🌈 A Quick Q&A with … Maarten Boudry on whether 'climate doomers are for real'

'In many cases, climate activists have become the biggest stumbling block to actual progress on climate change.'

Quote of the Issue

“The process of knowledge and value creation is at the heart of humanity’s moral and material progress. It is what enables our civilization to bend toward goodness and superabundance.” - Marian L. Tupy and Gale L. Pooley. Superabundance: The Story of Population Growth, Innovation, and Human Flourishing on an Infinitely Bountiful Planet

---

The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised

"Nothing is more confusing than the role of tech and innovation in our world. For years I have sought a guidebook to sort the good from the bad, and see how ingenuity can help take us to a better future. The Conservative Futurist is that book. This is a must read for all of us." - Arthur C. Brooks, Professor, Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Business School

---

Q&A

🌈 A Quick Q&A with … Maarten Boudry on whether 'climate doomers are for real'

Climate “doomers” call for drastic measures, from limiting developing countries’ access to fossil fuels to staunch anti-natalism. And yet, they’re quick to dismiss seemingly obvious solutions, like nuclear energy. Could the loudest voices in climate activism actually be insincere? To get a better idea, I asked Maarten Boudry a few quick questions about the apparent hypocrisy of the “doomer” worldview.

Boudry is a professor in the Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences at Ghent University. He also runs his own Substack. Read more about his take on environmentalist hypocrisy in his article, “Are Climate Doomers for Real?”

1/ Can you explain why you doubt that most climate activists believe their own narrative? Is this true of even the most well-recognized figures like Greta Thunberg?

The more I delved into the climate movement, the more I started noticing some weird contradictions between what they preach and what they practice. And I'm not just talking about petty stuff like activists jetting off to climate conferences or chomping down on organic burgers; I'm talking about glaring contradictions. The ultimate litmus test for the sincerity of climate activists, in my opinion, is nuclear energy. Nuclear power is our secret weapon against climate change — it's the only reliable, scalable source of zero-carbon energy that has a proven track record of super-fast decarbonization. But here's the kicker: Climate activists have been adamantly against nuclear energy for ages. So, you're telling me we're in a climate emergency, and we've got, what, 10 years to save the planet or something, but then you turn around and want to shut down our biggest source of carbon-free energy? Isn't that just a tad peculiar?

In many cases, climate activists have become the biggest stumbling block to actual progress on climate change, shooting down one promising technology after another (GMO food, carbon capture, geo-engineering, precision fermentation — you name it), and even dissing the whole idea of "techno fixes" for the climate mess (they see it as just an excuse not to change our ways). They're all about organic farming and local food, even though tons of studies show it's actually worse for the climate and the environment. And get this: environmental groups often lead local protests against wind turbines and solar parks, their own poster-child solutions! So, how seriously am I supposed to take your belief in the climate catastrophe if you oppose pretty much all the effective solutions and only endorse the ineffective ones because they align with your ideology? It just doesn't add up. Sure, I bet some climate activists are genuinely terrified, but a bunch of them, especially the bigwigs at the top, are just full of it. Their activism is more about flexing their ideological muscles, virtue-signaling, and feeling morally superior to everyone else than actually fixing the problem.

2/ If many high-profile climate activists are fairly well-informed, where does their resistance to nuclear power stem from? Is it genuine fear of a nuclear accident, or something else?

As for the resistance to nuclear power, it's a mixed bag. Some folks genuinely fear nuclear accidents or worry about the long-term disposal of nuclear waste. Others see nuclear energy as a symbol of human arrogance and technological hubris, like, "Hey, let's split the building blocks of the universe, what could possibly go wrong?" Plus, there's this whole partisan thing going on — you can't be a 'good' environmentalist or progressive if you're cool with nuclear. And now you've got some conservatives championing nuclear power just to stick it to the tree-hugging crowd, not because they actually give a hoot about the climate.