The Strange Secret Success of the Environmental Movement
The modern environmental movement was born in crisis—their success has been historic, crisis after crisis has been conquered. Why do its champions seldom acknowledge the victories?
Most people on the planet today live better, healthier lives because of the great successes of the modern environmental movement. It’s at the top of humanity’s greatest modern accomplishments… and that is saying something. So why don’t we talk about it?
I’ve written here about the great increase in human flourishing over the last two centuries, and the astonishing climb of human progress beyond the news cycle of decline and despair.
You won’t be surprised to know I get a lot of criticism about these views. When I suggest we’ve come a long way, the best of the best environmentalists I know step in. The world, they assure me, seconds from destruction, is the worst it has ever been, in absolute crisis, and getting steeply worse all the time. They write, sometimes kindly, often treating me as something somewhere between a fool and a MAGA supporter. I am neither. But it’s clear celebrating human progress even as an overt and enthusiastic supporter of environmental protection and improvement attracts withering criticism.
I’m not alone.
Over the past two decades, a quiet intellectual revolution has emerged in the form of data-driven, optimism-fueled books that challenge the prevailing pessimism about the state of the world. This genre, popularized by thinkers like Hans Rosling, Steven Pinker, and Max Roser, draws from vast datasets to show that by almost every measurable metric—poverty, literacy, health, violence, environmental progress—humanity has made astonishing strides.
The movement gained momentum with Rosling’s Factfulness (2018), which used hard data and engaging storytelling to reveal how most people systematically underestimate progress, assuming the world is getting worse when, in fact, it has dramatically improved. Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature (2011) and Enlightenment Now (2018) argued, with overwhelming historical evidence, that human lives are longer, safer, and healthier than ever, thanks to the power of reason, science, and liberal democracy. Meanwhile, Max Roser’s Our World in Data, an open-source project at Oxford University, has become a go-to resource for visualizing long-term human progress, offering interactive charts that track everything from global GDP to declining child mortality.
Other notable contributions include Matt Ridley’s The Rational Optimist (2010), which explores how innovation and markets have driven prosperity, and Marian Tupy & Gale Pooley’s Superabundance (2022), which argues that resources become effectively infinite as human ingenuity finds ways to create more with less. While these authors don’t deny real challenges—climate change, inequality, and political instability—they argue that despair is unwarranted and often counterproductive. By acknowledging how far we’ve come, they contend, we are better equipped to tackle the problems that remain, armed with the confidence that progress is not just possible, but inevitable when we apply knowledge, innovation, and optimism.
Where are We and Where are We Going?
We live in a province that is, by almost any measure, one of the wealthiest, cleanest, healthiest, safest, most abundant, and most educated places on the planet… ever—and yet, we seem to view the world through a lens of hardship, poverty, and scarcity, as if peering into a past we can’t quite leave behind.
This moment we are living in is nothing short of miraculous. If we can shift our perspective, if we can recognize how far we’ve come—not just in this province but in the world at large— then maybe we can finally embrace the notion that joy, gratitude, and hope are not foolish things. They are the fuel of progress.
The world is awful. The world is much better. The world can be much better.
It is wrong to think these three statements contradict each other. We need to see that they are all true to see that a better world is possible.
Here’s Stephen Pinker sharing the problem and the wider perspective
The Road is Long and the Path is Wide
I was born into a community where people still burned coal to heat their homes. In winter, the whole county smelled like coal—thick, acrid, unavoidable. It clung to the air, settled into our clothes, and coated our lungs with a scent we barely noticed because it was all we knew. Then, change came. The coal smell lingered as an aftertaste beneath the overwhelming stench of the pulp mill—progress, they called it. The mill brought jobs, prosperity, and an eye-watering, throat-scorching haze that reminded everyone which way the wind was blowing.
Now, both have faded. The coal is gone, and the pulp mill’s fumes, once so powerful they defined entire towns, have been scrubbed away by cleaner technologies and changing industries. The air is clearer than at any point in my lifetime. But if you ask an environmentalist today, they’ll tell you we are living in an age of crisis—that things have never been worse.
This is the paradox of the environmental movement. Their very existence, their ability to focus on carbon footprints, microplastics, and biodiversity loss, is itself evidence of how far we’ve come. If we were still gasping in industrial smog, drinking tainted water, and breathing coal dust indoors, the movement wouldn’t exist—because people wouldn’t have the luxury to care about climate change or deforestation in another hemisphere. The fact that so many of today’s environmental concerns are about abstract, long-term, or invisible threats—rather than immediate survival—proves that human progress on the environment has been nothing short of astonishing.
The Environmentalists are Living Proof of their own Astonishing Progress.
The very existence of a widespread, influential, and well-funded environmental movement is a testament to the staggering progress humanity has made in addressing environmental concerns. If we were still choking on smog, wading through rivers of filth, or dropping dead from poisoned air and water, there wouldn’t be an organized environmental movement—there would be riots. The luxury of being able to worry about carbon footprints, microplastics, and rewilding projects exists precisely because we’ve conquered so many of the fundamental environmental crises of the past.
The Great Environmental Turnaround of the Last 50 Years
Over the last half-century, the developed world has seen astonishing improvements in nearly every major environmental metric. Consider these transformative changes:
1. Air Pollution: The Clean Air Revolution
In the 1970s, cities like Los Angeles, London, and New York were infamous for their choking smog, leading to respiratory diseases and shortened lifespans. Today, thanks to the Clean Air Act (1970) in the U.S. and similar regulations worldwide, levels of pollutants like sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead have plummeted.
Lead pollution, once a major global health crisis due to leaded gasoline, has been virtually eliminated. The banning of leaded fuel in most countries by the early 2000s has resulted in a measurable rise in average IQ levels worldwide due to reduced neurotoxicity.
Acid rain, once thought to be an existential threat to forests and lakes, was dramatically reduced by sulfur dioxide controls in the 1980s and 1990s, proving that environmental issues can be tackled successfully with technology and policy.
2. Water Pollution: From Sewage to Swimming
In the 1960s, major rivers like the Thames in London and the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland literally caught fire due to industrial pollution. Today, they support thriving ecosystems.
The implementation of wastewater treatment plants, clean water regulations, and industrial discharge controls has brought fish back to rivers, lakes, and even previously "dead" zones like Lake Erie.
In developed nations, access to clean drinking water is nearly universal—a massive achievement that goes largely uncelebrated.
3. Deforestation & Reforestation: The Return of Forests
While deforestation remains a problem in parts of the developing world, large-scale reforestation and forest regrowth have been occurring across North America, Europe, and even parts of China.
In the U.S., forest coverage has been stable or growing since the early 20th century, thanks to improved land management, protected areas, and sustainable logging practices.
In Europe, forests have expanded by over 30% since 1990, largely due to agricultural efficiency reducing the need to clear land.
4. The Endangered Species Comeback
The Bald Eagle, once nearly extinct, has made a dramatic recovery due to the banning of DDT in the 1970s. The same goes for peregrine falcons, ospreys, and other birds of prey.
Whale populations, devastated by commercial whaling, have rebounded due to global bans on whaling.
Conservation efforts have saved species like the black-footed ferret, California condor, and even the giant panda—turning some of them into symbols of successful environmental intervention.
5. Cleaner Energy & Emission Reductions
Natural gas, nuclear power, and renewables have led to a reduction in per capita carbon emissions in many countries. Despite more people using energy, emissions per unit of economic output have declined in much of the developed world.
Air pollution from coal power plants has dropped drastically in many countries, with countries like the UK phasing out coal almost entirely in favor of gas, wind, and nuclear.
Electric vehicles, energy efficiency, and alternative fuels have begun to make a significant impact in reducing urban air pollution.
6. Global Cooperation & Environmental Agreements
The Montreal Protocol (1987) is widely considered the most successful international environmental treaty of all time. It effectively phased out ozone-depleting CFCs, leading to the recovery of the ozone layer.
The Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement may be controversial in their effectiveness, but the fact that nearly every nation participates shows that environmental concerns have become global priorities.
The Irony of the Environmentalist's Complaint
Every time an environmentalist passionately argues that we need radical action to stop some impending crisis, they are operating in a world where we’ve already solved far greater crises in the past - a world where almost all people the world over genuinely care about these things and are open to ideas that can help further improve our stewardship of the planet. They speak in climate-controlled rooms, sipping on bottled water that meets rigorous safety standards, communicating instantly via electronic devices made in hyper-efficient factories that produce less pollution than any equivalent industry in history.
The great paradox is that environmentalists see only the remaining problems, not the staggering success of human ingenuity in solving previous ones, which if discussed and celebrated would be the encouragement needed to go so much further. We never talk about any positive environmental change. It is just not allowed within the culture of the movement.
Does that mean all environmental problems are solved? No. But history shows that there are things worth celebrating. Joy, gratitude, and hope are not foolish things. They are the fuel of progress:
Doomsday predictions about the environment are often wildly exaggerated. (See: the "overpopulation crisis" that never happened, or the many failed "we'll run out of food/oil/water" predictions.)
Market-driven innovation, not degrowth, has been the key to solving environmental issues. (See: unleaded gasoline, catalytic converters, modern farming techniques.)
Environmental progress does not require an end to human progress. Quite the opposite—the wealthier and more technologically advanced a society becomes, the more it prioritizes environmental care.
Here’s some big complexity added. The current environmental message is “not selling”. In fact, it’s driving some supporters out of business. It’s not that Charlie disagrees with me exactly. But he’s coming at it from a different angle.
Progress is the Proof
The very fact that people can afford to be full-time environmental activists, attend regular rallies, be part of a global environmentalist community, and create positive change over the last 70 years - the first in history - is proof that environmental conditions have improved to the point where humans are no longer merely surviving, but thriving. There are many reasons environmental improvement was not discussed or historically pursued on the scale it is today: Ignorance, lack of science and data, lack of communication, a false notion of the limitlessness of the planet and its ocean, and most of all poverty, in all its forms. We simply couldn’t afford to make things better. Now we can. Only in a world where we aren’t immediately threatened by poisoned air, water, or food can we even contemplate carbon emissions, biodiversity loss, microplastics, and the rest.
The environmental movement is not a sign that we’re failing—it’s a sign of how far we’ve already come.
First, I want to say that if I ever implied or made you feel like I didn't respect or acknowledge your native intelligence I need to apologize for that. It was not intended and you are definitely very intelligent. In fact, most of the people I ever bother to argue with over environmental issues I also consider very intelligent. It's part of the reason why I bother in the first place, if that makes any sense. Anyway, you're not dumb and as far as I can tell you're not MAGA either. Although, some of your positions are more conservative than mine (vice versa too probably).
So, this is the problem I often don't find techno-optimists (I'd put you broadly in that boat, along with say the economists Noah Smith and Paul Krugman - yeah, I know you don't all share quite the same views but for simplicity sake close enough?) they aren't comparing apples to apples exactly.
So the graphs you're looking at broadly show a steep slope that generally shows an upward climb. But in a way you're comparing it to itself. You're looking at the previous years and comparing them. What we'd really be comparing, given a perfect world, is another species and/or eras before history began to be written down. Unfortunately, the only species we know don't share any similar metrics we can compare. Octopi have never (unless Cthulhu is real) had a civilization and have never made any giant advances in food production or energy creation that changed the course of their rise (or demise). We aren't aware of any alien species out there, although there probably are a few. Space, though, is vast, so is time, so we may not even exist at the same points in history and we definitely exist light years apart with no viable way to communicate yet. And, of course, there's very little meaningful data from ages before writing besides what we can glean from archeology.
Why would I want to compare those eras/species/etc.? Well, presumably there was a huge leap when mankind discovered how to make fire, possibly on par with our discovery of steam power or electricity. I mean it changed our diets (we know some of this from archaeology), it probably increased our brain size, it allowed us to move into new ecological niches, etc. I'm guessing, and this is just a guess because of lack of data, that it's was broadly an equivalent type of jump from fire as it was to electricity. Which is really sort of the era we're in. The Anthropocene is basically an era made of electricity and concrete and plastic. Those are the basic items that make nearly everything else possible. I guess you could think of it like the letters of DNA (A,G,C,T - they make everything else). But are there other periods we might have data for that would broadly show us the graph when we make a giant leap? Possibly the discovery of agriculture. Possibly the invention of empire. All of those graphs show would broadly show giant upward climbs, but would those climbs continue straight up forever?
I think no. But we don't have those graphs and also those would be jumps each of one or two magnitudes below where we are now. So it would look smaller on the overall graph even if was huge at the time period. First, with all those main human developments we know we get at least some periods of plateau. Fire alone would have been huge but it didn't solve everything, same with agriculture (which arguably created challenges like wars and greater inequality) and empire (which created all the culture and ugliness that cities can bring). I would expect, for instance, to see human lives be improved immeasurably when the Roman roads were laid down and people could trade and travel long distances. It would have been truly a period of golden age for many (and tragedy for many too). But it didn't last forever. Even with fire, certainly had to be an improvement over whatever cold, damp hell filled with fighting off wild animals that would have been, we still had to get through the ice ages! So there are also periods of trough in some of those graphs, even if they're caused by no fault of own (like ice ages!) or definitely our own doing (like the Middle Ages!). They're just far away and hard to see or we simply don't have the data to make the graph. But my point is: we really have nothing to compare to when we try and guess what the trajectory of human accomplishment *should be* because we don't know what that looks like for anyone/anything else. Also, I'd want more than one point of comparison in an ideal world. I doubt I'm going to get that though.
So, now we come to today's graph. We've all seen the hockey stick graph of global temperature (similar to the one for human progress), and some of us have read the UN climate reports (https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/reports). Some of us have even noted how much progress we've made on those goals (in 2021 countries pledged to reduce methane emissions by 30%, so far they haven't measurably reduced one bit) and how long we have according to climate scientists (2050 to net zero emissions if we're to avoid the worst effects - not just methane though). Right now we're at 1.5°C over, which we hit last year. If it remains at that level it's considered a tipping point where it will be hard to come back from. Each further tipping point we hit is exponentially harder to come back from. Honestly, I wouldn't put so much effort into this except that it seems like it's ultimately an extinction level event. I think that's also why it doesn't sell. It's too big and too scary.
So sure, we have had successes, and I'm very glad of them. We've also had some dismal failures but overall success. I do worry about the "bubble" mentality though. The first "dot bomb" really affected me personally and several people I knew and we all thought it was going to last forever. Sure, even now we have more money for some companies (Amazon) and nothing for others (AOL) like always in a market but this isn't just a market. It's our home and everyone we know, even by reputation only. Can you really blame me for yelling, "Danger Will Robinson?"
I thought of another way to frame the debate, not sure it's entirely fair but it made sense to me. So, when I talk to techno-optimists I often find that I'm asking if they took out the trash and they hand me their report card, all A's of course. While I do remember reading an article once that said there's a high correlation between people who take out the trash and people who get A's on their report cards (didn't vet that, but I can believe it) it's still only a correlation. Not everyone who gets A's on their report card takes out the trash and/or they might forget to do it once in awhile. However, what if the "trash" is really an extinction level danger? Maybe it contains plutonium, although I'm pretty sure you can't put that in your trash as there are no lead-lined trash bags at Costco. Well, if you're generating that much plutonium that you have to throw away (and please don't do that at home kids - unless you live in an authorized nuclear facility) then not taking out the trash even once could have dire consequences. Which is why (among many other reasons) we don't have any "put your excess plutonium on the curb" days. The stakes are too high.
Also, with modelling what happens with the climate and how bad things could get I'd point you towards turbulence modelling. In turbulence modelling the equations change depending on the level of turbulence. Well, not change exactly, but get exponentially more complex. For instance, if you're modelling the turbulence over a little red wagon pulled by a kindergartener you can basically ignore it as a factor because it would be almost unmeasurable. But get in a car or a plane and suddenly you can save a significant fraction of gas or electrons to make it matter. However, get to the level of the sun and all the nuclear explosions happening a few feet from each other and we don't yet have the technology to even attempt to model the turbulence of the entire sun. The tech we do have would take at least centuries (and probably more) to figure out nanoseconds of that kind of turbulence if we trained all of it at that one problem. Then work up to a black hole and because inside the black hole the actual founding assumptions we base the math on break down completely and we also can't measure anything inside and the turbulence (if there even is any) can't be modelled at all. It will forever remain a mystery.
And that's what I think we're up against when I think of the damage we're doing to planet. We've set forces in motion we're just not equipped to handle (and probably won't ever be) and some fiddling around at the margins isn't going to cut it no matter how clever they are. It's the reason people don't stand in front of moving trains and have debates about how putting a nice switch over there would shunt the train in a different direction and then build that switch while the train is hurtling down on them. No, they either build the switch first, then throw it when they see the train or they get out of the way. It becomes messy when they're caught in a tunnel though, no matter how fast they debate and build. Now, if they can see the train far off enough or know it's coming then they might have time to build the switch. I mean, if you know a train will be here in a month then it might be enough time to put the switch in place to give you options, but it would be a quick turn around to build it. It could be done in that time limit though, barely. We have our time limit, it's 2050. That's a short month. It's worse when you consider that Snidely Whiplash and his cronies (I'll let the reader decide who that is) are actively working against you and are willing to sacrifice Nell in order to make a buck.