When climate goes away as an apocalyptic concern, something else will emerge. No doubt about it.

For years, I referred to climate change as an 'existential' threat to human civilization, and called it a 'crisis.'

There are major groups, including the Sierra Club, that support efforts to deprive poor countries of energy.

The main problem with biofuels - the land required - stems from their low power density.

In truth, humankind has never been at risk of running out of energy.

Making anything more labor-intensive makes it more expensive.

Before progressives were apocalyptic about climate change they were apocalyptic about nuclear energy. Then, after the Cold War ended, and the threat of nuclear war declined radically, they found a new vehicle for their secular apocalypse in the form of climate change.

The flip side of renewables' low energy density is their low return on energy invested.

We should be concerned about the impact of climate change on vulnerable populations, without question. There is nothing automatic about adaptation. But it's clear that there is simply no science that supports claims that rising sea levels threaten civilization much less the apocalypse.

Nobody is suggesting climate change won't negatively impact crop yields. It could. But such declines should be put in perspective.

There is good evidence that the catastrophist framing of climate change is self-defeating because it alienates and polarizes many people. And exaggerating climate change risks distracting us from other important issues including ones we might have more near-term control over.

The Amazon uses as much oxygen as it produces.

Voters must feel that that the burden of new housing is being shared equally and not falling disproportionately on any one group.

Climate change is happening. It's just not the end of the world. It's not even our most serious environmental problem.

Neither solar nor wind are actually substitutes for coal or natural gas or oil.

Like many environmental documentaries, 'Planet of Humans' endorses debunked Malthusian ideas that the world is running out of energy.

Nations are reorienting toward the national interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables. The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilization is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilization that climate alarmists would return us to.

Normally skeptical journalists routinely give renewables a pass. The reason isn't because they don't know how to report critically on energy - they do regularly when it comes to non-renewable energy sources - but rather because they don't want to.

Nuclear is the only energy source that has proven capable of fully replacing fossil fuels at low-cost in wealthy nations. While hydro-electric dams can sometimes play that role, they are limited to nations with powerful rivers, many of which have already been dammed.

If you care about the environment, you want food and energy production to become more efficient and centralized. You want to put less inputs in and get more outputs out and get less waste.

Both solar and wind produce too much energy when societies don't need it, and not enough when they do.

Trump gives progressives a way to channel whatever guilt they might have - whether from preventing homebuilding, benefitting from unfair taxes and pensions, or depriving black and Latino students the teacher quality and school funding they need - into a sanctimonious tribal rage against Republican racism.

Climate change has completely overshadowed the conservation concerns that used to be so important to the Democratic Party.

Climate change is an issue I care passionately about and have dedicated a significant portion of my life to addressing.