The use of fear as a driver of environmental policies: For climate activists, ‘there is no need for science, for data, for logic’

The “Global Catastrophe Recap: First Half 2025” report, published in July by Aon's Catastrophe Insight team, reveals that the largest economic losses in the first half were due to the Palisades and Eaton wildfires in California, the Myanmar earthquake and multiple outbreaks of severe convective storms (SCS) in the U.S.

According to preliminary estimates, the first-half economic losses in the U.S. reached at least $126 billion, above the first-half average since 2000 at $41 billion.

In contrast, economic losses in all other regions remained below long-term averages for the first half, the report revealed.

At least 7,700 people lost their lives as a result of natural disasters during the first half of 2025, well below the average of 37,250 so far this century. Most of the deaths this year (5,456) were due to the Myanmar earthquake.

This means that some 2,200 people died worldwide in extreme weather-related disasters during the first six months of the year.

Some context

Roger A. Pielke Jr. an American political scientist and nonresident fellow at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, has checked this data against the figures from the EM-DAT of catastrophe losses, overseen by the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) in Belgium.

According to the political scientist, the CRED also shows a quite low recurrence of deaths from natural catastrophes in the first half of 2025, figures that are even lower than those of Aon.

According to the EM-DAT figures cited by Pielke, in the January to June range from 2000 to 2024, deaths are dominated by years with major weather events: 2008 Nargis Cyclone (138,000 deaths, Indian Ocean); 2010 heat wave (56,000 deaths, Russia); 2022 heat wave (just under 50,000 deaths, Europe).

"’d go so far as to suggest that it is likely that the first half of 2025 has seen the fewest deaths related to extreme weather of any half year in recorded human history, given how large losses were in decades and centuries past," says Pielke.

For the political scientist, the incredible advances in reducing the total number of deaths from catastrophes and the even more drastic reduction of mortality rates is one of the most incredible achievements of humanity, subject to changes and variability of extreme weather conditions.

Fear as a driver of political change

Pielke asserts that if nothing has been heard about this good news it is because the climate advocacy sector considers their mission is to scare people in order to drive political change.

The political scientist quotes the example of CNN's Harry Enten, who said last week:

"Climate activists have failed to make the case on climate change. Despite all the bad weather, just 40% of Americans are greatly worried about climate change. The same as in 2000. The % who worry about being a natural disaster victim has dropped from 38% in 2006 to 32% now."

For Pielke Jr, "Enten apparently views the job of climate activists is to make people 'greatly worried' about climate change. Enten is far from alone in this view."

The Covering Climate Now association of more than 500 media outlets used similar tactics Thursday, the political scientist says:

"Americans Are Concerned About Climate Change—but They Should Be Afraid. Americans still don’t comprehend how imminent, dangerous, and far-reaching the threat is—and journalists are partly to blame."

According to Pielke Jr, there is also a type of climate evangelism that seeks people's repentance.

Climate evangelism was the explicit message shared last week on LinkedIn by Katheryn Hayhoe, a senior scientist at The Nature Conservancy and former director of the U.S. National Climate Assessment, the author says.

Hayhoe cited and endorsed Pope Leo XIV's sermon last week:

"We must pray for the conversion of so many people, inside and out of the church, who still don’t recognize the urgency of caring for our common home,” he said. “We see so many natural disasters in the world, nearly every day and in so many countries, that are in part caused by the excesses of being human, with our lifestyle."

In Pielke's eyes, "There is no need for science, for data, for logic" for climate activists.

The author claims that fear of extreme weather will lead people to demand changes in energy policies. In contrast, at no time in human history have humans had less risk of death related to extreme weather and climate.

"Smart energy and climate policies, as I’ve long argued, make good sense. Climate evangelism centered on scaring people about the weather does not make sense — in politics, policy, or science," Pielke Jr. says.