An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity

by Wes Jackson, Robert Jensen Narrated by Graham Rowat

Overview

For decades, our world has understood that we are on the brink of an apocalypse-yet the only implemented solutions have been small and convenient, feel-good initiatives that avoid unpleasant truths about the root causes of our impending disaster. Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen argue that we must reconsider the origins of the consumption crisis and the challenges we face in creating a survivable future. Longstanding assumptions about economic growth and technological progress-the dream of a future of endless bounty-are no longer tenable. The climate crisis has already progressed beyond nondisruptive solutions. The end result will be apocalyptic; the only question now is how bad it will be.



Jackson and Jensen examine how geographic determinism shaped our past and led to today's social injustice, consumerist culture, and high-energy/high-technology dystopias. The solution requires addressing today's systemic failures and confronting human nature by recognizing the limits of our ability to predict how those failures will play out over time. Though these massive challenges can feel overwhelming, the coauthors weave a secular reading of theological concepts-the prophetic, the apocalyptic, a saving remnant, and grace-to chart a realistic path for humanity not only to survive our apocalypse but also to emerge with a renewed appreciation of the larger living world.

Editorial Reviews

Publishers Weekly

07/25/2022

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.)

From the Publisher

An Inconvenient Apocalypse pulls no punches. Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen, in this work of Anthropocenic soul-searching, offer an honest, accessible, and ruefully playful look at their own lives and at the predicament of human civilization during this century of upheaval and denial.” —Scott Slovic, co-editor of Ecoambiguity, Community, and Development

“The problematic human/earth relationship will not be resolved anytime soon, and Jackson and Jensen’s book makes an important contribution to assessing our situation and envisioning a way forward. Anyone who has a nagging feeling that something is wrong and doesn’t understand the breadth and depth of the problem or how to grapple with it should read this book.” —Lisi Krall, author of Proving Up

"While making no religious claims, Jackson and Jensen engage the core questions that religious people must ask, if their own witness is to be credible: Who are we, and where are we in history? Do we have the capacity to make drastic change for the sake of a decent human future? Can we live with humility and grace instead of arrogance and an infatuation with knowledge devoid of wisdom? Read and consider." —Ellen F. Davis, author of Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture

"With intrepid honesty, tenderness, and grace, Jackson and Jensen lay out a clear framework for making sense of the most elusive complexities of climate crisis. Through kindred reflections and incisive analysis, they boldly enlighten readers of the probable and the possible in the decades to come. An affirmation and solace for the weary. A beacon for those seeking courage and understanding in unsettling times." —Selina Gallo-Cruz, author of Political Invisibility and Mobilization

"The nature of all living organisms, so this book argues, is to go after 'dense energy,' resulting eventually in crisis. If that is so, then the human organism is facing a tough question: Can we overcome our own nature? Courageous and humble, bold and provocative, the authors of An Inconvenient Apocalypse do not settle for superficial answers." —Donald Worster, author of Shrinking the Earth

"This is one of the most important books of our lifetime. An Inconvenient Apocalypse can help us face the difficult choices that confront us all and enable us to acknowledge the urgency of our current circumstance." —Frederick L. Kirschenmann, author of Cultivating an Ecological Conscience

"Wes Jackson and Bob Jensen have written Common Sense for our time. This book might be the spark that catalyzes the American Evolution." —Peter Buffett, co-president of the NoVo Foundation

“In this essential contribution to the public debate, Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen critique the capitalist forces accelerating the climate crisis and the intellectual-activists who have balked at calling for the radical changes in human behavior that could mitigate, if not prevent, environmental and societal collapse. Their contribution will prove as enduring as it is timely.” —Jason Brownlee, author of Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization

“If you’re already concerned about our species’ survival prospects, this book will take you to the next level of understanding. Jackson and Jensen are clear and deeply moral thinkers, and their assessment of humanity’s precarious status deserves to be widely read.” —Richard Heinberg, author of Power

"Jackson and Jensen 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 authors] 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." —Library Journal

"Harrowing and accessible, this is just the thing for readers interested in a sociological or philosophical examination of the climate crisis." —Publishers Weekly

"A hard-hitting philosophical reckoning with climate breakdowns, and with the social collapses that they may entail. ... Climate disasters may render hope for the future tenuous, but the philosophical book An Inconvenient Apocalypse asserts that working toward social justice is still purpose-giving." —Foreword Reviews (starred review)

"The goal of An Inconvenient Apocalypse isn’t to try to convince people of the reality of humankind’s environmental and societal crises. . . . Instead the book takes these threats as a starting point and spends the majority of its lean page count exploring their implications and how we might best respond to them. It succeeds commendably in this regard." —Resilience

"In An Inconvenient Apocalypse, authors Wes Jackson and Robert Jensen style themselves as heralds of some very bad news: societal collapse on a global scale is inevitable, and those who manage to survive the mass death and crumbling of the world as we know it will have to live in drastically transformed circumstances. . . . The current way of things is doomed, and it’s up to us to prepare as best we can to ensure as soft a landing as possible when the inevitable apocalypse arrives." —The Guardian

"Global warming is headed in a calamitous direction. Even if humans can limit the increase in the Earth’s temperature, other factors are pushing us to an apocalypse. . . . This a sobering examination of current trends in human behavior and likely existential consequences." —Intelligencer: Journal of U.S. Intelligence Studies

"We are in the midst of a major environmental catastrophe for which we are little prepared, but for which action is desperately needed. An Inconvenient Apocalypse seeks to engage this problem with a deep concern for social justice, equality, and reverence for us and the planet that we have so deeply scarred." —New York Journal of Books

"Unlike many works in the eco-catastrophe genre, An Inconvenient Apocalypse isn’t strident, angry, or panicked about the impending collapse. It’s more of an elegy for a dying civilization, which takes a pragmatic but soft-spoken approach to the problems we face; so soft-spoken that it’s a slight shock when we realize what the authors are saying." —Medium

"An Inconvenient Apocalypse is one powerful book. It will move many of its readers out of the past and into a reasonable, informed, and passionate space for assessing a difficult future." —Ecological Economics

"Read this personal manifesto of wisdom and passion for our suffering planet, a very important, timely, and riveting book." —CounterPunch

"Few books can shake up and awaken long-time climate activists, environmental activists, and sustainability activists to expansive new levels of understanding of the big picture of our major crises, but this is one of those books." —Job One for Humanity Climate Blog

“Right now, the questions posed by Jackson and Jensen carry more potency than the answers we are being led to believe will resolve the predicaments we are in. That is because we have been asking the wrong questions. Jackson and Jensen ask new, and inconvenient, questions. Get the book and start asking the same questions.” —Rainbow Juice

“The authors seek to redefine what hope can be, as the day-to-day expectations of most of us are off the table... Compulsory reading.” —Hastings Independent Press

"If we are to see a better future realized, not only do we need to rethink our individual patterns of behavior, but we must also resist cultural formations that reduce our humanity to marketplace identities. . . . If we decide this is who we are, our future may still be bright, even if it is not convenient." —The Christian Century

Library Journal

07/01/2022

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

Product Details

BN ID:	2940175832243
Publisher:	Tantor Audio
Publication date:	11/08/2022
Edition description:	Unabridged

Read an Excerpt

Time for a summary of our assessment: The human species faces multiple cascading social and ecological crises that will not be solved by virtuous individuals making moral judgments of others’ failures or by frugal people exhorting the profligate to lower their consumption. Things are bad, getting worse, and getting worse faster than we expected. This is happening not just because of a few bad people or bad systems, though there are plenty of people doing bad things in bad systems that reward people for doing those bad things. At the core of the problem is our human-carbon nature, the scramble for energy-rich carbon that defines life. Technological innovations can help us cope, but that will not indefinitely forestall the dramatic changes that will test our ability to hold onto our humanity in the face of dislocation and deprivation. Although the worst effects of the crises are being experienced today in developing societies, more affluent societies aren’t exempt indefinitely. Ironically, in those more developed societies with greater dependency on high-energy/high-technology, the eventual crash might be the most unpredictable and disruptive. Affluent people tend to know the least about how to get by on less.

When presenting an analysis like this, we get two common responses from friends and allies who share our progressive politics and ecological concerns. The first is the claim that “fear appeals don’t work.” The second is to agree with the assessment but advise against saying such things in public because “people can’t handle it.”

On fear appeals: The reference is to public education campaigns that seek, for example, to reduce drunk driving by scaring people about the potentially fatal consequences. Well, sometimes fear appeals work and sometimes they don’t, but that isn’t relevant to our point. We are not focused on a single behavior, such as using tobacco, nor are we trying to develop a campaign to scare people into a specific behavior, such as quitting smoking. We are not trying to scare people at all. We are not proposing a strategy using the tricks of advertising and marketing (the polite terms in our society for propaganda). We are simply reporting the conclusions we have reached through our reading of the research and personal experience. We do not expect that a majority of people will agree with us today, but we see no alternative to speaking honestly. It is because others have spoken honestly to us over the years that we have been able to continue on this path. Friends and allies have treated us as rational adults capable of evaluating evidence and reaching conclusions, however tentative, and we believe we all owe each other that kind of respect.

We are not creating fear but simply acknowledging a fear that a growing number of people already feel, a fear that is based on an honest assessment of material realities and people’s behavior within existing social systems. Why would it be a good strategy to help people bury legitimate fears that are based on rational evaluation of evidence? As Barbara Ehrenreich points out, an obsession with so-called positive thinking not only undermines critical thinking but also produces anxiety of its own. Fear is counterproductive if it leads to paralysis but productive if it leads to inquiry and appropriate action to deal with a threat. Productive action is much more likely if we can imagine the possibility of a collective effort, and collective effort is impossible if we are left alone in our fear. The problem isn’t fear but the failure to face our fear together.

On handling it: It’s easy for people—ourselves included—to project our own fears onto others, to cover up our own inability to face difficult realities by suggesting the deficiency is in others. Both of us have given lectures or presented this perspective to friends and been told, “I agree with your assessment, but you shouldn’t say it publicly because people can’t handle it.” It’s never entirely clear who is in the category of “people.” Who are these people who are either cognitively or emotionally incapable of engaging these issues? These allegedly deficient folks are sometimes called “the masses,” implying a category of people not as smart as the people who are labeling them as such. We assume that whenever someone asserts that “people can’t handle it,” the person speaking really is confessing “I can’t handle it.” Rather than confront their own limitations, many find it easier to displace their fears onto others.

We may not be able to handle the social and ecological problems that humans have created, if by “handle” we mean considering only those so-called solutions that allow us to imagine that we can continue the high-energy/high-technology living to which affluent people have become accustomed and to which others aspire. But we have no choice but to handle reality, since we can’t wish it away. We increase our chances of handling it sensibly if we face reality together.

Videos