The Manichean Mann | Issues in Science and Technologyhttps://issues.org/new-climate-war-michael-mann-hulme-review/#.YLtLOYZ-TNk.twitterThe tragedy, however, of Mann and people who think like him is that they view arguments about these questions through a Manichean lens: the source of all opposition to the “correct” view—Mann’s view—of what should be done about climate change is traced back to an orchestrated evil empire. The basic doctrine of Manicheanism is that of a structural conflict between good and evil. For Mann, the source of this evil is the fossil fuel industry representing, as he puts it, “the eye of Sauron,” that omnipotent dark power in The Lord of the Rings.
There is no doubting the need for an accelerating transition away from fossil fuels. And there is also no doubt that vested political interests have obstructed its progress. But Mann is so conditioned by his Manichean worldview that wherever he looks in the public, scientific, and political debates around climate change he sees the shadows of the Koch brothers (52 name checks in the book), Exxon Mobil (23), and the Heartland Institute (15). The nefarious hand of the fossil-fuel lobby is everywhere. This worldview leads him to some ludicrous contentions that, taken together, result in The New Climate War: The Fight to Take Back Our Planet offering an incoherent and distinctly unhelpful narrative on climate change.
...
If one looks beyond the battle-posturing, the calling out of enemies, and the settling of Twitter disputes, what do we learn from The New Climate War about how to frame, enact, and deliver changes in the world that might ameliorate the risks of climate change? The strategy offered—it is of course a “battle plan”—has four elements: resist the doomists; learn from children; educate the uneducated; and focus on systemic change, not individual lifestyle choices. I certainly have a lot of sympathy for the first of these goals, having been arguing for the last 15 years that warnings of imminent global catastrophe are neither scientifically warranted nor politically constructive (although this does not prevent Mann from putting me on “the wrong side,” a contrarian).
But the most intriguing of his four points is the final one: changing the system requires systemic change. Now, “systemic change” can mean different things for different people, but for Mann it means pricing carbon and promoting 100% renewables for meeting the world’s energy needs (other technological innovations seem to be ruled out by Mann). This is certainly not what some climate activists—such as the anticapitalist Naomi Klein or the young Swedish environmentalist Greta Thunberg—would mean by systemic change, and it is notable that while he is willing to challenge Klein’s position, he works hard in the book to keep Thunberg inside his circle of the virtuous.
...
Mann seems uninterested in building the alliances necessary for political change. Above all, the book offers little for those seeking a guide to the complex global politics of climate change. This is an America-first book. It perpetuates the fallacy that the global politics of climate change can be read through the peculiar lens of American political partisanship. The other climate superpowers—the European Union (6 mentions), China (8), Brazil (3), and India (0)—seem bit players for Mann. There is no analysis about the political economy of the global energy transition, and he is dismissive of the global challenge of alleviating energy poverty (“a contrived concept”). And Mann uses a trick he accuses his enemies of using—trivialization—when the concerns of those arguing for a just transition for the world’s poor are swept aside with his disdainful comment “there are always winners and losers.”