Kirkus Review

The future may not be altogether rosy, but it may be less grim than many environmental scientists project. Melting ice caps, rising sea levels, intensifying storms: all tipping points, one would think, any one of which could wreak incredible destruction across the planet. However, environmental journalist and activist Shellenberger argues that much of the news about the environment, especially climate change, is incorrect and/or overstated, marked by "exaggeration, alarmism, and extremism," all of which run counter to the principles of good science and what he characterizes as a positive and humanistic approach to environmental troubles. One aspect of his argument concerns the economic advancement of developing nations. For example, he writes, the Congo is dysfunctional in part precisely because it's undeveloped, and the eastern portion of the country "could produce much more food and support many more people if there were roads, fertilizers, and tractors." On that note, adds the author, agricultural yields are expected to rise in the coming decades by 20 to 30 percent, depending on which scenario one follows, contrary to projections of widespread famine caused by climate change. Shellenberger asserts that his conclusions are drawn from the best scientific literature and that works such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's summary of climate change have advanced incorrect assumptions such as the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035. Of course, it's not yet 2035, and those glaciers seem to be melting away pretty quickly, so it remains to be seen where we'll be in another 15 years. The author predicts a future in which people will suffer far less greatly than some of the direr scenarios would have it, but some of that will depend on adopting still-controversial measures, such as the nuclear energy that he advocates. Though arguable, Shellenberger's prediction of a healthier future adds balance to the literature. Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.