Commentary
Unless you happen to live under a rock on a distant planet, you’re no doubt familiar with climate doomism, the idea that our planet is past the point of saving.
In the UK, a staggering two-thirds of people are worried sick about the environment. In the United States, doomism, a potent mix of fear-based proclamations and patently
false information, is causing a mental health crisis of epic proportions. It has given rise to a phenomenon known as
eco-anxiety.
According to the American Psychological Association (APA) (
pdf), eco-anxiety involves a “chronic fear of environmental doom“ that comes from observing the ”
seemingly irrevocable impacts of climate
change unfold, and worrying about the future for oneself, children, and later generations.”
Although eco-anxiety is very much a global issue, it’s having a particularly profound impact on the people of America. According to a recent report in the
Washington Times, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) employees have fallen prey to doom-driven beliefs. So overcome with feelings of distress, many employees now find themselves unable to perform their
well-paid jobs.
According to the piece, an increasing number of FWS employees are suffering from something called “eco-grief,” a close cousin of “eco-anxiety.” “Eco-grief” involves a sense of profound sorrow stemming from natural and man-made damage to the broader environment. Rather alarmingly, “eco-grief” is also associated with anticipatory grief, or preparatory grief, which involves a feeling of despair that usually occurs prior to the death of a loved one. Now, though, government employees are pre-grieving future losses—or perceived future losses—to the environment. This isn’t normal behavior. Then again, these are n’t normal times.
If all of this isn’t odd enough, according to the Washington Times piece, the FWS is also offering paid leave to employees who attend “eco-anxiety” seminars. You, the taxpaying reader, are expected to fund this madness. Of course, the FWS insanity must be viewed through a much broader lens. “Eco-grief” and “eco-anxiety” are symptoms of much broader problems. They didn’t just magically appear out of thin air.
All of this existential angst and pain for what, exactly?
Not much, it seems. The paralyzing fears associated with “eco-anxiety” appear to be entirely unwarranted. As the scientist Bjorn Lomborg has
clearly shown, although both global warming and climate change are real, the threats posed have been, intentionally or otherwise, greatly exaggerated. Instead of feeding young people nightmarish narratives, Lomborg has pleaded with (and continues to plead with) fellow climate scientists, policymakers, and economists to deliver comprehensive strategies and actual solutions.
Through the use of hard data and scientific models, Lomborg has shown that, contrary to popular belief, climate disasters (hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, etc.) are actually occurring with less frequency than before. Moreover, humans, via scientific advancements, have become far more adaptive. In short, the fatalistic, doom-driven scenarios only make sense if we stupidly assume that humans will do absolutely nothing to address the problems. This is the truth, even if
partisan fact-checkers suggest otherwise.
Lomborg’s findings have been echoed by Michael Shellenberger, an environmental activist who is intimately familiar with the realities (or the non-realities) of climate change. In his best-selling book, “
Apocalypse Never,” Schellenberger aptly demonstrates that—again, contrary to popular belief—carbon emissions have already peaked. In fact, they’ve been declining in most developed nations since the late 2000s. Moreover, according to Schellenberger, an author who always uses data to support his points, deaths from extreme weather conditions have been declining since the 1980s. Yet, for some unfathomable reason, one must really dig to discover this information. It has been buried under mounds of fear-based propaganda. This, one assumes, is intentional.
Instead of more people acknowledging the facts, we find ourselves inundated with an increasing number of erratic, unhinged calls for
more extreme climate-driven action. One piece, recently published in
The Conversation, actually equated good parenting with climate activism. In other words, parents that fail to educate their children on the supposed dire state of the environment are bad parents.
They’re not. Parents that needlessly scare their children into believing that the end of the world is just around the corner are bad parents.
It’s really a shame that more individuals aren’t familiar with the work of Lomborg and Shellenberger. After all, mental health problems already cost the U.S. economy
$48 billion per year. As cases of eco-anxiety
continue to grow, we should expect to see the economy stretched even further. Eco-anxiety is fast becoming
a mental health crisis of epic proportions, with some of the more severely affected even
contemplating suicide.
There has
never been a better time to be alive than right now, but bad science and
bad role models are contributing to a climate of misplaced fear.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
