Buy new:
$23.00$23.00
FREE delivery: Thursday, March 2 on orders over $25.00 shipped by Amazon.
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: Khalid's Retail
Buy used: $10.65
Other Sellers on Amazon
& FREE Shipping
100% positive over last 12 months
97% positive over last 12 months
100% positive over last 12 months
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming Hardcover – February 19, 2019
| David Wallace-Wells (Author) Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author |
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
Library Binding
"Please retry" | $14.99 | — |
Enhance your purchase
NAMED ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS OF THE YEAR BY The New Yorker • The New York Times Book Review • Time • NPR • The Economist • The Paris Review • Toronto Star • GQ • The Times Literary Supplement • The New York Public Library • Kirkus Reviews
It is worse, much worse, than you think. If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible—food shortages, refugee emergencies, climate wars and economic devastation.
An “epoch-defining book” (The Guardian) and “this generation’s Silent Spring” (The Washington Post), The Uninhabitable Earth is both a travelogue of the near future and a meditation on how that future will look to those living through it—the ways that warming promises to transform global politics, the meaning of technology and nature in the modern world, the sustainability of capitalism and the trajectory of human progress.
The Uninhabitable Earth is also an impassioned call to action. For just as the world was brought to the brink of catastrophe within the span of a lifetime, the responsibility to avoid it now belongs to a single generation—today’s.
LONGLISTED FOR THE PEN/E.O. WILSON LITERARY SCIENCE WRITING AWARD
“The Uninhabitable Earth is the most terrifying book I have ever read. Its subject is climate change, and its method is scientific, but its mode is Old Testament. The book is a meticulously documented, white-knuckled tour through the cascading catastrophes that will soon engulf our warming planet.”—Farhad Manjoo, The New York Times
“Riveting. . . . Some readers will find Mr. Wallace-Wells’s outline of possible futures alarmist. He is indeed alarmed. You should be, too.”—The Economist
“Potent and evocative. . . . Wallace-Wells has resolved to offer something other than the standard narrative of climate change. . . . He avoids the ‘eerily banal language of climatology’ in favor of lush, rolling prose.”—Jennifer Szalai, The New York Times
“The book has potential to be this generation’s Silent Spring.”—The Washington Post
“The Uninhabitable Earth, which has become a best seller, taps into the underlying emotion of the day: fear. . . . I encourage people to read this book.”—Alan Weisman, The New York Review of Books
- Print length320 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherTim Duggan Books
- Publication dateFebruary 19, 2019
- Dimensions5.8 x 1.1 x 9.6 inches
- ISBN-100525576703
- ISBN-13978-0525576709
- Lexile measure1370L
Frequently bought together

- +
- +
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
The U.N. projections are bleaker: 200 million climate refugees by 2050.Highlighted by 1,907 Kindle readers
In fact, all but the one that killed the dinosaurs involved climate change produced by greenhouse gas.Highlighted by 1,763 Kindle readers
This is part of what makes climate change what the theorist Timothy Morton calls a “hyperobject”—a conceptual fact so large and complex that, like the internet, it can never be properly comprehended.Highlighted by 1,443 Kindle readers
Editorial Reviews
Review
“Potent and evocative. . . . Wallace-Wells has resolved to offer something other than the standard narrative of climate change. . . . He avoids the ‘eerily banal language of climatology’ in favor of lush, rolling prose.” —Jennifer Szalai, The New York Times
“The book has potential to be this generation’s Silent Spring.” —The Washington Post
“The Uninhabitable Earth, which has become a best seller, taps into the underlying emotion of the day: fear. . . . I encourage people to read this book.”—Alan Weisman, The New York Review of Books
"Most of us know the gist, if not the details, of the climate change crisis. And yet it is almost impossible to sustain strong feelings about it. David Wallace-Wells has now provided the details, and with writing that is not only clear and forceful, but often imaginative and even funny, he has found a way to make the information deeply felt." —Jonathan Safran Foer, author of Everything is Illuminated
“A brilliant new book. . . . a remorseless, near-unbearable account of what we are doing to our planet."—John Lanchester, The New York Times Book Review
"David Wallace-Wells argues that the impacts of climate change will be much graver than most people realize, and he's right. The Uninhabitable Earth is a timely and provocative work." —Elizabeth Kolbert, author of The Sixth Extinction
"An excellent book. . . . Not since Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature thirty years ago have we been told what climate change will mean in such vivid terms." —Fred Pearce, The Washington Post
"One of the very few books about our climate change emergency that doesn't sugarcoat the horror." —William T. Vollmann, author of No Immediate Danger
“Clearly and engagingly written, widely informed, with references supplied in extensive and detailed endnotes, this overview of the present status of the climate emergency and our response to it is completely captivating: it is our own story, happening here and now.”—Lydia Davis, Times Literary Supplement
“Powerfully argued. . . . A masterly analysis of why—with a world of solutions—we choose doom.” —Nature
"This gripping, terrifying, furiously readable book is possibly the most wide-ranging account yet written of the ways in which climate change will transform every aspect of our lives, ranging from where we live to what we eat and the stories we tell. Essential reading for our ever-more-unfamiliar and unpredictable world." —Amitav Ghosh, author of Flood of Fire
“Urgent and humane. . . . Wallace-Wells is an extremely adept storyteller. . . . A horrifying assessment of what we might expect as a result of climate change if we don’t change course.” —Susan Matthews, Slate
“If we don’t want our grandchildren to curse us, we had better read this book.” —Timothy Snyder, author of Black Earth
“Lively. . . . Vivid. . . . If you’ve snoozed through or turned away from the climate change news, this book will waken and update you. If you’re steeped in the unfolding climate drama, Wallace-Wells’s voice and perspective will be stimulating.” —David George Haskell, The Guardian
“Wallace-Wells has a gorgeous command of the English language, and knows how to lay down prose that moves the reader at such a clip that one feels like a Kentucky Derby–exhausted mare at the end of each chapter. . . . Wallace-Wells sets himself and his analysis of climate change apart from the predominant voices of leadership in the field.” —Laurie Garrett, The Lancet
“Beautifully written. . . . As climate change encroaches, things will get worse. Much worse. And David Wallace-Wells spares no detail in explaining how.” —Kate Aronoff, Bookforum
"Relentless, angry journalism of the highest order. Read it and, for the lack of any more useful response, weep." —Bryan Appleyard, The Sunday Times
"A brilliant and unsparing analysis of a nightmare that is no longer a distant future but our chaotic, burning present. Unlike other writers who speak about human agency in the abstract, Wallace-Wells zeros in on the power structures and capitalist elites whose mindless greed is writing an obituary for our grandchildren." —Mike Davis, author of Ecology of Fear
"A lucid and thorough description of our unprecedented crisis, and of the mechanisms of denial with which we seek to avoid its fullest recognition.” —William Gibson, author of Neuromancer
"David Wallace-Wells has produced a willfully terrifying polemic that reads like a cross between Stephen King and Stephen Hawking. Written with verve and insight and an eerie gusto for its own horrors, it comes just when we need it; it could not be more urgent than it is at this moment. I hope everyone will read it and be afraid." —Andrew Solomon, author of The Noonday Demon
About the Author
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Cascades
It is worse, much worse, than you think. The slowness of climate change is a fairy tale, perhaps as pernicious as the one that says it isn’t happening at all, and comes to us bundled with several others in an anthology of comforting delusions: that global warming is an Arctic saga, unfolding remotely; that it is strictly a matter of sea level and coastlines, not an enveloping crisis sparing no place and leaving no life un-deformed; that it is a crisis of the “natural” world, not the human one; that those two are distinct, and that we live today somehow outside or beyond or at the very least defended against nature, not circumscribed and literally overwhelmed by it; that wealth can be a shield against the ravages of warming; that the burning of fossil fuels is the price of continued economic growth; that growth, and the technology it produces, will allow us to engineer our way out of environmental disaster; that there is any analogue to the scale or scope of this threat, in the long span of human history, that might give us confidence in
staring it down.
None of this is true. But let’s begin with the speed of change. The earth has experienced five mass extinctions before the one we are living through now, each so complete a wiping of the fossil record that it functioned as an evolutionary reset, the planet’s phylogenetic tree first expanding, then collapsing, at intervals, like a lung: 86 percent of all species dead, 450 million years ago; 70 million years later, another 75 percent; 100 million years later, 96 percent; 50 million years later, 80 percent; 150 million years after that, 75 percent again. Unless you are a teenager, you probably read in your high school textbooks that these extinctions were the result of asteroids. In fact, all but the one that killed the dinosaurs involved climate change produced by greenhouse gas. The most notorious was 252 million years ago; it began when carbon warmed the planet by five degrees Celsius, accelerated when that warming triggered the release of methane, another greenhouse gas, and ended with all but a sliver of life on Earth dead. We are currently adding carbon to the atmosphere at a considerably faster rate; by most estimates, at least ten times faster. The rate is one hundred times faster than at any point in human history before the beginning of industrialization. And there is already, right now, fully a third more carbon in the atmosphere than at any point in the last 800,000 years—perhaps in as long as 15 million years. There were no humans then. The oceans were more than a hundred feet higher.
Many perceive global warming as a sort of moral and economic debt, accumulated since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and now come due after several centuries. In fact, more than half of the carbon exhaled into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels has been emitted in just the past three decades. Which means we have done as much damage to the fate of the planet and its ability to sustain human life and civilization since Al Gore published his first book on climate than in all the centuries—all the millennia—that came before. The United Nations established its climate change framework in 1992, building a political consensus out of a scientific consensus and advertising it unmistakably to the world; which means we have now done as much damage to the environment knowingly than we ever managed in ignorance. Global warming may seem like a distended morality tale playing out over several centuries and inflicting a kind of Old Testament retribution on the great-great-grandchildren of those responsible, since it was carbon burning in eighteenth-century England that lit the fuse of everything that has followed. But that is a fable about historical villainy that acquits those of us alive today—and unfairly. The majority of the burning has come since the premiere of Seinfeld. Since the end of World War II, the figure is about 85 percent. The story of the industrial world’s kamikaze mission is the story of a single lifetime—the planet brought from apparent stability to the brink of catastrophe in the years between a baptism or bar mitzvah and a funeral.
We all know those lifetimes. When my father was born in 1938—among his first memories the news of Pearl Harbor and the mythic air force of the industrial propaganda films that followed— the climate system appeared, to most human observers, steady. Scientists had understood the greenhouse effect, had understood the way carbon produced by burned wood and coal and oil could hothouse the planet and disequilibrize everything on it, for three-quarters of a century. But they had not yet seen the effect, not really, not yet, which made it seem less like an observed fact than a dark prophecy, to be fulfilled only in a very distant future—perhaps never. By the time my father died, in 2016, weeks after the desperate signing of the Paris Agreement, the climate system was tipping toward devastation, passing the threshold of carbon concentration—400 parts per million in the earth’s atmosphere, in the eerily banal language of climatology—that had been, for years, the bright red line environmental scientists had drawn in the rampaging face of modern industry, saying, Do not cross. Of course, we kept going: just two years later, we hit a monthly average of 411, and guilt saturates the planet’s air as much as carbon, though we choose to believe we do not breathe it.
The single lifetime is also the lifetime of my mother: born in 1945, to German Jews fleeing the smokestacks through which their relatives were incinerated, and now enjoying her seventy-third year in an American commodity paradise, a paradise supported by the factories of a developing world that has, in the space of a single lifetime, too, manufactured its way into the global middle class, with all the consumer enticements and fossil fuel privileges that come with that ascent: electricity, private cars, air travel, red meat. She has been smoking for fifty-eight of those years, always unfiltered, ordering the cigarettes now by the carton from China.
It is also the lifetime of many of the scientists who first raised public alarm about climate change, some of whom, incredibly, remain working today—that is how rapidly we have arrived at this promontory. Roger Revelle, who first heralded the heating of the planet, died in 1991, but Wallace Smith Broecker, who helped popularize the term “global warming,” still drives to work at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory across the Hudson every day from the Upper West Side, sometimes picking up lunch at an old Jersey filling station recently outfitted as a hipster eatery; in the 1970s, he did his research with funding from Exxon, a company now the target of a raft of lawsuits that aim to adjudicate responsibility for the rolling emissions regime that today, barring a change of course on fossil fuels, threatens to make parts of the planet more or less unlivable for humans by the end of this century. That is the course we are speeding so blithely along—to more than four degrees Celsius of warming by the year 2100. According to some estimates, that would mean that whole regions of Africa and Australia and the United States, parts of South America north of Patagonia, and Asia south of Siberia would be rendered uninhabitable by direct heat, desertification, and flooding. Certainly it would make them inhospitable, and many more regions besides. This is our itinerary, our baseline. Which means that, if the planet was brought to the brink of climate catastrophe within the lifetime of a single generation, the responsibility to avoid it belongs with a single generation, too. We all also know that second lifetime. It is ours.
Product details
- Publisher : Tim Duggan Books; 1st edition (February 19, 2019)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 320 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0525576703
- ISBN-13 : 978-0525576709
- Lexile measure : 1370L
- Item Weight : 1.1 pounds
- Dimensions : 5.8 x 1.1 x 9.6 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #182,057 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #94 in Environmental Policy
- #196 in Climatology
- #491 in Environmental Science (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

David Wallace-Wells is a national fellow at the New America foundation and a columnist and deputy editor at New York magazine. He was previously the deputy editor of The Paris Review. He lives in New York City.
Photo Credit: Beowulf Sheehan
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonReviewed in the United States on March 9, 2019
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Usually, I write a book review to share a sense of joy or insights or pleasure that I've gained from reading a book. Not so with this book. I'm writing this book review in an attempt to purge the angst that I suffered from reading it, to turn the sense of dread and potential for despair I often felt while reading it into something more positive, into courageous action. Can I succeed? I hope so, for my sake and for the sake of any reader.
Wallace-Wells undertakes two tasks in this book. First, he brings us up to date with the latest climate science and the most reliable prognostications about the effects of climate change. The works of thousands of scientists converge around a variety of hellscapes that would make Dante swoon. As Wallace-Wells points out, we've been conditioned to think that climate change is just rising sea levels or some warmer temperatures here and there. It's not nearly so simple. It's not "I don't live near the coast, so what's my worry," because the problem is manifold and ubiquitous. No one can escape. Yes, sea levels will rise. Temperatures will rise so that some areas to become nearly unhabitable, especially around the Middle East and India (and having lived in northern India, I have a sense of what extreme temperatures feel like). Droughts and floods will increase in frequency and severity. Wildfires, as Americans have seen within the past year in California and the Pacific Northwest, will increase in severity and frequency. Severe weather events, such as hurricanes and tornados, will proliferate and become stronger. Get ready for the designation of a Category 6 hurricane. Established diseases will spread (malaria, dengue fever, and zika will move north), and new pathological organisms will evolve in our hothouse atmosphere. Crops will fail and yields decline. Nature will survive, of course, but species and whole ecosystems will disappear. We'll see Nature altered in ways that we don't recognize and won't enjoy. Human beings will be forced to migrate to survive. And conflicts will proliferate and intensify, from domestic quarrels (and undoubtedly physical abuse) to wars and civil unrest. We seem intent on creating a perfectly Hobbesian world of the war of all against all.
Is Wallace-Wells just another alarmist? Is this just a book with cheap thrills like a 50's horror flick? I wish. Wallace-Wells went into this research and writing project as someone who was cognizant of climate change, but who didn't hold it front and center of his concerns until, as a journalist, he saw an increasing flood of scientific papers that revealed a much more frightening future than most of the media was reporting. What Wallace-Wells discovered disturbed him and frightened him. But he hasn't given up hope, and neither should we.
In fact, the second portion of the book, after establishing the likelihood of various varieties of hell that we humans are creating for ourselves--and we are creating it, and we are choosing it--Wallace-Wells turns to our responses and how individuals, societies, and nations may respond to the increasing pressures that we face.
We humans, like most of our fellow creatures here on Earth, have three instinctive responses to threats: fight, flight, or freeze (even faint). I couldn't help but think along these lines as I read about reactions (or the lack of response) to our increasingly certain knowledge. As a whole, we've chosen to faint, to swoon at the thought of what we've wrought and then distract ourselves from our plight. We play mind games with ourselves to distract ourselves from the challenge at hand, and 21st-century consumer capitalism is most willing to enable us to do this. The Republican Party in Congress tries to pretend that the science is wrong and the problem unreal, 'another liberal plot" they say. Some say its just "God's will" and take a fatalistic approach justified on some bit of Bible misreading. Others seek to flee through technological panaceas, some of which may prove useful, but none of which promise reliable remedy and none of which can be attempted without immense costs and tremendous uncertainty about unintended consequences. The super-rich investigate how to govern the bunkers they're building to try to escape the wrath of the masses who will seek both vengeance and access to the resources that the super-rich have squirreled away. (But the super-rich remain worried about how to keep their guardians from turning on them.)
The last option is to fight (climate change, not my fellow humans), and that's the option I'll take. We'll suffer significant--if not devastating--dislocations. We'll continue to see all sorts of changes, natural, social, economic, political, and cultural. But as Wallace-Wells makes clear, we have options and the potential to dramatically reduce the suffering that the future holds for all humans if we don't take sufficient steps to alleviate our plight. And I believe--or at least I possess a ray of hope--that we humans can respond in time (and time is of the essence). Thomas Friedman recently quoted an elementary but valuable insight from economic thinker Eric Beinhoffer: "there are only two ways to cure political tribalism: 'A common threat or a common project.'” Friedman uses this point to recommend that we need to undertake a common project to repair the foundations of the middle class. I suggest that repairing the foundations of the middle class must be subsumed under the project of dealing with climate change, which is a common threat and can become a common project. Indeed, starting now, we must re-imagine our political structures, our political economy, our entire culture. We have the potential to use the impending catastrophes to attempt to build a more just society. We either seek a just and sustainable world, or we can expect increasing international strife and civil anarchy. The range of possibilities for political, economic, and cultural change is vast, from outcomes that will prove (reasonably) attractive to appalling possibilities for anarchy or totalitarianism (and every nightmare in between).
In listening to a couple of interviews of author David Wallace-Wells (The Ezra Klein Show & The Joe Rogen Experience), I was relieved to learn that he has an infant daughter, born while he was researching this topic. This fact reinforces his fundamental commitment to strive for the best possible outcome of our climate challenge, and it lets readers know that his hopeful words (there are some) don't represent publisher mandated pablum for readers. Wallace-Wells has to believe that we can take effective action to reduce our suffering and that of those who will come after us.
One final comment: Again, from interviews, suggestions have been made that millennials will face this problem and must live with the consequences. Of course, this is true. But we baby-boomers have overseen an almost obscene increase in carbon in the atmosphere in the period since Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" (2006). We bear the burden of responsibility for addressing our planetary illness. Alleviating the devastation of climate change must be a cross-generational project. We must begin the think in Burkean terms: society is a contract among generations past, present, and future. (If only there were more true conservatives!)
Please, read this book and ponder your response. What shall we choose?
Reviewed in the United States 🇺🇸 on March 9, 2019
Usually, I write a book review to share a sense of joy or insights or pleasure that I've gained from reading a book. Not so with this book. I'm writing this book review in an attempt to purge the angst that I suffered from reading it, to turn the sense of dread and potential for despair I often felt while reading it into something more positive, into courageous action. Can I succeed? I hope so, for my sake and for the sake of any reader.
Wallace-Wells undertakes two tasks in this book. First, he brings us up to date with the latest climate science and the most reliable prognostications about the effects of climate change. The works of thousands of scientists converge around a variety of hellscapes that would make Dante swoon. As Wallace-Wells points out, we've been conditioned to think that climate change is just rising sea levels or some warmer temperatures here and there. It's not nearly so simple. It's not "I don't live near the coast, so what's my worry," because the problem is manifold and ubiquitous. No one can escape. Yes, sea levels will rise. Temperatures will rise so that some areas to become nearly unhabitable, especially around the Middle East and India (and having lived in northern India, I have a sense of what extreme temperatures feel like). Droughts and floods will increase in frequency and severity. Wildfires, as Americans have seen within the past year in California and the Pacific Northwest, will increase in severity and frequency. Severe weather events, such as hurricanes and tornados, will proliferate and become stronger. Get ready for the designation of a Category 6 hurricane. Established diseases will spread (malaria, dengue fever, and zika will move north), and new pathological organisms will evolve in our hothouse atmosphere. Crops will fail and yields decline. Nature will survive, of course, but species and whole ecosystems will disappear. We'll see Nature altered in ways that we don't recognize and won't enjoy. Human beings will be forced to migrate to survive. And conflicts will proliferate and intensify, from domestic quarrels (and undoubtedly physical abuse) to wars and civil unrest. We seem intent on creating a perfectly Hobbesian world of the war of all against all.
Is Wallace-Wells just another alarmist? Is this just a book with cheap thrills like a 50's horror flick? I wish. Wallace-Wells went into this research and writing project as someone who was cognizant of climate change, but who didn't hold it front and center of his concerns until, as a journalist, he saw an increasing flood of scientific papers that revealed a much more frightening future than most of the media was reporting. What Wallace-Wells discovered disturbed him and frightened him. But he hasn't given up hope, and neither should we.
In fact, the second portion of the book, after establishing the likelihood of various varieties of hell that we humans are creating for ourselves--and we are creating it, and we are choosing it--Wallace-Wells turns to our responses and how individuals, societies, and nations may respond to the increasing pressures that we face.
We humans, like most of our fellow creatures here on Earth, have three instinctive responses to threats: fight, flight, or freeze (even faint). I couldn't help but think along these lines as I read about reactions (or the lack of response) to our increasingly certain knowledge. As a whole, we've chosen to faint, to swoon at the thought of what we've wrought and then distract ourselves from our plight. We play mind games with ourselves to distract ourselves from the challenge at hand, and 21st-century consumer capitalism is most willing to enable us to do this. The Republican Party in Congress tries to pretend that the science is wrong and the problem unreal, 'another liberal plot" they say. Some say its just "God's will" and take a fatalistic approach justified on some bit of Bible misreading. Others seek to flee through technological panaceas, some of which may prove useful, but none of which promise reliable remedy and none of which can be attempted without immense costs and tremendous uncertainty about unintended consequences. The super-rich investigate how to govern the bunkers they're building to try to escape the wrath of the masses who will seek both vengeance and access to the resources that the super-rich have squirreled away. (But the super-rich remain worried about how to keep their guardians from turning on them.)
The last option is to fight (climate change, not my fellow humans), and that's the option I'll take. We'll suffer significant--if not devastating--dislocations. We'll continue to see all sorts of changes, natural, social, economic, political, and cultural. But as Wallace-Wells makes clear, we have options and the potential to dramatically reduce the suffering that the future holds for all humans if we don't take sufficient steps to alleviate our plight. And I believe--or at least I possess a ray of hope--that we humans can respond in time (and time is of the essence). Thomas Friedman recently quoted an elementary but valuable insight from economic thinker Eric Beinhoffer: "there are only two ways to cure political tribalism: 'A common threat or a common project.'” Friedman uses this point to recommend that we need to undertake a common project to repair the foundations of the middle class. I suggest that repairing the foundations of the middle class must be subsumed under the project of dealing with climate change, which is a common threat and can become a common project. Indeed, starting now, we must re-imagine our political structures, our political economy, our entire culture. We have the potential to use the impending catastrophes to attempt to build a more just society. We either seek a just and sustainable world, or we can expect increasing international strife and civil anarchy. The range of possibilities for political, economic, and cultural change is vast, from outcomes that will prove (reasonably) attractive to appalling possibilities for anarchy or totalitarianism (and every nightmare in between).
In listening to a couple of interviews of author David Wallace-Wells (The Ezra Klein Show & The Joe Rogen Experience), I was relieved to learn that he has an infant daughter, born while he was researching this topic. This fact reinforces his fundamental commitment to strive for the best possible outcome of our climate challenge, and it lets readers know that his hopeful words (there are some) don't represent publisher mandated pablum for readers. Wallace-Wells has to believe that we can take effective action to reduce our suffering and that of those who will come after us.
One final comment: Again, from interviews, suggestions have been made that millennials will face this problem and must live with the consequences. Of course, this is true. But we baby-boomers have overseen an almost obscene increase in carbon in the atmosphere in the period since Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" (2006). We bear the burden of responsibility for addressing our planetary illness. Alleviating the devastation of climate change must be a cross-generational project. We must begin the think in Burkean terms: society is a contract among generations past, present, and future. (If only there were more true conservatives!)
Please, read this book and ponder your response. What shall we choose?
The title of the book is prescient. Think of the climatologically worst environments on the Earth today (having warmed a bit more than one degree Celsius since the beginning of the industrial revolution in 1800. We are on track to hit two degrees by 2050 or so), perhaps the middle of the Sahara, or someplace where it never stops being hot and raining. These are today's most inhospitable climate environments. By 2100, that sort of place will be among the best and most livable we have on Earth. Large parts of our world will be largely and literally uninhabitable, places where humans die because their bodies cannot cool themselves by sweating unless immersed in cool water, or because there is no water the glaciers being gone, and this at only three degrees of warming (2100).
The first third of the book is about various cascades, most already triggered, some on the verge. Effects of warming that add up both by directly making things worse, and by degrading the planet's ability to absorb carbon and mitigate the other effects. Wallace's picture here is very dire. In the rest of the book Wallace deals with the economic, political, social, and psychological future. Here I do not think he is dire enough. He speaks of refugees in the tens of millions (try hundreds), extremist movements on both the right and left, of wars, pandemics, crop failures, of collapsing economies unable to sustain the cost of climate mitigation, and that only the economies that can afford any mitigation to begin with. The rest will have since joined the refugees. Wallace touches on all of this, but I do not think he fully appreciates how quickly and thoroughly human beings can (and will) turn on one another long before this all becomes as bad as it's going to get!
Technology will not save us. Wallace covers that too. We can desalinate water and even pull carbon out of the air. There will never be enough of either that the world can afford. Besides, both are energy intensive processes and even if powered with renewable energy, that is not easy to do as concerns the chain of activities that must be powered to build and maintain that technology. Rare-Earth mining is a very dirty business.
In the end, Wallace is hopeful, though not optimistic, that the global polity will wake up and de-carbonize the global economy, not in time to halt two to three degrees of warming, it is already too late for that, but in time to prevent it going to four degrees or more. I think he is over-optimistic here too. It is simply not possible, politically, and this for economic reasons, for soon-to-be nine-billion humans to de-carbonize as quickly as needed to hold the line at two to three degrees. What will force the race to de-carbonize will be economic collapse, leading to socio-political collapse, leading to mass death (over some decades) from starvation, disease, or war. I think Wallace sees this grim possibility. He hopes it isn't inevitable.
This a good and timely book though I doubt it will have much effect on the carbon trajectory of our so-called civilization. It is good to see the ground covered as much as Wallace covers it. He does a good job of showing how the climatological and the political go together (alas perversely). I think he fails to draw some obvious conclusions from his own well-made points. Perhaps it's for the better. He would be accused of doom saying. I am a doomsayer! Feel free to accuse me! Meanwhile, the book is frightening enough as it is!
Albert Schweitzer (1875 - 1965): “Man has lost the capacity to foresee and to forestall. He will end by destroying the earth.”
Sir David Attenborough Nov 5, 2020: “Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the human population, perhaps it is time we control the human population, to allow the survival of the environment.”
Top reviews from other countries
Unfortunately, the rest of the book is so badly written it is barely or even not readable. Repeatedly clumsy, uncomfortable sentence structures mean that one continually loses one’s mental place in whatever point the author is trying to make. Often even multiple re-readings don't make what the author is writing any clearer. It seems to have been written by someone who really cannot write or as if it has been translated into English from an unrelated language by someone who was a native speaker of neither. If only. That at least would be easier to understand.
Some of this is not helped by the author’s inward looking Americanisms. References to the sea rising as far as “I95” (which i presume is some place in America?), to how one fire ‘swallowed an entire sub-division’ (whatever that is) alienate the reader and the use of feet and Fahrenheit leave one cold when being told how hot somewhere might get.
He has a jarring habit of dropping quite odd words into sentences where they simply do not fit. He loves the words ‘quotidian’ and ‘parsimonious’ (among others) but doesn't seem to actually know what they mean and they really jar when seemingly randomly dropped into the middle of a sentence as if the author is trying to seem clever but just keeps on showing his ignorance. He has no idea how to use semi colons and writes as if commas are going out of fashion (ie they are everywhere). The use of English is generally very poor and very clumsy which spoils tremendously a book which is making a very serious point. Where was this person’s editor?
One fire ‘invented a new term “fire tsunami” ‘ apparently (of course, the author means that the fire inspired the creation of a new term but the book is full of these kind of silly writing mistakes).
But its' the generally clumsy and amateurish writing which lets it down and makes this, sadly, a difficult book to read. It's full of silly similes and metaphors that don't work, sentences that seem to end mid-way through or just make no sense at all. It needs a thorough editing and a complete rewrite, to be much shorter and to lose the padding and irrelevant digressions which make it seem like the author is trying to be a creative writer but without the skill.
I have just looked up who the author is. Incredibly, he is the deputy editor of the New York magazine. ! How a deputy editor can write so badly I cannot comprehend. Sadly I simply couldn't finish this book. The writing becomes worse, the sentences become increasingly disjointed and laughably incomprehensible. It becomes unreadable and the message becomes lost. I had to stop. Which is such a shame. In among the garbled sentences, the silly comparisons, the purple attempts at creativity and the weird misplaced word drops, there is a very very important message. Unfortunately this book isn't the one to convey that message and this author isn't the one capable of writing the book that is.
The book is 300 pages, all text (no diagrams of charts or illustrations to help present the information), with a typical page comprising two extremely long paragraphs. The level of English is poor (it does not even come up to English O-level pass grades, let alone any hope of riveting the reader to the page).
There is no obvious structure to the information. Facts, or assertions, appear randomly.
The Acknowledgements take a fifth of the book (pages 228 to 300): they look like citations but there is no citation reference in the text, so the Acknowledgements may as well been plucked from anywhere.
In short, a waste of money and time.
The first impression of this book is of starkness. The front cover is plain, with the book’s title, its subtitle and author on a plain off-white background. The only decoration is a small picture of a bee at the bottom of the cover. The bee looks inactive, probably dead. Inside the book is text. There are no charts, no illustrations, no maps, just text. The small picture of the author on the back inside cover is in black and white, and he is not smiling. The contents are equally stark (2). However, after the author David Wallace-Wells has made the reader look into the mouth of Hell, he then pulls you back and shows that redemption is still possible through prompt actions.
The author is a journalist, not a scientist. The book is readable. The book is well researched. The contents are disturbing. Everyone should read this book. Hurry up please. It’s time.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
(1) There is a long history of doomsday predictions. For Climate Change, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is the most recent and most famous. Earlier, there was Paul R. Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb and The Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth . However, just because we are still here does not mean these books were wrong.
(2) The book is divided into sections titled: I Cascades, II Elements of Chaos, III The Climate Kaleidoscope, IV The Anthropic Principle, Acknowledgments, Notes, Index.
The first section, Cascades, is a single chapter of over 30 pages. It serves as a general introduction. The title comes from climate cascades, where multiple climate events occur. Towards the end of the section (page 35), the following section, “Elements of Chaos” is introduced as “The science that makes up the following twelve chapters has been culled from interviews from dozens of expert, and from hundreds of papers published in the best academic journals over the previous decade or so. Since it is science, it is tentative, ever-evolving, and some of the predictions that follow will surely not come to pass”.
Elements of Chaos - The chapters are: Heat Death, Hunger, Drowning, Wildfire, Disasters No Longer Natural, Freshwater Drain, Dying Oceans, Unbreathable Air, Economic Collapse, Climate Conflict, “Systems”.
Having survived the horrors of the chapters in “Elements of Chaos”, the next section, “Climate Kaleidoscope” is more discursive and thoughtful. It asks what stories we will tell ourselves when climate change is undeniable and can no longer be ignored. How will business react? What about Silicon Valley? If we really think that we are moving towards the end of days, what will happen to our belief systems?
The Climate Kaleidoscope - The chapters are: Storytelling, Crisis Capitalism, The Church of Technology, Politics of Consumption, History After Progress, Ethics at the End of the World.
The last section is “The Anthropic Principle”. This is a single chapter of ten pages that acts as a conclusion to the book. The science of climate change is persuasive, but there is still much to understand. The complexity of climate may contain feedback loops that we have not considered. The solutions to climate change are available to us, but we have to start implementing them in earnest. We have to start thinking like a planet. There is no second chance and no second planet.
(And before anyone accuses me of being a climate change denier - I very much believe in it and our need to do something it about it immediately, but this book will not help the cause)
• The author states as a fact that the Permian mass extinction event resulted from 5 degrees Centigrade of carbon dioxide warming of the Earth. The simple truth is that, whilst there are a great many theories, nobody (apart from the author of this book, apparently) knows what caused the Permian extinction, as even a quick visit to Wikipedia (‘Permian-Triassic extinction event’) will reveal.
• He states that, ‘The planet is warming at a terrifying pace and on a horrifying scale’ – but since the Industrial Revolution there has been only 1 degree of warming, such modest warming being easily within the bounds of natural climate variability and neither unprecedented nor intrinsically alarming. Furthermore based on the UAH temperature data the global warming trend over the last 20 years has collapsed to just 0.85 degrees per century (this illustrating the fact that global warming has recently been slowing down while carbon dioxide concentrations have been speeding up). If this warming trend were to continue it would give little cause for climate change concern (and would be well below the 2 degree target of the Paris Climate Accord).
• He states that ‘Global warming is… a human invention’ – so the approximate 9 degrees of global warming that occurred at the start of the current Holocene Interglacial (that began about 12,000 years ago) was human-caused by Stone Age man?
• He warns of a new extinction event as a result of man-made ‘runaway global warming’ occurring despite the fact that the IPCC (that most alarmist of climate change organisations) admit that ‘a runaway greenhouse effect… appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by man-made activities.’
• He states as a fact that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and intense and that, ‘The last few years of climate disasters may look about as much as the planet can take’ – yet even the IPCC, in its Special Report on Extreme Events, acknowledged that there was not yet evidence of changes in the global frequency or intensity of such events. The fact that there has been an escalation in the reporting of extreme weather events (and blaming them on climate change) is not the same as the events themselves having escalated.
• He states that ‘temperatures could rise, ultimately, by as much as double what the IPCC predicts’ – despite the fact that they have been rising at about half the rate the IPCC predicted.
• He quotes the UN claim that there will be 200 million climate refuges by 2050 but fails to mention that in 2005 the UN claimed that there would be 50 million climate refugees by 2010; in fact there weren’t any that we know of.
• He describes the very worst case emissions scenario (RCP8.5 in the IPCC’s jargon) as ‘business as usual’ despite the fact that it is a virtual physical impossibility (for various reasons, not least that it would require that we dig up and burn twice as much coal as is currently thought to be extractable).
• He says that sea levels could rise 80 meters; however it has been estimated that for that to happen the Earth’s surface temperature would have to rise from its current 15 degree average level to about 27 degrees – and for that to be sustained for about 5,000 years!
At this point I had only reached page 30 of this 230 page book so I stopped taking notes. Basically the climate change issue is much, much more complex and debatable than the writer of this book reveals. There is definitely a place for such polemical books that explore ultimate worst case scenarios - but the unrelenting lack of balance, common sense and perspective throughout this book does become very waring.












