{"product_id":"105639","title":"The illusion of protecting the Earth ","description":"\u003ccenter\u003e\u003cdiv style=\"text-align:center\"\u003e\u003cimg src=\"https:\/\/tmgdisk01.cafe24.com\/images\/vs\/4172\/sv\/WQtVZOjEJSuxgG2HI7D5ZT.png?v=1764959530\" style=\"max-width:100%;max-height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\u003ccenter\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"width:95%\"\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align:center;font-size:30px;font-weight:bolder;line-height:1.6em\"\u003e The illusion of protecting the Earth \u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"border-bottom:1px;border-bottom-style:dotted;border-color:;padding-bottom:20px\"\u003e\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable align=\"center\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\u003ctbody style=\"border:0px\"\u003e\n\n\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"center\" style=\"line-height:1.2em;text-align:center;font-size:18px;color:black;font-weight:bold;padding-bottom:20px;\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\n\n\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"text-align:center\"\u003e\u003cimg src=\"https:\/\/image.yes24.com\/goods\/101322513\/XL\" style=\"max-width:100%;height:auto\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\n\n\n\u003c\/tbody\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"width:95%;{split_style6}padding-top:20px;padding-bottom:20px\"\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align:left;font-size:16px;font-weight:bold;padding-bottom:20px\"\u003e Description \u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align:left;word-break:break-all;font-size:14px;line-height:1.6em;\"\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003ch5\u003e \u003cb\u003eBook Introduction\u003c\/b\u003e\n\u003c\/h5\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cdl\u003e\n\u003cdt\u003e A word from MD\u003c\/dt\u003e\n\u003cdd\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e The environmentalists' lies\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e To save the Earth, we must reduce the use of plastic and abolish nuclear power plants.\u003cbr\u003e Instead, the proportion of renewable energy must be increased.\u003cbr\u003e We must protect the Amazon rainforest, the lungs of the Earth, from exploitation. \u003cbr\u003eWhat if this common sense is false? This book points out our misunderstandings about environmental issues and exposes the flaws in current environmental discourse.\u003cbr\u003e In a world where much environmental discourse leans toward apocalyptic apocalypticism, this book draws on scientific evidence to argue that the current state of our planet isn't so bleak.\u003cbr\u003e\n\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e \u003cspan\u003eMay 4, 2021.\u003c\/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003eSocial and Political PD Son Min-gyu\u003c\/span\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/dd\u003e\n\u003c\/dl\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e Is the environmentalism you believe you know really right?\u003cbr\u003e A shocking challenge to \"environmental doomsday\" from Time's \"Environmental Hero\"!\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e This is a critical work by Michael Shellenberger, a world-renowned expert on the environment, energy, and safety who is called the “environmental guru,” “climate guru,” and “high priest of the environmental humanism movement,” and who presents the culmination of 30 years of field activities, research, concerns, passion, alternatives, and solutions. \u003cbr\u003eThe book became a bestseller, causing a stir and shock not only among environmental activists and the scientific community, but also among the media and the general public by raising strong questions about the controversy surrounding climate change, especially the recent surge of apocalyptic environmentalism.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In this book, we encounter scientific evidence and facts that contradict familiar beliefs such as “polar bears are starving because the ice is melting,” “the Amazon is on the verge of burning,” and “Greenpeace saved the whales.”\u003cbr\u003e We also come to understand the counterintuitive paradox that “when factories leave, the forests are in danger” and “if we want to save nature, we must embrace the artificial.”\u003cbr\u003e Furthermore, we clearly understand what is true and what is false in claims such as “nuclear power is extremely dangerous and expensive” and “renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power are the only way.” \u003cbr\u003eIn the process, we will clearly distinguish between fiction and fact on environmental issues and discover the positive potential we have in responding to the climate crisis.\u003cbr\u003e This will open our eyes to real solutions that will bring prosperity to both nature and humanity.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/tbody\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e You can preview some of the book's contents.\u003cbr\u003e \u003cspan\u003ePreview\u003c\/span\u003e\n\n\u003c\/li\u003e\u003c\/ul\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003ch5\u003e \u003cb\u003eindex\u003c\/b\u003e\n\u003c\/h5\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e Prologue: In Search of the Truth About Climate Change\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e 1_ The world will not be destroyed\u003cbr\u003e The End Is Coming | Nature Recovers, Humans Adapt | This Is What Hell Really Is Like | Billions Dying? | The Real Factors That Determine the Scale of Natural Disaster Damage | People Who Need Development More Than Climate Action | Who's Inflating the Crisis | There's No Climate Apocalypse\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e 2_ The Earth's lungs are not burning \u003cbr\u003eLet's save the lungs of the Earth | \"There's no scientific basis for that statement\" | The contradictory tears of an environmental colonialist | The romanticism seen from above and the reality of poor lands | Fire and deforestation, the foundation of human development | Greenpeace and the fragmented forest | \"Take your Amazon donations back with you\" | Beyond environmental shepherding\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e 3_ Let's stop blaming plastic\u003cbr\u003e \"I'm so sorry, turtle\" | The persistent threat of plastic | Recycling is just talk | Where did all that plastic go? | An invention that saved the lives of turtles and elephants | People are the problem | Plastic is better than truth | We must embrace artificiality to protect nature | Some people have much more frustrating things than the garbage problem.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e 4_ The sixth extinction has been canceled \u003cbr\u003eWe're putting ourselves at risk | The exaggerated extinction crisis | Charcoal threatens wildlife | Who's gunning for dams and why? | The new colonialism disguised as environmental protection | Indigenous peoples have different priorities | \"Are wildlife more important than us?\" | Lawless lands where armed groups run wild | They need oil | Powering the way for development\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e 5_ Low-wage labor saves nature\u003cbr\u003e The War on Fashion | Leaving Home for the City | Industrialization and Increased Agricultural Productivity Restore Forests | The Benefits of the \"Great Escape\" | Wealth is Powerful | We Must End Wood Fuel | Forests Are at Risk When Factories Leave | Wear Clothes Made by People in Poor Countries\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e 6_ Oil makes whales dance \u003cbr\u003eThe Whale Crisis and the Rise of Greenpeace | Oil Fields Discovered, Whales Saved | Technological Advances That Turned Whaling into a Decline | How Will the Energy Transition Happen? | The \"Burning Waters\" Fraud of Gasland | The Climate Politics of Fracking | Wild vs. Farmed Fish | The Energy Transition Driven by Class and Politics\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e 7_ How to protect the environment while eating meat\u003cbr\u003e Eating Animals | Vegetarianism and the Rebound Effect | Free-Range Farming vs. Factory Farming | The Truth About High-Fat Diets | We Owe Our Lives to Animals' Deaths | What Is Most Humane to Animals | The Errors of Doctrinaire Vegetarians | The Science Behind the 'French Paradox' | The Livestock Revolution and Breaking Free from the Obsession with Wild Animal Meat | Beyond Good and Evil, to Empathy\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e 8_ Nuclear power to protect the Earth \u003cbr\u003eThe Doomsday of Nuclear Energy | The Myths and Truths of the Chernobyl Accident | Is Nuclear Power Really More Dangerous? | An Extremely Cheap, Safe, and Efficient Energy Source | The Consequences of Nuclear Power Plant Shutdowns | “Nuclear Power is the Hope for Nature Protection” | Nuclear Power for Peace | The War Against Nuclear Power | The High Price of Opposition to Nuclear Power | Is Nuclear Power Expensive? | Nuclear Weapons to Prevent Nuclear War\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e 9_ Renewable energy destroys nature\u003cbr\u003e Is Solar the Only Way? | Unreliable Renewable Energy | Renewable Energy Kills Wildlife | The Dream of a Green Energy Utopia | Wasteful Renewable Energy | Ecological Disaster Caused by Low-Density Energy | The Wind Path Belongs to Birds and Insects | The Wild-Favored Fallacy and the Starbucks Law\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e 10_ The Inside and Out of Environmentalists and Eco-Friendly Businesses \u003cbr\u003eClimate change deniers' money supply | The environmental movement built on hypocrisy | The true face of environmental groups entangled in vested interests | Fracking nuclear power | A governor's ugly nuclear phase-out war | California's deep-rooted political-business collusion | Greening is a bigger business opportunity than the internet | Will we let the only real hope disappear?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e 11_ The powerful oppose the best solutions.\u003cbr\u003e The ultra-luxurious environmental game of the haves | Environmentalists who hinder the growth of poor countries | Developed countries oppose infrastructure development in poor countries | The tragedy of human history brought about by Malthus, Churchill, and Hitler | Malthusianism, the ideology of the progressive left | The ethics of the lifeboat: Let some die | The Malthusian population explosion and widespread starvation were wrong | When the population bomb failed, they brought out the climate bomb | Hanshin Renewable Energy Experiments on the World's Poorest\u003cbr\u003e \u003cbr\u003e12_ Why We Worship False Environmental Gods\u003cbr\u003e What Polar Bears Tell Us | Climate Politics Threatens Science | Who Framed Roger Pelkey ​​Jr.? | Cybernetics, Ecology, and the Birth of a New False God | How Environmentalism Became a Religion | Anxiety Eats Environmentalism | Climate Doomsday Is Making Our Hearts Sick | The Path to Environmental Humanism | We Need a Green Nuclear Deal | Nature and Prosperity for All: Our Immortality Project | The Simplest Reason We Protect Nature\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Epilogue: Climate News Is Much Better Than You Think\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Acknowledgements\u003cbr\u003e Translator's Note\u003cbr\u003e main\u003cbr\u003e Search\u003cbr\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003ch5\u003e \u003cb\u003eDetailed image\u003c\/b\u003e \u003c\/h5\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003cimg src=\"https:\/\/image.yes24.com\/momo\/TopCate3434\/MidCate002\/343314765.jpg\" border=\"0\" alt=\"Detailed Image 1\"\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003ch5\u003e \u003cb\u003eInto the book\u003c\/b\u003e\n\u003c\/h5\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e I have been an environmental activist for the past 30 years.\u003cbr\u003e Over 20 of those years were devoted to researching and writing about environmental issues, including climate change. \u003cbr\u003eMy goal is not only to protect the natural environment, but also to ensure universal prosperity for all people.\u003cbr\u003e To achieve that goal, I wrote this book.\u003cbr\u003e Communicating facts and science accurately is also one of my interests.\u003cbr\u003e Scientists, journalists, and activists believe they have a responsibility to report environmental issues honestly and accurately.\u003cbr\u003e Even if you are worried that you will not be able to attract public attention and enthusiasm, you must be honest.\u003cbr\u003e Much of what people say about the environment and climate is wrong.\u003cbr\u003e We must do our best to correct that misinformation.\u003cbr\u003e Those who exaggerate environmental problems, spread false alarms, and promote extreme thoughts and actions are the enemies of positive, humanistic, and rational environmentalism.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---p.28\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In fact, the negative impacts of climate change have been significantly reduced compared to the past. \u003cbr\u003eThat's because the number of deaths from natural disasters has fallen by 92 percent since peaking in the 1920s.\u003cbr\u003e In the 1920s, 5.4 million people lost their lives to natural disasters, while in the 2010s, only 400,000 people died.\u003cbr\u003e Moreover, it is worth noting that this decline in deaths occurred at a time when the world's population nearly quadrupled.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The extent of damage caused by extreme weather events has decreased dramatically over the past several decades.\u003cbr\u003e This phenomenon is found in both rich and poor countries.\u003cbr\u003e According to a landmark study published in the journal Global Environmental Change in 2019, deaths and economic damage from weather events have plummeted by 80 to 90 percent over the past four decades, from the 1980s to the present.\u003cbr\u003e From 1901 to 2010, sea levels rose 19 centimeters. \u003cbr\u003eThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that sea levels would rise by 66 centimeters under a moderate scenario and 83 centimeters under a severe scenario by 2100.\u003cbr\u003e Even if these projections significantly underestimate the impacts of climate change, sea level rise is occurring at a slow rate, giving societies time to adapt.\u003cbr\u003e (…)\u003cbr\u003e So, will food production really plummet? The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has announced that food production will significantly increase under various climate change scenarios.\u003cbr\u003e Today, humanity produces enough food to support 10 billion people, 25 percent more than the current human population.\u003cbr\u003e And experts predict that food production will increase further despite climate change.\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.38,40\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Carbon emissions in developed countries have been declining for over a decade.\u003cbr\u003e Europe's greenhouse gas emissions in 2018 were 23 percent lower than in 1990. \u003cbr\u003eU.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell 15 percent from 2005 to 2016.\u003cbr\u003e The United States and the United Kingdom, in particular, have dramatically reduced carbon emissions from electricity generation.\u003cbr\u003e Between 2007 and 2018, the US saw a 27 percent drop, while the UK saw a 63 percent drop.\u003cbr\u003e Most energy experts predict that carbon emissions from developing countries will also peak at some point and then decline.\u003cbr\u003e This is the same phenomenon that occurred in developed countries.\u003cbr\u003e Once developing countries achieve a level of affluence comparable to that of developed countries, their carbon emissions will decline.\u003cbr\u003e In conclusion, today's average global temperature is likely to remain at an average increase of 2 to 3 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels.\u003cbr\u003e This is significantly lower than the 4 degrees that poses a risk of crossing the tipping point. \u003cbr\u003eCurrently, the International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that carbon emissions in 2040 will be lower than all scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.\u003cbr\u003e Is the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over the past 30 years due to the efforts of climate shepherds? No.\u003cbr\u003e The energy transition from coal to natural gas and nuclear power is a major factor in the decline in carbon emissions from Europe's largest economies, including Germany, the UK and France, which peaked in the 1970s.\u003cbr\u003e We are fighting climate change with the power of technology, which many climate activists, including Bill McKibben, Greta Thunberg, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, vehemently oppose.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.78,79\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Nepstad was best known as the lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recent report on the Amazon. \u003cbr\u003eI asked him if it was true that the Amazon was the main source of oxygen for the entire planet.\u003cbr\u003e “That’s bullshit,” said Nepstad.\u003cbr\u003e “There is no scientific basis for that statement.\u003cbr\u003e “It’s true that the Amazon produces a lot of oxygen, but it’s the same thing because we breathe it in.”\u003cbr\u003e According to Oxford University ecologists who studied the subject, Amazonian plants consume about 60 percent of the oxygen they produce through respiration (during the day, plants photosynthesize more actively than they respire, releasing oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide, but at night, they only respire, absorbing oxygen and releasing carbon dioxide.\u003cbr\u003e Through this biochemical process, plants obtain the energy they need.\u003cbr\u003e The remaining 40 percent is the work of microorganisms that break down the rainforest biomass.\u003cbr\u003e ---p.87\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Let's go back to August 2019.\u003cbr\u003e The media are greedy big corporations. \u003cbr\u003eIt depicted nature-hating farmers and corrupt politicians setting fire to the rainforest.\u003cbr\u003e I was annoyed.\u003cbr\u003e It was a story so far removed from the reality of Amazon that I had known for over 25 years.\u003cbr\u003e Deforestation and increased fires are fundamentally the result of politicians responding to the public's desire for economic growth.\u003cbr\u003e It's not because of a lack of interest in the natural environment.\u003cbr\u003e That's precisely why deforestation has been on the rise again in Brazil since 2013.\u003cbr\u003e As the severe economic downturn hit, law enforcement became lax.\u003cbr\u003e Since Bolsonaro's election in 2018, farmers' demands for their land have grown, leading to increased deforestation.\u003cbr\u003e Of Brazil's 210 million people, 55 million live in poverty.\u003cbr\u003e Between 2016 and 2017, two million Brazilians fell below the poverty line.\u003cbr\u003e (…) \u003cbr\u003eWhy is Brazil cutting down its rainforests to produce soybeans and meat for export?\u003cbr\u003e Anyone who wants to know why must first look squarely at the reality of Brazil.\u003cbr\u003e Brazil is a country where a quarter of the population lives in poverty.\u003cbr\u003e I live in poverty, no different from Bernadette, the woman I met in Congo.\u003cbr\u003e The suffering of such people is overlooked or sometimes ignored entirely by environmentalists in Europe and North America.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.97,98\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e As deforestation in the Amazon increases, environmental groups must reconnect with Brazilian farmers.\u003cbr\u003e And we need to find a more realistic solution.\u003cbr\u003e Farmers should be allowed to increase the intensity of their farming and livestock production in some areas, especially Serrado.\u003cbr\u003e This will help reduce development pressures on other areas and prevent fragmentation of tropical forests in particular. \u003cbr\u003eCreating parks and protected areas is the flip side of increasing agricultural intensity.\u003cbr\u003e Development and protection go hand in hand.\u003cbr\u003e Simply making farming and livestock more efficient and profitable would make other efforts to protect primary forests unnecessary.\u003cbr\u003e By simply designating specific areas and increasing the intensity of existing farms and ranches, Brazilian farmers and ranchers can produce more food on less land, thus protecting the natural environment.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---p.110\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e “As Japan followed the West in industrialization, plastic began to be widely used as a substitute for turtle shells when making products such as hair ornaments.”\u003cbr\u003e The first and most widely adopted product for celluloid was the comb. \u003cbr\u003eFor thousands of years, humans have made combs from tortoise shell, ivory, bone, rubber, iron, tin, gold, silver, lead, reed, wood, glass, and ceramics.\u003cbr\u003e Celluloid replaced all these materials.\u003cbr\u003e By the late 1970s, the use of ivory on piano keys had ceased.\u003cbr\u003e (…)\u003cbr\u003e Hyatt, the inventor of celluloid, produced a pamphlet explaining the environmental benefits of his invention.\u003cbr\u003e “There is no need to scour the Earth for increasingly rare raw materials.”\u003cbr\u003e Let's go back to the conversation we had with Pigner.\u003cbr\u003e I mentioned to Pigner that plastic has saved the lives of countless sea turtles.\u003cbr\u003e Pigener burst out laughing.\u003cbr\u003e “Plastic is a miracle product.\u003cbr\u003e Right? So, the technological advancements that Mr. Shellenberger knows about have helped the environment.\u003cbr\u003e Without plastic, turtles' lives would not have been saved. \u003cbr\u003eIt would be a lie to deny that, and I don't want to lie.\u003cbr\u003e “I’m not that single-minded.”\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.131,132\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e There's a lesson we can learn from all this talk about plastic.\u003cbr\u003e If you want to protect the environment, you should not use natural materials, and if you want to avoid using natural materials, you should replace them with artificial ones.\u003cbr\u003e This is the exact opposite of the environmental protection methods pursued by environmentalists.\u003cbr\u003e They argue for using natural resources in a more sustainable way, moving towards natural materials such as biofuels and bioplastics.\u003cbr\u003e We instinctively consider natural materials to be more eco-friendly than artificial ones.\u003cbr\u003e Such notions need to be overcome.\u003cbr\u003e Humanity has saved sea turtles and elephants from extinction with artificial materials.\u003cbr\u003e Imagine how much more precarious the turtles would have been if we had clung to that instinct. \u003cbr\u003e(…) In order to protect nature, we must accept artificiality.\u003cbr\u003e This truly profound paradox is only just beginning to be understood by humanity.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.143,145\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The Biodiversity Science Organization is not a scientific organization whose main goal is to study species, extinction, and biodiversity, but rather an organization under the International Union for Conservation of Nature.\u003cbr\u003e The organization claims that 6 percent of all species are critically endangered, 9 percent are endangered, and 12 percent are vulnerable to becoming endangered.\u003cbr\u003e Meanwhile, the International Union for Conservation of Nature estimates that 0.8 percent of the 112,432 plant, animal, and insect species on Earth have gone extinct since 1500.\u003cbr\u003e If we convert this into a percentage, less than two species, or only 0.001 percent, become extinct each year.\u003cbr\u003e Biodiversity has increased dramatically over the past 100 million years.\u003cbr\u003e This increase in diversity far surpasses the impact of the last mass extinction. \u003cbr\u003eTo measure biodiversity, it is more accurate to count the number of genera rather than individual species, and the number of genera has nearly tripled over the past 100 million years.\u003cbr\u003e A review of the past five mass extinctions, using fossil data, shows that biodiversity declined significantly, by 15 to 20 percent, but was soon followed by even greater growth.\u003cbr\u003e (…)\u003cbr\u003e It is not true that humanity is failing to protect the habitats of living things.\u003cbr\u003e As of 2019, the combined area of ​​all protected areas on Earth is larger than the continent of Africa.\u003cbr\u003e 15 percent of the Earth's total surface area is protected area.\u003cbr\u003e In 1962, there were 9,214 protected areas, but by 2003, this had increased to 102,102, and by 2020, it had reached 244,869.\u003cbr\u003e (…)\u003cbr\u003e The real threat to gorillas and other wildlife isn't oil companies or economic growth. \u003cbr\u003eI found out for sure when I visited the area in December 2014.\u003cbr\u003e Because of poverty, using wood as fuel was a real problem.\u003cbr\u003e In Congo, more than 90 percent of cooking fuel comes from wood or charcoal.\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.155,158\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Scientists estimate that between 5 and 10 million Native Americans were displaced by conservationists after the creation of Yosemite National Park in California in 1864.\u003cbr\u003e A sociologist at Cornell University estimates that there are at least 14 million environmental refugees in Africa alone, created by Europeans.\u003cbr\u003e The displacement of indigenous people was not some collateral damage of environmental protection policies.\u003cbr\u003e The very core of environmental protection policy was the expulsion of indigenous people.\u003cbr\u003e In a paper addressing this topic, two scholars noted: \u003cbr\u003e“The expulsion of people who raised livestock, gathered forest products, and farmed land was a central part of environmental protection policies implemented in southern and eastern Africa and India in the 20th century.”\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.168,169\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e What garment factories and many other consumer goods factories in poor developing countries do is diametrically opposed to what Extinction Rebellion and Greenpeace claim.\u003cbr\u003e Factories are blamed for causing deforestation, but they are actually the driving force behind protecting forests.\u003cbr\u003e It has been so far and will continue to be so.\u003cbr\u003e ---p.192\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Manufacturing brings about an increase in wealth.\u003cbr\u003e With that wealth, the country can build roads, construct power plants, expand transmission facilities, establish flood control systems, build water and sewer systems, and establish waste management systems.\u003cbr\u003e These are the things that differentiate a poor country like Congo from a rich country like the United States. \u003cbr\u003eMoreover, cities lead to population concentration.\u003cbr\u003e Conversely, this means that more suburban areas are returning to the wild.\u003cbr\u003e Cities occupy only 0.5 percent of the unfrozen Earth's surface.\u003cbr\u003e Paved roads and buildings account for less than 0.5 percent of the Earth's surface.\u003cbr\u003e As agricultural productivity increases, the areas of grasslands, forests and wild lands expand.\u003cbr\u003e Globally, the reality is that the rate of forest restoration is catching up with the rate of deforestation.\u003cbr\u003e (…)\u003cbr\u003e However, in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, animals are still used for farming.\u003cbr\u003e They raise hundreds of millions of horses, cows, and other animals.\u003cbr\u003e Simply conserving the land that grows food for these animals can help protect the habitats of vulnerable species. \u003cbr\u003eJust as in Europe or North America, modern agriculture was able to protect nature.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.199,200\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e If we stop burning wood for fuel, we can allow grasslands and forests to recover and wildlife to return.\u003cbr\u003e (…)\u003cbr\u003e Intensifying and enhancing energy production is a necessary step to leave more of the planet to wildlife.\u003cbr\u003e All the hydroelectric dams, all the fossil fuel power plants, and all the nuclear power plants built on Earth today combined would cover only 0.2 percent of the total surface area excluding frozen land.\u003cbr\u003e The land area used for energy production is only one-two-hundredth of the land area used for food production.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.216,217\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Environmental activists, including myself, have had a negative view of manufacturing. \u003cbr\u003eBut contrary to long-held misconceptions, the positive impacts of manufacturing far outweigh the negatives.\u003cbr\u003e When we wear clothes made by workers in developing countries like Suparti, the emotion we should feel is not guilt.\u003cbr\u003e You should feel proud.\u003cbr\u003e Environmentalists and the media criticize fast-fashion brands like H\u0026amp;M for producing clothes in poor countries, but that's not right.\u003cbr\u003e Such accusations must stop.\u003cbr\u003e This isn't to say that companies like Mattel, Nike, and H\u0026amp;M shouldn't improve working conditions for their workers.\u003cbr\u003e Consumers can make the world a better place by pressuring companies to do the right thing.\u003cbr\u003e But to do that, we must not demonize the very act of consumers buying cheap goods made in developing countries.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.225,226\u003cbr\u003e \u003cbr\u003eThe story of how a small group of dedicated nature lovers saved the environment is deeply inspiring.\u003cbr\u003e We're all familiar with these stories. We see them on TV, in documentary films, in books, and in the news.\u003cbr\u003e It's also an exciting drama with a clear distinction between heroes and villains.\u003cbr\u003e On one side are greedy cowards who destroy nature, and on the other side are young heroes who pursue their ideals.\u003cbr\u003e Millions of young people are inspired by these stories and begin to do what they can.\u003cbr\u003e The only flaw in this tale of environmental warriors' heroism is that it's almost entirely wrong.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---p.233\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e As the Drake field was developed, kerosene, a refined petroleum product, began to be rapidly distributed.\u003cbr\u003e Kerosene was rapidly encroaching on the American market for liquid lighting fuels, usurping whale oil's place.\u003cbr\u003e Thus, the whales were able to save their lives. \u003cbr\u003eBecause whale oil is no longer needed.\u003cbr\u003e At the peak of whaling, the whaling industry produced 600,000 barrels of whale oil annually.\u003cbr\u003e After Drake's discovery, the oil industry produced the same amount of oil in less than three years.\u003cbr\u003e There was no difference between the amount of oil produced in a day from a single oil field in Pennsylvania and the amount of whale oil obtained from the whales that a single whaling ship caught after a voyage of three or four years.\u003cbr\u003e The energy density of oil was truly incredible.\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.236,237\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The whaling industry peaked in 1962.\u003cbr\u003e It was 13 years before Greenpeace captured the world's attention in Vancouver.\u003cbr\u003e After 1962, the whaling industry entered a rapid decline.\u003cbr\u003e The United Nations called for a 10-year moratorium on whaling in 1972, and the United States enacted the Marine Mammal Protection Act to ban whaling. \u003cbr\u003eIn 1975, when Greenpeace was based in Vancouver and gaining international acclaim, 46 countries had already banned whaling of all humpback whales, blue whales, gray whales, and some species of right, fin, and sei whales.\u003cbr\u003e It wasn't an international treaty that saved the whales, it was vegetable oil.\u003cbr\u003e When the International Whaling Commission banned whaling in 1982, the whaling industry was effectively over.\u003cbr\u003e The whales hunted since the International Whaling Commission's whaling ban accounted for only 1 percent of all whales hunted in the 20th century.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---p.240\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e According to one study, if everyone around the world went vegetarian, individual energy consumption in the food sector alone could be reduced by 16 percent and greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by 20 percent. \u003cbr\u003eHowever, individual energy consumption in the 'overall' sector will only decrease by 2 percent, and 'overall' greenhouse gas emissions will only decrease by 4 percent.\u003cbr\u003e The same goes for the “most extreme” scenario put forward by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, where the entire world becomes vegan.\u003cbr\u003e Even if humanity were to completely eliminate animal foods and products and revert all pastures to forests by 2050, the effect would only reduce 10 percent of total carbon emissions.\u003cbr\u003e Even if every American reduced their meat consumption by a quarter, greenhouse gas emissions would only decrease by 1 percent.\u003cbr\u003e If every American became a vegetarian, America's carbon emissions would only decrease by about 5 percent.\u003cbr\u003e Studies showing similar results continue endlessly.\u003cbr\u003e According to one study, even if all citizens of developed countries became vegetarians, the reduction in carbon emissions would only be about 4.3 percent on average. \u003cbr\u003eAnother study found that even if every American went vegan, carbon emissions would only decrease by 2.6 percent.\u003cbr\u003e (…)\u003cbr\u003e Here we can see one important fact.\u003cbr\u003e Carbon emissions reductions should be achieved in the 'energy' sector, not in areas such as food or land use.\u003cbr\u003e The energy sector is the most important.\u003cbr\u003e Energy sectors such as electricity, transport, cooking and heating account for nearly 90 percent of global fossil fuel consumption.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.267,268\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e This is not to say that no one has died from nuclear energy.\u003cbr\u003e However, when you look at the number of fatal accidents, it is absurdly low.\u003cbr\u003e That means it's that safe.\u003cbr\u003e Let's compare the annual death toll.\u003cbr\u003e 270,000 people die while walking and 1.35 million people die while driving.\u003cbr\u003e 2.3 million people die on the job and 4.2 million die from air pollution. \u003cbr\u003eIn contrast, the total number of deaths from nuclear power barely exceeds 100.\u003cbr\u003e The worst nuclear accidents we've seen so far demonstrate the fundamental reasons why nuclear energy is not only safe but also has a very low environmental impact.\u003cbr\u003e This is because the energy density of the fuel is extremely high.\u003cbr\u003e Nuclear fission, which splits atoms to generate heat, requires much less fuel than chemically breaking down molecules by igniting them.\u003cbr\u003e Just one can of Coca-Cola has enough uranium to provide enough energy for one person to last a lifetime.\u003cbr\u003e So even if the worst nuclear accident occurs, even if the fuel rods are exposed, the amount of particulate matter that directly affects people beyond the power plant is bound to be very small. \u003cbr\u003eMeanwhile, particulate matter emitted from burning fossil fuels and biomass in homes, cars and power plants killed 8 million people in 2016.\u003cbr\u003e Therefore, the safest way to produce electricity stably is nuclear power.\u003cbr\u003e Considering that air pollution shortens the lives of 7 million people a year, nuclear power has actually saved over 2 million lives so far.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.310,311\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e From 1995 to 2018, unprecedented subsidies were poured into solar and wind power.\u003cbr\u003e However, the share of carbon-free energy in global energy supply rose by only 2 percentage points, from 13 percent to 15 percent.\u003cbr\u003e This is because we have reduced nuclear power while increasing solar and wind power generation.\u003cbr\u003e Those two energies cannot replace the void left by nuclear energy.\u003cbr\u003e Electricity accounts for only one-third of the energy used worldwide. \u003cbr\u003eThe remaining two-thirds are used directly to consume primary energy sources, most of which are fossil fuels.\u003cbr\u003e This applies to areas such as heating, cooking, and transportation.\u003cbr\u003e Unlike solar and wind power, nuclear power can provide not only electricity but also heat.\u003cbr\u003e Among zero-carbon energy sources, only nuclear power can serve as an abundant, sustainable, and inexpensive source of heat.\u003cbr\u003e Only nuclear power has the potential to produce hydrogen gas and electricity cheaply, potentially displacing fossil fuels in areas such as heating, cooking, and transportation.\u003cbr\u003e ---p.316\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e That was the case in the 1960s.\u003cbr\u003e Most environmentalists favor nuclear power as a cleaner energy source than coal or hydroelectric power.\u003cbr\u003e The same goes for most Democrats and progressives. \u003cbr\u003eIn the United States, Europe, and around the world, the view that nuclear energy can be a clean, energy-dense, and virtually unlimited source of energy has been gaining widespread acceptance.\u003cbr\u003e ---p.322\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The U.S. government estimates that by 2050, renewable energy will account for a larger share of U.S. electricity generation than natural gas.\u003cbr\u003e Globally, renewable energy, which accounted for 28 percent of electricity generation in 2018, is projected to reach nearly 50 percent by 2050.\u003cbr\u003e But these numbers are misleading.\u003cbr\u003e While it is true that renewable energy accounted for 11 percent of global primary energy in 2018, 64 percent of that (or 7 percent of all primary energy sources) came from hydroelectric dams.\u003cbr\u003e However, most dams are built in developed countries. \u003cbr\u003eThis is especially true because dam construction in poor developing countries is often blocked by environmentalists from wealthy countries.\u003cbr\u003e Despite the enthusiasm for renewable energy, solar and wind power accounted for only 3 percent of primary energy sources in 2018.\u003cbr\u003e Geothermal power accounts for an even smaller fraction, at just 0.1 percent, and tidal power's share is so small it's impossible to even measure.\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.360,361\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e A study by a group of climate and energy scientists found that when the U.S. transitions to solar and wind power, considering continental weather and seasonal variations, it would require more than $23 trillion in installation and operating costs for battery energy storage.\u003cbr\u003e For reference, the US GDP in 2019 was $22 trillion.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---p.362\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e There are two main reasons why solar and wind power are becoming more expensive. \u003cbr\u003eFirst, because it is intermittent energy, it requires power generation facilities of the same capacity to support it.\u003cbr\u003e Second, because the energy density is low, more land, transmission lines, and power generation facilities are required.\u003cbr\u003e In other words, the fundamental problem of renewable energy cannot be solved through technology.\u003cbr\u003e The problem is that we cannot go against the laws of nature.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---p.373\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e We need to face the simple truth.\u003cbr\u003e Solar panels and wind turbines don't produce as much energy as the investment in building them and storing the energy they produce.\u003cbr\u003e According to a pioneering study, in Germany, nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams produce 75 and 35 times the energy respectively put into their construction.\u003cbr\u003e However, solar, wind, and biomass only produce 1.6, 3.9, and 3.5 times the energy invested in their construction, respectively. \u003cbr\u003eIn contrast, fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil return about 30 times the energy they require to operate.\u003cbr\u003e The Industrial Revolution was possible because coal has a much higher energy density than wood.\u003cbr\u003e By the same token, solar and wind power, with their much lower energy density, cannot sustain today's high-energy urban industrial societies and civilizations.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---p.385\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e McKibben is one of the most influential environmental activists in the United States.\u003cbr\u003e And as we've seen, he's a proponent of shutting down nuclear power plants in Vermont.\u003cbr\u003e As a result, Vermont ended up increasing its carbon emissions by 16 percent instead of reducing them by 25 percent.\u003cbr\u003e But McKibben can't be the only environmentalist who shut down nuclear power plants and replaced them with fossil fuel plants. \u003cbr\u003eAll major environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Sierra Club, have been at the forefront of campaigning to phase out nuclear power plants in the United States.\u003cbr\u003e At the same time, they have been receiving money from natural gas companies and renewable energy companies or investing in such companies.\u003cbr\u003e They are financially tied to those who stand to benefit if nuclear power plants are shut down and natural gas plants are built in their place.\u003cbr\u003e If we push for a nuclear phase-out, our competitors, fossil fuel and renewable energy companies, will be able to do profitable business.\u003cbr\u003e This is because the amount of electricity produced by nuclear power plants is so large.\u003cbr\u003e Over the past decade, the Indian Point nuclear power plant has generated $8 billion in revenue.\u003cbr\u003e In 40 years, you can easily hit $32 billion.\u003cbr\u003e Closing nuclear power plants means that huge amounts of money will flow into natural gas and renewable energy companies.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---p.410\u003cbr\u003e \u003cbr\u003eClimate activists boast vastly more funding than climate skeptics.\u003cbr\u003e The combined annual budgets of the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the largest environmental groups in the United States, amount to $384 million.\u003cbr\u003e But the combined annual budgets of the two largest climate change skeptic groups, the Corporate Competitiveness Institute and the Heartland Institute, are less than $13 million.\u003cbr\u003e The two environmental groups' combined budget of $384 million is more than ExxonMobil's entire donation to climate change skeptics over the past 20 years combined.\u003cbr\u003e ---p.413\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e I am also in favor of replacing coal with natural gas.\u003cbr\u003e But that doesn't justify taking money from the natural gas industry while opposing climate change.\u003cbr\u003e Bloomberg is just as much a stakeholder as Aubrey McClendon, Tom Steyer, or ExxonMobil. \u003cbr\u003eGroups like the Sierra Club and 350.org criticize ExxonMobil for taking money from them, while claiming they are receiving money from Bloomberg.\u003cbr\u003e This behavior can be simply called hypocrisy.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---p.419\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Environmentalists have not wielded enough political influence in wealthy countries to hinder economic development by curbing energy consumption.\u003cbr\u003e But for weak and poor countries, it has wielded enough power over the past 50 years to suppress energy consumption and thus hinder economic development.\u003cbr\u003e The World Bank is currently redirecting funding from cheap and reliable energy sources like hydropower, fossil fuels, and nuclear power to more expensive and less reliable sources like solar and wind power.\u003cbr\u003e In October 2019, the European Investment Bank announced that it would end all funding for fossil fuel power plants in poor countries by 2021. \u003cbr\u003eEnvironmentalists in wealthy countries may not be the root cause of poverty in countries like Congo, but they are at least responsible.\u003cbr\u003e Because it is clear that it is making it difficult for people in poor and underdeveloped areas to enter the path of industrialization and development, preventing them from benefiting from it.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---p.449\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e The purpose of the World Bank is to provide finance to help poor countries develop economically.\u003cbr\u003e For more than two decades after World War II, the World Bank lent developing countries the money they needed to build basic modern infrastructure, such as dams, roads, and power grids.\u003cbr\u003e Things like building a dam are low-risk investments.\u003cbr\u003e Once built, it can produce electricity steadily and stably, and by selling that electricity, it can generate profits and pay off the national debt.\u003cbr\u003e Much of Brazil's power grid has benefited from World Bank financing, with 12 hydroelectric power plants lighting up the country's nights. \u003cbr\u003eBut in the late 1980s, as environmental groups like the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace began to raise their voices, the UN began to offer developing countries an entirely different development model.\u003cbr\u003e It was called “sustainable development.”\u003cbr\u003e Under this new model, poor developing countries would have to continue using small-scale renewable energy sources instead of large-scale power infrastructure like dams.\u003cbr\u003e The World Bank soon followed the UN's lead.\u003cbr\u003e By the 1990s, only 5 percent of the World Bank's financial assistance went to infrastructure development.\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.451,452\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Now it's time to ask the real question:\u003cbr\u003e How did so many people, including myself in the past, become so wrong? Why did we come to believe that climate change would spell the end not only for polar bears but also for humanity?\u003cbr\u003e We kind of know the answer. \u003cbr\u003eThe scientific basis of the IPCC report itself is generally sound.\u003cbr\u003e However, the Summary for Policymakers, press releases, statements by the report's authors, and media interviews are problematic.\u003cbr\u003e They tend to exaggerate with ideological motivations.\u003cbr\u003e Carelessly omitting important context.\u003cbr\u003e As we have seen, the authors of the IPCC report and media reports claim that sea level rise is “unmanageable.”\u003cbr\u003e The world's food supply is on the brink of collapse, a plant-based diet could drastically reduce carbon emissions, poor countries could become wealthy by adopting renewable energy, and nuclear energy is dangerous.\u003cbr\u003e The media also bears a significant responsibility for public misunderstandings about climate change and environmental issues. \u003cbr\u003eThey emphasize apocalyptic language and tone while obliterating important international, historical, and economic contexts.\u003cbr\u003e Since at least the 1980s, mainstream media outlets have been reporting on climate change in an exaggerated way.\u003cbr\u003e Elite media outlets like The New York Times and The New Yorker have gone even further, propagating Malthusian ideologies and delusions that were debunked half a century ago.\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.507,509\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Environmentalism today is a kind of secular religion.\u003cbr\u003e It is a new religion for the highly educated class who are not familiar with established religions.\u003cbr\u003e The believers are mainly upper middle class people living in developed countries and some developing countries.\u003cbr\u003e Environmentalism offers believers a new purpose in life, both individually and collectively.\u003cbr\u003e Environmentalism provides a criterion by which we can distinguish between good and bad people, heroes and villains. \u003cbr\u003eMoreover, environmentalism is preached in the name of science, and thus has intellectual authority.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---pp.520,521\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e That's not to say there's nothing we need to do.\u003cbr\u003e There is a lot to do.\u003cbr\u003e The problem is the direction.\u003cbr\u003e We must further develop the current positive trend.\u003cbr\u003e We must not attempt to reverse the progress we have made by regressing to a low-energy, agricultural society.\u003cbr\u003e That's why I'm pointing out the anger and fear-mongering surrounding climate change, deforestation, extinction, and so on.\u003cbr\u003e We must pay attention to the sadness and loneliness that such environmental movements are fostering.\u003cbr\u003e Much of that environmental movement is wrong.\u003cbr\u003e Because they spread unresolved anxiety, propagate ideologies that make people feel helpless, and obscure or deny existing evidence.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e ---p.538\u003cbr\u003e \u003cbr\u003eWe all, especially those of us living in developed countries, must remember that we should be grateful for the civilized life we ​​enjoy today and take for granted.\u003cbr\u003e We must also remember to take a balanced view of the claims of environmental doomsayers and to foster empathy and solidarity with those who still cannot enjoy the fruits of humanity's prosperity.\u003cbr\u003e This is a really important story.\u003cbr\u003e The arguments propagated by environmental doomsayers are not only inaccurate but inhumane.\u003cbr\u003e It is not true that humans are destroying nature without thinking.\u003cbr\u003e Climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, and extinction are not fundamentally the result of our greed and arrogance.\u003cbr\u003e It is simply a side effect that occurs as we humans develop our economy in pursuit of a better life.\u003cbr\u003e\n\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e ---pp.541,542\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cbr\u003e\u003cdiv\u003e\u003ch5\u003e \u003cb\u003ePublisher's Review\u003c\/b\u003e\n\u003c\/h5\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e  \u003cdiv\u003e\n\u003cb\u003e- Selected as an “Environmental Hero” by Time magazine in 2008\u003cbr\u003e - “The most remarkable achievement since Silent Spring” _Wired\u003cbr\u003e - Amazon Bestseller for 40 consecutive weeks\u003cbr\u003e - Amazon, Barnes \u0026amp; Noble, and USA Today bestseller\u003cbr\u003e - Recommended by the Financial Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Skeptic\u003cbr\u003e - Highly recommended by Jonathan Haidt, Steven Pinker, and Andrew McAfee\u003c\/b\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e \"Uninhabitable Earth\" is nonsense\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e “There’s a very high chance that civilization will end around 2030.” “If we fail to respond to climate change, the world will end within 12 years.” “A major crisis will hit as early as 2040.” Warnings that the end of the Earth and humanity is imminent are plastered across the globe. \u003cbr\u003eIs this \"environmental doomsday\" theory, which we all know and believe, actually true? The 2018 report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change accurately states that to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, carbon emissions must be reduced by 45 percent by 2030.\u003cbr\u003e There is no mention whatsoever of society collapsing or the world being destroyed if it rises any further.\u003cbr\u003e According to one NASA climatologist, all talk of a doomsday event with a specific date like this is simply “bullshit.”\u003cbr\u003e Michael Shellenberger, a world-renowned environmental, energy, and safety expert who has been called an “environmental hero” by Time magazine, an “environmental guru,” a “climate guru,” and the “high priest of the environmental humanism movement,” feels that the recent rise of this “environmental doomsday theory” is a serious problem. \u003cbr\u003eThis is because apocalyptic environmentalism, which promotes anger and fear over climate change, deforestation, and extinction, “spreads intractable anxiety, propagates ideologies that disempower people, and obfuscates or denies the evidence.”\u003cbr\u003e As a climate, environmental, and social justice activist for over 30 years, Shellenberger successfully led the movement to save native American redwood forests and improve the environment of Nike's Asian factories. He also led the clean energy transition movement, the New Apollo Project, which laid the foundation for the Green New Deal policy, a hot topic around the world today.\u003cbr\u003e He was also invited as an expert reviewer for the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and testified before the U.S. Congress on climate change.\u003cbr\u003e In his view, the claims and actions of apocalyptic environmentalists not only misrepresent the truth, but also hinder solutions to the climate crisis. \u003cbr\u003eShellenberger, determined to do his best to correct misinformation and accurately convey facts and science on environmental issues including climate change, published a controversial work, \"The Illusion of Protecting the Planet,\" which encompasses various scientific research results and data, interviews with scientists, environmental activists, and locals in various fields, and decades of experience and insight.\u003cbr\u003e In this book, he raised sharp questions about existing environmental discussions, especially environmental eschatology, causing a stir in the environmental movement and academia, and it became a bestseller, attracting enormous attention and response from the media and the public.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Greenpeace didn't save the whales.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e In this book, we see how exaggerated climate doomsday claims like “the world is about to end,” “billions will die,” and “the Earth will become uninhabitable” are. \u003cbr\u003eFamiliar claims like “The population will explode and food will run out,” “The damage from extreme weather events and natural disasters such as typhoons, droughts, floods, and wildfires is rapidly increasing,” “Polar bears are starving to death because the ice is melting,” “The Amazon is in danger of burning out,” “Greenpeace saved a whale,” and “A vegetarian diet can drastically reduce carbon emissions” are also found to be at odds with scientific evidence and facts.\u003cbr\u003e We are also faced with a significant paradox that runs counter to our intuition: “Plastic is progress,” “Economic growth is environmental protection,” and “To save nature, we must embrace artificiality.” \u003cbr\u003eIn addition, you will come to understand whether the claims that “poor countries can become rich by introducing renewable energy”, “nuclear power is no different from a nuclear bomb and is therefore unnecessary”, and “all the world’s energy can be supplied by renewable energy such as solar and wind power” are true or false.\u003cbr\u003e In fact, it was not Greenpeace that saved the whales, but rather technology and economic development.\u003cbr\u003e Twice, at that.\u003cbr\u003e In the mid-1800s, oil exploration led to the production of kerosene, which displaced whale oil from the lighting fuel market.\u003cbr\u003e In the mid-1900s, vegetable oils replaced whale oil, a raw material for margarine and soap, saving whales.\u003cbr\u003e The saving of sea turtles and elephants is also thanks to the invention of plastic, which is considered the worst waste today, replacing turtle shells and ivory.\u003cbr\u003e Contrary to environmentalists' insistence on using natural materials, we must embrace artificiality to protect nature. \u003cbr\u003eHumanity currently produces enough food to feed 10 billion people, and food production is projected to increase despite climate change.\u003cbr\u003e According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, increased food production is more dependent on factors such as tractors, improved irrigation systems, and fertilizers than on climate change.\u003cbr\u003e Greenhouse gas emissions from developed countries have continued to decline over the past 30 years.\u003cbr\u003e Europe's greenhouse gas emissions in 2018 were 23 percent lower than in 1990.\u003cbr\u003e The United States saw a 15 percent decline from 2005 to 2016.\u003cbr\u003e Accordingly, the global average temperature is likely to remain at 2 to 3 degrees Celsius, rather than the tipping point of 4 degrees Celsius.\u003cbr\u003e These achievements are not due to climate herders proclaiming the end of the world, but to the energy transition from coal to natural gas and nuclear power, the industrialization and modernization of agriculture and fisheries, and the development of manufacturing. \u003cbr\u003eWe are fighting climate change with the power of technology and economic growth, which climate activists blindly oppose.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Solar and wind power are the only way?\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Environmentalists argue that renewable energy sources like solar and wind power can power the entire world.\u003cbr\u003e However, solar and wind power are expensive, unstable, and particularly energy-inefficient and low-density.\u003cbr\u003e The maximum efficiency of a wind turbine is 59.3 percent, and the maximum power produced by a solar panel is 50 watts per square meter.\u003cbr\u003e In contrast, natural gas and nuclear power generate between 2,000 and 6,000 watts per square meter.\u003cbr\u003e The Industrial Revolution was possible because coal has a much higher energy density than wood.\u003cbr\u003e By the same token, solar and wind power, with their much lower energy density, cannot sustain today's high-energy urban industrial societies and civilizations.\u003cbr\u003e Another problem is that solar and wind power are intermittent and unreliable sources of energy that depend on the weather. \u003cbr\u003eSo, if solar or wind power plants are built on a large scale, more natural gas power plants will inevitably have to be built to handle the instability.\u003cbr\u003e Because of this, more carbon is generated during the power generation process, and electricity rates are bound to become more expensive.\u003cbr\u003e Germany, which has significantly increased its share of renewable energy, has seen its electricity prices rise by 50 percent since 2007, and in 2019, prices were 45 percent higher than the European average.\u003cbr\u003e California, which relies heavily on renewable energy, has seen electricity rates rise six times faster than other states since 2011.\u003cbr\u003e Moreover, it has been revealed that wind power generation, which is said to be environmentally friendly, is actually causing fatal harm to bats, large birds, and insects.\u003cbr\u003e Solar power generation also requires a large area, which inevitably has a large impact on the environment. During construction, it consumes 16 times more resources than nuclear power plants and produces 300 times more waste.\u003cbr\u003e \u003cbr\u003eHypocritical and unethical “environmental colonialism”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e An even bigger problem is that environmentalists and developed countries are forcing inefficient renewable energy sources onto poor countries that still rely on wood and charcoal as their primary fuels, blocking the development of thermal and hydroelectric power.\u003cbr\u003e In reality, they are trying to block the economic development and growth of poor countries while they themselves have become rich, developed countries that rely on fossil fuels and enjoy the luxury of cars, airplanes, artificial lighting, and heating.\u003cbr\u003e It is hypocritical and unethical “environmental colonialism.”\u003cbr\u003e For over two decades after World War II, the World Bank lent money to developing countries to build infrastructure such as dams, roads, and power grids.\u003cbr\u003e However, in the late 1980s, as environmental groups such as the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace gained influence, the United Nations began to present the so-called “sustainable development” model to developing countries. \u003cbr\u003eUnder this new model, poor developing countries would have to continue using small-scale renewable energy sources instead of large-scale power infrastructure like dams.\u003cbr\u003e By the 1990s, only 5 percent of the World Bank's financial assistance was allocated to infrastructure development.\u003cbr\u003e The United Nations and environmental groups argue that this is about helping poor countries avoid the mistakes of industrial societies.\u003cbr\u003e A 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report argued that poor countries could achieve energy leapfrogging by abandoning centralized energy sources like dams, natural gas, and nuclear power in favor of decentralized energy sources like solar.\u003cbr\u003e But there is no evidence to support this claim.\u003cbr\u003e Humanity was liberated from the pre-industrial, organic, solar-based, low-energy society not by renewable energy, but by coal. \u003cbr\u003eNot a single country has ever achieved an industrial revolution or escaped poverty by using renewable energy sources rather than fossil fuels.\u003cbr\u003e Shellenberger warns against the absurd “environmental colonialism” that demands deindustrialization from countries that have not yet industrialized, and emphasizes that industrialization, agricultural modernization, and especially the introduction of manufacturing are the ways to achieve both prosperity and environmental protection.\u003cbr\u003e “Greenpeace and Extinction Rebellion’s claims are wrong.\u003cbr\u003e Building energy-dense factories in poor countries does not threaten forests.\u003cbr\u003e “Forests are truly at risk when the factories leave,” one climatologist put it. “It’s not an either-or proposition: pursuing economic growth to lift many people out of poverty or fighting climate change.” \u003cbr\u003eAnd “many of the things we worry about as the effects of climate change are actually symptoms of mismanagement and underdevelopment.” So when we wear clothes made by poor workers in developing countries, the emotion we should feel is not guilt, but pride.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e Beyond “environmental eschatology” to “environmental humanism”\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003e All major environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Sierra Club, have been at the forefront of the fight to phase out fossil fuels and nuclear power.\u003cbr\u003e But at the same time, they have been receiving money from or investing in natural gas and renewable energy companies.\u003cbr\u003e It's a relationship entangled in money.\u003cbr\u003e If we push for a nuclear phase-out, fossil fuel and renewable energy companies can do profitable business.\u003cbr\u003e This is because the amount of electricity produced by nuclear power plants is so large. \u003cbr\u003eClosing nuclear power plants means that huge amounts of money will flow into natural gas and renewable energy companies.\u003cbr\u003e Even figures like Bill McKibben, America's most influential environmental activist, and former Vice President Al Gore, a politician and environmental activist who won the Nobel Prize, have all received money from the fossil fuel industry.\u003cbr\u003e While accusing climate change deniers of taking money from the fossil fuel industry, they themselves have been receiving money behind their backs.\u003cbr\u003e In a word, it is hypocrisy.\u003cbr\u003e It's no different from celebrities and climate activists throwing a climate change event hosted by Google, using up fossil fuels in a five-star resort with jets, luxury yachts, supercars and helicopters.\u003cbr\u003e Today, environmental eschatology has become a kind of secular religion, Shellenberger points out. \u003cbr\u003eThis religion not only provides its followers with a new purpose in life, but also provides criteria for distinguishing between good and bad people, heroes and villains.\u003cbr\u003e Shellenberger argues that we must move beyond this inhumane new religion that preaches fear without love and guilt without salvation, and that hates civilization and humanity, and move toward an “environmental humanism” in which “human prosperity and environmental protection are achieved together.”\u003cbr\u003e Climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, and extinction are not the result of greed and arrogance, but rather side effects of economic development aimed at a better life.\u003cbr\u003e And these side effects are quite manageable. \u003cbr\u003e\n\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv\u003e\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"width:95%;padding-top:20px;padding-bottom:20px\"\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align:left;font-size:16px;font-weight:bold;padding-bottom:20px\"\u003e GOODS SPECIFICS \u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"text-align:left;font-size:14px;line-height:1.6em;\"\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"width:100%;margin-bottom:5px;line-height:1.6em;font-size:14px\"\u003e - \u003cstrong\u003ePublication date:\u003c\/strong\u003e April 27, 2021\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"width:100%;margin-bottom:5px;line-height:1.6em;font-size:14px\"\u003e - \u003cstrong\u003ePage count, weight, size:\u003c\/strong\u003e 664 pages | 858g | 145*212*35mm\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"width:100%;margin-bottom:5px;line-height:1.6em;font-size:14px\"\u003e - \u003cstrong\u003eISBN13:\u003c\/strong\u003e 9788960518612\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003cdiv style=\"width:100%;margin-bottom:5px;line-height:1.6em;font-size:14px\"\u003e - \u003cstrong\u003eISBN10:\u003c\/strong\u003e 8960518611 \u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\n\u003c\/div\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003ccenter\u003e\u003ctable\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd style=\"height:10px\"\u003e\u003c\/td\u003e\u003c\/tr\u003e\u003c\/table\u003e\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\u003cspan\u003e\u003c\/span\u003e\n\n\u003c\/center\u003e\n\n\n\u003c\/center\u003e","brand":"LIBRAIRIE COREENNE","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":43894501507114,"sku":"105639","price":35.0,"currency_code":"EUR","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0683\/2750\/5962\/files\/05bbb4bee22a63ea16e41147e0bbabea.jpg?v=1765436120","url":"https:\/\/librairie.coreenne.fr\/en\/products\/105639","provider":"LIBRAIRIE COREENNE","version":"1.0","type":"link"}