Category: Environment & Climate Change

Facts relating to Environment & Climate Change known to be true and yet often disputed amongst the public

Robotics And Leonberger Dogs

Daily writing prompt
On what subject(s) are you an authority?
View all responses

So, on what subject(s) am I an authority? My understanding on what being an authority on a subject means is that it is being an expert with recognized credibility on that subject. However, the word “authority” has so many other meanings and it brings to mind the “appeal to authority fallacy”. The “appeal to authority fallacy” refers to appealing to influential people or organizations who may not necessarily be experts, and regardless of the evidence.

In science you don’t really have such authorities, you have experts who often disagree with each other. In the event almost all experts agree on a certain fact that has been thoroughly vetted you can trust that fact with nearly 100% certainty, and that is not appeal to authority but a probability argument. Therefore, I don’t really like the use of the word authority in this context. It is confusing. I would have preferred the question to be “In what subject(s) do you have recognized expertise?”

This is a screenshot of a pdf file. It says, “Reflex Control for Obstacle Avoidance and Self Preservation by Thomas Wikman. Submitted in partial Fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Ph.D. Thesis advisor Dr. Wyatt S. Newman. Department of Electrical Engineering and Applied Physics. Case Western Reserve University.”
This is the front page of my PhD thesis “Reflex Control for Obstacle Avoidance and Self Preservation”.

Robotics

Reflex Control for Obstacle Avoidance and Self Preservation

My PhD thesis was in Robotics, specifically Reflex Control for Obstacle Avoidance and Self Preservation. Therefore, you can say that I am an expert on Reflex Control for Obstacle Avoidance and Self Preservation, Reflex Control (in Robotics) as well as Robotics. My expertise has been recognized through my published research papers, the citing of those papers, my PhD thesis, and my peers including Rodney Brooks.

Rodney Brooks is a former director of the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, founder of several robotics research companies, and he is arguably the most famous roboticist in the world. In the 1990’s he was featured on the front page in national magazines such as Time Magazine several times. During my internship at the Robotics Lab at Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico in 1993, I spoke to Rodney Brooks about my research, and he congratulated me on my research, which he liked.

Briefly, reflex control in Robotics refers to functionally simple, quick, and reliable behaviors that override whatever more complex algorithms or humans (joystick / telerobotics) are commanding in case those algorithms or humans execute dangerous motion. Take for example, a robot moving quickly among multiple objects and the path planning algorithm generates a faulty command that would result in a collision when executed. The reflex control layer would detect the problem (assuming it knows about the objects) and halt the robot before it collided with the object. This would need to happen quickly, in milliseconds, and always in a failsafe way. After the collision has been avoided the system or the human can figure out what went wrong and figure out a new path.

To do this the Reflex controller needs to be embedded with the motion controller, and know the characteristics of the motors, the robot configuration, and mechanical characteristics, such as mass, friction model, inertia, etc., exactly. The result is that when you drive a robot around among multiple objects such as boxes hanging from the ceiling, coat racks, and sombreros, and other robots it will avoid colliding with these objects regardless of input from people or high-level path planning algorithms. It looked like the objects were protected by an invisible force field.

The Robotics Research Corporation Robot / RRC Robot, is a seven-jointed silver colored robot. It is mounted to the floor and surrounded by objects | Robotics And Leonberger Dogs
This is an old black and white photo of the Robotics Research Corporation Robot surrounded by objects including boxes hanging in the ceiling, a coat rack, and a control cabinet. I took the photo, and I created the software for the robot and placed the objects in its workspace.

Robot Kinematics

In addition, to “Reflex Control for Obstacle Avoidance and Self Preservation” or “Reflex Control for Robots”, which is very narrow field, I gained expertise in fields of robotics that are a bit wider. One such field is robot kinematics. That includes, for example, calculating the position, speed and acceleration of the tool tip (the end tip) of the robot from the position and motion of the joints of the robot. Or it could be calculating the possible joint angles from the position of the tool tip. The RRC robot was a seven-jointed robot so this could get complicated. I should say that when I worked for ABB Robotics (after my Ph.D) I created the kinematic models for 30+ of ABB Robotics robots. Therefore, I have expertise and recognized credibility in Robot Kinematics as well.

This is a stick figure drawing of the RRC robot for the purpose of defining the coordinate systems for each joint.
The drawing shows the seven joints, the seven possible rotations around those joints, the seven joint angles (the thetas), and the seven coordinate systems and their origos (the O’s) at each joint.

Robot kinematics can get complicated, at least for a seven-jointed robot like the RRC Robot. An example is the Jacobian, which is a matrix that relates joint velocities to end-effector / tool-tip velocities. The Jacobian is crucial for understanding and controlling robot motion, particularly for inverse kinematics and trajectory planning. Below is the Jacobian for the first four joints of the RRC robot. I spent an entire day deriving it. Depending on your eyesight it is difficult to read the scribbles, but it is a bunch of very long, mostly trigonometric equations. Don’t worry about understanding the matrix, it is just to show how complicated robot kinematics can get.

Hundreds of trigonometric expressions arranged in a 4 X 4 matrix.
First part of the 4-dimensional (first four joints) Jacobian for the RRC Robot.
Hundreds of trigonometric expressions arranged in a 4 X 4 matrix.
Second part of the 4-dimensional (first four joints) Jacobian for the RRC Robot.
Hundreds of trigonometric expressions arranged in a 4 X 4 matrix.
Third part of the 4-dimensional (first four joints) Jacobian for the RRC Robot.
Hundreds of trigonometric expressions arranged in a 4 X 4 matrix | Robotics And Leonberger Dogs
Fourth part of the 4-dimensional (first four joints) Jacobian for the RRC Robot.

Configuration Space in Robotics

Another subject I gained a lot of expertise in is configuration space or so-called C-space. It is related to robot kinematics. C-space is a mathematical representation of all possible configurations a robot can take. In C-space for a robot arm (like the RRC Robot) the coordinates are the joint angles instead of X, Y and Z.  For the seven-jointed RRC robot you have seven joint angles and C-space is thus seven dimensions. C-space is very useful if you succeed in representing obstacles in it. A point might become a curve, or multi-dimensional membrane in C-space, and a ball might become a multi-dimensional banana. I had a lot of fun creating algorithms for creating C-space with obstacles in it.

My Other Expertise

I also have a degree a master’s degree in engineering physics (Teknisk Fysik) from Uppsala University in Sweden. I should say that engineering physics in Uppsala was focused a lot on theoretical physics and modern physics as well as practical applications for physics. Case Western Reserve University later converted this degree to a master’s in electrical engineering. I loved physics and was a good student, but my special interest was the theory of relativity. Even though I had and still have a hard time with the General Theory of relativity and I studied the special theory of relativity way beyond what was required at school, and I read dozens of technical books on the subject. So, this is also sort of an area expertise for me.

Below are some links to topics related to the special theory of relativity on this website:

I spent at least 30 years working with software as a software engineer / robotics engineer and gained a lot of experience in software development. It was mostly embedded software but also graphical user interfaces, things you can see on a screen, and Networking Software Development. I worked a lot with Visual Studio, a powerful, expandable, and popular integrated development environment (IDE) from Microsoft.

I developed a lot of code using C++ and C#, .Net, WPF, but also other languages and libraries. I started with Visual Studio 97 (in 1997), then Visual Studio 6, Visual Studio .NET 2002, Visual Studio .NET 2003, Visual Studio 2005, Visual Studio 2008, Visual Studio 2010, Visual Studio 2012, Visual Studio 2015, Visual Studio 2017, but I never got around to Visual Studio 2019 and Visual Studio 2022. So, you can say that I am an expert on Visual Studio with C++ and C# and .NET (I am less of an expert on the other languages typically used with Visual Studio).

Later in life I also came to learn a lot about climate change / climate disruption / global warming / the greenhouse effect whatever you call it. I used to be skeptical about climate change, and I thought it might be politicized by the scientific community, but after some interesting red flags I took a deep dive into the subject, and I learned that climate change is very real and caused by us. I was politicized not the scientific community. There is a scientific consensus on the subject for very good reasons. I continued by reading dozens of climate science papers and several dozens of technical and non-technical books on the topic. Therefore, at this point I know more about it than a lot of people. Maybe expert is a strong word, but almost expert.

Least but not last

Being a Leonberger Dog Expert

I know a lot about Leonbergers because my family was lucky enough to live with one for thirteen years. His name was Le Bronco von der Löwenhöhle—but we called him “Bronco” for short. Bronco wasn’t our only dog, but our world wouldn’t have been the same without him. For instance, he once saved the life of our pug by fending off an attack from another dog. He probably saved our Labrador’s life, too, by sniffing out an impending insulin shock before it happened. Then there was the time he scared off a trespasser who’d been terrorizing my wife and other women in the neighborhood.

A big Leonberger is standing on a large red leather sofa and stretching out to give me a hug | Robotics And Leonberger Dogs
Bronco loved to dance and hug. Here he is giving me a hug (not yet fully grown).

Bronco is no longer with us, but even in his passing he was distinctive. Leonbergers tend to live less than nine years—but Bronco came very close to reaching his thirteenth birthday. In fact, he received an award for longevity called the “Grey Muzzle Award.”  We already knew he was a special dog, but we sent his DNA to two labs for research anyway. I wrote a book about our amazing Bronco and his many amusing adventures and included helpful information on Leonbergers for new owners and interested dog lovers. I also have a Leonberger website.

In the process of writing my book about Bronco and Leonbergers I came to learn a lot about Leonberger dogs, the Leonberger breed standard, their history, health issues, Leonberger organizations, health and care, etc. I became a bit of a Leonberger expert. If you are interested in the book, check it out here or here. You can also get it from Amazon in many other countries, Barnes & Noble, Chapters Indigo and many other bookstores. For more information check here.

To see the Super Facts click here

Review of Glacial by Chelsea Henderson

I recently read a very interesting book on the history of climate change politics; Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson. Chelsea Henderson is a leader in the EcoRight movement, basically Republicans who care about the environment and climate change. She is a former senior advisor to Senator John Warner (Republican) and have held other positions in the US Congress. Her book is non-partisan. However, naturally she is accepting the reality of human caused global warming.

I should mention that the second last sentence of the seventh paragraph of my rather long review says this “As of very recently, a few days ago, those Tax Credits have been reversed.” Those few days ago have not yet happened. I thought Amazon would take longer to publish my review and I was predicting that the vote today/tomorrow on the Senate version of the Budget Reconciliation Bill (the Big Beautiful Bill) would allow it to pass. So those few days ago have not yet happened because Amazon was faster than I thought. Basically, the Budget Reconciliation Bill will roll back or phase out the clean energy tax credits enacted in 2022. For those who don’t know what a Budget Reconciliation Bill is, it is a bill that allows you to bypass the filibuster, and it is therefore typically a highly partisan bill.

Glacial The Book Formats

Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson comes in four formats. I bought the hardback format.

  • Hardcover –  Publisher : Turner (August 6, 2024), ISBN-10 : 1684429579, ISBN-13 : 978-1684429578, 432 pages, item weight : 1.45 pounds, dimensions : ‎ 6.25 x 1.25 x 9.25 inches, it costs $ 23.11 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
  • Paperback –  Publisher : Turner (August 6, 2024), ISBN-10 : 1684429587, ISBN-13 : 978-1684429585, 432 pages, item weight : 1.34 pounds, dimensions : ‎ 6 x 0.96 x 9 inches, it costs $13.10 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
  • Kindle –  Publisher : Turner (August 6, 2024), ASIN : B0CBQKTM46, ISBN-13 : 978-1684429592, 460 pages, it costs $12.44 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
  • Audio–  Publisher : Tantor Audio (August 13, 2024), Listening Length : 9 hours and 50 minutes, ASIN : B0DCCWRMJS, it costs $0.00 with membership on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Front cover of hardback format of the book Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson | Review of Glacial
Front cover of hardback format of the book Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the hardcover version of the book.

Amazon’s Description of Glacial

It took nearly sixty years for a meaningful climate change bill to run the political gauntlet from Capitol Hill to the Oval Office. Why?

From mavericks to party standard-bearers, U.S. Senators, members of the House of Representatives, and presidential candidates have campaigned for four decades espousing their intentions to address the impacts of climate change.

Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics is the first Inside-the-Beltway account to lay bare the machinations of what went wrong in Washington—how and why our leaders failed to act on climate change as mounting scientific evidence underscored the urgency to do so. Glacial tells a story of behind-the-scenes infighting and power struggles that blocked or derailed federal legislative progress on climate change, even in times of bipartisanship and with polls showing most Americans favored action.

The good news today is that public opinion is at its highest level of support for climate action, from corporate boardrooms embracing sustainability for business reasons to movements led by passionate younger generations who can’t afford to stand mute because it is they who will inherit the worst environmental catastrophes. If the missed opportunities in Washington are instructive, the path to doing so is clear. Our elected officials must use their offices not solely for the power and prestige it bestows upon them personally, but for the public good—and they must do so while there is still time.

My five-star review for Glacial

The Glacial Pace of Climate Policy

This book recounts the history of the politics around climate change starting with the LBJ administration and ending with the Biden administration. LBJ was the first commander in chief to warn his fellow Americans of a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

The author, Chelsea Henderson is a leader in the Eco-Right movement, basically Republicans for the Environment. Some well-known names in this movement are former secretary of state James Baker (under H.W. Bush), and the former secretary of state under Ronald Reagan, the late George Shultz, Bob Ingliss former Republican Congressman from South Carolina, the founders of RepublicEN, the Republican congressman Carlos Curbelo who founded the Climate Solutions Caucus in Congress together with Ted Deutch, Republican Utah Senator John Curtis, and George Mankiw a notable conservative economist.

It may come as a surprise to some that once upon a time the environment was not a divisive left versus right issue. Nixon signed into law the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act, and founded the Environmental Protection Agency. Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher led the ratification of the Montreal Protocol in 1987 – 1989 to phase out the global use of CFCs due to their detrimental effect on the ozone layer. As a result, emissions of ozone-depleting gases have fallen by 99 percent, and it saves an estimated 2 million lives from skin cancer every year. This was one of Ronald Reagans greatest successes and yet it has been mocked by some subsequent Republican Presidents.

The book also talks about the history of acid rain and our fight against that. Margaret Thatcher, a chemist, was very concerned about the greenhouse effect, or global warming, and so was George H.W. Bush and Reagan to some degree. Unfortunately, the words climate change has grown to be deeply polarizing due to decades long disinformation campaigns funded by fossil fuel companies and far right think tanks and talk show hosts.

Another factoid that might surprise readers is that in 1957, scientists working for Humble Oil, later known as ExxonMobil, sounded the alarm on the greenhouse effect / global warming caused by burning fossil fuels. However, the executive leadership decided to deride the type of work its own scientists had done. The same thing happened on later occasions and Exxon funneled a lot of money into anti-climate change think tanks.

As the evidence that carbon dioxide was causing the greenhouse effect (or global warming or climate change) became increasingly indisputable in the 1990’s the fossil fuel industry and far right think tanks, and conservative talk show hosts, started to push back on the science very hard, by spreading misinformation, insulting and attacking scientists, environmentalists, and politicians taking a stand they did not like. Koch industries, the American Petroleum Institute and the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which contrary to what the name seems to imply, opposed climate action, teamed up to fight climate action.

However, it was not only people on the right doing this. Democrat politicians from coal districts also opposed measures on global warming. Clinton and Gore tried make progress on the issue, but it became politically unworkable. The book explains what happened during the Contract with America episode, the Kyoto protocol, etc.

However, the issue of climate change was not purely a right versus left. Some Republican leaders such as Senator John McCain and Mitt Romney championed climate action (perhaps on and off and on again) and the George W. Bush administration contained both pro-fossil advocates such as Dick Cheney and those favoring action on climate change such as Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, Condoleezza Rice, Christine Todd Whitman, and Colin Powell.

Later during the Obama administration there was a climate change bill that was very close to passing, the Waxman-Markey bill. The bill passed the house but when it was going to be voted on in the Senate, Barbara Boxer (democrat) used her role as a committee chairman to change it and take it so far left that it became unpassable. She wasn’t against climate action, on the contrary, but she thought it would work.

I can add that the Tea Party, which had started out to oppose the national debt, but later focused on the culture war and opposed climate action made climate action more difficult. Well, it did not help that the oil and gas industry spent 175 million dollars lobbying against the bill in less than a year whilst environmental advocates spent only 22.4 million dollars lobbying for it, despite that being a record effort for environmental advocates.

The end of the book focuses on the Biden administration and the Clean Energy Tax Credits in the Inflation Reduction Act. This part of the book reads like a thriller because it was held up by one man, Joe Manchin, the Democrat Senator from West Virginia, who was pressured from all sides and kept changing his mind, until he finally decided to support it. As of very recently, a few days ago, those Tax Credits have been reversed. The history of action on climate change marches on.

By reading this book you will learn about a lot of people and their stories, politicians and scientists, who became embroiled in the climate change issue, for or against, George E. Brown, Dr. Roger Revelle, Dr. James Hansen, Katherine Hayhoe, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Rafe Pomerance, Speth, Shimberg, Senator John Chafee, John McCain, Mathew Stembridge, Rick Boucher, John Warner, Alex Bozmoski, Bob Ingliss, Lindsey Graham, John Sununu, Rahm Emmanuel, Congressman Joe Barton, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Scott Pruitt, Lee Iacocca, Senator Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Myron Ebell, and many others. You will also learn about terms that relates to the American form of Democracy, the filibuster, budget reconciliation, appropriation, the parliamentarian, the various senate and house committees and caucuses, how bills are created and passed, an Omnibus bill, etc.

If you are interested in political history, the history of climate change politics, and the stories of the people involved, then this book is for you. The author explains all the terms used and it is not a complicated book. The book reads like a journey through political history, and you will learn thousands of facts and anecdotes. If you are a somewhat older reader, like me, you will be reminded of the events from the past and you will recognize people, and what they said, and the chaos, and the complexities, and all the hoopla, and you will think to yourself, what a crazy world politics is.

I also think that the book gives you a perspective of where the politics have been and where it might be going. Despite the many setbacks in the past, this book will give you reason for optimism. The younger generation both on the left and the right are more willing to accept the science and are more willing to embrace action on climate. Well, I guess it is their future. The world is moving forward, and it is decarbonizing, no matter what we do. Overall, I think the book is entertaining and fascinating and I highly recommend it.

Advance Praise for Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson on a blue and red background. The praise for the book is by former South Carolina Congressman Bob Ingliss and environmentalist and author C.K. Westbrook.
Back cover of hardback format of the book Glacial: The Inside Story of Climate Politics by Chelsea Henderson. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the paperback version of the book.

Other Posts Related to Climate Change, Environment or Clean Energy

An update : The Senate version of the Budget Reconciliation Bill passed today (7/1 – 2025). The phase out of the clean energy tax credits stayed, as I predicted, but the excise tax on renewables that the Senate previously added to the bill was removed in the last minute, which is good news for those who care about the environment.

To see the Super Facts click here

There are many environmental success stories

Super fact 46 : There are many serious threats to the environment that we need to take seriously. However, there are also many environmental success stories that we tend to forget about.

It is important to remember the environmental success stories because if we forget about them, it breeds despair, which in turn discourages people from acting and doing the right thing. Denial and Despair are two seemingly opposite emotional reactions that both hinder action on problems. I consider the existence of the many important environmental success stories a super fact because even though it is undeniably true that there are many environmental success stories, some truly amazing, it comes as a surprise to many.

Below I am listing six environmental success stories that I previously chose to be super facts. Super facts are important and true facts that are surprising and perhaps even shocking to many, or widely misunderstood, or disputed amongst the public, but not seriously disputed amongst the experts/scientists. Super facts are facts that are very special and that I think we should be aware of these facts. I should add that this is just a sample of environmental success stories. There are many more.

Super Fact 29:

EV Cars Indeed Emit Less Carbon Pollution

EV Cars emit less pollution than Internal Combustion Engine Cars, even considering manufacturing, disposal and many EV Cars being charged by dirty grids. The basic reason for this is the much higher efficiency of EV cars. EV cars emit significantly less greenhouse gases than internal combustion engines even considering construction of fuel production facilities, production of the car, the battery, and the fuel, vehicle operation and disposal. For more information click here.

The histogram graph shows that if you consider construction of facilities, manufacturing of vehicle and battery, production of fuel, vehicle operation as well as disposal the total average greenhouse gas emissions from EV cars is 52% less | There are many environmental success stories
Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions comparison of average gasoline car and average EV. This graph is taken from the US Department of Energy.

Super Fact 35:

Natural Disasters Kill Less People Now Than 100 Years Ago

Natural disasters kill a lot less people now compared to 100 years ago. That is despite a larger population and despite the fact that climate change has increased the frequency and intensity of many types of natural disasters. Surveys by Gap Minder show that this fact is quite surprising to people and therefore it is a super fact. To read more about this super fact click here.

The reason for the fewer deaths from natural disasters is not that there are fewer natural disasters. It is because we are now much better at predicting, handling and recovering from natural disasters. Our warnings systems, rescue systems and healthcare have improved significantly. The graph below from Gap Minder illustrates the decline in deaths from natural disasters.

The graph shows 300 to 400 thousand annual deaths at the beginning of the 20th century, then 971 thousand annual deaths in the 1930’s, then it continuously gets lower until the annual deaths in the 2010 to 2016 period is 72 thousand deaths per year.
This graph from the Gap Minder article shows the annual deaths from natural disasters.

Super Fact 41:

Emissions of ozone-depleting gases have fallen by 99 Percent

Largely thanks to the Montreal Protocol in 1987 the emissions of ozone-depleting gases have fallen by more than 99%, 99.7% to be exact, according to Our World in Data. This has resulted in the halt of the expansion of the ozone holes. The reduction in emissions of  ozone-depleting gases is saving millions of lives every year. To read more about this astounding success click here.

The NIH estimate that the Montreal Protocol has prevented 443 million cases of skin cancer worldwide, 2.3 million skin cancer deaths, and 63 million cases of cataracts in the United States alone. Globally, it is estimated that the Protocol has saved an estimated 2 million people from dying from skin cancer each year. The graph below is taken from Our World in Data.

Gases visualized in the diagram are CFCs, Halons, HCFCs, Carbon Tetrachloride, Methyl Bromide, Methyl Chloroform. The diagram shows a peak around the end of 1980’s | There are many environmental success stories
The phase out of six ozone depleting gases. Data source UN Environment Program (2023).

Super Fact 42:

Developed nations have successfully reduced carbon emissions

The developed nations (rich countries) have reduced their carbon emissions since the 1990’s despite continued GDP growth, even if we take offshore production into account. In addition, many developing countries have succeeded in reducing their emissions as well. Other fast-growing developing countries have flattened or at least slowed their increase in carbon emissions. Many countries have decoupled economic growth from CO2 emissions.

In other words, we do not need to increase carbon emissions or burn more fossil fuels to grow the economy. To read more about this promising development click here.

The graph shows three plotted graphs, a dark blue one showing GDP per capita, a light blue one showing UK carbon emissions per capita and a red one showing trade adjusted carbon emissions per capita. The GDP graph is increasing by more than 50% over 33 years and the CO2 emissions per capita graph is decreasing by almost 60% and the trade adjusted carbon emissions decline by almost 40%.
Data source: Data compiled from multiple sources by World Bank (2025); Global Carbon Budget (2024); Population based on various sources (2024). Note: GDP per capita is expressed in international dollars at 2021 prices. Graph taken from Our World in Data.

Super Fact 44:

Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by 95 percent in the US

Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by approximately 95 percent in the US since the 1970s. This significant reduction is primarily due to regulations like the Clean Air Act. Global sulfur dioxide pollution has also fallen but not as much. To read more about this success story click here. If you visit the aforementioned link you will also see that there are many other pollutants that we have successfully curtailed.

The graph shows a steep increase towards the end of the 19th century with a peak in 1973, followed by a steep decline |There are many environmental success stories
US sulfur dioxide pollution since 1800. US Emissions peaked in 1973. Data Source: Hoesly et al (2024) – Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). This graph is taken from this page in Our World In Data.

Super Fact 45:

Deforestation has peaked

Deforestation peaked back in the 1980s, meaning that is when it was worst. Deforestation has not stopped but the rate of deforestation has slowed as a result of government policies, corporate initiatives, and international agreements.

Overall, we are still losing forests. We had a 47-million-hectare loss of forest in the last decade, which is very bad, but that is better than the 151-million-hectare loss of forest in the 1980s. For temperate forests we have succeeded in reversing deforestation, which means that temperate forests are now gaining forest. To read more about this topic and how government policies, corporate initiatives, and international agreements have slowed the rate of deforestation you can click here. This change in deforestation rate is illustrated by the graph below, which is taken from Our World in Data.

The graphs show that during the 1700’s and the first half of the 1800’s the loss of forests was 19 million acres per decade. From the mid-1800’s to 1920 it was roughly 30 million acres per decade and from the 1920 and on it was 115 million acres per decade until the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s when it was 151 million acres per decade. Since then, it has fallen and in the last decade forest loss was 47 million acres | There are many environmental success stories
Decadal losses in global forest over the last three centuries. Decadal forest loss is measured as the average net loss every ten years, in hectares. This deforestation minus increases in forest area through afforestation. There is no single dataset that applies consistent or transparent methodology for deforestation over centuries. Two different datasets are therefore shown: these still shown the overall development and transition of forestation from temperate to tropical areas, but magnitudes should not be combined at the crossover point. Data sources: Pre-1995 data from Williams (2006). The second series is based on data from UN FAO Global Forest Resources.

Note : I am going on a trip with family and will return next Tuesday (5/27). During this time will not do any blogging. I love comments but I will respond to comments when I come back.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Deforestation peaked back in the 1980s

Super fact 45 : Deforestation peaked back in the 1980s, meaning that is when it was worst. Deforestation has not stopped but the rate of deforestation has slowed as a result of government policies, corporate initiatives, and international agreements.

The rate of global deforestation has slowed significantly since the 1980s. Overall we are still losing forests. We had a 47-million-hectare loss of forest in the last decade, which is very bad, but that is better than the 151-million-hectare loss of forest in the 1980s. For temperate forests we have succeeded in reversing deforestation and temperate forests are now gaining forest. To read more about how government policies, corporate initiatives, and international agreements have slowed the rate of deforestation you can click here, or here, or here.

Aerial photo of a forest. The upper left side shows lot of green trees whilst the lower right side is brown
Amazon rainforest illegal deforestation landscape. Aerial view of trees cut and burned to make land for agriculture and cattle pasture in Amazonas, Brazil. Asset id: 2471967219 by PARALAXIS

This is a super fact because we get a lot of bad news about deforestation, and we should, it is still a big problem. However, we are making progress and because of our negativity bias as well as that of the media, we tend to miss the story about the progress. Therefore, the fact that we are making progress comes as a surprise to many people.

The graphs show that during the 1700’s and the first half of the 1800’s the loss of forests was 19 million acres per decade. From the mid-1800’s to 1920 it was roughly 30 million acres per decade and from the 1920 and on it was 115 million acres per decade until the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s when it was 151 million acres per decade. Since then, it has fallen and in the last decade forest loss was 47 million acres | Proof that deforestation peaked back in the 1980s
Decadal losses in global forest over the last three centuries. Decadal forest loss is measured as the average net loss every ten years, in hectares. This deforestation minus increases in forest area through afforestation. There is no single dataset that applies consistent or transparent methodology for deforestation over centuries. Two different datasets are therefore shown: these still shown the overall development and transition of forestation from temperate to tropical areas, but magnitudes should not be combined at the crossover point. Data sources: Pre-1995 data from Williams (2006). The second series is based on data from UN FAO Global Forest Resources Assessments. The graph comes from Our World in Data – Research and data to make progress against the world’s largest problems.

Peak Agricultural Land

There is one aspect to this story which both explains part of the reduction in deforestation but also provides additional hope for the future and that is that even though the world produces more food than ever, the amount of land we use for doing that is falling. Global land use for agriculture has peaked and is now falling. There has been a global decoupling of agricultural land and food production. I should explain that agricultural land is the total amount of arable land that is used to grow crops, and pasture used to raise livestock. That global land use for agriculture has peaked is illustrated in the graph below.

The graph shows a green line chart representing global agricultural land use and an orange line chart representing global agricultural production. The orange line graph keeps rising but the green line chart peaks and then starts going down | Evidence that deforestation peaked back in the 1980s
Global decoupling of agricultural land and food production. Agricultural land is the sum of cropland and pasture for grazing livestock. Production is measured in constant 2015 international dollars, which adjusts for inflation. Includes all crops and livestock. Data source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Our World in Data – Research and data to make progress against the World’s largest problems.

There are more trees now than 35 years ago (there’s a catch)

Another related good news story is that there are more trees in the world today than there were 35 years ago. A lot of the losses of forest in tropical areas have been compensated for by gains in Europe, North America and Asia. For example, tree planting programs in places like China have added a lot of trees as well as forests. In addition to tree planting programs climate change resulting in northern latitudes warming has resulted in temperate forests expanding.

However, this story is not as good as it sounds. There is a huge catch and that is that there is an important distinction between tree cover and forest cover. Tree cover refers to the total area covered by trees, while forest cover specifically refers to areas where trees form a forest ecosystem. Tree cover has increased but as you can guess from the graph above depicting global deforestation, the forest cover continues to decrease.

In addition, a lot of trees were planted for industrial timber plantations, mature oil palm estates and other specifically planted forests. These add to the global tree cover but not necessarily to biodiversity. Not all tree planting is equal.

So even though having more trees compared to 35 years ago is a good thing, it may not be as great as it sounds and does not contradict the fact that deforestation continues. This is important to point out because there are those who attempt to use the fact that we now have more trees to make the case that the talk about deforestation is a hoax. Don’t fall for that.

Summary

The good news is that even though deforestation is still happening the rate of it has slowed down. It peaked in the 1980s. This slowdown is largely due to government policies, corporate initiatives, and international agreements. An additional circumstance that aids in slowing deforestation is that the amount of land we use for agriculture is falling and we have passed peak land use for agriculture. Another positive situation is that we now have more trees than 35 years ago.

However, it is important to point out that does not mean that deforestation has been reversed. Tree cover and forest cover are not the same thing. The benefit of this is limited even though it is still a good thing to have more trees.

Environmental Success Stories

Aside from the success in reducing the rate of deforestation there is additional surprising, as well as good news regarding the environment.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by 95 percent in the US

Super fact 44 : Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by approximately 95 percent in the US since the 1970s. This significant reduction is primarily due to regulations like the Clean Air Act. Global sulfur dioxide pollution has also fallen but not as much.

Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas with the formula SO2. It has a pungent smell, which you notice after using matches. It is released naturally by volcanic activity and is produced as a by-product of burning sulfur-bearing fossil fuels and from metals refining. Sulfur dioxide is somewhat toxic to humans and by reacting with water it creates acid rain, which is a serious environmental problem.

The good news is that the Clean Air Act has driven technological advancements and the adoption of cleaner practices in industries that produce sulfur dioxide emissions. This has resulted in a drop of sulfur dioxide pollution in the US by 95% according to EPA and Statista and 94% according to Our World In Data. Statista is a pay site, so I am not going to link to it. Below is a graph from Our World In Data showing the reduction in sulfur dioxide pollution in the US.

The graph shows a steep increase towards the end of the 19th century with a peak in 1973, followed by a steep decline | Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by 95 percent in the US
US sulfur dioxide pollution since 1800. Data Source: Hoesly et al (2024) – Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). This graph is taken this page in Our World In Data.<<Link-5>> US Emissions peaked in 1973.

I should mention that by clicking this link you can visit the graph above Our World in Data and select different countries and regions and play around with the settings.

Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Worldwide

The worldwide emissions peaked in 1979 and fell sharply after that even though the progress (reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions) has not been as spectacular as in the US. Worldwide reductions are around 48%. Again, by visiting the Our World In Data page you can play around with the graph and the settings and view different countries and regions. This is an additional source visualizing the data.

The graph shows a steep increase in sulfur dioxide emissions around 1950 with a peak in 1979, followed by a steep decline, but not as dramatic as for the US
Sulfur dioxide pollution worldwide since 1800. Data Source: Hoesly et al (2024) – Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). This graph is taken this page in Our World In Data. Worldwide Emissions peaked in 1979.
This graph shows the sulfur dioxide emissions for the world as well as for China and India. China follows the world wide emissions but on a smaller scale whilst India has steady increase in emissions that stabilized/peaked in 2023 | Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by 95 percent in the US
Sulfur dioxide pollution worldwide since 1800 with three major polluters included. The United States is in red, China in green and India in blue. The graph for India is the one corresponding to the least overall pollution but it has no reduction. Data Source: Hoesly et al (2024) – Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). This graph is taken this page in Our World In Data.

Good News with Respect to Pollution

Sulfur dioxide emissions have gone down worldwide, which is good news. However, sulfur dioxide is not the only pollutant that we have succeeded in reducing. The graph below demonstrates that the US has also made great progress in reducing Nitrogen Oxides pollution, Carbon Monoxide, Black Carbon, and Non-methane volatile organic compounds. We have not been as successful with reducing Ammonia pollution.

However, according to Google AI sulfur dioxide, followed by Nitrogen Oxides pollution, Carbon Monoxide, and Black Carbon are the most serious pollutants. The graph below is taken from this page in Our World in Data.

The graphs for nitrogen oxide emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions , carbon monoxide and non-methane organic compounds pollution peak around 1970’s and then show a sharp downturn. The graph for black carbon peak around 1920 and then show a sharp downturn whereas the graph for ammonia does not peak. All graphs are in red.
US nitrogen oxide emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions, carbon monoxides, black carbon, ammonia and non-methane organic compounds pollution since 1750. Data Source: Hoesly et al (2024) – Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). This graph is taken from this page in Our World In Data.

The graphs for the world do not look as impressive. However, even in this case it looks like some progress has been made. Four graphs have peaked and are turning downwards, and one graph has flattened but unfortunately the graph for ammonia pollution is still heading upwards.

It should be noted that these pollutants are more or less local in the sense that they affect the polluting country and/or surrounding countries the most, whilst the climate change / global warming effect from carbon dioxide and other long lasting greenhouse gases tend to affect the entire planet.

The graphs for nitrogen oxide emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions , carbon monoxide peak around 1970’s and then show a small downturn. The graph for black carbon peak around 2020 and then shows a small downturn. The graph for non-methane organic compounds pollution flattened around 2020 whereas the graph for ammonia keeps growing. All graphs are in blue | Sulfur dioxide pollution has fallen by 95 percent in the US
Worldwide nitrogen oxides emissions, sulfur dioxide emissions, carbon monoxide emissions, black carbon, ammonia and non-methane organic compounds pollution since 1750. Data Source: Hoesly et al (2024) – Community Emissions Data System (CEDS). This graph is taken from this page in Our World In Data.

Aside from the success in reducing these pollutants there is more good news.

To see the other Super Facts click here