From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

The Guardian claims in ‘Planetary boundaries’ necessary for flourishing of life have been massively breached, scientists warn, that seven of nine supposed “planetary boundaries” necessary for life to flourish have been breached, leaving Earth outside a “safe operating space” as “climate disaster looms.” This is grossly misleading. Real-world measures of human and ecological welfare show a planet on which human population, life expectancy, agricultural production, protection from natural disasters, and even global vegetation have increased dramatically during the very period in which The Guardian says conditions for flourishing have been collapsing.

There are legitimate environmental problems involving pollution, habitat destruction, species loss, and land use. Those deserve serious discussion. But The Guardian does something quite different. It bundles a collection of environmental indicators into a conceptual framework called “planetary boundaries,” labels seven of them breached, and leaps from that to rhetoric about deteriorating “planetary life support systems” and the world “standing on the edge of the abyss.”

The first problem is that planetary boundaries are not physical tripwires beyond which humans suddenly cannot flourish. The framework was created to define a precautionary “safe operating space” based on selected Earth-system processes. Even the scientific literature describes it as a framework based on an evolving understanding of Earth-system resilience, not a set of experimentally demonstrated points beyond which human civilization ceases to prosper.

If seven of nine conditions necessary for human flourishing have been “massively breached,” as The Guardian’s headline announces, an obvious question follows: Where is the corresponding collapse in human flourishing?

Let’s start with food.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reports that global cereal production increased 27 percent from 2010 to 2024, reaching 3.1 billion tons, with the increase driven primarily by improved yields. Oil crop production increased 50 percent during the same period. Climate Realism has repeatedly documented the same inconvenient trend: yields for major crops such as corn, wheat, soybeans, and rice have risen substantially during the period of modern warming.

That is a strange-looking collapse of Earth’s “life support systems.”

Then there is something The Guardian has repeatedly been reluctant to give its proper weight: carbon dioxide is plant food. Satellite observations show substantial global greening. NASA reported that between one-quarter and one-half of Earth’s vegetated land experienced significant greening from 1982 to 2015, with CO₂ fertilization identified as the dominant driver in the associated study. Climate at a Glance summarizes the extensive evidence for this global greening as well.

Apparently, nobody informed the plants that Earth’s life support system is failing.

Human beings seem equally reluctant to follow The Guardian’s script.

According to the Federal Reserve, global life expectancy rose from about 51 years in 1960 to more than 73 years in 2024. The United Nations estimated the world’s population at approximately 8.2 billion people in 2024, after decades of enormous population growth. Population growth certainly creates environmental challenges of its own, but it is difficult to reconcile longer lives supporting billions more people with the breathless suggestion that Earth’s ability to support human flourishing is disintegrating before our eyes.

Extreme weather mortality tells an even more embarrassing story.

Climate at a Glance reports that deaths from weather-related disasters have fallen by more than 99 percent during the past century, based on international disaster data. Humanity has become vastly better at protecting itself through forecasting, infrastructure, communications, transportation, medicine, air conditioning, heating, irrigation, engineering, and abundant energy.

The temperature mortality evidence is particularly awkward for the climate catastrophe narrative. A massive 2021 study in The Lancet Planetary Health, using data from 750 locations in 43 countries, estimated that cold-related mortality vastly exceeded heat-related mortality. From 2000 to 2019, declining cold mortality more than offset increasing heat mortality, producing a net reduction in the overall temperature-related mortality ratio.  Climate Realism has repeatedly pointed out this inconvenient fact when media outlets portray warming as an unambiguous mortality catastrophe.

The Guardian’s treatment of extreme weather is equally revealing. It points to recent floods, European wildfires, U.S. summer temperatures, and the Tibet-Nepal flood as evidence that the planet is “out of balance.”

That is not a climate trend analysis. It is a collection of frightening anecdotes.

Climate Realism and Climate at a Glance have repeatedly examined claims involving hurricanes, floods, drought, wildfires, heat waves, and other extremes. The observational records do not support treating every destructive weather event as evidence that the planet has crossed some generalized threshold into catastrophe.

The Guardian even resurrects the familiar Amazon tipping-point scenario, warning that there is a “chance” the rainforest could transform into savanna, with severe worldwide consequences. Notice the language: there could be a tipping point that could produce disastrous consequences. This is speculation about a possible future outcome being placed alongside actual present-day disasters to create the impression that the feared future has already arrived.

This is the fundamental problem with the article. The Guardian substitutes an abstract index of environmental pressures for actual measurements of human welfare, then treats the former as more meaningful than the latter.

If humanity were truly losing the environmental conditions necessary to flourish, one might reasonably expect human flourishing to be deteriorating. Instead, the broad historical direction has been longer lives, vastly greater food production, sharply lower vulnerability to weather disasters, and the capacity to sustain billions more people.

None of that proves environmental problems do not exist. It does demonstrate how absurd it is to wave away enormous improvements in observable human welfare while declaring that Earth’s ability to support human civilization has been “massively breached.”

The Guardian is no longer merely reporting environmental risks here. It is peddling fear. Phrases such as “climate disaster looms,” “worst levels ever recorded,” and “standing on the edge of the abyss” are the vocabulary of catastrophe marketing, not sober scientific journalism.

A newspaper genuinely interested in whether humanity is flourishing would examine how humans are actually doing. The Guardian largely avoids that evidence because it wrecks the story it wants to tell.

The planet faces environmental challenges. Humanity should address genuine problems with evidence, technology, adaptation, conservation, and sound policy. But declaring the planetary life support system to be approaching the abyss while people are living longer, producing more food, surviving natural disasters at vastly higher rates, and inhabiting a demonstrably greener planet is not serious analysis.

It is apocalypse journalism, and The Guardian has once again confused frightening its readers with informing them.