The goal of this blog is to create a list of super facts. Important facts that are true with very high certainty and yet surprising, misunderstood, or disputed by many. This blog aims to be challenging, educational, and fun, without it being clickbait. I determine veracity using evidence, data from reputable sources and longstanding scientific consensus. Prepare to be challenged (I am). Intentionally seek the truth not confirmation of your belief.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Natural Disasters Kill Less People Now Than 100 Years Ago. We have gotten much better at protecting lives in natural disasters and less people die in natural disasters despite the increase in frequency, severity and cost of certain natural disasters.
Super fact 43 : The United States has emitted more CO2 than any other country to date, around 400 billion tons since 1751. It is responsible for 25% of historical emissions. Click here.
But what about China? That is 12.7%, or around half. This is surprising information to many Americans, yet it is true, and therefore a super fact. In the US it is very common to blame China for our carbon emissions. In China they blame the US. In Europe they blame the US and China. Who is right? It turns out that the blame game is complicated and futile.
Carbon Emissions Around the World
Who should we blame the most for our carbon emissions?
On the other hand, the US carbon emissions per capita (14.3 ton) is considerably larger than that of China (8.4 ton). China has 1.4 billion people after all and the US only 340 million people.
On the other hand, China used to be very poor and is quickly catching up to our standard of living with the help of fossil fuels, just like the western world once did.
It should also be noted that the countries that are emitting the most carbon emissions per capita are several smaller developing (third world) countries including Palau, Qatar, Kuwait, Brunei, New Caledonia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Trinidad and Tobago, Gibraltar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, etc.
On the other hand, according to this analysis presented in the Guardian, the Netherlands has the highest per capita historical emissions, followed by the UK in second place. The analysis calculates the national cumulative emissions from 1850 per person, based on today’s population, among countries with populations of at least 1 million.
In other words, if you want to blame another country for the carbon emissions, take your pick, well your cherry pick. Why should we do something about our carbon emissions when X is worse? Those who want no action on the global warming / climate change problem love the blame game. Like denial or despair, which are both irrational positions, the blame game hinders action. The blame game can also get very complicated and contentious.
The graph shows the fossil fuel emissions (in carbon dioxide equivalents) per capita from 1750 to 2023 for the World, the United States, Canada, China, European Union, India, South Africa, United Kingdom, and Kenya. Notice that the United Kingdom dominated the emissions in the 1700’s and 1800’s. Data source: Global Carbon Budget (2024); Population based on various sources (2024). The graph is from Our World in Data .
Note regarding the graph above: By clicking here you can find this graph and then select to display any set of countries or regions. Have fun experimenting.
Note regarding Fossil emissions: Fossil emissions measure the quantity of carbon emissions (CO2) emitted from the burning of fossil fuels, and directly from industrial processes such as cement and steel production. Fossil CO2 includes emissions from coal, oil, gas, flaring, cement, steel, and other industrial processes. Fossil emissions do not include land use change, deforestation, soils, or vegetation.
Overview of Cumulative Carbon Emissions
As you can see in the graph below the cumulative carbon emissions from 1751 to 2017 are 25% for the United States, 22% for the EU (28 countries), 12.7% for China, 6% for Russia, 4% for Japan, and 3% for India. If you count the entire continent of Europe, you get 33% for Europe.
Figures for the 28 countries in the European Union have been grouped as the EU-28 since international targets and negotiations are typically set as a collaborative target between EU countries. Values may not sum up to 100% due to rounding. Data Source: Calculated by Our World in Data from the Global Carbon Project (GCP) and Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center (CDIAC). This is a visualization from Our World in Data, where you can find data and research on how the world is changing.
Super fact 34: Climate Scientists agree that Global Warming or if you call it Climate Change is happening, and that it is caused by us primarily because of our burning of fossil fuels. There is a long-standing scientific consensus on these two facts because the evidence is conclusive. Typically, studies show an agreement of at least 97% or 98% among climate scientists.
This is a super fact because surveys show that this is not what the public believes and yet it is true. The public incorrectly believes that there is a large disagreement among scientists on this topic. A note, to understand why the evidence is conclusive as to why global warming is happening and is caused by us click here.
Note : I will use the term “global warming” in this review. Whether you call the phenomenon climate change, climate disruption, or global heating, is not important.
The Scientific Consensus
This extensive survey from 2013 of 12,000 climate papers (papers published over two decades) by Dana Nuccitelli and Cook, etc., concluded that 97.1% of climate scientists endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
They also did a science author self-rating which concluded that 97.2% of climate scientists endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. Another conclusion from the survey was that the consensus had increased from around 90%, perhaps less, in the early 1990’s.
A later review of six independent, peer-reviewed studies examining the scientific consensus about global warming have concluded that between 90% and 100% of climate scientists are convinced human-caused global warming is happening. A more recent study (2021) found that as many as 98% of climate scientists are convinced global warming is happening and is human-caused. Numerous other surveys have concluded the same thing.
People’s Beliefs About Global Warming
This 2024 survey from Yale University show that most Americans (61%) understand that global warming is mostly human caused. By contrast, 28% think it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment. Most Americans (58%) <<Link-6>> understand that most scientists think global warming is happening. This percentage has trended generally upward since this survey began in 2008. By contrast, about one in five (22%) think there is a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether global warming is happening.
The green graph corresponds to “most scientists think global warming is happening (%).” The black graph corresponds to “there is a lot of disagreement among scientists (%)”. The yellow graph corresponds to “Most scientists think global warming is NOT happening (%)”. Graph taken from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
However, only one in five Americans (20%) understand that nearly all climate scientists (more than 90%) think that human-caused global warming is happening. The aforementioned Dana Nuccitelli refers to this in his book Climatology versus Pseudoscience as the consensus gap. Again, this large discrepancy between public perception and reality makes the consensus gap a super fact. Research has shown that this discrepancy has a large impact on people’s other beliefs regarding global warming.
The question was, To the best of your knowledge what percentage of climate scientists think that human-caused global warming is happening? Graph taken from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
Why is there a Consensus Gap?
In his book Climatology versus Pseudoscience Dana Nuccitelli explains that a relatively small group of so-called climate skeptics, or more accurately called climate contrarians have received a lot of attention from media. Even though their science is bad, and they’ve published their error ridden papers in obscure or discredited journals, and the fact that their predictions have failed repeatedly many times over, they have had an enormous influence on public discourse. Conservative politicians, and many talk show hosts are blindly devoted to their falsehoods, whilst real scientists are being attacked.
It is not just rightwing media who are using them for their purposes, but mainstream media are giving the contrarians undue attention as well. Sensationalism is one issue. A science contrarian claiming that all the climate scientists are wrong, and that he is the only one who finally got it right is a lot more interesting of a story than a repeat of the consensus. Another issue is false balance. Journalist should not feel that they must give equal time to evidence-based science and nonsense, but that is often the case. To read my review of this book click here.
The Oregon Petition
I am mentioning the Oregon petition because I fell for it myself. The Oregon petition was an official looking petition circulated by climate contrarians, claiming that there is no evidence that human-caused global warming will cause catastrophic heating of earth’s atmosphere and disruption of earth’s climate, and that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere would even be beneficial for plants and animals. It got an impressive number of signatures, 32,000 after some years.
However, it turned out that the signatories rarely had climate expertise, and were not scientists, and the survey listed many falsified names such as the names of the Spice Girls and several fictional characters. Less than 200 of the signatories were climate researchers.
It was a con, but it was touted in a lot of media as the truth. I saw it over and over and I believed it. I was later surprised to learn that it was a con and that a scientific consensus existed on global warming / climate change. Learning that I had been bamboozled on this matter was one of the red flags that prompted me to start doing some fact checking on the issue global warming.
Super fact 33: Actions such as eating locally, buying organic produce, using paper straws, and recycling can be good for the environment but can also be worse for the environment and these actions often have a much smaller positive impact than alternative rarely considered actions. What are popular actions for the environment is often different from what is effective.
I consider this a super fact because the beliefs regarding what is good for the environment and what is bad for the environment and what has a significant impact and what has not, are often based on popular trends and culture rather than knowledge. We need to educate ourselves. Following trends is not the answer to good stewardship of the planet.
This content was generated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system. Asset id: 2531547331
Is Locally Grown Food Really Better for the Environment?
As I explained in this post eating locally is not necessarily ecological. Agricultural products that are grown off season or in non-native environments are often grown in greenhouses, which require a lot of energy and generate significantly more emissions than shipping the produce across oceans would. This is especially true for crops like tomatoes, cucumbers, mangoes and bananas, that require warmer climates to be grown in open fields.
From pexels.com by Julia Nagy.
In some cases, the crop requires significant water resources or chemical inputs to thrive and may not be suitable for warmer climates, for example, apples. Some crops, like avocados or almonds require a lot of water but despite that they are grown in dry places like California (80% of California’s freshwater is used for agriculture). From an environmental perspective it would be better to grow these crops in a suitable environment and then transport them.
Is Eating Organic Really Good for the Environment?
As explained in this post eating organic is not necessarily ecological. Despite strong public perception of organic agriculture producing better environmental outcomes, conventional agriculture often performs better on environmental measures including land use, greenhouse gas emissions, and pollution of water bodies. There are, however, some contexts where organic agriculture may be better for the environment.
The graph below gives an overview of the environmental impact of various types of crops grown organically and conventionally. As you can see organic crop often require double as much land compared to conventionally grown crops. It is complicated.
Shown is the relative environmental impact of organic and conventional agriculture across various ecological and resource indicators based on a meta-analysis of 164 published life-cycle analyses (LCAs) across 742 agricultural systems. Roughly, lower in the graph means organic is better and higher up in the graph means conventional farming is better. Data source: Clark & Tilman (2017) – Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. In Environmental Research Letters. The data visualization is available at OurWorldinData.org<<Link-10>>. There you can find research and more visualizations on this topic. Licensed under CC BY-SA by the authors Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser.
What really matters though is the type of food you eat, not whether it is organic or not. For example, beef (from beef herd) causes emissions 188 times larger than nuts do for the same amount of protein provided. Another thing to note is that if you eat 300 steaks per year you will have a 100 times larger environmental impact from your meat eating compared to someone who eats 3 steaks per year. You don’t have to become a vegetarian to have a smaller environmental impact but quantity matters.
Is Recycling Important?
The common perception that recycling is one of the best things you can do for the environment is not correct. Its impact is often not very large and if not done properly it can be counterproductive. If you throw a greasy pizza box in the recycling, you can ruin the entire batch.
Surveys across 21,000 adults in 30 countries showed that the two actions among twelve that people believed saved the most greenhouse gases were recycling (59%) and upgrading lightbulbs (36%). As it turns out, those two saved the least greenhouse gases among the twelve options. The option saving the most greenhouse gases among the 12 was giving up an SUV, which saved 18 times as much greenhouse gases as recycling. 17% of respondents picked that one.
According to Our World in Data (and the book Not the End of the World page 114<<Link-6>>), which is based on this research, giving up an average SUV for a sedan would save 3.6 metric ton, or 22.5% of the carbon emissions for the average American. Switching to a plant-based diet would save 2.2 metric ton per person, or 13.8%. Recycling comes in at a savings of 0.2 metric tons according to the same data. EPAs estimates are slightly higher but still low in comparison.
Plastic straws versus paper straws
Producing a plastic straw requires 39 kilojoules of energy and produces 1.5 grams of carbon dioxide emissions. However, producing a paper straw requires 96 kilojoules of energy and produces 4.1 grams of carbon dioxide emissions. So, plastic straws are better for the environment from that perspective. However, this could be compared to a typical passenger vehicle, which emits about 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year according to EPA. That corresponds to more than 3 million plastic straws and more than one million paper straws.
According to the same article the average passenger vehicle emits about 400 grams of CO2 per mile. So, driving just one mile corresponds to hundreds of plastic straws and paper straws.
One advantage of paper straws is that they are easier to recycle, at least under ideal circumstances. Unfortunately, they often get soggy, and recycling plants don’t want that so they often throw them out. Another advantage is that paper straws decompose and don’t end up in our ocean.
However, not only are straws very small items, most of the plastic pollution in the ocean does not come from north America(1%) or Europe (1%). Paper straws versus plastic straws seem like a complex riddle but it may not be an important one. Whether you drive more or drive less is probably a lot more important.
Plastic bags versus paper bags
As with plastic straws versus paper straws plastic bags versus paper bags is a complicated question. From an environmental perspective they both have advantages and disadvantages. Plastic bags are less carbon intensive to produce, are easier to reuse several times, and the production of plastic bags require on average four times less energy than the production of paper bags.
On the other hand, paper bags are decomposable and easier to recycle. However, the chemicals and fertilizers used in producing paper bags create additional harm to the environment. It is a complicated question.
Plastic Ocean pollution. Whale Shark filter feeds in polluted ocean, ingesting plastic. Asset id: 1120768061 by Rich Carey
Having a Significant and Positive Impact on the Environment
Some of the allegedly sustainable practices and actions mentioned above are counter productive and others have a very small effect, for example, carbon emissions savings that are a few grams. According to the “Our World Data” and the book “Not the End of the World” page 114, a compilation of data research, some actions that you can take that will significantly reduce carbon emissions are (savings in metric tons per year, for flight it is per trip):
Giving up an SUV 3.6 tons
Go car free (average car) 2.4 tons
Switch to plant-based diet 2.2 tons
Avoid transatlantic flights 1.6 tons
Buy green energy 1.5 tons
Switch to electric car (from average sedan) 1.2 tons
Switch from electric car to none 1.2 tons
Avoid medium flight 0.6 tons (1,700 miles each way going and returning)
Laundry in cold water 0.25 tons
Hand-dry clothing 0.2 tons
Recycle 0.2 tons
Upgrade light bulbs 0.1 tons
As you can see in the graphs below, the largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions in the World and in the United States is electricity and heat. Unfortunately, the composition of the electric grid is something we as consumers have very little control over. We can save energy, get solar panels for our roof, or buy our electricity from green energy companies, but we cannot easily change the composition of the grid. Energy companies and politicians must do that.
However, we can make our voices heard by calling and writing to our representatives. This might be the single most impactful action that you as an individual can take. Your congressman, senator, or state legislator will probably not read your letter. They have hundreds of thousands or millions of constituents and get lots of letters every day. What is likely to happen is that a staff member will skim the letter and note the concern in a database.
Just make sure that your letter is politely written so it does not go in the wastebasket. Also make sure that you are a constituent. Writing to Ted Cruz when you live in Florida is not going to have an impact. They are interested in finding out what the concerns of their constituents are and according to staff members and other information I have come across, this really has an impact.
Data source : Climate Watch (2024). Note : Land use emissions can be negative. OurWorldinData.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions| CC BYData source : Climate Watch (2024). Note : Land use emissions can be negative. OurWorldinData.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions| CC BY
Conclusion
The survey mentioned above showed that among the twelve environmental actions an individual could take, the one with the second to smallest positive impact was the one that the majority thought had the biggest positive impact, despite it having a relatively tiny impact. The actions that could really make a huge difference were hardly considered.
We, the public, are very bad at determining what is good or bad for the environment and what has a significant and positive impact or not, even though the data is out there and we easily can look it up. Maybe the biggest positive impact one could have on the environment is to look up the facts and get better educated.
Super fact 32: The common perception that recycling is one of the best things you can do for the environment is an exaggeration. Its impact is often not very large and if not done properly it can be counterproductive.
In general recycling is beneficial, because you conserve natural resources, reduce climate change, save energy and reduce waste and pollution. Battery recycling is particularly important since it reduces toxic waste and reduces the risk of a future shortage of certain minerals. Recycling is often viewed as a very important activity that everyone should participate in, and neighbors often shame those who fail to comply.
The shocking news is that even though recycling in general is good for the environment it may not be as beneficial as it is assumed. It turns out to be complicated. As you will see later, most people think that recycling is the most impactful action you can take as an individual to reduce carbon emissions, when in fact it is of very marginal importance. This is what made me consider this a super fact.
This content was generated by an Artificial Intelligence (AI) system. Asset id: 2531547331
Recycling and Greenhouse Gases
According to EPA recycling saves 193 million metric tons of carbon emissions, which sounds a lot until you consider that the US emit 6,343 million metric tons per year according to EPA making it 3%. According to this website consumers can save 732 kilograms of CO2 assuming they do the recycling correctly. This should be compared to the average carbon footprint for an American (US), which is 16 metric tons, making the savings for good recyclers 4.6%.
According to our World in Data (Not the End of the World page 114), based on this research, giving up an average SUV for a sedan would save 3.6 metric ton, or 22.5%. Switching to a plant-based diet would save 2.2 metric ton per person, or 13.8%. Actions saving more greenhouse gases than recycling that we as consumers can take, are for example: give up SUV, go car free, have a plant-based diet, avoid transatlantic flights, buy green energy, switch to electric car, switch from electric car to no car, avoid medium flights, laundry in cold water, and hand dry clothing.
Surveys across 21,000 adults in 30 countries showed that the two actions that people believed saved the most greenhouse gases were recycling (59%) and upgrading lightbulbs (36%). Upgrading lightbulbs have an even smaller effect than recycling. It is of course still a good action to take.
However, what this data demonstrates is that we are bad at guessing which actions are impactful. We need to get better informed and not make assumptions. It should be noted that the efficiency of the recycling efforts varies from country to country. Among the 32 developed countries for which there is data the United States ranks 25.
Recycling and Plastic Waste
Greenhouse gas emissions is certainly not the only issue to consider. What about plastic waste? As it turns out plastic is very difficult to recycle (depending on the kind of plastic) and according to the EPA less than 9% of plastic is recycled. According to Our World in Data and the book “Not the End of the World” by Hannah Ritchie the US and Europe have well managed landfills and good waste management systems that make our plastic problem less of an issue. That’s good news.
But what about the awful problem with plastic in the ocean? Plastic ending up in the ocean is indeed a bad problem. However, 81% of all plastic in the ocean come from Asia, and the rest mostly comes from Latin America. Only 1% come from the United States and 1% from Europe and Oceania. According to Scientific American 93% of plastic in ocean come from just 10 rivers. Eight of them are in Asia: the Yangtze; Indus; Yellow; Hai He; Ganges; Pearl; Amur; Mekong. Two are in Africa – the Nile and the Niger.
None of them are in North America or Europe. Therefore, if we in the developed world greatly improve our recycling of plastic, it would not make much of a difference with respect to the problem of plastic in the ocean. What we need to do is assist China, India and southeast Asia with improving their waste management systems.
Plastic Ocean pollution. Whale Shark filter feeds in polluted ocean, ingesting plastic. Asset id: 1120768061 by Rich Carey
Another issue to keep in mind is that uneducated consumers can do a lot of damage to the recycling process. For example, throwing a greasy pizza box into the recycling bin can ruin the entire batch. You are not just recycling incorrectly you are ruining the recycling efforts of your neighbors too. There are many ways to ruin the recycling process, by throwing items in the recycling that don’t belong there. Recycling requires consumers to pay attention to the instructions. It should also be noted that some companies have been found to ignore the recycling process and throw all recycled items in with the trash. There are also neighborhoods that don’t have recycling.
Conclusion
In summary, recycling may not be as great as it is often made out to be. You should still do it if you care about the environment. Just be aware that there are actions that you can take and that your government can take that are much more impactful.
One of the conclusions you can draw from this discussion is that if you are driving a big SUV or eating red meat every day you should probably abstain from shaming your neighbor for not recycling.
Super Facts 