Apocalypse Never

Apocalypse Never, Michael Shellenberger

This book got a fair bit of attention when it was released in 2020, for it seemed that an environmental activist was suddenly saying that perhaps things weren’t as dire as environmental alarmists have been claiming for years.

As such, I was intrigued to read it, having studied environmental science and worked in the field many years ago. I continue to wonder what it means to be responsible stewards of God’s creation, through measured rather than extreme responses to environmental impacts. Things are so much more complicated than simplistic headlines suggest. This is where Shellenberger provides insight, considering issues from multiple perspectives including energy usage and fuel density, land-use, wildlife preservation, industrialisation, poverty and economics. He notes how the developed world has tried to impose their newly established environmental morality on developing nations, preventing their progress in ways they never had to deal with themselves.

Shellenberger has been an environmental activist for 30 years, researching and writing on environmental issues.

“Much of what people are being told about the environment, including the climate, is wrong, and we desperately need to get it right. I decided to write Apocalypse Never after getting fed up with the exaggeration, alarmism, and extremism that are the enemy of a positive, humanistic, and rational environmentalism….Apocalypse Never offers a defence of what one might call mainstream ethics. It makes the moral case for humanism, of both secular and religious variants, against the anti-humanism of apocalyptic environmentalism.”

Over 12 chapters Shellenberger highlights an alarmist environmental issue and then seeks to interact with it from numerous perspectives, showing that it’s not as simple as suggested and often the proposed solution is actually harmful to the environment, people and the economy.

Many will be those that we are familiar with, including: 

• that rainforest burning is destroying the earth’s lungs 
• that plastic straws are overrunning the world’s oceans 
• that sweatshops are destroying the planet 
• that vegetarianism is the answer to climate change 
• that sea level rises are killing the polar bears 
• that fishing practices are a problem for oceans 
• that renewable energy is the solution to all energy problems.

I am not all over each of these topics (as I guess few people would be), and at times I found it hard to figure out which direction each chapter was going; it started somewhere and ended up somewhere else. However I suspect this is the reality of the complex nature of issues when dealing on the world scale. Everything is multifaceted: the fuels people use and the way products are produced affects the world. Energy use has different impacts on different people, as do land-use and waste products.

Those in grinding poverty need reliable energy supply which would reduce charcoal production and land-clearing. In poorer countries, waste management needs to be addressed, but probably after sewer and stormwater systems are prioritised. He raises the question of whether the survival of animals that we deem attractive should be prioritised over the people struggling to live on the same land.

He looks at the higher land use required by renewable energy, bioplastics and other biofuel products. He talks about the advantages and benefits to wildlife of plastic replacements (eg. no more tortoiseshell or ivory since plastics took over). He is unwaveringly and overwhelmingly favourable about nuclear power as the solution to energy supply and production problems. He takes a close look at how oil and gas interests have been funding environmental groups to prevent nuclear power plant production.

“The fact that the energy density of fuels, and the power density of their extraction, determine their environmental impact should be taught in every environmental studies class. Unfortunately, it is not. There is a psychological and ideological reason: romantic appeal-to-nature fallacy, where people imagine renewables are more natural than fossil fuels and uranium, and that's what's natural is better for the environment.”

He notes that industrialisation is a good thing, and we should stop trying to prevent developing nations from doing so, for it takes people out of poverty. “Contrary to what I and others have long believed, the positive impacts of manufacturing outweighs the negative ones”. He wonders why we are trying to keep other nations from developing along the same path we have already done, noting our moral arrogance along the way.

I found the final chapters particularly interesting as he tried to bring together the reasons why environmentalism, particularly the extreme versions, have taken such a hold on the Western world. In the end, he concludes, it’s the secular religion of our time:

“Today is the dominant secular religion of the educated, upper-middle-class in most developed and many developing nations. It provides a new story about our collective and individual purpose. It designates good guys and bad guys, heroes and villains. And it does so in the language of science, which provides it with legitimacy.”

On one hand, he suggests environmentalism and vegetarianism is a strong break from the Judeo-Christian religious tradition, particularly because they reject the view that humans have dominion over the earth. But on the other hand, he proposed that it’s a new kind of religion, one that replaces God with nature:

“I believe that secular people are attracted to apocalyptic environmentalism because it meets some of the same psychological and spiritual needs as Judeo-Christianity and other religions.” 

Yet he notes, while religion provides people with meaning, purpose and a guide to positive, pro-social and ethical behaviour, on the other hand:

“The trouble with the new environmental religion is that it has become increasingly apocalyptic, destructive, and self-defeating. It leads its adherents to demonize their opponents, often hypocritically. It drives them to seek to restrict power and prosperity at home and abroad. And it spreads anxiety and depression without meeting the deeper psychological, existential, and spiritual needs it's extensively secular devotees seek…

negativity has triumphed over positivity. In place of love, forgiveness, kindness, and the kingdom and heaven, today’s apocalyptic environmentalism offers fear, anger and the narrow prospects of avoiding extinction.”

It’s a fact-dense book, with many quotes, figures and references. It’s hard to argue with such data, although we also know data can be used to say many things. He notes if he installed a battery and solar system in his home, it would take 17 years to pay off, hardly a great renewable investment financially. He has access to much cheaper power than we do, for a similar system in our home would be paid off in 6 years. At the same time, woven throughout are stories and anecdotes to illustrate his points. There is specific naming and shaming of various people and players, and he doesn’t hesitate to identify those who benefit financially from their stance, being quite harsh about some. Generally, I think it could have been edited better. A quick look at reviews online suggests he has ardent followers and harsh critics in equal measure, which is no great surprise.

I found it an interesting and thought-provoking read. It broadened my understanding of many environmental issues and provided angles to each that I had not considered in detail before. It is more optimistic and more favourable towards humanity than other writings in this field, which appealed to me. Lots of food for thought.