Another celebrity has come out and said we are all doomed if we don’t tackle “climate change”. The new safer term that replaced global warming, because that terminology didn’t get quite the results the left was hoping for, and climate change sounded so much nicer. Leonardo DiCaprio said, in an interview with Deadline, talking about his movie ‘Don’t Look Up’, that the planet literally had 9 years left if we didn’t tackle climate change. Wow, 9 years, where have I heard that we’re all in a countdown to destruction before? Al Gore said in 2006, that we only had 10 years left, and that East Coast cities in New York and Florida would be inundated with floods, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez said a few years back, that we only have 12 years left, so I guess she’s on the same target as Leonardo DiCaprio, and in 1989, Noel Brown, a senior U.N. environmental official, said that entire nations would be wiped off the face of the map by the year 2000. The list goes on and on about how doomed we are from celebrities like Mark Ruffalo, Don Cheadle, and Prince Harry, but you get the point, and yet…we are still all here, alive and well. But, while the hypocrisy of Leonardo Dicaprio, and these celebrities are shouting the end of times, they are traveling in their diesel guzzling jets and yachts, that produce exponentially more co2, in a few miles, than the average family does every year traveling in a car. They are boisterously hypocritical, and that’s why the average American sees them as buffoons.
Improving Living Conditions Through Innovation is Key
The problem with these climate change alarmists in Hollywood and the media, is that they make predictions on one sided facts, that will make it look like we are headed for disaster, when in fact, we have made amazing progress in innovation, that has reduced air pollution, malnutrition, and deaths from natural disasters. In an article from the Washington Post, by Marc Thiessen during an interview with Bjorn Lomborg for example, alarmists will tell you that 95,000 kids will die from malnutrition by the year 2030, because of climate change, when in fact malnutrition has taken a nosedive due to progress in innovation.
“He points to estimates that climate change will increase deaths from malnutrition. (The World Health Organization, for example, predicts 95,000 more deaths due to child malnutrition by 2030.) That is true, he says. But it is also true that malnutrition has plummeted over the past three decades, and is expected to continue plummeting in the next three. “In 1990, 7 million children died from malnutrition,” Lomborg says. “Today we’re down to about 2.7 million children dying from malnutrition. And in 2050 … we’ll be down to about 600,000.” Why? Dramatic reductions in global poverty. “It’s really not rocket science,” he tells me. “If you’re poor, you’re much more likely to be malnourished and also die from malnourishment. If you get people out of poverty, they don’t die from malnutrition anymore.”
You Can’t Taken Seriously if You’re Being an Alarmist and Only One Sided
Celebrities, in my opinion, are severely uninformed or lazy when they only represent one side of the facts, for political and financial gain. People who don’t wish to critically think for themselves believe, because of the mainstream media or celebrities status, that they are somehow some naturally elected authority on climate change. If people would actually take a step back and realize that these celebrities are not weather experts, and look at the whole picture of what climate change actually is, more and more people might think these celebrities are just clowns, that need to hear themselves talk. But instead, some are convinced of this nonsense, ignorantly stick to only one side of the argument, and blame one side of the political aisle on natural disaster catastrophes. Take for example, Marina Sirtis, of Star Trek The Next Generation fame, who blamed forest fires in California on climate change, rather than Democrat policies which have banned controlled burns, under brush removal, and timber harvesting, which have resulted in an epidemic of California wildfires in recent years. Or, Mark Ruffalo, who blamed Decembers deadly tornadoes on climate change and warned that we need to protect our youth now before it’s too late. Do these celebrities know, or even talk about the progress we’ve made as a country, when it comes to the loss of lives or money we have saved due to innovation. Innovation that would be cripplingly stifled if the Democrats and liberal media had their way, and reduced emissions as radically as they want to. Lomborg continued in the interview by citing how much innovation has played a role in reducing deaths from natural disasters, heat and cold related deaths, and future rising sea levels.
“Take deaths from climate-related disasters. In the 1920s, Lomborg wrote in an August op-ed, natural disasters killed almost half a million people per year on average. But “in the last full decade, the 2010s, only 18,000 people died every year” — a reduction of 96 percent even as the global population quadrupled. In 2021, he says, the number of disaster deaths will be just about 6,000. That’s because better infrastructure does more to save lives than cutting emissions. The key to preventing disaster-related deaths is to help more people afford to live in sturdy homes instead of under corrugated roofs.
What about temperature-related deaths? It is true, Lomborg says, that we are seeing more heat waves today, but we are also seeing fewer cold waves. According to a recent study in the Lancet, over the past two decades, there were 490,000 heat-related deaths worldwide, compared to 4.6 million cold-related deaths. While about 116,000 more people died from heat last year because of climate change, roughly 283,000 fewer people died from cold — which, he calculates, means global warming saved about 166,000 thousands of lives.
What about rising sea levels? Lomborg points to a Post editorial that warns rising oceans could “make 187 million people homeless” by 2100. That is true only if you assume that humanity does nothing during the next 79 years to adapt. “What they forget,” he says, “is we have very good technologies to make sure that people are protected. 110 million people are right now living below sea level” in places like Holland. Adaptation, he says, will reduce the number of flooded people 12,000-fold. “The actual number of people [displaced] when you take into account adaptation is probably in the tens of thousands, not in the hundreds of millions.”
A Free Market is the Solution to Preventing Death and Destruction, Not Zero Emissions
It’s easy, and quite frankly, ignorant and lazy of Leonardo DiCaprio to lecture us on the effects of climate change, when he’s only presenting one side of the argument or the facts. The United States for example, has some of the lowest air pollution on the planet, so we must be doing something right. And these numbers are from the World Health Organization, a historically left organization. Leonardo Di Caprio talks of reducing emissions while he’s partying on a 150 million dollar yacht that costs $339,712 to fill its tanks, and emits as much Carbon pollution in seven miles as a car does in one year. His alarms of the planet literally having 9 years left, are irresponsible, and loaded with misinformation on the entire picture of what climate change actually is and causes. Young impressionable kids unfortunately look up to celebrities like DiCaprio, and think what he says is gospel. Everyone from DiCaprio to the Government say global warming will destroy this planet if we don’t act now. They’ve been saying we need to “act now” for decades, and yet the earth has found a way to miraculously survive. Politicians, a liberal media, and Hollywood are the problem, not man. As Lomborg stated in Marc Theissen’s article, a free market that fosters ideas and innovations have always been the solution to protecting the inhabitants of planet earth from death and disaster. You only need to look back at the history of these events, for proof of how successful we have been in lowering the cost of lives and destruction.
