Climate Expert Ted Nordhaus Reassesses Catastrophic Climate Predictions, Citing Declining Mortality Rates

Climate expert Ted Nordhaus has publicly revised his long-held views on the impending catastrophe from fossil fuel consumption, stating he "no longer believe[s] this hyperbole." In an article published by The Free Press, Nordhaus, a prominent figure in environmental thought, outlined his updated perspective, challenging conventional apocalyptic climate narratives. His shift in opinion is based on evolving data and revised projections for global warming and its impacts. Nordhaus, co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute, previously argued that continued fossil fuel use would assure catastrophe, citing scenarios of rising sea levels, Amazon collapse, and resource wars. However, he now contends that the underlying assumptions for such dire predictions were flawed. "At the time, I, like most climate experts, thought that business-as-usual emissions would lead to around five degrees of warming by the end of this century. That assumption was never plausible," Nordhaus wrote. He points to falling fertility rates, slowing global economic growth, and decades of decarbonization as factors that undermine these earlier models. The article highlights that most current estimates for worst-case warming by the century's end now suggest three degrees or less. Furthermore, Nordhaus emphasizes a significant decline in climate-related mortality: "Despite close to 1.5 degrees of warming over the last century, global mortality from climate and weather extremes has fallen by more than 96 percent on a per-capita basis." He projects that the world is on track for the lowest level of climate-related mortality in recorded human history this year, attributing rising economic costs to affluence and population migration to hazard-prone areas rather than solely to climate change. Nordhaus questions why many progressive environmentalists have not similarly revised their positions, suggesting an "insular climate discourse" that is "no less prone to issuing misleading claims, ignoring countervailing evidence, and demonizing dissent." This re-evaluation by a respected voice in the climate discussion is likely to spark further debate within environmental and policy circles.