The New Climate War: the fight to take back our planet

by Michael E. Mann

A world-leading expert exposes how fossil-fuel companies have waged a thirty-year campaign to blame individuals for climate change while taking no responsibility themselves, and offers guidance on what we must do now to reverse global warming.

Recycle. Fly less. Eat less meat. These are some of the ways that we’ve been told we can save the planet. But are individuals really to blame for the climate crisis?

Seventy-one per cent of global emissions come from the same 100 companies. Companies that have spent the last 30 years using clever marketing techniques to place the responsibility for reversing climate change on individuals, whose actions — however well meaning — simply won’t be enough alone. The result has been disastrous for our planet.

In The New Climate War, renowned scientist Michael E. Mann argues that all is not lost. He draws the battle lines between the people and the polluters — fossil-fuel companies, right-wing plutocrats, and petro-states — and outlines a plan for forcing our governments and corporations to wake up and make real change.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Climate Change, Environment, Politics, Sustainability, Nature

368 pages, Paperback

First published January 12, 2021

Reviews

[Leif · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was disappointed. Michael Mann is an important figure and his research has been foundational to understanding global warming. However, his long experiences at the brunt of climate change denialism and his personal friendship with centrist politicians have imparted onto him a warped sense of politics. In Mann's take on the "new climate war", the battle rages between "activists" (such as him, one might conclude) and "inactivists" who seem to be a constellation of fossil fuel representatives, left-leaning politicians, and populists. In fact, one gets the sense that Mann is more distraught at politicians like Bernie Sanders and platforms such as Twitter than at the historical sources of ire such as your more traditional climate change deniers - thus, the "new" climate war.

This is naive. At worst, the rough and ready willingness to attribute "inactivism" to the behaviour of those Mann dislikes merely confuses the issues. It is most strongly misguided when - as is often the case - Mann attributes "inactivism" to Russian interference in politics of all sorts. Mann attributes Bernie Sanders' popularity to Russian trolls; he attributes Canadian opposition to Justin Trudeau and Catharine McKenna to Russian trolls; he speculates whether Michael Moore's misguided and flawed film Planet of the Humans is backed by Russian trolls. He accuses the left-wing opposition to some climate policies, such as was the case in the gillet jaune protests or the Green New Deal opposition to carbon pricing, as trolling or as untenable inactivism. This is paranoia at worst, lazy blame-shifting at best. It seems beyond Mann's comprehension to understand the deep-rooted social and political causes that create real divisions between people, and, as a consequence, he sides with the elite technocracy of neoliberalism.

There are times when Mann's critical expertise is truly interesting and serves a purpose, such as his irate problem-raising of the more hyperbolic voices such as Nathaniel Rich, David Wallace-Wells, and Jem Bendell, all of whose interventions he casts as successes of doom-mongering salesmanship that have distorted scientific findings. And, in fairness, Mann is conscious of the probable interest in writers such as Naomi Klein, but when the chips are down he's not willing to extend beyond market-based policies. In fact, he points at the scientists who are growing discontented with capitalist exploitation as a possible source of inactivism, where he finds that capitalism's skeptics are "divisive" and themselves "exploitable" by fossil fuel interests or other evolved politics of delay and denial.

Ultimately, this is not a book I would recommend. There are certainly interesting sections and I will always make time to read Mann's work, but the speculative quality of his dismissiveness of those who disagree with his implicit politics is a deep, violent flaw in his attempt to describe a "new climate war".

[David Wineberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Climate change has evolved its own universe, complete with leading characters, heroes, villains, critics, trolls, bots, character assassins, misinformation, misdirection and backroom plots. It is a world largely unknown to most readers, who probably think of it as an argument among scientists. Michael Mann, arguably at the center of the vortex, tries to explain it in The New Climate War.

Mann and his co-authors published the paper showing carbon pollution as a hockey stick, rising sharply after centuries of trivial growth. The name stuck and made their finding famous, and infamous. Attacks began soon after, and have continued – for nearly 25 years now. Mann has a thick skin and deals with it all in its turn. He is fighting the good fight – the one with the data, the sciences and the resolve.

He tackles the naysayers head on. When hears the Green New Deal will cost too much, the answer is inaction will cost far more. He wants everyone to know real progress is being made, doom can be avoided, and sitting on the sidelines is tantamount to criminal negligence.

He is constantly correcting misinformation, as trolls, bots, and conservative politicians are forever pulling a figure out of context and using it to damn the entire issue. Or worse, an incorrect or fraudulent figure. From temperature rise to sea levels, from carbon in the atmosphere to carbon in the oceans, the constant flow of false claims makes scientists in general look bad. It takes total vigilance to get back to a level playing field. Mann says the models have proven reliable, the predictions are coming true, and action is required, right now.

Unfortunately, the Russians make their living selling oil and gas. Between them and American Big Oil, the war with climate science will continue, and it’s a dirty war.

As a child, Mann was inspired by the telegenic Carl Sagan and his Cosmos TV series. He has taken that passion and media-savvy onto his own back, and is constantly on the front lines, battling the climate change deniers, doomsayers and inactivists. He knows all the players, their strengths and weaknesses, their pluses and minuses. A lot of the book is his own reviews of their performances on the global stage. This alone is worth the price of admission, as most of the names, while possibly familiar, are largely unknowns to most readers. Their value or lack thereof is instructive. Readers can now know who to trust and why, at long last. If readers want to know more about Bjorn Lomborg and David Wallace-Wells, and how they present their “findings”, this is the place to look.

The evil villain in this play is the fossil fuel industry, taking its tactics from the tobacco story. “It includes an array of powerful Ds: disinformation, deceit, divisiveness, deflection, delay, despair-mongering, and doomism” he says. And like tobacco, oil’s war chest is bottomless.

It is consciously delaying the inevitable, even as its own scientists and executives acknowledge Big Oil’s responsibility for the climate mess. It influences lawmakers to stave off the alternatives: electric Teslas have been banned in several states at the behest of the fossil fuel industry. It has also promulgated the rumors that wind turbines cause cancer, lower property values and even UFO crashes. Anything to slow the inevitable shrinking of the problem – Big Oil itself.

My own favorite Big Oil tactic is deflection. In deflection campaigns, spokespeople – and bots – claim the industry is not to blame. It is customers who are to blame. It is redolent of the 1920s tactic of guns don’t kill people; people kill people. With the climate, it’s a choice, a lifestyle, a negligence, a luxury. Pick your reason, it is not the fault of the industry. Until and unless everyone in the world changes their way of life, the oil industry doesn’t want to hear about it. This of course has the marvelous effect of generating conflict and promoting finger-pointing, behavior-shaming, virtue-signaling, and purity tests.

One of the results is a new class of players, the inactivists. These are people so upset with what they read from the industry, they withdraw to the sidelines, taking them out of the battle. This is different from the doomists, who claim it is too late so we might as well burn all the carbon we want. The inactivists have sidelined themselves because of the deflection (it is their own fault), and the misinformation (is there any truth to any of it?). Mann seeks to reactivate them with a dose of truth and a positive outcome to cling to.

He explores the arguments around carbon taxes and the fake argument about the Gilets Jaunes in France protesting against theirs. He is also concerned that the left in the USA is coming out against carbon taxes, sometimes adding that America needs a complete banning of fossil fuels, period. Carbon taxes play no role in that scenario.

Mann cites Alex Steffen coining the phrase “predatory delay” by the oil industry, as they seek to extend their revenue stream as long as possible and without further taxes. That the left has bought into this argument is quite stunning. Personally, I still like the quote from Jeff Mulgan (2013): “Communism collapsed because it didn't let prices tell the economic truth, and capitalism will collapse because it didn't let prices tell the ecological truth.” As Mann says, the Paris Accord sees a carbon tax at about $2 per ton, but it would take $75 a ton to achieve the Paris commitments. That’s the extent of the free ride Big Oil has had on the back of the global economy.

Big Oil has the right wing media in its hip pocket. Mann asks: “What’s the real reason that Germany’s solar industry is doing so much better than the solar industry in the United States? Simple: It doesn’t have Fox News, the rest of the Murdoch media, the Koch brothers, and fossil fuel interests all joining forces to destroy it.”
He debunks, for the nth time, geoengineering, in which entrepreneurs want to deploy planet-scale engineering experiments to deflect sunlight and otherwise cool the Earth. Not only will they not work, they are also impossibly expensive and no one has any idea what the unintended consequences will be. Further screwing around with the ecological balance is not the answer. Stopping the use of fossil fuels is the real answer. Worse still, geoengineering can be weaponized, making it into a whole new problem.

Blissfully, Mann’s Conclusion is different from all the other bland and pointless concluding climate change chapters I have reviewed in the past 20 years. Typically, they devote a paragraph to various pilot projects that are climate-friendly, and then express hope that more of these experiments will take place and eventually be rolled out as real options. But that’s all to come – later.

This Conclusion is far more positive. And real. Mann shows how the fossil fuel complex is suffering at the hands of students and finally, of Wall Street. Students have been pressuring their universities to disinvest from fossil fuel firm shares, and the movement is not merely successful, but spreading. Mann says it is over a thousand schools now.

Greta Thunberg and the whole generation of teens who follow her are an existential threat to the biggest industry in the world – fossil fuels. It has said so publicly. They will do anything to discredit her, down to criticizing the boat she took to New York to avoid a flight – because the plastic hull wasn’t recyclable. Clearly, she’s got Big Oil is on the run.

Meanwhile, Wall Street is withholding funding of fossil fuel projects because it is keenly aware of the “transition risk” as more and more energy projects are of the renewable kind. Exxon Mobil was removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average because its future prospects won’t help the Dow advance any more.

He also sees staunch Republican deniers coming around. They see the inevitability of action, and are at long last willing to buck the party stalwarts and vote in favor. This has a lot to do with public acceptance, which Mann sees as potentially jumping into a solid majority as more and more catastrophic weather events pile up. Even some of the right wing climate change denying “think tanks” are suffering from withdrawal of support, right down to pathetic attendance at their conferences.

Wind and solar power now account for 250 gigawatts of energy, some 20% of US output, as coal is clearly on its way out in the USA. Even without the levels of subsidies seen elsewhere in the world, renewables have a more than firm footing in the economy.

He also thinks there are lessons being drawn from the COVID-19 pandemic. The deniers have proven to be totally incorrect, while the models and scientists have proven to be reliable. Maybe Americans will actually listen to their climate scientists, too. Mann likens it to the massive increase in support for gay marriage, which happened in a truly remarkable short period. He hopes it can happen again.

I don’t mind saying I have never felt so good about a climate change book before reading The New Climate War.

But let me end with a quote from Mann’s inspiration, Carl Sagan (1996): “I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time—when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness.”

This guy got it. And so does Michael Mann.

David Wineberg

[Rhys · Rating 2 out of 5]

Based on this book, if the author were on the design team for the Titanic, he would be arguing against the inclusion of life-boats: that they represent a ‘doomist’ attitude that might upset the passengers and simply validate the opinions of those who believe the ship will sink on its maiden voyage.

Mann promotes a gradualist approach to the climate crisis – “behavioral change, incentivized by appropriate government policy, intergovernmental agreements, and technological innovation”. Most of the book revolves around his admonishment of doomists; at least the caricature of a doomist he creates. He believes that any admission of the seriousness of the climate crisis must be followed by a ritual act of penance he calls ‘hope’, and a nod to the wonders of human agency.

Maybe it is because Michael Mann is a scientist that he has a predilection to abstraction: trying to address the social response to climate change by controlling (i.e. ignoring) confounding variables like inequality, identity and culture, class, and neoliberal capitalism, leaving only some sort of techno-solutionism with a dash of slack-jawed optimism for a future moderation in (American) partisan politics.

Fixating on any number of technologies that may be employed towards a climate solution ignores the root causes of the emerging climate crisis. That is, a politics that is dedicated to preserving its class; a century of built infrastructure and industry premised on high-quality energy; and an economic system that primarily serves the ‘favoured fifth’ of humanity.

Rather than criticizing the doomsters (and wrongly throwing them in with the deniers and the ‘inactivists’ that represent the inertia against solving the many issues of climate change), it might be better to acknowledge their position (mitigation and adaptation) and provide a real foundation for change that addresses the many related and intersecting issues. In other words, a climate plan must restrain the accumulation of wealth and consumption of the favoured fifth and a plan for the transition from growth-oriented and consumption-based capitalism.

It seems to me that this book does more to disengage people from addressing climate change than anything written by the doomers he pillories.

[Ivana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably one of the most important climate change books to read in this moment.
Unlike others of Mann's books, this one doesn't focus on the physics/science of climate change. We've already beat that dead horse, and there are plenty of books out there that explain the scientific mechanisms of climate change and how humans accelerate this natural phenomenon.
This books draws the parallels to the "Merchants of Doubt", which is another must-read book if we're to understand how the very few (albeit, very powerful) fossil-fuel companies have swindled humanity and waged one of the most lethal disinformation/deflection campaign in the history of our humanity.
I too have fallen victim to their disinformation campaign, and there were times when I just about gave up on the hope that we can do anything to reverse course, or at least mitigate what is to be a certain catastrophic climate future. Mann talks a lot about doomism, and I am glad I read this book; I learned something new and it made me reconsider and correct how I talk about climate change to friends, family, or the social media community.
All is not lost. Not even close. We still can prevent this catastrophic future I believed was a given (by reading books like 'The Uninhabitable Earth" by David Wallace-Wells.
Solutions to climate change predicament are multi-faceted, but one thing that must happen is decarbonization of our energy system. The change has to be systematic, coupled with personal choices each of us makes.
There is hope to be had, and I am glad I read this book. I highly recommend it.

[Martin Empson · Rating 2 out of 5]

At it's best when taking on climate deniers and explaining the science, this attempt to be optimistic in the face of the climate threat by a renowned climate scientist fails to get to the heart of the problem. Mann's solutions focus on shifting public opinion to pressure fossil fuel corporations and economic pressure through carbon pricing. There's no real sense of a system that destroys the environment through a relentless drive for profit. A weak, liberal, book that doesn't do justice to the problem.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 stars for the brief (but punchy and persuasive) introduction ; then another 5 stars for the author's career, research, and important roles in public education and advocacy ... After that, everything else is gravy and, so, any reservations or quibbles I might have with the book's thesis or approach or organization or tone or prose (... and, sure, I have some ...) comfortably fade into the woodwork.

It's a book well worth reading ... and sharing ... and thinking and talking about. And don't be put off by the length. It's a serious read that merits your careful attention, but the text itself ends long before page 300; or, in other words, a full quarter of the book's volume is consumed by the voluminous/exhaustive end notes and a helpful, detailed index ... with a handful of blank pages thrown in (I'm assuming to aid note-taking or provide space for reflection).

Mann's book plays an incredibly important role in assembling (or filling in a hole in) the mosaic of issues the public needs to understand to appreciate climate change in context and recognize (or be convinced of) what we must do to (adapt to and) mitigate (or slow or limit) it. Having said that, my gut says it's not the best starting point for many interested in starting up the climate change learning curve unless you're trying to understand how to persuade your (otherwise) knowledgeable and thoughtful friends that they've fallen into the trap of balancing the two sides of the (illegitimate) climate change "debate."

Will the book turn off some readers or rub some people the wrong way? Of course. And that's OK.

For me, the timing at which I (finally, belatedly) read this (the updated edition with the 2022 Epilogue) was fortuitous. For a couple of months, I've been challenging assumptions (or, I dunno, disabusing misunderstandings), suggesting readings, and trying to overcome the confirmation biases of a highly educated professional colleague whose opinions on climate change sound (superficially) great, but align neatly, comfortably, with the deflect-and-distract-and-(most importantly/cynically)-delay chattering class. The steady stream of tropes, most informed by (what appears to be serious) reading (in this case, undertaken in good faith, even if misguided) was exhausting. I despaired to the point of ... almost ... giving up. Yet Mann (indirectly) convinced me to stick with it, and my (naive, delusional, optimistic) sense is that the door to (hmmm, facts and) reason, may be opening, so I'm not throwing in the towel just yet. So, again, I'm glad I read it.

I can't say that, if you haven't read Mann, you should start with this. But, if you care about climate change ... and even more so if you teach in the field, engage in advocacy, or merely try to persuade your family, friends, neighbors, or colleagues of the need for prompt action and systemic change, ... well, then, this book's for you.

[Tomas Bella · Rating 5 out of 5]

Najlepšia kniha, akú som zatiaľ čítal o klimatických zmenách.
Hlavná téza je takáto: klimatické zmeny sú zvládnuteľné a nakoniec ich asi aj zvládneme. Ale nie tak, že budete doma o trochu lepšie recyklovať a vypínať svetlo v kúpeľni (aj keď, neprestávajte recyklovať), ale len systematickým tlakom na vlády, aby zmenili pravidlá hry tak, aby sa štátom a firmám prestalo oplácať ničiť planétu.
Veľká časť knihy je história toho, ako sa najväčším firmám sveta podarilo odložiť riešenie ekologických problémov o celé desaťročia, pre bežného človeka príliš detailná história, ale dá sa tým prehrýzť a detaily sú fajn v tom, že z konšpiračnej teórie "korporácie nám to urobili naschvál" je takmer racionálna chladnokrvná chronológia.
Šokujúce je, že kniha je celkovo optimistická (a rieši si účty so všetkými bláznivými katastrofickými knihami typu "Neobývateľná Zem") a ide tak do hĺbky, že sa určite dozviete veľa nových vecí.

[Leah · Rating 4 out of 5]

In a surprisingly optimistic take on progress and potential for slowing the climate crisis, Michael Mann highlights a four point plan to generate political and social momentum in this comprehensive and sharp critique of climate propaganda and uninformed discourse.

1. Disregard the Doomsayers: I never would have predicted that The New Climate War would lessen my climate change-related anxiety, but it did. While emphasizing that the climate crisis is urgent, Dr. Mann also drives home the point that it is still entirely actionable. He highlights environmental policies that have already worked, citing the Montreal Protocol's shrinking effect on the hole in the ozone layer and the Clean Air Act, among others.

2. A Child Shall Lead Them: I felt like this case was not made as strongly as the rest. While he did talk extensively about the attention Greta Thunberg has so effectively brought to the issue, his point here seems to mostly rely on how much of the impact of business-as-usual warming will not be felt for at least another generation, if not two. It seemed to me to kind of let older generations off-the-hook, which seems problematic if you're espousing systemic policy change as the solution when overwhelmingly policy makers are two to three generations ahead of Ms. Thunberg.

3. Educate, Educate, Educate: While climate change deniers absolutely still exist, they are not as plentiful as some media outlets would have you believe. If you try to engage your friends and neighbors on this issue, you may be surprised to find more common ground than you may have anticipated. And for those who decry the cost of climate action, Dr. Mann supplies a slew of talking points to the contrary, including that "Climate change now threatens our economy to the tune of more than a trillion dollars a year," "the greatest opportunity for job growth in the energy industry comes with renewables, not fossil fuels," and that "renewable energy costs are now competitive with fossil fuels--even with the incentives that are currently skewed against them."

4. Changing the System Requires Systemic Change: While supporting several positive impacts of individual action such as veganism and electric vehicles (including health benefits and cost savings) and even referencing entire industries that blame their dramatic losses on the individual action of millennials (like fast-food chains), he really drives home the point that the climate crisis cannot and will not be solved by individual action alone. In his words, "consumer choice doesn't build high-speed railways, fund research and development in renewable energy, or place a price on carbon emissions. Any real solution must involve both individual action and systemic change."

A couple minor critiques:

1. Dr. Mann's rhetoric in this volume is exceedingly populist. The takeaway is that corporations (and specifically fossil fuel interests) are self-serving and evil and not to be trusted and ordinary people must stand up and assert their rights and needs. While his argument is cogent and he provides ample evidence, it does come off as the same type of deflection he points the finger at corporations for engaging in. He talks a good talk about enhancing demand-side pressures for renewable energy and reducing demand for animal agriculture, etc. But it really seems like his heart isn't in it. He gets so focused on rebutting the arguments of industry that his own arguments don't always seem consistent. For example, when cows belch methane, it's apparently not a big deal because it has a much shorter half-life than CO2, but when it comes to fugitive methane from fracking, that's a hugely potent concern that absolutely must be addressed by policy. All in service of the argument that it's ok to eat meat but it's not ok for the government to support natural gas as a bridge fuel. You just have to be an attentive and discerning reader in this book.

2. Dr. Mann really, really does not support nuclear energy. But his argument against it is not based in science. He has fallen prey to the same uninformed discourse he loathes when it intersects with his own field. My grandfather was a nuclear reactor safety engineer who played a significant role in the cleanup of Three Mile Island and in the Yucca Mountain Project and predicted the Fukushima meltdown decades before it happened. So call me biased, but there is tremendous potential in nuclear energy and it absolutely can be done safely. Human error and susceptibility to natural disasters (like the tsunami that contributed to the Fukushima meltdown) are absolutely not intrinsic to harnessing nuclear power. That said, there is a strong argument to be made from a social justice perspective that uranium mining and processing is hazardous and exploitative, and that the risks associated with nuclear reactors and waste operations have a significant disproportionate impact on underresourced communities and communities of color. It is also currently much less cost-effective. But it should not be discounted on scientific and engineering merit.

Overall, an exceptionally accessible and insightful read that successfully grounds discussion of the climate crisis as one that remains urgent but fully actionable and solvable within the current resources and technological advances available. Highly recommend.

Much thanks to NetGalley and PublicAffairs for the eARC in exchange for the review.

[Todd Martin · Rating 2 out of 5]

When it comes to the war on the science – that is, the old climate war – the forces of denial have all but conceded defeat. But the new climate war – the war on action – is still actively being waged.
- Michael E. Mann, The New Climate War

Professor Michael E. Mann (co-author of the well-known “hockey-stick graph” depicting a sharp rise in global temperatures since the industrial revolution) has been serving on the front lines of the battle against climate change disinformation after having been accused of academic malfeasance for purportedly falsifying climate data (he did not, and multiple investigations have re-confirmed both the integrity of his work and the hockey-stick graph). Rather than take these accusations lying down, Mann has chosen to fight back and has become a prominent voice in the fight to combat climate change.

In The New Climate War Mann debunks a number of arguments put forth by those he dubs ‘inactivists’, whose goal is to shift blame away from fossil fuel companies in an effort to stave off governmental regulation. While there is much that members of the public can do to reduce their individual carbon footprint, Mann is correct to note that voluntary personal action has never once solved a global problem, let alone one of the magnitude of global warming. He rightly asserts that regulation of the fossil fuel industry is an essential part of the climate solution. The other strategies Mann proposes are largely what you’d expect. He urges world governments to:
- Adopt a carbon tax
- Enact a carbon cap and trade system
- Replace fossil fuels with green energy

While I hold Professor Mann in the highest regard, with this latest book I feel like he has drifted away from his role as a science communicator and problem solver, taking up a new mantel as a political ideologue with an axe to grind. That is rather a shame because the world is already replete with those quick to petty putdowns and we desperately need clear-eyed pragmatists who are able to communicate the tough decisions we face as a species if we are to solve this pressing and difficult problem. Instead, Mann uses the book to lash out at his perceived enemies while demanding that only certain climate solutions be considered, denigrating approaches that don’t meet his test of ideological purity.

This is reminiscent of the approach taken by the pro-life crowd who oppose strategies that reduce unwanted pregnancies such as contraception and sex education to instead focus exclusively on criminalizing abortion. When it comes to these fundamentalists, only ideological pure solutions are acceptable. In a similar vein Mann defends the burning of wood waste as an energy solution despite the fact that there aren’t enough trees to meet global energy demand, but disparages carbon sequestration and the planting of trees because they are insufficient in and of themselves to offset all carbon emissions produced worldwide. Why he holds these tactics to wildly different standards isn’t explained. More egregiously, he dedicates only a single paragraph to the discussion of the role of population in the climate crisis, only doing so to accuse anyone who would suggest that the number of humans on the planet be reduced as ‘racist’.

It pains me as a progressive to admit it, but leftists are far too cavalier in tossing around the ‘racism’ charge. It’s a strategy used by those who want to shut down discussion of any issue with which they disagree. Given Mann provides no evidence in support of this accusation, there’s every reason to assume he’s doing the same here.

So why is a reducing the birth rate racist? According to Mann “people in the developing world, where the main population growth is taking place, have a tiny carbon footprint in comparison with those in the industrial world.” I’ve encountered this argument before and frankly find it baffling. First, I’m not aware of anyone who has proposed that family planning measures be limited to ‘developing countries’. In fact, as Mann himself alludes, a reduction of the population of those living in industrialized nations would indeed have a proportionally greater benefit. Second, when it comes to developing countries, it’s important to point out that there are few strategies that do more to empower women (particularly in locals with a history of misogyny) than providing them with reproductive control of their own bodies. If anything, it strikes me that a more plausible accusation of ‘racism’ could be directed towards those who seek to deny women in these areas access to contraception, but I’m not one to throw about this term as carelessly as Mann himself is wont to do.

Mann goes on to say that: “The problem isn’t so much ‘too many people’ as it is ‘too many people who burn a lot of carbon’.” Wait … what?!? If the problem is ‘too many people who burn a lot of carbon’ wouldn’t the problem be improved by … and I’m just spit-balling here … fewer people?

Here’s the thing … the magnitude of the climate crisis is so large and the timeframes to take meaningful action so short, that no effective options should be off the table. This is, of course, why most reputable climate activists encourage an ‘all of the above’ approach to the issue, because no silver bullet exists. Yes, we should absolutely pursue the measures that Mann recommends, but there are good reasons to believe they aren’t sufficient. Take a look at the following chart, which depicts global greenhouse gas emissions over time and ask yourself … how good a job is green energy doing in reducing CO2?


(Source = Center for Climate and Energy Solutions)

More green energy is produced today than ever before, yet greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise. This trend expected to continue for decades to come due to population growth and increased energy use per capita.

Quite simply, more needs to be done and this should include efforts to reduce the size of the human population to a sustainable level. There are nearly 8 billion people on the planet today and that number is expected to increase to 11 billion by the end of the century. More crucially … every single one of these individuals yearns to live a highly consumptive western lifestyle. It would take 5 Earths to support the current human population if everyone's consumption patterns rivaled those of us in the U.S. At the risk of stating the obvious … just the one exists.

Global warming can result in species extinction, destabilization of ecosystems, resource depletion and population displacement, it exacerbates regional conflict and can contribute to political instability … but do you know what? While differing in the specifics, overpopulation has the potential to produce each of these disastrous outcomes as well. Solving global warming is a necessary condition for species (including our own) to thrive, but it is not one that is sufficient. Even if the climate crisis is resolved in its entirety, we could still wind up facing a planet-wide collapse of critical ecosystems should our species exceed the carrying capacity of the globe. I will also point out that a significant reduction in the human population not only benefits the climate but has the potential to improve EVERY OTHER environmental problem as well.

To be clear, no one supports draconian or involuntary measures such as China’s ‘one child’ policy. Instead, experts suggest that universal access to birth control, tax incentives, and education and empowerment of women are the most effective means to reduce birthrates. These could be coupled with social engineering techniques designed to overcome the cultural stigma of women who are told from an early age that they can’t live happy and fulfilling lives without children and that promote the freedom, satisfaction and financial benefits that a child-free lifestyle can bring.

Only an ideologue with fundamentalistic tendencies would so cavalierly dismiss potential solutions when the stakes are so high. The fact that Mann does so with no intellectual justification beyond puerile invective is not only disappointing but will cause many to disregard his otherwise important message.

[Bevan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Review of The New Climate War, by Michael Mann

Dr. Michael Mann is not an alarmist. At least he tries not to be one.

Dr. Mann is an eminent scientist and writer; the arguments in his new book present, as we have come to expect, reasoned and thoughtful examinations of current climate science. As well, Dr. Mann, as the title implies, looks at the different warring factions attempting to divide the public, and strives to address the crises of climate change and global warming.

To begin at the beginning: When Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, her book received enormous positive attention. Nevertheless, she was attacked by those in the chemical industry and others for daring to suggest that DDT might be injurious to our health and the health of the environment. Later, when scientists began suggesting that smoking and second-hand smoke cause cancers and other diseases, some of the same individuals began criticizing the science behind the research undergirding these findings pointing to the dangers of smoking. Moving forward, a number of the very same critics began finding fault with research behind climate change. There were other issues: acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, and pollution; these, too, came under scrutiny for criticism. Interested industries began to question the science, rightfully or wrongly.

The stakes have gotten higher. As the dangers from climate change have become widely recognized by scientists and the public, industry groups and lobbyists have begun using tactics which range from psychological warfare to downright lies. And, they are clever. Dr. Mann details the strategies used by Madison Avenue firms, for instance, hired to sow doubt and dissension amongst the public and individual scientists. And, there are huge amounts of money involved in the manipulation of opinion about climate change. Two countries alone have done a great deal to sabotage progress on climate: Saudi Arabia and Russia.

This is a climate war that threatens the entire planet; every economy on Earth must address the problems of climate and global warming.

Making matters more complex, entities on the Right delight in splitting the Left into factions. As Dr. Mann points out just in one instance, carbon pricing schemes have stirred up divisions where none should exist. These disagreements cause disruptions and and make progress more difficult, exactly what climate denialists want.

One of the very unfortunate results of all the propaganda and spreading of false ideas is that groups which should be allied, or at least working with each other towards common goals, are at loggerheads. This is apparent in the conflicts between the environmental left and union activists on the left.

Possible solutions for solving the warming climate range from geoengineering (salting the atmosphere with various chemicals), additional nuclear power plant construction, massive reforestation, to various adaptation and resilience strategies. As Dr. Mann points out in his book, there are significant difficulties with all of these: practical, economic, and political. Basically, the problem with all of these “solutions” is that they permit the fossil fuel industry to keep pumping enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, with all the attendant problems with that.

Another problem that is merely political is the idea that we are doomed and we can do nothing: Doomism. This kind of defeatist thinking is very unhelpful, and plays into the hands of the fossil fuel industry.

Dr. Mann has written a thoughtful book which attempts a rational look at all of the issues. As he states: we could meet all of our energy needs by 2050 with a mix of all the available technologies at our disposal and others coming online. “The solution is already here. We just need to deploy it rapidly and at a massive scale. It all comes down to political will and economic incentives.”

[Alice Long · Rating 2 out of 5]

Honestly the only word I can really come up with to describe this book is “Petty”
I had a fair amount of respect for Michael Mann before reading this book, but too much of it is just Michael responding to tweets that have upset him or people who don’t agree with his (frankly, inadequate) plan for dealing with the climate crisis.
There were some interesting points, and some well structured arguments but they were few and far between. Ultimately disappointing and frustrating.

[Eustacia Tan · Rating 5 out of 5]

So I don’t think I’ll finish my entire summer reading list before my course starts, but I’d have finish about half of it now that I’ve also read The New Climate War. In The New Climate War, climatologist and geophysicist Michael E. Mann draws on his years of experience in the field to talk about the ways that we are impeding meaningful action that could help mitigate the effects of the damage we’ve done to the environment.

Mann clearly and persuasively explains the ways climate inactivists persuade people not to act, or to choose non-viable solutions. As I understand it, the arguments used are:

- Pushing responsibility for the environment onto the individual – while we need to take charge of our personal decisions and their environmental impact, a lot of corporations are using this as an excuse not to take any action at all.
- Campaigns against carbon taxes and other proposals that would tax environmentally unfriendly sources of energy
- Solutions that may or may not just migitate the problem but help ignore/reduce the push to better alternatives (this is especially for measures that mitigate the carbon emissions from coal)
- Either minimising the situation so that you don’t feel the need to take action, or harping on the consequences so much that you feel like any action taken is going to be useless

For the most part, The New Climate War is focused on the US political system (where Mann makes it clear that both political parties aren’t perfect), while also looking at Australia and the UK. Apart from Germany as a case study – which was brought up in a debate in the US by politicians – I didn’t really see any discussions of Europe or Asia, especially Southeast Asia. It’s a bit of a pity, because with greenwashing around, it can be hard to see where Singapore stands or what type of issues we face. As far as I could find, as recently as 2018, Singaporeans seem prone to the doomism message but the government may be taking action? I do think that Singapore’s small size makes it easy for us to assume that our actions won’t have an impact.

Another thing I would have liked to read about, though it may be slightly out of the scope of this book, would be the environmental impacts of new technologies like NFTs and blockchain. Mann does mention that technology can help us use energy more efficiently and to use clean sources of energy (for example, solar energy), so I was wondering about these two things and it’s true impact the environment. From what I understand, blockchain (especially bitcoin) uses a lot of energy in the mining and I could see that having a huge impact on the environment. So if anyone has recommendations on this particular topic, please send them my way.

While reading The New Climate War, I was reminded of Do You Believe in Magic by Paul A. Offit (Goodreads Review). Offit’s book looks at the arguments for and against alternative medicine, and The New Climate War is similar in in the sense that it debunks a lot of myths about environmental efforts. But perhaps a more on-topic book that you could read after this would be Post Growth by Tim Jackson, especially the chapter on The Art of Power. While the books aren’t directly related, I did get the sense that one reason why inactivist messaging works is because many people just assume that we have to carry on business as normal (I’m also reminded of this New Yorker comic). Post-Growth looks at the way we could switch to a new way of doing business, and I think the ideas in Jackson’s book could be used to complement what Mann is saying here.

This review was first posted at Eustea Reads

[martucha czyta · Rating 5 out of 5]

Michael Mann jest amerykańskim klimatologiem, słynnym m.in. z badań nad cyklonami na Atlantyku, ale jego główną specjalizacją jest globalne ocieplenie. W książce „Nowa wojna klimatyczna” prezentuje nam uzasadnione i opracowane badania współczesnej nauki o klimacie. Przygląda się walce, która toczy się pomiędzy aktywistami i dezaktywistami, którzy próbują podzielić opinię publiczną i starają się na swój sposób zaradzić kryzysom zmian klimatycznych i globalnemu ociepleniu.
Autor pomaga nam też zrozumieć, a może nawet i uświadomić, jak producenci paliw kopalnych oszukali ludzkość i przeprowadzili jedną z najbardziej tragicznych i zgubnych kampanii dezinformacyjnych dla ludzkości. Podkreśla, że jednym z rezultatów propagowania nieprawdziwych poglądów i idei jest to, że grupy teoretycznie mające ze sobą współpracować dla wspólnych celów, są w stałym starciu. Wojna klimatyczna dotyczy każdego z nas. Wszyscy, bez wyjątku, bierzemy w niej udział.
Moją uwagę szczególnie przykuł rozdział o energii odnawialnej. Nie byłam świadoma tego ile mitów i plotek krąży wokół farm wiatrowych i fotowoltaicznych. Było to dla mnie dość abstrakcyjne, ale i przerażające. Ludzie, którzy nie mają wiedzy na jakiś temat potrafią uwierzyć w największy absurd.
Cała uwaga skupiona jest na USA, a dokładnie na jego systemie politycznym w kwestii klimatycznej, wspomniana jest jeż Wielka Brytania, Australia i Niemcy. Zabrakło mi trochę informacji na temat innych kontynentów, szczególnie Azji, która ma również ogromny wpływ na to w jakim stanie jest nasz klimat.
Nie da się ukryć, że była to bardzo wymagająca lektura, ale absolutnie fantastyczna i ważna. Polecam każdemu, ale ostrzegam, że ilość informacji i danych jest ogromna.

[Archy O · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too many tweets and not enough structure

The first portion of this book does an excellent job summarizing the history of the environmental movement and drawing parallels between the fossil fuel lobby and other malevolent corporations. The second half, however, is rather rambling. There’s far too many verbatim quotes of Tweets that the author thinks are interesting, and a few recurring authorial tics (« if this sounds like.... that's because it is... ») which detract from the force of the argument. The author rather crudely transitions from a chapter on why environmentalists ought to stick together and not split hairs to a chapter on why he vehemently disagrees with several fairly mainstream ideas in energy and climate science (carbon capture, nuclear power). I was hoping for a more deft handling of this tension between an inclusive and decisive climate movement.

[Steven · Rating 4 out of 5]

Recommended with some caveats. Michael Mann's perspective is unique as he is a well regarded climate scientist who has long fought against the misinformation campaign seeking to stop any systemic action to address climate change. For this reason, his insights are valuable and in many cases authoritative.

However, while his arguments against what he calls "doom porn" in contemporary climate writing are well taken, he frequently steps out of his depth when discussing policy disagreements between anti-capitalists and capitalists within the progressive left and the book would be better if those segments were removed altogether. While ultimately he concedes that writers such as Naomi Klein may be right in their critiques of neoliberal economics, he only does so after spending an inordinate amount of the book deriding twitter users that he frequently acknowledges might be bots.

But in the end it is not a book about climate science, nor economic policy. Mann's main focus is the history of the discourse around climate change, and this book is his attempt to course correct the present state of it. He is refreshingly optimistic about the path to a carbon-free world, without abandoning a sobering analysis of the risks at hand.

[Kurt · Rating 4 out of 5]

I appreciate hearing what actual climate scientists think about the climate crisis. Maybe it's just me, but I tend to trust scientists on their subject of expertise more than, say, politicians, talk show hosts, or industry executives and their spokespeople. I'm just weird that way I guess. At any rate, that puts me into a tiny minority among the people in my social sphere.

The gist of this book is that urgent action is needed and that it is not too late to avert a serious crisis. The author is far more optimistic than I am on the subject of the collective political and social resolve of humanity to address the issue of climate change. I trust him on matters of science, but not so much on the matters of human greed, stubbornness, willful ignorance, apathy, and gullibility. As a result, he didn't convince me to be less pessimistic. But I still hope I am wrong and he is right.

[Barb · Rating 5 out of 5]

Makes me want to re evaluate how many stars i gave the Uninhabitable Earth when so many facts in the later where wrong

[Scribe Publications]

Mann shows that corporations and lobbyists have been successful in convincing us that climate change will be fine, if we just recycle our bottles and turn out the lights. Instead, he says, global warming is a problem way too hot for any one person to handle. He’s optimistic though, because he sees what we really can and will do. Read his book, and let's get to work.
Bill Nye, Science Educator, CEO of The Planetary Society

Fossil fuel companies have, for decades longer than I have been alive, been the largest contributors to the climate crisis that affects my generation today — all in pursuit of profits and growth. In The New Climate War, Michael Mann holds them to account, and shows us how we can take the bold steps we must all take together to win the battle to save this planet.
Greta Thunberg, climate activist

This book takes the reader behind the front lines into the decades long information war waged by the fossil fuel industry and those that share their interests. From his perspective as a leader in the battle for scientific reason, Michael Mann provides hope and a roadmap for all of us to address the systemic issues fuelling climate change, and shows how we can come together to wage a new war in the fight for our future.
Leonardo DiCaprio, actor and environmental activist

With this book, Michael Mann details the challenges we face from enemies (‘inactivists’) both without and within while dropping critically important breadcrumbs for us to follow to lead us out of the forest of despair and set us on the path of victory in a battle we must win. We need an army of Michaels, stat!
Don Cheadle, actor, activist, and UN global goodwill ambassador

Pulling no punches, Michael Mann lays out our predicament and tells the shocking story of persistent climate denial and corporate deception. We are in a war for the planet, but one we are now on the verge of winning. And he deftly cuts through the propaganda and shows us the path forward.
Jerry Brown, California governor, 1975-1983, 2011-2019

For over two decades, Michael Mann has been our Janus at the gates, defending climate science from corporate-funded insinuations of confusion and suspicion. We would not have progressed this far had it not been for his unflinching and brilliant rejoinders to the traffickers of doubt. This chronicle of ongoing climate injustice may make you mad, but hopefully it will make us act. This is the only civilisation we have. Mann is its resolute champion once again.
Paul Hawken, founder of Project Drawdown

The New Climate War is an insightful treatise on how the polluting fossil fuel industry and their right-wing allies have deflected the blame for the climate crisis. The book charts a common sense course for collective actions to force government and corporations to make real solutions to the climate crisis — an existential threat to humanity and the planet.
Robert D. Bullard, professor of Urban Planning and Environmental Policy at Texas Southern University

One of the world’s leading climate scientists embarks on a journey into the minds of climate change deniers to try to understand their motivations and strategies … Blunt, lucid … Consistently displaying his comprehensive command of climate science and the attendant politics … An expert effectively debunks the false narrative of denialism and advocates communal resistance to fossil fuels.
Kirkus Reviews

This book is a must read not just for people currently working to address climate change but also for those who are new to the climate fight, the latter of whom will learn much about past challenges, struggles, and attacks that have been aimed at climate champions.
Science Magazine

An engrossing mix of footnoted history, acerbic political commentary and personal anecdotes.
Science News

Punchy and illuminating … a bracing read—both eye-opening and even fun.
BookPage

The New Climate War is an informed, opinionated guide to an ever-changing conflict.
Shelf Awareness

Mann’s call to get serious about climate change couldn’t be more timely.
Richard Schiffman, New Scientist

Comprehensive.
The Financial Times

Mann is the genuine article.
New Statesman

A punchy, provocative, informed … deeply personal take on the crisis.
The Irish Times

A strategic, wide-ranging overview of humanity’s present predicament and an exploration of possible pathways out of it.
Jonathan Watts, The Guardian

Provocative.
Irish Independent

The New Climate War is an enlightening exposé of something that many of us probably already took as given: vested financial interests are psychotic in their efforts to control the dialogue.
David Ferrell, The Canberra Times

Fantastic.
David Ritter, Pro Bono Australia

The New Climate War is engaging, approachable, and ultimately deeply uplifting. Mann outlines a hopeful vision of the transformation we must undertake in order to create a better, brighter future on this planet. He makes the clear case that our species is capable of great change, laying out exactly why and how we can rise to overcome the grave challenges before us.
Sasha Sagan, author of For Small Creatures Such As We

A fascinating journey through the minds and motivations of the champions of climate denialism as well as the more recent climate doomists. Along the way, we learn of the unequivocal scientific evidence and the rapid evolution of technological solutions. Most importantly, public opinion finally seems to be at a 'tipping point' to catalyse political will to leave the next generation a sustainable world — and not a moment too soon!
Rosina Bierbaum, professor at University of Michigan and University of Maryland, and former Acting Director of OSTP

The New Climate War is a detailed, passionate, and insightful overview of the latest schemes by fossil fuel interests and their minions to halt or delay a transition to a clean energy economy.
The Progressive

[Mann's] prose rattles along, entertaining and horrifying us in equal measure as he exposes scientists, politicians, the conservative media and other supposed experts who have slowed climate action by caring more about the interests of big industry.
The New Statesman

Michael Mann may or may not be a Climate Jedi, but he is a climate smart guy and The New Climate War is a must read.
The Globe & Mail

Lucid, accessible and an important read for anyone who cares about the present and future of climate action.
The Centre Daily Times

Mann’s book is an important addition to the pushback against inaction and doom that has delayed action against climate change for too long and led too many to surrender without even a fight.
Sierra Club magazine

Mann's voice is especially powerful on the subject.
David Montgomery, The Washington Post

Mann has combined the roles of groundbreaking scientific researcher, compelling popular communicator, and courageous activist in a way few have since Carl Sagan. His latest book, The New Climate War, provides a thoughtful perspective on the forces impeding meaningful climate action.
David Carlin, Forbes

Mann offers readers an absorbing and accessible take on an alarming pattern that stands to shape the course of climate action — and our collective future.
Rebecca M. Peters, Chatham House

Mann’s book, aimed at everyone from young students to longtime activists, alerts the public to the tactics and stakes of this new climate war, and arms readers with the weapons to fight it … Mann begins by tracing the history of corporate denialist and deflection campaigns back to the early twentieth century. He then turns to more recent histories of industry-funded environmental campaigns, explaining how he found himself on the frontlines of the new climate war … The book is as much a landscape of the current climate fight as it is a history.
Oliver Lazarus, National Center for Science Education

Mann's characteristic take-no-prisoners storytelling details fossil fuel persuasion tactics ... and points to reasons to yet be hopeful … In better understanding how prospects for climate action still are threatened, readers will learn fascinating climate history and science, and will be uplifted by Mann’s take on how close society may be to a tipping point on solving the climate crisis … a must-read for every climate-savvy and climate-dependent.
Jeff Masters, Yale Climate Connections

In his new book, Mann outlines a plan for forcing our governments and corporations to wake up and make real change … The societal tipping point necessary to win the new climate war won’t happen without the active participation of citizens everywhere aiding in the collective push forward.
Michael Svoboda, Yale Climate Connections

An important and highly recommended read.
Dan Rather, SiriusXM

The push in Mann’s book has been on development of renewable sources of energy. He calls for regulation of emissions. He lashes out at climate advocates who play from the enemy’s side. Here he calls out climate purists, science communicators and idealistic technocrats who sideline the real issue and beat around the bush.
Sharon Griffin, California Herald

Mann believes this “new war” can be won, and he charts a clear path forward.
Sue Gilmore, Bay City News

Two words at the heart of Mann’s book are urgency and agency. We must fight the inactivists, the doubt-sowers and the doom-sayers, to ensure that we retain the power of agency that comes with both individual and collective action, so that our politicians implement systemic changes which meet the urgency required to tackle the climate crisis.
Max Spokes, The Oxford Blue

In this extensively researched book, Mann outlines a plan to hold corporations and governments more accountable for slowing climate change.
Ellen Wanamaker, Ames Tribune
Edit
Move Up
Move Down
Delete

Review quote

Text

(unspecified)
Internal ** 356 characters

‘Michael Mann is cautiously optimistic about the future. A number of developments give new hope: the signs of climate change are so obvious that they can no longer be denied … We are close to a tipping point — in society itself. When change comes, it can happen fast …The best cure for climate depression is to join the fight for a liveable planet.’

Brigitte Van Gerven, Citizens' Climate Lobby Belgium
Edit
Move Up
Move Down
Delete

Review quote

Text

(unspecified)
Internal ** 170 characters

‘[The New Climate War] dreams of a common future of humanity by upholding coexistence between nature and man [and] seeks ways of symbiosis and cooperation.’

K Sahdevan, CounterCurrents
Edit
Move Up
Move Down
Delete

Review quote

Text

(unspecified)
Internal ** 222 characters

‘This incisive volume will assist the creation of a much-needed collective effort, helping to frame a unified approach to waging combat on those who are destroying the environment for the sake of short term profit.’

Ed Meek, The Arts Fuse
Edit
Move Up
Move Down
Delete

Review quote

Text

(unspecified)
Internal ** 251 characters

‘He wants to keep the focus on systemic rather than individual change, and explains why that's so important. He criticises the denialists, and greed of the corporate bodies who fund them. In doing those things, his book is an asset for us all.’

David Renton, Ecologist

A fascinating untangling of the intricate web of misinformation, misdirection and deflection perpetuated by the fossil fuel industry since climate change became an incontrovertible reality. In a book that simultaneously functions as a historical account of intentional climate change misinformation campaigns as well as a cautiously optimistic look towards the future, Dr Michael Mann argues that the fundamental challenges we still face today are not tied to a technological or intellectual inability to achieve systemic change, but in the lack of political will required to do so.
Tristan Bove, Earth.org

The New Climate War isn’t as much about the proof of our changing climate as it is about the disinformation campaigns and the bad actors behind them … But it’s not all infuriating and rage-inducing. The New Climate War provides a lot of hope for the future. Mann tells it plainly, that there’s still time to make things better. Ignore the doomsayers and scaremongers — the fossil fuel industry wants inaction and, by resigning ourselves to thinking it’s too late to change, there’s no path forward … Mann is a phenomenal writer and The New Climate War is no exception. If you read nothing else for the rest of the year, make it this book. It’s eye-opening, both rage-inducing and immersive, but wonderfully all-encompassing and full of hope.
Kendra Reed, AIPT

[Noritaka Hara · Rating 5 out of 5]

I got this book for Christmas gift from my Italian brother.

I have been thinking (and gave up countless times) how to tackle climate change. It seems that we need at least a big system change to make favorable environment for energy transition. But how can we do that?

The direction of my thought might not be wrong. And the author, a renowned and legit climate scientist, casts light on how vested interests are meticulously blocking needed collective action for societal change by creating divides, deflecting efforts and creating doomism.

Vegan, plastics bags, flying and other individual well-intended actions can be exploited to drive a wedge between people, which is effective way to keep us from uniting for system changes. Blaming Individual and voluntary actions are case in point for the tactics. I wonder if the narrative for social business (aka impact investing), development of emerging technologies, and nationalism might be also used as the Trojan horse to deflect and divide us.

As we are spending more and more time and attention in each echo chamber, I believe we are even more vulnerable for such tactics and division. The book didn't go deeper on how we can fight in the new climate war. But it's certainly valuable to know our own weaknesses that vested interests are trying to exploit it before fighting the war.

[Kate · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lots of great information in this book. Read it. Some of my favorite quotes are below:

pg. 62 When the climate discourse devolves into a shouting match over diet and travel choices, and becomes about personal purity, behavior-shaming, and virtue-signaling, we get a divided community unable to speak with a united voice. We lose. Fossil fuel interests win.

pg. 63 Deflection is a particularly devious strategy for inactivists. In addition to directing attention away from the need for collective action- such as pricing or regulating carbon, removing fossil fuel subsidies, or providing incentives for clean energy alternatives- it divides the community of climate advocates by generating conflict and promoting finger-pointing, behavior-shaming, virtue-signaling, and purity tests.

We are like tenant farmers, chopping down the fence around our house for fuel, when we should be using nature’s inexhaustible sources of energy--sun, wind, and tide. ~ Thomas Edison
The fossil fuel industry loves subsidies and incentives- when they receive them. According to the International Monetary Fund, the industry receives about half a trillion dollars globally in explicit subsidies, such as in the form of assistance to the poor for the purchase of fossil-fuel-generated electricity, tax breaks for capital investment, and public financing of fossil fuel infrastructure….that didn’t happen by accident...in the 2015-2016 election cycle alone, fossil fuel companies spent $354 million in campaign contributions and lobbying.
FF cos. Have also done everything possible to block subsidies and incentives for their competition...this has led to a perverse incentive structure in the energy marketplace through which we are artificially boosting the very energy sources that are hurting the planet, while devaluing those that can save it. Industry front groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Heartland Institute have been particularly active in sabotaging efforts at the national and state levels to promote renewable energy.

Tesla may be the greatest threat of all to the fossil fuel industry...The company’s success was a triumph of American Innovation, industry, and free markets! So the Republican state senate stepped in and tried to pass a bill that would prohibit the sale of Teslas. (While the bill failed, Tesla sales were nonetheless banned in one major city, Charlotte.) Soon thereafter, Republican governor Chris Christie tried to do the same thing in JN. Other red states--TX, Utah, WVa and AZ followed suit. So much for “free-market” Republicans!

re: the plight of the poor I defer to Pope Francis- he’s rejected the energy-poverty myth, pointing out that distributed, renewable energy in the form of solar power and hydropower is far more practical than fossil fuel use in most of the developing world….As Pope Francis emphasized in his papal encyclical on the environment, climate change aggravates other societal challenges--food, water and land scarcity, health, and national and international security. The US Dept. of Defense agrees….Climate change impacts will actually place far more people in poverty than are in poverty today….A World Bank study from 2015 concluded that climate change could “thrust 100 million into deep poverty by 2030.”

Greensburg, Kansas- 2007 leveled by an EFS tornado and rebuilt 100% renewable by a Republican mayor. USA Today article 4.13.13 After devastating Tornado, Town is reborn “green”
Mayor Dixson, “We learned that the only true green and sustainable things in life are how we treat each other.”

It is a wholesome and necessary thing for us to turn again to the earth and in the contemplation of her beauties to know the sense of wonder and humility. ~ Rachel Carson

[Hayley Barnes · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Doomerism” is one of the strategies Mann claims fossil fuel companies utilize to mitigate the renewable transition.
This instantly made me think of r/collapse which has become —relatively— mainstream as of recent given the shit show unfolding before our very news feeds.

Mann explains how doomerism is a way of preventing renewables progress by planting a feeling of helplessness in the public. It’s just one of the many mechanisms he explains that FF supporters use but Mann definitely makes a lot of good points that I had never considered.

The book did not relieved my hunch for the “impending collapse of society as we know” (fuck’s sake. I have turned into one of those people) but it definitely made me —dare I say it— a little more hopeful? He only touches on climate change among the host of other challenges coming to a future near you and in no way minimizes the horror warming will bring. That being said, there are many compelling arguments made on how policy changes might improve our situation and I’m more than open to a little hopium these days.

TL;DR

If you suspect you’re becoming a doomsayer this may be the driving force to question your beliefs

[Izzy E · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a 3 and a half stars, really. It's not perfect by any means, but I think this is definitely worth reading. If only because, as someone who frequently falls prey to what Mann describes as paralysing "doomerism" about the dire state of our planet, this book served as a much-needed wake-up slap for me. It's very bad, but there is still hope! It's not an all-or-nothing situation, and there are still things we can do!
Having said that, while his scientific authority is hard to argue with, I did find that there was a streak of naivety (putting it kindly) running throughout the book which diminished its credibility ever so slightly. Not least the bit where Mann describes David Cameron as "passionate" about supporting climate action (p.116). While David "Greenest Government Ever" Cameron did make a big show of caring about climate change, his actual record is pretty poor. Also, there was that incident with the pig...

[Philip · Rating 2 out of 5]

The greater the changes necessary to reverse - or at least stall - the trajectory of climate change, the more difficult it becomes to answer the question of how we make sustainability sustainable.

This is book is, essentially, Mann's attempt at answering that question (even if he doesn't specifically express it that way); he's advocating for systemic change, not for overthrowing the system. He also urges temperance when it comes to interpersonal finger-pointing and climate shaming in various forms, while at the same time promoting personal choices that hurt the planet and climate less. His point is to instead push governments and (in different ways) corporations to implement changes that benefit the climate change struggle.

In the meantime, he says, don't worry so much about taking the petty and idiotic fights with die hard climate change deniers - they won't listen anyway - and focus on those who aren't closed off who have real questions and concerns, and refrain from thinking or arguing along the lines of "it's too late anyway, so why bother" - that's counterproductive. Specifically, perhaps most importantly, don't allow confuscating messaging from hostile actors - be they corporations, governments, or individuals - dominate the conversation while we're all busy pointing fingers at each other over petty things or preparing for the end-of-the-world party.

The author's approach is a centrist one, and it's an approach that doesn't require a total dismantling of how we live today. And this is what I mean with sustainable sustainability, it's an approach that can work inside of the existing system, or at least as extensions of it. Sure, maybe this doesn't sound so sexy for everyone, but it does offer a way forward for those who can have the greatest impact on climate change. It doesn't require power brokers to relinquish power, and for the individual it offers a world where we don't have to give up all the luxuries that we've become used to.

Ultimately, I agree with this approach - if not always with everything Mann says in terms of specific policies, technologies, or priorities. He also definitely tries a little too hard to stay in the center sometimes, and some arguments are almost as dumb as denier talking point - like for example, and somewhat simplified here, about biofuels: "co2 isn't that bad, as long as it comes from natural sources" - simply not taking the more nuanced big picture into consideration.

Regardless, the cautiously optimistic approach Mann promotes is achievable and, overall, the right way to go about combating climate change - for my money at least. So it's a shame so much of the book consists of petty, judgey, and snide comments, especially when it urges people to not fall into that exact kind of behavior. Never mind all the binary "activist"/"inactivist" bullshit - not every "war" needs the simplistic goodie vs. baddie divide, especially one that depends on getting people to reevaluate their own opinions.

"The New Climate War" could have been so much better. Unfortunately, despite agreeing with the overall message, I couldn't help but feel kinda disgusted by it in the end. It's still worth reading, I do not think it can be overstated how important it is to find a way forward that doesn't require either a system collapse or WWIII. Mann offers a valuable contribution to that debate and should not be dismissed. I just wish the book had lived up to its message.

With reservations, recommended.

[Sammi · Rating 3 out of 5]

"We must reject the overt doom and gloom that we increasingly encounter in today’s climate discourse."

An interesting perspective on climate change. Rather than discussing the sciences and "what we can do", Dr. Mann focuses more on the PR moves and trends (denialism, deflection, dooms-dayers, anti-activists etc.) seen in the climate "war" on both ends of the extremes and in the more conservative approaches. This is something I haven't really seen discussed in such detail in any other book about climate change, so it was fresh and new.

I appreciated learning about tactics used by companies, politicians and everyone in between about climate change but that's not to say this book doesn't have its flaws. While it can be argued discussing politics, voting and elections is an issue to discuss while discussing climate change, I think Dr. Mann took it a little too far. He discussed his opinions on voting fraud, Russian interference, the 2016/2022 elections and everything in between, which felt very tangent-like and detracted from the focus of the book. Dr. Mann discusses that he has political friends and biases and I think it showed through in the book. Another area which I feel like detracted from the focus on climate was his deep dive into COVID-19 and the associated actions/inactions and PR campaigns. Again, this can be argued to be climate-adjacent (which I can appreciate) but Dr. Mann again dove deep into non-climate/science related aspects of it including politics and his person opinions.

That being said, I found the history of climate PR moves to be really fascinating from "The Crying Indian" ad funded by big-businesses, to his criticisms of the climate-activist extremes (even throwing shade onto David Wallace-Wells though I don't quite agree). Overall, an interesting perspective that I haven't seen explored much but I think some things should've been edited out for a stronger climate-unifying message.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

If a climate advocate flies in a plane or is photographed using a plastic bag, is her message compromised? No, argues, Michael E. Mann, because the focus should be on structural change and holding fossil fuel companies responsible rather than on safeguarding the purity of green advocates.

In The New Climate War, Mann outlines behaviours and rhetorical strategies of inaction and how to defang them. The first is deflection, which deflects attention from collective or policy efforts onto the individual. Ex. How can Leonardo DiCaprio claim to care about the environment when he flies in a jet? The second is wedge campaigns, which seek to drive a wedge between members of a coalition. Ex. How can Al Gore claim to care about the environment when he is a rich person with a large home? Third comes delaying—we will be able to do more later so let’s not act now. Fourth is despair mongering—it’s too late to do anything so let’s not. Broadly, these are often smear campaigns that attempt to besmirch the reputations of leaders and scientists within the movement as hypocrites or bad people. I see examples of these arguments constantly on Goodreads reviews that point out that because Bill Gates is rich or because David Attenborough is not vegan, their ideas lack credibility. We should be wary of these messages if we seek action rather than inaction. Then again, I worry that if we cannot motivate individual changes, then it seems unlikely that we should expect individuals to vote or support social/ structural changes.

Some quibbles.

First, I worry that avoiding these inaction behaviours is difficult unless you embrace a “both and” policy position or Harvey’s "policy portfolio" position. Mann does not embrace a “both and” position but rather calls for renewables and holding fossil fuel companies responsible. I suspect that is why Mann’s criticism of Bill Gates isn’t very charitable, for example. Mann is not welcoming of greens who are OK with solar radiation management, nuclear energy, or ecomodernism, but it seems to me that they can all potentially claim to be environmentalists just as much as Mann can. Mann’s estimate of the cost of direct air carbon capture seemed higher than the best estimates I’ve seen—less than charitable again. And in spite of his warmings, I found that Mann discarded options that I would be happy to see (e.g. afforestation and nuclear energy) in addition to options he favoured (e.g. solar and wind). I don’t see them as exclusive choices and, to some extent, my view is increasingly close to Jaccard’s that the policies and technologies that are adopted seem better than ideal policies and technologies that are not adopted. In other words, I’ll take almost any mix of green policies and still want more.

Second, and relatedly, Mann criticizes people who express doomsday statements but give up (Franzen), but he mostly defends advocates who express pretty doomsy stuff but encourage readers to dig in anyway (McKibben and Thunberg) because Mann wants “urgency and agency.” I’m not sure how to think about this, but it seems like Franzen is the sort of person who has read books by Bill McKibben (Eaarth: Making Life on a Tough New Planet and Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Out?) and taken them, if anything, too seriously. It’s not ridiculous to despair of political processes, even if physics says we can stop climate change within ten years if we just start now. I feel bad for people that despair and am OK to see discourse exploring those feelings—they seem sincerely felt and increasingly common to me. I don’t think it’s a scientist’s first responsibility to weigh in on any discourse of psychological or political despair, though I appreciate his irritation that David Wallace-Wells’ Uninhabitable Earth seems bleaker than necessary. Perhaps he'd prefer DWW's "After Alarmism." But if we’re arguing over what’s bleak but not excessively bleak, then I think we risk losing sight of the forest for the trees.

Third, I dislike war metaphors within environmentalism. One of my favourite things about Hawken’s Drawdown is its willingness to avoid war metaphors and its willingness to consider regrettable and no-regrets solutions. Mann strikes me as a pugnacious writer and pundit, ready to call out others and to hit back. Many of his call-outs here seemed better suited to twitter than a book, imho.

Fourth, Mann is at his best calling for ways to get to net zero emissions. Just achieving this massive goal seems like a dream to me. We’ve slowed down the rate of emissions and reduced them in some economies, but overall CO2 ppm is still rising. Mann doesn’t seem as strong on drawdown strategies, perhaps because they’re on the far side of net zero. Nor does he seem as interested in backup plans (which is how I think of geoengineering) or adaptation (which we are already attempting in addition to mitigation). I recognize that bad actors have called for geoengineering and adaptation instead of mitigation, but to me both/ all seem far more likely and more admirable than either/ or.

Fifth. The good news in the final chapter is nice to read. But I'd be more heartened by emissions reductions--these do happen in some places and industries--contextualized within global emissions. It's nice that Greta Thunberg has motivated children to demand more action--show me the results in reduced emissions. Tipping point change increasingly feels like nuclear fusion--"it's been ten years away for a few decades now."

Do these quibbles matter? As you might guess from my 4 star rating of The New Climate War, maybe not so much. That’s why I call them quibbles. But quibbles are difficult to avoid, and I’m less convinced than Mann that they always lead to inaction. We should strive to see environmentalism as a big tent, first and foremost, and we should look at in-fighting as in-fighting—important and necessary but something to be done with care. So with that said, Mann has offered a lot to the climate movement as a scientist and as an advocate. Like Al Gore, Bill McKibben, and Greta Thunberg, he has been wrongly attacked and impugned by fossil fuels companies. In The New Climate War, his warnings of inaction campaigns and behaviours are valuable.

If I were to recommend two climate change books to others, they’d be:
-How to Avoid a Climate Disaster by Gates, for its outlining of goals.
-Drawdown by Hawken, which clearly evaluates ways of achieving such goals.

And I also often recommend:
-Whole Earth Discipline by Brand.
-All of Elizabeth Kolbert’s books.
-I view much of Michael Pollan’s work as a readable gateway into thinking about “nature.”
-Michael E. Mann appears on an episode of Rationally Speaking, a podcast, and it's a great overview of climate science.

[Graham Connors · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an audiobook and my first book ever on the subject of climate change, a topic of interest and importance! Very engaging, very clear, you don't need to be a scientist (which I am not) to read and (dare I say) "enjoy" this book. Recommended.

[Cassandra · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh. I have read so many books about climate change, after a while they all start to repeat themselves. This book is more of the same of passing the blame.

[R · Rating 2 out of 5]

A disappointing book riddled with meaningless stories – and a title that advances the issue of climate change no further (climate wars) and that just adds to the divisive tone now of climate change debate.

The methods of stopping action on climate change.

Distraction
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” diverts attention away from the core issue of gun control. Exon Mobile now famous prediction of increasing CO2 emissions in 1982 was no different – who publicly advocated that humans cannot control the climate.

Science’s self-correcting machinery (the process of peer review, replication, and dose of realisation) keeps climate change science on the whole towards the truth to combat this distraction.

It’s all your fault
Contrary to popular belief, fossil fuel companies are actually happy to talk about the environment – they want to keep the conversation on individual change, and away from systemic change or corporate culpability. Look no further than BP creating for customers their own carbon calculator to re-enforce the belief that everyone can make small changes to reduce their CO2 footprint.

Dividing climate activists by bringing up “wedge issues” – that climate activist rarely agree on – such as carbon pricing which middle ground activist would advocate as systemic change – while hardliners such as Greta Thunberg would advocate for personal action, such as not eating meat. Fossil fuel companies lobby government to not provide subsidies for renewable energy firms.

Non-solution solution
People like Mitch McConnell talk about clean coal, bridge fuels, adaption, natural gas, and carbon capture – which although feasible – is not scalable in the short term. Nuclear gets a surprising amount of support from conservatives because it is a wedge issue on the left and for climate activists. Middle group people are supportive, hard-line activists not. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” concept.

Doomist framing of climate change.
Emotions like worry, interest and hope are the most likely to spur people into action on climate change. Fear is not – which is why the doomsday scenarios spoken about by climate activists is not beneficial. It also highlights the importance of speaking about solutions when combating climate change.

Max Hastings says doomist framing was efficiently deployed in 1939 America by those who advocated for isolation – and that the Nazis could not be defeated. Fast forward to today – when people say it is too late to combat climate change and the weakness in their argument is exposed. American isolation on climate change is also becoming more embedded (think of Biden’s IRA legislation) that has upset allies.

Meeting the challenge
COVID-19 is likely to be a warmup act on climate change. Countries that acted early by introducing restrictions were spared the worst – while the UK and US – that dithered – were badly hit and ultimately paid a higher cost.

[Avi Bayer · Rating 3 out of 5]

A helpful history and relevant guide forward, when thinking about climate change. But I couldn't help be annoyed by Mann's self importance. But what was worse was how repetitive the book was. A long twitter thread would have sufficed.

[Cyrus Samii · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mann’s premise is that by the physics of the situation, it is feasible to reduce emissions enough so as to avert catastrophic climate change, and to do so at a level of cost and risk that society is already well positioned to handle. The problem then is that as a community we are not choosing to enact the necessary policies (primarily, carbon tax combined with additional investments in renewable energy) . The book does not go into the scientific arguments in favor of the premise, but rather is devoted to diagnosing reasons for the inaction.

The historical accounts of past disinformation campaigns provide a compelling background for analyzing current campaigns against action to address climate change.

Mann sees fossil fuel interests as the primary culprits. They are the puppet masters. Most of the book is about shenanigans from the industry-captured right trying to undermine climate policies. Internationally, hemakes a convincing case that Russian interference in elections overseas has been driven primarily by an interest in protecting their fossil fuel exports from limits due to climate policy or sanctions. (This makes the current reticence of countries like Germany to sanction Russian exports all the more sickening.)

Mann also reserves scolding criticism for those who have inadvertently undermined all out investment in a transition to renewable energy through unsound attacks on neoliberalism, emphasis on lifestyle choices (Mann thinks this is an inappropriate way to think about the problem, what we need is change at the level of our energy system), pushing the idea that nuclear power is necessary as part of the transition (Mann does not think it is), by trying to stretch the content of climate initiatives to include unrelated progressive issues (he diagnoses the failure of the Green New Deal as death by progressive bloat, making it an easy target for Republicans), or by overplaying doom.

Mann has a unique vantage point, being both an accomplished climate scientist and somebody who has worked deeply in policy processes. This was an eye-opening book even for a skeptic like me.