Under a White Sky: The Nature of the Future - Elizabeth Kolbert [Climate Series]

Join us for a discussion of Under a White Sky: The Nature of the Future by Elizabeth Kolbert.
The synopsis and some tentative discussion questions are below. If as you read, you encounter some thought-provoking lines and/or find yourself wrestling with some burning questions, please note them down and bring them to the discussion!
Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join; and if you need help accessing the text, please feel free to reach out to me directly.

Synopsis:
In Under a White Sky, Kolbert explores a defining pattern of the Anthropocene: technological interventions undertaken to manage the unintended consequences of earlier technological interventions. Moving from electrified waterways designed to stop invasive carp, to engineered coral reefs, to proposals for solar geoengineering, she documents how human systems have altered ecosystems so extensively that ongoing management now seems unavoidable. The book neither celebrates nor condemns this trajectory outright; instead, it examines the ethical, political, and scientific implications of living on a planet that increasingly resembles a vast, engineered system.

Discussion Questions (subject to revision):

1. Kolbert presents large-scale technological intervention as a recurring response to environmental crisis. Do you see this as a failure of restraint, an inevitable feature of modernity, or something else?
2. Does the book assume that planetary management is now unavoidable, or does it leave room for meaningful forms of ecological restraint or restoration?
3. Who should have the authority to deploy technologies like solar geoengineering, and can existing international institutions credibly manage that responsibility?
4. Does researching geoengineering create a moral hazard by weakening incentives to reduce emissions, or is it ethically necessary given the risks of warming?
5. After reading the case studies, does the distinction between “natural” and “engineered” environments still hold moral or practical significance?
6. To what extent does the book focus on scientists and engineers at the expense of examining the economic and political systems driving environmental disruption?
7. How should societies evaluate interventions that may be irreversible at planetary scale but are framed as responses to equally large risks?
8. After finishing the book, do you feel more optimistic, more resigned, or more concerned about humanity’s long-term role as a planetary force?

Thanks to Spartacus Books for generously opening up their space for us! If you’re able, please support them with a small donation (suggested: $2), or with a purchase if one of their titles catches your fancy.