Jeff Goodell hits a bit of a foul ball on handling the high Heat

I wound up being somewhat disappointed by Jeff Goodell's new-of-2023 book "The Heat Will Kill You First."

I'd read "Big Coal" years ago and thought it was great. I'd heard some good reviews about "Heat."

The reality, in precís form, before an expanded version of my Goodreads review?

The anecdotal parts of the book, about individual people struggling with, and sometimes dying in and from, the heat? Great.

The actual science? The sea level rise was mainstream. The effect of heatwaves was mainstream.

But, the biggie of "where are we headed"? To take 2100 as a break point, is it 2.5C? 3C? 4C? Even higher? Goodell makes no projection of his own, nor does he ask any climate scientist to make one.

Then, the what do we do? part is half nothingburger, half non-reality.

The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet by Jeff Goodell
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

OK, first the best.

The best part on the science side is the chapter on Friedericke Otto and extreme event attribution. Personalized stories, such as the migrant dead at the Willamette Valley nursery, are a solid second, and first on the narrative.

Back to the "where are we headed"? Is it 2.5C or so (we're using the metric here, contra the book), like "climate change neoliberals" such as Michael Mann and Katharine Hayhoe? (I think that's where they'd sit if you forced them to pick a number, but, to be honest, I think they'd do their damndest to avoid picking a number in the first place.) Or 4C by the end of this century, as James Hansen said recently, if you do his math, and with whom I very much agree? See how easy that was, Jeff?

Goodell pulls punches and won't tell us anything.

To put it another way, in terms of the different temperature possibilities per the above?

Is he a Michael Mann/Katharine Hayhoe climate change Obamiac? Is he Hansen? Is he James Kunstler or beyond, if you think 5C or even a "runaway" is possible?

He gives every appearance of being a climate change Obamiac.

Then, the what do we do? part is half nothingburger, half non-reality.

The non-reality part is the issue of how much, or how little, can we really "harden" cities that are already in hot climates. Goodell listens to a person from Phoenix, Mark Hartman, the city's "chief sustainability officer," but neither in the interview, nor on his own afterward, does he say that the correct answer is: "move away." Just like "move away" rather than blow money on it is the right answer for the Salton Sea. (I said a dozen years ago that, rather than HARP, HAMP and all the other subprime bubble-bursting reinflation, Dear Leader should have told the recent moves to Phoenix that their in arrears mortgages would be ripped up if they'd move back to Cleveland, Des Moines or whatever. He would also have told developers and mortgage originators that they would be made whole IF IF IF they cut their home building and home sales in Phoenix by 10-20 percent for the next decade, otherwise, no Fannie or Freddie help on future mortgages.)

The nothingburger? Since he won't plump for a 2100 temperature point, he won't tell us about carbon taxes and tariffs or other actions we should be taking. No bueno. 

Related? Those "vaunted" Paris accords? You mean the totally voluntary Jell-O, made so by Dear Leader Obama and Xi Jinping? The accords that stayed voluntary at the 2019 global climate summit and the just-completed one in 2023? And, no, Goodell tells you none of that, Dear Reader.

(This is also a good spot for a reminder that the real, true divide on taking climate change seriously is not between Republicans and Democrats, nor is it between fundagelicals and more liberal Christians, but it's between secularists and everybody else.)

I felt Goodell had a chance for more outreach, and fell short. (And so, contra others, I did NOT think this was "doom porn." If only it hit people that much over the head.) If you think we're going to be at 2.5C at the end of the century, then this book is OK. If 4C, then it's not. Those polar bears are doomed to death, zoos or inbreeding with grizz. The pikas are trapped. Etc., etc.

Where's it not so good otherwise?

Couple of science errors, first.

There are four normal jet streams, two in each of the northern and southern hemispheres, not “the jet stream.”

Great Barrier Reef is 1,400 miles long, not 14,000. That one was glaring.

More to the point?

Narrative issues, maybe?

Lesser ones first.

I don't think the A/C chapter was totally off point, because Goodell talks about how it has killed off, or nearly so, in many parts of the world, old-style ways of constructing buildings to keep them cooler. Other than the carbon-boosting energy costs, if AC is not powered by renewables, there's the added issue of CFC leaks from refrigerant lines and pumps. And, these CFCs, differing among themselves, are also greenhouse gases.

The Arctic and Antarctic visits, though? Both interesting. Both certainly connected to climate change and to the global warming part of them. But, Goodell doesn't really tie either one into global warming that much, especially not the Arctic visit. For instance, we're not told how much sea ice has decreased in the last 30 years. 

Also, like another 3-star reviewer, I noted that (outside of AUS/NZ) there's little Global South here, especially on urban adaptations. Pakistan does get play in the non-developed Global North, but because of the extremes it faces. And, as far as solutions, the Global North is asking the Global South to suck it. So far, low-carbon developmental help has been all hat on promises, no cattle on actual help. Goodell doesn't discuss that, either.

Finally, on the personal side, he says that getting outside more in hot weather (while being smart about it, of course) increases one's adaptability to the heat, and thus lessens the need for AC. I'm not sure how much he practices what he preaches. I'm not in Austin, but I am in North Tex-ass, and I exercise by powerwalking in 100°F or hotter temperature.

View all my reviews