October 25, 2023

Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger offers a commentary on the climate and energy dialogues, weaving together personal anecdotes, critiques of the political left, and justifications of nuclear energy expansion. While he easily navigates the nuances of environmental justice, his book falls prey to some severe misrepresentations of climate data. Shellenberger addresses a key cultural issue: How can we discuss climate change in a world that is in dire need of energy? Yet, his overwhelming bitterness casts a shadow over his best arguments.

I picked up this 2020 book to round out my awareness of the more conservative takes on climate change. Shellenberger believes that climate anxiety arises out of ignorance of the “basic facts” about climate change. Furthermore, he thinks that the solutions to a global energy shortage are obvious. His thesis argues against an apocalyptic view of the climate as well as many renewable energy solutions in favor of what he calls “rational environmentalism” and a nuclear-heavy energy future.

Like others who prefer a more cautious approach to the climate, Shellenberger thinks infrastructural growth is effectively limitless, and that more development will provide a brighter future for both developing and developed countries. In order to make this point, however, the author neglects the real economic impacts of climate change (Hurricane Harvey was estimated to cost $125 billion, and two years of drought in India over $100 billion). Furthermore, he takes for granted the damage that greenhouse gasses have already caused on the environment. As other climate scientists will note, the difference between global temperature increases of +2°C and +5°C is immense, and any reductions in emissions we can make now do have an impact on the global economy, not to mention the Earth system. Shellenberger certainly wants a better future, but his belief that the economic and sociopolitical impacts of climate change will resolve themselves with business as usual is deeply flawed.

At several points in the book, Shellenberger tries to demonstrate his understanding that people in developing nations want electricity and economic development through infrastructural growth. He paints himself as a man of the people, an activist who has taken several volunteering trips to farm in South America. Similarly, he detests what he sees as corrupt interests fueling climate alarmism and thinks that these people have too many creature comforts to understand the practical needs of the third world. Yet, while he uses his anecdotes to virtue signal, the reader is left with an undeniable sense of bitterness. He seems to regret the optimism he might have had in his youth as a more traditional environmentalist, and as a result has a hard time seeing any value in the present environmental movement. He thinks that young environmentalists are misguided as he himself was misguided, therefore nothing of value can come from their arguments. On the other side, he also sings the praises of nuclear energy and of Elon Musk as a champion of technological advancements that will bring us into a better future. Earlier this year, Shellenberger reported on the Twitter files and lauded Musk as an antidote to government totalitarianism. I’m sure a great deal of self-reflection was necessary for this kind of ideological 180. In my eyes, such endorsements nullify Shellenberger’s image as a common man.

The author also severely misunderstands the science on the links between energy use and climate change. He takes two approaches to climate science research. First, data uncertainties can be considered as complete unknowns, and thus studies with uncertainty can be completely disregarded. Second, any study which already exaggerates climate impacts can be dismissed, even if it includes accurate or valuable data. Using these two guiding principles, Shellenberger’s science is quite bad. He cites old studies and still manages to misrepresent them. But this is not a scientific book.

The strongest argument of Shellenberger’s book came at the very end. He says that for young secular Americans, “apocalyptic-environmentalism” has become a kind of religion and a replacement for Judeo-Christianity. In this eco-faith, hell is not a fiery pit, but rather a world full of climate catastrophe, and by following eco-commandments, one can reach spiritual transcendence. The great author Chris Hedges has similarly described in War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning how American culture is influenced by “thanatos” or the “death cult”. Here, not only is the human obsession with war a salve for peoples’ personal issues, but society also props up wealthy interests who embrace policies that are ultimately self-destructive. I have long agreed with Hedges’ view, and I am sympathetic to Shellenberger’s argument as well. Particularly among young people, the doctrine of nihilism has become quite popular without much factual defense. Furthermore, many chronically-online youth don’t know and frankly don’t care what happens to communities abroad without electricity or clean water that Shellenberger describes. The obsession with death supersedes any real call to action to bring economic equality to developing nations. Shellenberger’s message here is powerful, I only wish he had developed it further.

Despite its flaws, I found more value in Shellenberger’s book than some environmentalist readers. I can appreciate his critiques of modern environmental activism and I think his book provides a good commentary on the flaws of the ideological Left. My takeaways from this book is that there are potential pitfalls of conflating core environmental concerns with tangential leftist issues, like anti-GMO takes or veganism. Dialogue about climate change should be clear and informed and steer clear of hyperbole.