Scan barcode
jorisvanmens's review against another edition
4.0
In this book, Shellenberger (having been a long time environmentalist himself) argues against climate alarmism and many forms of environmentalism, and in favor of a rational / humanist approach to environmental solutions.
He argues that many environmental initiatives stem from emotion rather than reason, and some popular environmental solutions (say, limiting the use of straws, or attempting to switch from coal to solar energy) are often ineffective means, or in some cases actively harmful means, in achieving nature conservation and human well-being. This is often due to the "appeal to nature fallacy", the believe that any "natural" solution must be inherently good. He also argues that environmentalism often fulfills similar psychological needs to those historically met by religion.
Shellenberger promotes acknowledging the need for human development (in particular, raising 1 billion people from poverty) when considering environmental purposes. In addition, he argues for looking at the real impact of solutions, regardless of whether they adhere to our concept of "natural". For example, nuclear energy as an effective solution to solving climate change, fish farming as a means of mitigating overfishing, etc.
This is by no means a perfect book: I didn't care much for his attacks on many environmentalists (I don't know them, and it sometimes felt overly ad hominem), and I think more time could have been spent on the solutions he promotes and evidence supporting them, rather than pointing out the flaws in the ideas and approaches of other environmentalists and institutions. Regardless, I largely adhere to his worldview, so while he was preaching to the choir a little with me, I found it a worthwhile read.
He argues that many environmental initiatives stem from emotion rather than reason, and some popular environmental solutions (say, limiting the use of straws, or attempting to switch from coal to solar energy) are often ineffective means, or in some cases actively harmful means, in achieving nature conservation and human well-being. This is often due to the "appeal to nature fallacy", the believe that any "natural" solution must be inherently good. He also argues that environmentalism often fulfills similar psychological needs to those historically met by religion.
Shellenberger promotes acknowledging the need for human development (in particular, raising 1 billion people from poverty) when considering environmental purposes. In addition, he argues for looking at the real impact of solutions, regardless of whether they adhere to our concept of "natural". For example, nuclear energy as an effective solution to solving climate change, fish farming as a means of mitigating overfishing, etc.
This is by no means a perfect book: I didn't care much for his attacks on many environmentalists (I don't know them, and it sometimes felt overly ad hominem), and I think more time could have been spent on the solutions he promotes and evidence supporting them, rather than pointing out the flaws in the ideas and approaches of other environmentalists and institutions. Regardless, I largely adhere to his worldview, so while he was preaching to the choir a little with me, I found it a worthwhile read.
cgerein's review
5.0
Michael Shellenberger starts off each chapter by steel-manning the argument for each given environmental policy or common held believe regarding climate change, then he spends the rest of the chapter thoroughly dismantling that claim using scientific studies, past failures, logic, and common sense. It's not a book about denying climate change but a book about recognizing what's true, what's hysteria, and what's the best way to move forward.
treegan's review
1.0
Fraught with misinterpreted and misrepresented data from out of date studies. Any valid criticism to the modern environmental movement is overshadowed by Shellenberger's weak strawman arguments.
athalia's review
3.0
I came to this book with an open mind. I believe in science, and obviously don't doubt climate change. However, I am also optimistic about the human capacity for innovation to address our problems, and have never had much reverence for "Nature." I also have never spent much time thinking about environmental issues, so much of what is addressed in this book was new to me. I definitely would not recommend this as an entry-point to anyone - the author spends alot of time in the weeds, nitpicking various scientific conclusions, rather than laying out a clear and coherent argument.
The author's central argument seems to be that: (1) environmentalism should not hamper economic development, because it is not fair to stop undeveloped countries from industrializing in the same environmentally tenuous ways that created the developed world, (2) although climate change is real, it and many other environmental issues are overblown by environmentalists, the media, and politicians, and (3) economic progress will allow people to adapt to climate change. I don't have the scientific knowledge to argue with (2) or (3), but it seems like most other scientists pan his conclusions. Nonetheless, the author also makes many interesting points throughout this book. The problem of environmental colonialism, whereby the developed world is now attempting to impose modern environmental standards on undeveloped and underdeveloped countries, and stop them from industrializing as we did, is troubling. And I absolutely agree with his point that some environmentalist deify "Nature" and refuse to balance the need for environmental protections with humanism. If only his arguments regarding the current environmental dangers and the best (most productive) ways to address those dangers were clearer and better supported, this would be a good book.
The author's central argument seems to be that: (1) environmentalism should not hamper economic development, because it is not fair to stop undeveloped countries from industrializing in the same environmentally tenuous ways that created the developed world, (2) although climate change is real, it and many other environmental issues are overblown by environmentalists, the media, and politicians, and (3) economic progress will allow people to adapt to climate change. I don't have the scientific knowledge to argue with (2) or (3), but it seems like most other scientists pan his conclusions. Nonetheless, the author also makes many interesting points throughout this book. The problem of environmental colonialism, whereby the developed world is now attempting to impose modern environmental standards on undeveloped and underdeveloped countries, and stop them from industrializing as we did, is troubling. And I absolutely agree with his point that some environmentalist deify "Nature" and refuse to balance the need for environmental protections with humanism. If only his arguments regarding the current environmental dangers and the best (most productive) ways to address those dangers were clearer and better supported, this would be a good book.
kpotter's review
2.0
The author made some good points, lots of generalizations, and was mildly biased. People who study or are at least aware of environmental science, ecology, anthropology, or sociology know that answers to environmental issues are complicated and messy. This doesn’t mean the world has to accept nuclear energy as its savior and fossil fuels as a necessary evil (which he claims ACTUALLY isn’t that bad!), like the author wants us to do.