorn Lomborg and Michael Shellenberger, have challenged catastrophism by pointing to declining climate disaster deaths.
Catastrophists couldn’t refute our argument. So instead they pretended it didn’t exist.
Until last year.⁵
- In 2023, climate catastrophists finally felt compelled to address the fact that climate disaster deaths have plummeted (driven by fossil-fueled climate mastery).
Because of honesty? No—because Presidential candidates started bringing it up and persuading people with it.
- Here is Vivek Ramaswamy during his Presidential campaign referring to a 98% decline in climate disaster deaths—and, crucially, giving fossil fuel energy credit.
- Here is Ron DeSantis during his Presidential campaign referring to a 98% decline in climate disaster deaths—and, crucially, giving fossil fuel energy credit.
- The 98% decline in climate disaster deaths, driven by fossil fuels, is a blockbuster fact: it shows that we are experiencing not fossil-fueled climate emergency but fossil-fueled climate safety.
But instead of being happy, catastrophists engage in climate safety denial.
- Here are 3 recent instances of climate safety denial—from Reuters, PolitiFact, and USA Today. All have long portrayed climate deaths as a fast-increasing problem. But now they claim deaths don’t matter.
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/drop-climate-related- disaster-deaths-not-evidence- against-climate-emergency- 2023-09-19/ - Climate safety denial utilizes 5 main myths to evade the decline in disaster deaths:
1. Fossil fuels don’t deserve credit
2. Weather forecasting deserves the credit
3. 100 years is a misleading period
4. Damages are drastically increasing
5. There’s a major increase in reported disasters - Myth 1: Fossil fuels don’t deserve much credit for plummeting climate disaster deaths; it’s “resilience.”
Truth: Uniquely cost-effective and scalable fossil fuel energy makes us resilient through plentiful infrastructure-building, heating and cooling, irrigation, transportation, etc.⁶
- Myth 2: Storm warning systems deserve the credit for plummeting climate disaster deaths.
Truth: Drought, not storm, deaths are the leading source of reduced climate deaths. And fossil fuels power storm warning and evacuation systems (and more resilient infrastructure).⁷
- Myth 3: 100 years is a misleading period to measure plummeting climate disaster deaths.
Truth: 100 years is a standard, very meaningful period to look at. While we have data going back an additional two decades, those tend to underreport due to less global communication.⁸
- Contrary to the claim that starting analysis of climate disaster deaths in the 1920s overestimates the decline, it actually likely underestimates the decline due to insufficient past reporting; data before WWII extremely likely underreport deaths compared to data after 2000.
- Myth 4: There is an alarming increase in reported disasters, revealing an underlying climate emergency.
Truth: The increase in reported disasters over time is due overwhelmingly to increased global communication. Changes in fundamentals, such as storms, are extremely modest.⁹
- The claim that more reported disasters show an increasingly dangerous climate is absurd in light of the fact that underlying data show massive increases in reporting before significant human climate impacts and the reporting trend also massively goes up for non-climate causes!
- Other biases might inflate the number of reported disasters. E.g., governments of poor countries have an incentive to declare more disasters with increasing international relief.¹⁰
- Using obviously problematic disaster frequency reporting instead of direct climatological evidence to try and show increasing climate danger is a revealing choice by catastrophists. They are making it because the climate change we’ve experienced has been very modest—and masterable.
Do Not Declare a “Climate Emergency”
·AUGUST 17, 2023Read full story - An example of unalarming climate fundamentals: neither the frequency nor the energy in global hurricanes has changed significantly relative to the noisy average. There is also little evidence for more landfalling hurricanes.¹¹
- The catastrophist attempt to undermine the 98% decrease in disaster deaths by pointing to the increased reporting of disasters is actually self-defeating.
If disaster deaths are plummeting despite incomplete past reporting, that means they’ve declined by even more than 98%.
- Myth 5: Climate damages are drastically increasing, revealing an underlying climate emergency.
Truth: Even though there are many incentives for climate damages to go up—preferences for riskier areas, government bailouts—GDP-adjusted damages are flat.¹²
- We often hear that “billion-dollar disasters” have increased significantly. But this is a bogus metric. Of course, as GDP grows we’ll have more billion-dollar disasters because there is more wealth for disasters to strike. But when we adjust for GDP there’s no increase in damage.¹³
- A Reuters “fact check” alarmingly claims a 151% growth in disaster damages from a period starting in 1978 to a period ending in 2017.
But they evade that the global economy grew by over 200% during that period!
(And they evade that disaster and damage reporting increased.)¹⁴
- The stupidest climate safety denial myth (used by The New York Times): 2 million people died from extreme weather in the last 50 years; that’s obviously an emergency.
Truth: 2 million in 50 years is a rate of 40,000 per year—far, far less than 100 years ago, thus confirming today’s climate safety.¹⁵
- The last-gasp climate safety denial myth: Okay, we’re safer than ever from climate disasters, and it is driven by cheap energy from fossil fuels, but we can easily replace fossil fuels with solar and wind.
Truth: For the foreseeable future there is no cheap global energy without fossil fuels.
The ultimate debunking of “solar and wind are cheaper than fossil fuels.”
·JULY 19, 2023Read full story - Observe that all these seemingly scientific outlets, such as The New York Times, Reuters, and PolitiFact are totally unable to refute the death-blow to their “climate emergency” narrative that is the drastic decline in climate disaster deaths.
Science requires that they admit defeat.
Popular links
- EnergyTalkingPoints.com: Hundreds of concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on energy, environmental, and climate issues.
- My new book Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less.
- Speaking and media inquiries.
“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.
Share Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
UC San Diego – The Keeling Curve
For every million people on earth, annual deaths from climate-related causes (extreme temperature, drought, flood, storms, wildfires) declined 98%–from an average of 247 per year during the 1920s to 2.5 per year during the 2010s.
Data on disaster deaths come from EM-DAT, CRED / UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium – www.emdat.be (D. Guha-Sapir).
Population estimates for the 1920s from the Maddison Database 2010, the Groningen Growth and Development Centre, Faculty of Economics and Business at University of Groningen. For years not shown, population is assumed to have grown at a steady rate.
Population estimates for the 2010s come from World Bank Data
Business
Canada may escape the worst as Trump declares America’s economic independence with Liberation Day tariffs
MxM News
Quick Hit:
On Wednesday, President Trump declared a national emergency to implement a sweeping 10% baseline tariff on all imported goods, calling it a “Declaration of Economic Independence.” Trump said the tariffs would revitalize the domestic economy, declaring that, “April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn.”
Key Details:
-
The baseline 10% tariff will take effect Saturday, while targeted “reciprocal” tariffs—20% on the EU, 24% on Japan, and 17% on Israel—begin April 9th. Trump also imposed 25% tariffs on most Canadian and Mexican goods, as well as on all foreign-made cars and auto parts, effective early Thursday.
-
Trump justified the policy by citing foreign trade restrictions and long-standing deficits. He pointed to policies in Australia, the EU, Japan, and South Korea as examples of protectionist barriers that unfairly harm American workers and industries.
-
The White House estimates the 10% tariff could generate $200 billion in revenue over the next decade. Officials say the added funds would help reduce the federal deficit while giving the U.S. stronger leverage in negotiations with countries running large trade surpluses.
Diving Deeper:
President Trump on Wednesday unveiled a broad new tariff policy affecting every imported product into the United States, marking what he described as the beginning of a new economic era. Declaring a national emergency from the White House Rose Garden, the president announced a new 10% baseline tariff on all imports, alongside steeper country-specific tariffs targeting longstanding trade imbalances.
“This is our Declaration of Economic Independence,” Trump said. “Factories will come roaring back into our country — and you see it happening already.”
The tariffs, which take effect Saturday, represent a substantial increase from the pre-Trump average U.S. tariff rate and are part of what the administration is calling “Liberation Day” for American industry. Reciprocal tariffs kick in April 9th, with the administration detailing specific rates—20% for the European Union, 24% for Japan, and 17% for Israel—based on calculations tied to bilateral trade deficits.
“From 1789 to 1913, we were a tariff-backed nation,” Trump said. “The United States was proportionately the wealthiest it has ever been.” He criticized the establishment of the income tax in 1913 and blamed the 1929 economic collapse on a departure from tariff-based policies.
To underscore the move’s long-anticipated nature, Trump noted he had been warning about unfair trade for decades. “If you look at my old speeches, where I was young and very handsome… I’d be talking about how we were being ripped off by these countries,” he quipped.
The president also used the moment to renew his push for broader economic reforms, urging Congress to eliminate federal taxes on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits. He also proposed allowing Americans to write off interest on domestic auto loans.
Critics of the plan warned it could raise prices for consumers, noting inflation has already risen 22% under the Biden administration. However, Trump pointed to low inflation during his first term—when he imposed more targeted tariffs—as proof his strategy can work without sparking runaway costs.
White House officials reportedly described the new baseline rate as a guardrail against countries attempting to game the system. One official explained the methodology behind the reciprocal tariffs: “The trade deficit that we have with any given country is the sum of all trade practices, the sum of all cheating,” adding that the tariffs are “half of what they could be” because “the president is lenient and he wants to be kind to the world.”
In addition to Wednesday’s sweeping changes, Trump’s administration recently imposed a 25% tariff on Chinese goods tied to fentanyl smuggling and another 25% on steel and aluminum imports—revoking previous carve-outs for countries like Brazil and South Korea. Future tariffs on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and raw materials such as copper and lumber are reportedly under consideration.
Trump closed his remarks with a message to foreign leaders: “To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors… I say, ‘Terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers.’” He declared April 2nd “the day America’s destiny was reclaimed” and promised, “This will indeed be the golden age of America.”
By Franco Terrazzano
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation applauds Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre’s commitment to end and reverse the alcohol escalator tax.
“Poilievre just promised major alcohol tax cuts and taxpayers will cheers to that,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Poilievre’s tax cut will save Canadians money every time they have a cold one with a buddy or enjoy a glass of Pinot with their better half and it will give Canadians brewers, distillers and wineries a fighting chance against tariffs.”
Today, federal alcohol taxes increased by two per cent, costing taxpayers about $40 million this year, according to Beer Canada.
Poilievre announced a Conservative government “will axe the escalator tax on wine, beer and spirits back to 2017 levels, ending the automatic annual tax increases.”
The alcohol escalator tax has automatically increased excise taxes on beer, wine and spirits every year, without a vote in Parliament, since 2017. The alcohol escalator tax has cost taxpayers more than $900 million since being imposed, according to Beer Canada.
Taxes from multiple levels of government account for about half of the price of alcohol.
Meanwhile, tariffs are hitting the industry hard. Brewers have described the tariffs as “Armageddon for craft brewing.”
“Automatic tax hikes are undemocratic, uncompetitive and unaffordable and they need to stop,” Terrazzano said. “If politicians think Canadians aren’t paying enough tax, they should at least have the spine to vote on the tax increase.
“Poilievre is right to end the escalator tax and all party leaders should commit to making life more affordable for Canadian consumers and businesses by ending the undemocratic alcohol tax hikes.”
28 energy leaders call for eliminating ALL energy subsidies—even ones they benefit from
The High Cost Of Continued Western Canadian Alienation
Carney’s Cap on Alberta Energy Costing Canada Billions
DOGE discovered $330M in Small Business loans awarded to children under 11
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoMark Carney refuses to clarify 2022 remarks accusing the Freedom Convoy of ‘sedition’
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoLiberal MP Paul Chiang Resigns Without Naming the Real Threat—The CCP
-
Business1 day agoSaskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
PM Carney’s Candidate Paul Chiang Steps Down After RCMP Confirms Probe Into “Bounty” Comments
-
Alberta1 day agoOwner sells gas for 80 cents per litre to show Albertans how low prices ‘could’ be
-
Automotive2 days agoElectric cars just another poor climate policy
-
International1 day agoTrump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoFight against carbon taxes not over yet