An inconvenient apocalypse Environmental collapse, climate crisis, and the fate of humanity

Jackson (Hogs Are Up), cofounder of the Land Institute, and journalist Jensen (The Restless and Relentless Mind of Wes Jackson) opt for blunt realism in this impassioned take on having to "accept changes in the way we live and in the way we think about being alive" to thwart the worst of climate catastrophe. Suggesting that humanity suffers from crises of consumption and of meaning, the authors assert a need for an "honest reckoning" at this "all-hands-on-deck point in human history." They propose a "fewer-and-less" future in which fewer people consume less energy, though they "don't pretend to know" what a stable global population number might be. They warn, too, that "modern systems are coming to an end" and "there are many things that we believe we can't do without," such as coffee, that people will lose in the coming decades. To facilitate a "low-energy world," the authors encourage individual skill-building in areas such as agriculture and carpentry, and development of community-based living. Harrowing and accessible, this is just the thing for readers interested in a sociological or philosophical examination of the climate crisis. (Sept.)

Jackson (Consulting the Genius of the Place) and Jensen (We Are All Apocalyptic Now) take a hard look at the near future as climate change intensifies and predict looming crises will lead to human suffering and radical changes. The consuming activities of humans have pushed the planet far over its carrying capacity and degraded essential ecosystems. Increased recycling and switching to electric vehicles won't save the Western world lifestyle. Nor can people rely on geoengineering projects to halt climate change. Jackson and Jensen blame energy-seeking human nature for bringing us to this point, stating that we must ration carbon and limit its extraction. In the coming decades, they expect unprecedented energy drawdown, likely a collapse to a much smaller population and simpler societies. Surviving farmers and villagers might find themselves living as many Indigenous Americans on reservations do now, with rickety infrastructures at best. The authors reference the Old Testament and Octavia Butler's science fiction novels. VERDICT Jackson and Jensen cut through pervasive denial about humanity's destiny in a more hostile environment. As in an effective seminar, they posit a situation and then raise questions that will resonate with readers.--David R. Conn

Where does that leave us? Let's sum up the state of affairs at his moment in history: We humans have made a mess of things, which is readily evident if we face the avalanche of studies and statistics describing the contemporary ecological crises we face. But even with the mounting evidence of the consequences for people and the ecosphere, we have not committed to a serious project to slow the damage that we do. Those who have little or no access to wealth and power would be within their rights to object, on the grounds that the "we" diffuses responsibility. Who has made a mess of things and who has failed to act? Who's to blame for the problems and who's responsible for the costs? Put more bluntly, borrowing from the imagined exchange between the Lone Ranger and Tonto when they were in a tough fight with Indians, "What do you mean, we, white man?" Our thesis: While not every individual or culture is equally culpable, the human failure over the past 10,000 years is the result of the imperative of all life to seek out energy-rich carbon. Humans play that energy-seeking game armed with an expansive cognitive capacity and a species propensity to cooperate and develop a complex division of labor. That's a way of saying that humans are smart, and we know how to coordinate our activities to leverage our smarts. Specific individuals and societies are morally accountable for their failures, and certain political and economic systems are central to those failures. But the failures are also the result of the kind of organisms we are. Both things are true, and both things are relevant. The global North--which is to say, fossil-fuel powered capitalism as it developed in Europe--bears primary responsibility for the shape of the contemporary crises, and those societies have failed to meet their obligations, or in some cases to even acknowledge an obligation, to change course. In our lifetimes, the primary force behind that failure has been the United States of America. Within these affluent societies, the wealthy and powerful bear the greatest responsibility for destructive policies. But if there is to be a decent human future, we have to realize that human-carbon nature is at the core of the problem, a reality that exempts no one. We cannot ignore the relevance of "we." This may sound harsh in a world with so much human suffering, so unequally distributed. So, let us be clear: This analysis does not minimize or trivialize that suffering. Nor does this analysis ignore or minimize the moral and political failures that exacerbate it. We will say this over and over, so there can be no misunderstanding: Strategies for a sustainable human presence must involve holding the wealthy and powerful accountable for damage done, and moving toward a more equitable distribution of wealth and power. Those goals are desirable independent of ecological realities. Those realities also mean, as a starting point, a commitment to a downpowering and an acceptance of limits, which is necessary for a withering away of the growth economy, which is necessary for long-term survival. Call it "degrowth" or "steady state economics" or "doughnut economics." Advocates for different approaches will disagree about specifics of policy proposals, but there is a growing awareness of the need to talk about limits. That starts with recognizing the need to transcend capitalism and the current politics designed to serve capitalists, in pursuit of an equitable distribution of wealth within planetary boundaries. Those of us living in the more affluent sectors of the world should not try to evade these moral assessments and political obligations. If this kind of honest reckoning with history and contemporary economic/political realignment were accomplished, then what? With nearly eight billion people and most of the world's infrastructure built with, and dependent on, highly dense energy, then what? If running that existing infrastructure on renewable energy is highly unlikely, then what? Excerpted from An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity by Wes Jackson, Robert Jensen All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.