Michael D. Shellenberger (born June 16, 1971) is an American author and journalist who writes about politics, the environment, climate change, and nuclear power. He is a co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute and the California Peace Coalition.[1] Shellenberger founded the pro-nuclear non-profit Environmental Progress in 2016.[2]
Shellenberger disagrees with most environmentalists over impending threats and the best policies for addressing them.[3][4][5] He argues that global warming is "not the end of the world,"[5] and that GMO, industrial agriculture, fracking, and nuclear power are important tools in protecting the environment.[4] His writing on climate change and environmentalism has been criticized by environmental scientists and academics, who have called some of his arguments "bad science" and "inaccurate".[16] Response to his work from journalists has been mixed.[21] In a similar manner, many academics criticized Shellenberger's positions and writings on homelessness, and he has received a mixed reception from writers and journalists on the topic.[25]
Shellenberger ran unsuccessfully for Governor of California in 2018 and 2022.
After graduation, Shellenberger moved to San Francisco to work with Global Exchange, where he founded a number of public relations firms, including "Communication Works," "Lumina Strategies" and "American Environics" with future collaborator Ted Nordhaus.[30][31][32][33] Shellenberger co-founded in 2003 the Breakthrough Institute with Nordhaus.[34] While at Breakthrough, Shellenberger wrote a number of articles with subjects ranging from positive treatment of nuclear energy and shale gas[35][36][37][38] to critiques of the planetary boundaries hypothesis.[39] He worked to burnish the reputations of prominent clients including Venezuelan President and strongman Hugo Chavez.[40]
In February 2016, Shellenberger left Breakthrough and founded Environmental Progress,[41] which is behind several public campaigns to keep nuclear power plants in operation.[42][43][44][45][46] Shellenberger has also been called by conservative lawmakers to testify before the U.S. Congress about climate change and in favor of nuclear energy.[47]
In December 2022, Shellenberger was one of the authors who released sections of annotated internal Twitter Files authorized by new owner Elon Musk.[48]
In October 2023, Shellenberger was among the signatories of the Westminster Declaration,[50] warning the public of theoretical increasing censorship by governments, media companies and NGOs, that signatories alleged would endanger freedom of speech and undermine the foundational principles of democracy.
As of November 2023, Shellenberger is the CBR Chair of Politics, Censorship and Free Speech at the University of Austin.[51] "By exposing students to historical and recent manifestations of censorship, the Chair will facilitate the responsible exercise of free speech in a pluralistic society."[51] University of Austin is not a school recognized by the U.S. National Center for Education Statistics.[52]
In that same month he was the key note speaker at a Genspect conference. In this speech he emphasized on the current increase of gender dysphoria being the result of the gender affirming culture: “We are creating, through ideological means and social media, gender dysphoria. … These are ideologically driven failures of civilization”.[53]
Shellenberger is the co-founder of "Public", a newsletter on Substack that covers "… stories on the most important issues of the day, from censorship and cities to mental health and addiction to energy and the environment."[54] In January 2022, the San Francisco Chronicle credited Public with breaking the story that illegal drug abuse was being tolerated at a recently-opened San Francisco social services facility.[55] In December the same year, having become became de-facto a federally prohibited supervised injection site and failing at its mission of linking people to housing and treatment, the facility closed.[56][57] In 2023, Public was credited by the Wall Street Journal for publicly identifying three scientists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology who were allegedly working on Coronaviruses and had taken ill near the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.[58]
Writing and reception
The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming in a Post-Environmental World
In 2004, Nordhaus and Shellenberger co-authored "The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World."[59] The paper argued that environmentalism is incapable of dealing with climate change and should "die" so that a new politics can be born.
The paper was criticized by members of the mainstream environmental movement.[60]Carl Pope, the former executive director of the Sierra Club, called the essay "unclear, unfair and divisive," claiming it contained multiple factual errors and misinterpretations. However, Adam Werbach, another former Sierra Club president, praised the paper's arguments.[61] John Passacantando, the former Greenpeace executive director, said in 2005 that Shellenberger and Nordhaus "laid out some fascinating data, but they put it in this over-the-top language and did it in this in-your-face way."[62]Michel Gelobter, as well as other environmental experts and academics, wrote The Soul of Environmentalism: Rediscovering transformational politics in the 21st century as a response that criticized "Death" for demanding increased technological innovation instead of addressing the systemic concerns of people of color.[13]
Matthew Yglesias of The New York Times said that "Nordhaus and Shellenberger persuasively argue...environmentalists must stop congratulating themselves for their own willingness to confront inconvenient truths and must focus on building a politics of shared hope rather than relying on a politics of fear." Yglesias added that the "Death" paper "is more convincing in its case for a change in rhetoric."[63]
Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility
The Wall Street Journal wrote that "(i)f heeded, Nordhaus and Shellenberger's call for an optimistic outlook —- embracing economic dynamism and creative potential —- will surely do more for the environment than any U.N. report or Nobel Prize."[64]
However, environmental scholars Julie Sze and Michael Ziser questioned Shellenberger and Nordhaus's goals in publishing Break Through, claiming the "evident relish in their notoriety as the 'sexy'(,) cosmopolitan 'bad boys' of environmentalism (their own words) introduces some doubt about their sincerity and reliability." Sze and Ziser asserted that Break Through failed "to incorporate the aims of environmental justice while actively trading on suspect political tropes," such as blaming China and other nations as large-scale polluters. Furthermore, Sze and Ziser claim that Shellenberger and Nordhaus advocate technology-based approaches that miss entirely the "structural environmental injustice" that natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina make visible. Ultimately, "Shellenberger believes that community-based environmental justice poses a threat to the smooth operation of a highly capitalized, global-scale Environmentalism."[6]
Joseph Romm, a former US Department of Energy official now with the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, argued that "(p)ollution limits are far, far more important than R&D for what really matters -- reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and driving clean technologies into the marketplace."[65] Environmental journalist David Roberts, writing in Grist, argued that while the BTI and its founders garner much attention, their policy is lacking, and ultimately they "receive a degree of press coverage that wildly exceeds their intellectual contributions."[66][67] Reviewers for the San Francisco Chronicle,[68] the American Prospect[69] and the Harvard Law Review[70] argued that a critical reevaluation of green politics was unwarranted because global warming had become a high-profile issue and the Democratic Congress was preparing to act.
An Ecomodernist Manifesto
In April 2015, Shellenberger joined a group of scholars and Stewart Brand in issuing An Ecomodernist Manifesto. It proposed dropping the goal of "sustainable development" and replacing it with a strategy to shrink humanity's footprint by using natural resources more intensively through technological innovation. The authors argue that economic development is necessary to preserve the environment.[71][72]
According to The New Yorker, "most of the criticism of [the Manifesto] was more about tone than content. The manifesto's basic arguments, after all, are hardly radical. To wit: technology, thoughtfully applied, can reduce the suffering, human and otherwise, caused by climate change; ideology, stubbornly upheld, can accomplish the opposite."[73] At The New York Times, Eduardo Porter wrote approvingly of ecomodernism's alternative approach to sustainable development.[74] In an article titled "Manifesto Calls for an End to 'People Are Bad' Environmentalism", Slate's Eric Holthaus wrote "It's inclusive, it's exciting, and it gives environmentalists something to fight for for a change."[75]
An Ecomodernist Manifesto was met with critiques similar to Gelobter's evaluation of "Death" and Sze and Ziser's analysis of Break Through. Environmental historian Jeremy Caradonna and environmental economist Richard B. Norgaard led a group of environmental scholars in a critique, arguing that Ecomodernism "violates everything we know about ecosystems, energy, population, and natural resources," and "Far from being an ecological statement of principles, the Manifesto merely rehashes the naïve belief that technology will save us and that human ingenuity can never fail." Further, "The Manifesto suffers from factual errors and misleading statements."[10]
Environmental and Art historian T.J. Demos agreed with Caradonna, and wrote in 2017 that the Manifesto "is really nothing more than a bad utopian fantasy," that functions to support oil and gas industry and as "an apology for nuclear energy." Demos continued that "What is additionally striking about the Ecomodernist document, beyond its factual weaknesses and ecological falsehoods, is that there is no mention of social justice or democratic politics," and "no acknowledgement of the fact that big technologies like nuclear reinforce centralized power, the military-industrial complex, and the inequalities of corporate globalization."[9]
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All
In June 2020, Shellenberger published Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, in which the author argues that climate change is not the existential threat it is portrayed to be in popular media and activism. Rather, he posits that technological innovation, if allowed to continue and grow, will remedy environmental issues. According to Shellenberger, the book "explores how and why so many of us came to see important but manageable environmental problems as the end of the world, and why the people who are the most apocalyptic about environmental problems tend to oppose the best and most obvious solutions to solving them."[76]
In his book, Shellenberger argues that people shouldn't need to be worried about climate change causing crop failure, famine and consequent mass deaths because he believes that when it comes to food production, humans will be able to produce more food despite the effects of climate change. Shellenberger cites an editorial that is published by a group led by Eric Holt-Giménez to support his statement, however Holt-Giménez later told Snopes that Shellenberger "has either misunderstood our editorial, or is purposefully mischaracterizing our points." Instead Holt-Giménez criticized the industrial farming that Shellenberger advocates, and says that such practices are using a model of overproduction that generates poverty. He explained that people typically don't become hungry because there is not enough food, but that instead they become hungry when they are too poor to afford to buy the food that is produced.[77]
Before publication, the book received favorable reviews from climate scientists Tom Wigley and Kerry Emanuel, and from environmentalists such as Steve McCormick,[78] but reviews after publication were mixed.[3] For example, Emanuel said that while he did not regret his original positive review, he wished that "the book did not carry with it its own excesses and harmful baggage."[79][80]
The book has received positive reviews and coverage from conservative and libertarian news outlets and organizations, including Fox News, the Heartland Institute, the Daily Mail, Reason, The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and "climate 'truther' websites".[3][4][17][18][81] In National Review, Alex Trembath generally praised the book, writing that "despite the flaws", "Shellenberger ... do[es] a service in calling out the environmental alarmism and hysteria that obscure environmental debates rather than illuminate them. And they stand as outliers in those debates for precisely the reason that they claim: Abjuring environmentalist orthodoxy carries heavy social and professional penalties, so few are willing to do so." However, Trembath criticized some of the book as "nuclear fetishism".[17] In The Wall Street Journal, John Tierney wrote that "Shellenberger makes a persuasive case, lucidly blending research data and policy analysis with a history of the green movement and vignettes of people in poor countries suffering the consequences of “environmental colonialism.”"[18] In the Financial Times, Jonathan Ford wrote that the book "provide[s] a corrective to many of the green assumptions that dominate the media. And if they make the world a little more questioning of the next polar bear story, that is no bad thing."[19] In the Scientific American, John Horgan said that "Apocalypse Never will make some green progressives mad. But I see it as a useful and even necessary counterpoint to the alarmism being peddled by some activists and journalists, including me", but Horgan criticized the book for arguing too "aggressively for nuclear power" and added that "my main gripe with Shellenberger isn't that he's too optimistic; it's that he's not optimistic enough."[3] The book also received a positive review from Die Welt.[20]
In contrast, in reviewing Apocalypse Never for Yale Climate Connections, environmental scientist Peter Gleick argued that "bad science and bad arguments abound" in the book, writing that "what is new in here isn't right, and what is right isn't new."[8] In a review for the Los Angeles Review of Books environmental economist Sam Bliss said that while "the book itself is well written", Shellenberger "plays fast and loose with the facts" and "Troublingly, he seems more concerned with showing climate-denying conservatives clever new ways to own the libs than with convincing environmentalists of anything."[11] Similarly, environmental and technological social scientists Taylor Dotson and Michael Bouchey have argued that as an "Environmental activist" and "ecomodernist", Shellenberger's writing in his books and on his foundation's website "bombards readers with facts that are disconnected, out of context, poorly explained, and of questionable relevance," and ultimately, his "fanatic, scientistic discourse stands in the way of nuclear energy policy that is both intelligent and democratic."[15]
A 2020 Forbes article by Shellenberger, in which he promoted Apocalypse Never, was analyzed by seven academic reviewers and one editor from the Climate Feedback fact-checking project. The reviewers conclude that Shellenberger "mixes accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change."[7] Zeke Hausfather, Director of Climate and Energy for The Breakthrough Institute, wrote that Shellenberger "includes a mix of accurate, misleading, and patently false statements. While it is useful to push back against claims that climate change will lead to the end of the world or human extinction, to do so by inaccurately downplaying real climate risks is deeply problematic and counterproductive."[7] The Forbes article was later deleted for violating Forbes' policy against self-promotion. In response, Shellenberger called the deletion censorship and The Daily Wire, Quillette, and Breitbart News re-published all or parts of the article.[4]
In 2021, Shellenberger published San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities, a criticism of progressive social policies.[82]
Benjamin Schneider, writing in the San Francisco Examiner, described the book's thesis as "[P]rogressives have embraced 'victimology,' a belief system wherein society’s downtrodden are subject to no rules or consequences for their actions. This ideology, cultivated in cities like San Francisco for decades and widely adopted over the past two years, is the key to understanding, and thus solving, our crises of homelessness, drug overdoses and crime."[22]
Wes Enzinna, writing in The New York Times, charged that Shellenberger "does exactly what he accuses his left-wing enemies of doing: ignoring facts, best practices and complicated and heterodox approaches in favor of dogma."[23] Olga Khazan, writing in The Atlantic, said that "The problem—or opportunity—for Shellenberger is that virtually every homelessness expert disagrees with him. ('Like an internet troll that's written a book' is how Jennifer Friedenbach, the executive director of San Francisco's Coalition on Homelessness, described him to me.)". However, Khazan also noted that "some experts agree with some of Shellenberger's critiques of Housing First. Though they stop short of endorsing Shellenberger or his views".[5]Tim Stanley, writing in The Daily Telegraph, described it as a "revelatory, must-read book", but added "There is much in the argument for liberal readers to contest."[24]
Reporting on claims of secretive U.S. government UFO retrieval program
Shellenberger said he is "very interested in the whole UFO phenomenon."[83] Shellenberger appeared in multiple interviews, including with Brian Entin of NewsNation[84] in which he claimed that he had spoken to "some of the same sources that have been feeding Mr. Grusch information," referring to the UFO whistleblower claims of David Grusch, and that the sources said that the U.S. government possessed "at least 12 to 15 nonhuman aircraft" with "at least four morphologies, different structures" and that "six were in good shape; six were not in good shape".[85]
Shellenberger worked with left-wing groups in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1990s but has since renounced the Democratic Party. On Twitter, he frequently criticizes "wokeism" and critical race theory.[5] Of his politics, Shellenberger has said, "I'm a liberal in my compassion for the vulnerable. I'm a libertarian in my love of freedom. And I'm a conservative in that I believe you need civilization to protect both of those things."[83] A self-described ecomodernist, Shellenberger believes that economic growth can continue without negative environmental impacts through technological research and development, usually through a combination of nuclear power and urbanization.
Along with employees and researchers, Shellenberger is credited by NPR and Politico for possibly preventing the closure of Diablo Canyon nuclear generating station.[86][87]
Shellenberger has publicly said "that he wants to end access to all gender-affirming surgeries".[88] He was the keynote speaker for Genspect's 2022 conference in Denver.[89] In 2023, Environmental Progress published "The WPATH Files", a leaked collection of internal discussions among people who maintain the medical standards of transgender health care.[90] The documents revealed doubts over whether very young people could reasonably consent to gender-altering medical interventions.[91][92] Critics accused Shellenberger of working with Genspect to release out of context and biased information about transgender people.[88]
Shellenberger ran as an independent in the 2022 gubernatorial election on a platform calling for homelessness reform via removal of encampments and mandatory treatment for drug addiction and mental illness,[94] advocating for water desalination as an answer to California's water shortage,[95] and increasing use of nuclear power, specifically by keeping the Diablo Canyon Power Plant open and building new power plants.[96] Shellenberger placed third in a field of twenty-six with 4.1% of the vote. A HuffPost profile called Shellenberger a "Centrist": "Shellenberger instead is closer in character to figures like New York Mayor Eric Adams (D), a moderate critic of certain left-wing dogmas".[97] The same article noted his support for "abortion rights, universal health care, gun safety regulation, a $15 minimum wage, collective bargaining rights, and alternatives to incarceration for drug-related crimes".[97]The Wall Street Journal wrote that Shellenberger is a proponent of school choice initiatives.[98]
Raised by Mennonite parents[26] and a congregationalist mother, in adulthood, Shellenberger became irreligious and an existentialist. However, while writing his book Apocalypse Never, he returned to the Christian faith, seeing the religion as a solution to society's "intense hatred and anger".[102] He describes himself as a Protestant.[83]
Related Research Articles
The organized environmental movement is represented by a wide range of non-governmental organizations or NGOs that seek to address environmental issues in the United States. They operate on local, national, and international scales. Environmental NGOs vary widely in political views and in the ways they seek to influence the environmental policy of the United States and other governments.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is a United States-based 501(c)(3) non-profit international environmental advocacy group, with its headquarters in New York City and offices in Washington D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Bozeman, India, and Beijing. The group was founded in 1970 in opposition to a hydro-electric power power plant in New York.
Stewart Brand is an American project developer and writer, best known as the co-founder and editor of the Whole Earth Catalog. He has founded a number of organizations, including the WELL, the Global Business Network, and the Long Now Foundation. He is the author of several books, most recently Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto.
George Joshua Richard Monbiot is a British journalist, author, and environmental and political activist. He writes a regular column for The Guardian and has written several books.
Patrick Albert Moore is a Canadian industry consultant, former activist, an early member and past president of Greenpeace Canada. Since leaving Greenpeace in 1986, Moore has criticized the environmental movement for what he sees as scare tactics and disinformation, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism". Greenpeace has criticized Moore, calling him "a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry" who "exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson".
Roger A. Pielke Jr. is an American political scientist and professor, and was the director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Mark Lynas is a British author and journalist whose work is focused on environmentalism and climate change. He has written for the New Statesman, The Ecologist, Granta and Geographical magazines, and The Guardian and The Observer newspapers in the UK, as well as the New York Times and Washington Post in the United States; he also worked on and appeared in the film The Age of Stupid. He was born in Fiji, grew up in Peru, Spain and the United Kingdom and holds a degree in history and politics from the University of Edinburgh. He has published several books including Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet (2007) and The God Species: Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans (2011). Lynas is research and climate lead for the Alliance for Science and is co-founder of the pro-science environmental network RePlanet. Since 2009 he has been climate advisor to former president of the Maldives Mohamed Nasheed, and he currently works to assist Nasheed with the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a group of the world's most climate-vulnerable 58 developing countries. He has co-authored a number of peer-reviewed scientific publications, including a 2021 paper which found that the consensus on anthropogenic climate change in the scholarly literature now exceeds 99%.
William Dawbney Nordhaus is an American economist. He was a Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University, best known for his work in economic modeling and climate change, and a co-recipient of the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Nordhaus received the prize "for integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis".
Ruth S. DeFries is an environmental geographer who specializes in the use of remote sensing to study Earth's habitability under the influence of human activities, such as deforestation, that influence regulating biophysical and biogeochemical processes. She was one of 24 recipients of the 2007 MacArthur Fellowship, and was elected to the United States National Academy of Sciences in 2006.
Robert Stone is a British-American documentary filmmaker. His work has been screened at dozens of film festivals and televised around the world, notably seven of his films have appeared on PBS's American Experience series and four of his films have premiered at the Sundance Film Festival. He is an Oscar nominee for Best Feature Documentary and a three-time Emmy nominee for Exceptional Merit in Documentary Filmmaking.
Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, first published in October 2007, is a book written by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, both long-time environmental strategists. Break Through is an argument for a positive, "post-environmental" politics that abandons the traditional environmentalist focus on nature protection for a focus on creating a new sustainable economy.
Barry William Brook is an Australian scientist. He is an ARC Australian Laureate Professor and Chair of Environmental Sustainability at the University of Tasmania in the Faculty of Science, Engineering & Technology. He was formerly an ARC Future Fellow in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide, Australia, where he held the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change from 2007 to 2014. He was also Director of Climate Science at the Environment Institute.
Ted Nordhaus is an American author and the director of research at The Breakthrough Institute. He has co-edited and written a number of books, including Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility (2007) and An Ecomodernist Manifesto (2015) with collaborator Michael Shellenberger.
The Breakthrough Institute is an environmental research center located in Berkeley, California. Founded in 2007 by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, The institute is aligned with ecomodernist philosophy. The Institute advocates for an embrace of modernization and technological development in order to address environmental challenges. Proposing urbanization, agricultural intensification, nuclear power, aquaculture, and desalination as processes with a potential to reduce human demands on the environment, allowing more room for non-human species.
Green imperialism is a derogatory epithet alluding to what is perceived as a Western strategy to influence the internal affairs of mostly developing nations in the name of environmentalism.
Ecomodernism is an environmental philosophy which argues that technological development can protect nature and improve human wellbeing through eco-economic decoupling, i.e., by separating economic growth from environmental impacts.
Zion Lights is a British author and activist known for her environmental work and science communication.
Michel Gelobter is an American born social entrepreneur especially in the field of clean technology, who is also known for his research into and advocacy for environmental justice and social sector innovation.
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All is a 2020 book by Michael Shellenberger.
1 2 3 4 "Los Angeles Review of Books". October 6, 2020. Retrieved June 29, 2022. Shellenberger has a history of anti-green contrarianism. He thrust himself into the limelight in 2004, when he and Ted Nordhaus wrote an essay titled "The Death of Environmentalism." Thirty-three at the time, Shellenberger was already portraying himself as an environmentalist who had realized that environmentalism's problem was environmentalism itself... The story Shellenberger has stuck with is that the things environmentalists resist — nuclear, GMOs, fracking, industrial agriculture, and so on — are actually good for the environment.
↑ "An Ecomodernist Manifesto". Ecomodernism.org. Retrieved April 17, 2015. A good Anthropocene demands that humans use their growing social, economic, and technological powers to make life better for people, stabilize the climate, and protect the natural world.
↑ Porter, Eduardo (April 14, 2015). "A Call to Look Past Sustainable Development". The New York Times. Retrieved April 17, 2015. On Tuesday, a group of scholars involved in the environmental debate, including Professor Roy and Professor Brook, Ruth DeFries of Columbia University, and Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus of the Breakthrough Institute in Oakland, Calif., issued what they are calling the "Eco-modernist Manifesto."
↑ Shellenberger, Michael (June 30, 2020). Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. New York City, NY: HarperCollins. ISBN978-0-06-300169-5.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
