Imagine two groups of people setting off for a hike in the extreme heat of Death Valley.
One group is well prepared with plenty of water, sunscreen, maps, fully-charged phones and so on; the other treats it like a stroll in the park.
Advertisement
Which group is going to fare better?
Humanity as a whole is about to be forced to go hiking in Death Valley. How we fare will depend not just on how hot it gets, but on how well we prepare 鈥� a point that is mostly missing from David Wallace-Wells鈥� book .
The book is a follow-up to a 2017 feature in New York Magazine about global warming that set out to alarm people by looking at the worst-case climate scenarios. It worked 鈥� the feature went viral.
Unfortunately, it went viral in part because Wallace-Wells was cavalier with the facts. It was , who pointed out that the picture is grim enough without exaggerating. The criticism led the magazine to publish an . The new book, however, very much sticks with the aim of alarming people.
And indeed there is much to be alarmed about, as regular readers of New 杏吧原创 will be only too aware. There is no doubt that in some ways climate change will be much worse than we thought just a decade or two ago 鈥� and the picture was bad enough to start with. There is also a case to be made that even the current scientific consensus likely underestimates some of the impacts.
But the book does not make this case. Instead, Wallace-Wells鈥� strategy is to describe the most horrifying scenarios that have ever been considered 鈥� but he often has to add a sentence admitting they are unlikely.
For instance, he describes the Arctic methane time bomb 鈥� the idea that the Arctic will start to release so much methane it will greatly accelerate warming 鈥� and then mentions in passing that the scientific consensus is that a rapid, sudden release of methane is unlikely.
This trick lets him claim to be telling it like it is while painting an impression in readers鈥� minds that can be quite misleading. Take in particular the chapter on air pollution. Wallace-Wells tells us: 鈥淕oing forward, the planet鈥檚 air won鈥檛 just be warmer; it will likely also be dirtier, more oppressive, and more sickening.鈥�
It鈥檚 true that warming worsens ozone pollution, and that this might cause a little more damage to people鈥檚 health if other forms of air pollution remain at the same level. But the move away from fossil fuels will greatly reduce other forms of air pollution, far outweighing this effect 鈥� something Wallace-Wells admits a few pages on apropos something else.
But the biggest issue with the book is what鈥檚 missing. Wallace-Wells says there are two layers of uncertainly about what global warming means for our way of life 鈥� how much more greenhouse gases we emit, and how much the climate changes as result of those emissions.
In fact, there are three layers. The third is how much we do to prepare and adapt to the changing world. This could be the single most important factor in determining how bad things get for us as the planet heats up.
Wallace-Wells does touch on this in the chapter on hunger. But he does not make it clear that conflict and poverty are the main reasons people still go hungry today, not a failure to grow enough.
He hails vertical farming 鈥� growing food indoors 鈥� as a technological breakthough that might help us grow more food. In reality, it鈥檚 an incredibly energy intensive way to produce food that won鈥檛 be part of the solution anytime soon.
And he dismisses genetic modification even though it has already boosted yields and is advancing fast. For instance, biologists have boosted plant growth by a third by improving photosynthesis 鈥� which really could transform food production.
Yes, global heating is a dire threat. It is indeed a threat to modern civilisation. But as US : 鈥淚t鈥檚 not time to 鈥榩anic鈥�! It鈥檚 time to act!
鈥淧anic evokes fear-driven, irrational, counter-productive behavior,鈥� Mann continued. 鈥淎ction evokes rational efforts to avert danger 鈥� what鈥檚 needed!鈥�
Needed indeed鈥�
