This is an excerpt from Michael Shellenberger's latest book, which I haven't read and can't assess based on the linked content alone.

As for that content...

Shellenberger's central claim rings true - no, we're not all going to spontaneously combust (or something) in 2030 if we haven't met emissions reduction goals by that time. Taken at face value, though, it seems like any obvious, even unnecessary point - who actually thinks the world will end in a decade? He cites AOC (the US politician) being recorded as saying, "The world is going to end in twelve years if we don't address climate change" and the existence of Extinction Rebellion movement as proof that some people really do believe the apocalypse is nigh. The problems with this argument are that:

* a.) AOC is a politician who employed hyperbole for the sake of political rhetoric; she doesn't actually think the world is 'ending.'

* b.) Notwithstanding the anecdote, featuring an Extinction Rebellion member, included in the article, the Extinction Rebellion (so named in response to the so-called sixth mass extinction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction)) doesn't exist because its members think they will be dead in ten years.

Although he didn't exactly extend the same level of good faith to those mentioned above, I'll assume that Shellenberger's goal in writing this 'article' was to reduce the anxiety of those harboring excessive fears regarding climate change (rather than to 'prove' an obvious fact that nearly everyone already believes). I'll also assume that his target audience is the broader climate movement, rather than climate deniers looking for any 'evidence' they can use to bolster their position.

Along those lines, he makes some reasonable points:

* Those living in wealthy, stable nations have less to fear from climate change than the less fortunate

* Increased levels of population and development make present-day natural disasters more costly than past disasters, regardless of any changes in the frequency or intensity of natural disasters (he denies any such changes, FWIW)

* The global poor are more concerned with just getting by than the long-term implications of climate change (he uses the example of Bernadette, a Congolese subsistence farmer, to make this point)

The article also includes some errors, omissions, or irrelevant claims that weaken his argument (IMHO):

* Despite the fact that climate dynamics are nonlinear, he implies that current impacts (or lack thereof) show that projections of future impacts are exaggerated (here he's contradicted by the same IPCC reports he cites throughout the piece)

* He seems to claim, without context or justification, that economic growth is *the* solution to Bernadette's problems, but fails to elaborate in any way (Why hasn't the status quo produced an outcome where she has economic stability, what in the DRC does he expect to change, how does economic growth relate to climate change and/or the environment, could the earth support 8 billion people with American levels of consumption, why is he pushing economic growth in an article about the climate (non)apocalypse?)

* He appears to view climate change as if it exists in a vacuum, not as one component of a complex system that's linked to other complex systems (while many people concerned with climate change are also concerned with related environmental issues such as biodiversity loss, resource depletion, pollution, water scarcity, etc., the article only seems to address the increase in global temperature due to the buildup of greenhouse gases)

Overall, I would agree with the article's, perhaps superficial, message that (some) people should be less anxious about climate change, but found this book excerpt otherwise unconvincing. It's mix of anecdotes, cherry-picked data-sources, and - when convenient - inconsistent nods to the scientific consensus. Perhaps this shouldn't be surprising - it's essentially an opinion piece, not a lit. review, but I'd like to expect more of supposedly science-based nonfiction. This excerpt felt a bit like a vessel for (at least what I assume is) the author's ideological prejudices, as opposed to a dispassionate look at a specific topic. Distilled down to its most basic claims, it seems to be advocating reduced concern for the climate (and environment, by extension - I guess?) and an increased focus on economic growth. One can certainly make arguments for those priorities, but this excerpt really didn't do that. It just threw them into the mix after making a completely different argument. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, or perhaps the full book would address some of these deficiencies, but I'm not left with the impression that taking the effort to find out would be worthwhile.