I’ll be the first to admit that I’m a bit biased on this issue. I spent four years working for Greenpeace, mostly in HR, but well, a work environment like that is bound to leave some trace.
So yes, I do believe that this is real, and a threat. Others don’t. Depending on what, or who, your sources are, you can accumulate contradicting statistics and reports, and with a little effort can probably knock up a solid case for both viewpoints. If you start questioning your sources, and maybe their motives, things look quite a bit different, but that would require a little thinking and a look behind a Facebook meme, and that’s more than one can ask of a lot of people these days.
What it all boils down to, though, is common sense. When I was a kid in school, our English teacher taught us a British saying. ‘When in doubt, don’t.’
I suppose I failed to make that my motto. But I digress.
The action the ‘don’t’ in this case refers to, is, the destruction/pollution/however-you-want-to-call-it of our planet. Which is a pretty big ‘don’t’. Because we might want to keep it, given we’re unlikely to get a new one. Which is why we should try to apply common sense to the riddle. So maybe we don’t know for sure if climate change, global warming, forest decline, desertification, whatever, really exist. The debate exists, which proves that all of it might do as well. Might do. Which means there’s doubt. And when in doubt…
Still not convinced? 
Okay, how about that: Conspiracy theories. Hidden agendas. Booooh.
Seriously. Follow the money. Ask yourself this: Who is more likely to have a vested interest (as in interested in how much money they can stuff into the pockets of their vests) in whether or not public opinion is on their side? Environmental activists or oil companies? Scientists or conservative governments? Loggers devastating yet another acre of rainforest or the indigenous people just wanting to live there?
It’s not that difficult, is it?
Angelika Rust 