In a recent Energy Bad Boys article arguing that in opposition to the belief that the US environment is getting worse, the authors assert that “[a]ll measurable environmental quality metrics have shown consistent improvement over the last 25 years”. After supporting this assertion with some (limited) data, the authors go on to conclude that all Americans should take solace in the fact that their beliefs in a degrading biosphere are misplaced/misinformed and, at least with respect to air pollution, should head outside and breathe easier. As the introduction suggests, people are being propagandised to hold wrong beliefs, especially along partisan lines, because the ‘facts’ support the opposite conclusion: everything is fine and improving as far as the environment goes.

The shortcomings in this piece–meant to reassure readers that great strides are being made in addressing environmental concerns–are plentiful. From its narrow focus upon air pollution to its overlooking of the impact of US off-shoring of industry to the global aspects of the planet’s biosphere degradation, the authors significantly oversimplify an extremely complex issue and state the opposite of what a critical and more encompassing perspective would lead to.

Let me now summarise a handful of the shortcomings in the article’s analysis.

First, while making the bold assertion that the evidence shows improvements taking place in all measurable metrics, the analysis rests exclusively upon certain air pollutants within the United States as provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Obviously, the environment encompasses far more aspects than those few the article uses to support its conclusion. Where are the metrics for water pollution? Soil contamination? Biodiversity loss? Toxic chemical pollution? Plastic pollution? Ecosystem integrity? Climate system stability?

The EPA itself has published analyses that a number of areas are in dire need of improvement and continue to be under threat. In their 2024 report, for example, they point out that more than 700,000 miles of US waterways and 11 million acres of lakes remain impaired by pollution. Also highlighted are declines in insect abundance, bird populations, and pollinator health. The Energy Bad Boys have cherry-picked an exceedingly narrow set of data to support their (preconceived) conclusion.

Second, the well-known off-shoring of US industry is completely left out of the analysis. While the metrics the article cites may be real, the significant relocation of American-based industrial production has resulted in massive imports of embodied emissions (data that the EPA has pointed out) that get left off the ledger providing a distorted perspective of reality. It is an incomplete accounting that, again, supports a faulty conclusion.

Third, the article relies on select air pollutants that have been successfully regulated but omit other greenhouse gases that make a significant contribution to atmospheric overloading and thus anthropogenic climate impacts. Where is the data on carbon dioxide? While calculated CO₂ emissions have fallen recently (primarily due to shifts from coal to gas and renewables growth), the US is still the second-largest annual and largest historical global emitter.

Finally, and perhaps most damningly, is that without any evidence whatsoever, the authors assert that “all measurable environmental quality metrics” show improvement. This is demonstrably false. From freshwater nutrient loads that fuel toxic algae blooms to the depletion of major groundwater aquifers to the increasing microplastic pollution from pole-to-pole to significant biodiversity loss to expanding oceanic dead zones, counter-examples–particularly at the global level–abound. To say that the conclusion of the article is entirely predicated upon cherry-picked data is not an exaggeration.

Another obvious fault in the article is that the authors assert the gap between public perception and their air-quality data is due to the public being mistaken; remember, everything is fine. This is problematic in that personal opinions tend to be greatly influenced by lived experience beyond air pollutants. Extreme weather events. Disappearing natural spaces. Relentless news cycles highlighting ecological collapse. People may be responding based upon datasets outside the narrow one picked by the authors and dismissing such concern as partisan ‘perception’ and asserting all is well is a case of ‘don’t miscompute’ being turned into ‘don’t look up’.

Overall, the article is using a narrow corridor of evidence–specific air pollutants within the US–to create a story that everything is just fine within the environmental realm of the planet. This is a strategy commonly used by interest groups that aim to denigrate environmental concerns. By ignoring the broader array of evidence indicating biosphere degradation, an exceedingly misleading portrait of reality is painted. A genuine assessment of environmental improvement would demand an extremely more honest and comprehensive ledger than is used in this article. It is propaganda presented as a comprehensive analysis. Exactly what the authors accuse the populace of swallowing to believe that the environmental picture is grim.

After completing this Contemplation I thought it might be useful to look into the connections between the authors and the hydrocarbon-energy industry, if any existed. Here’s what I discovered…

The ‘Energy Bad Boys’ (EBB) appear connected through direct, long-term employment within the hydrocarbon energy-funded advocacy network. Their current work seems to be a shift to an ‘independent hub’ within a broader network connected to the industry.

For a number of years the authors were associated with the Center of the American Experiment (CAE) which is described as advocates for conservatism and free market principles, with its primary funding coming from the Bradley, Charles G. Koch, and John M. Olin foundations. They were also connected to The Heartland Institute (THI) that supports conservative and libertarian philosophies and rejects any scientific evidence regarding climate change. THI is infamous for working with Philip Morris during the 1990s to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke. It receives funding from a number of oil and gas companies as well as foundations connected with conservative philosophies such as the Bradely, John M. Olin, Charles G. Koch, Castle Rock, and Sarah Scaife. [Note: these institutes are increasingly relying upon anonymous Donors Trust conduits which are much more difficult to connect back to corporate interests.]

In 2024, the EBB founded the non-profit Always On Energy Research which models the costs and reliability of energy policy for state-level clients, often to fight EPA rules via legal challenges. As a non-profit, their firm depends upon tax-deductible donations (dark money?) and commissions from state governments for their work.

Their work has been used in lawsuits and legal challenges against EPA rules on power plant emissions, and they’ve taken credit for authoring a state bill that favoured coal and gas plants. They often cite the work of the Institute for Energy Research, a Big Oil-funded organisation focused upon global energy markets.

Energy Bad Boys is not an ‘objective’ analyser. It is a ‘non-profit’ deeply embedded in the hydrocarbon-energy industry and funded by those who are heavily invested in the industry.

What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:

“Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better. Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.”

If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).

Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).

If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.

Cost (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99

Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps… https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.

You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.