Under a White Sky Major and Minor Quotes

“Humans are producing no-analog climates, no-analog ecosystems, a whole no-analog future.” (Part 1, Chapter 1)

—Elizabeth Kolbert

Analysis: By “no-analog,” Kolbert means that the climates, ecosystems, and human future itself have no comparison to past eras. While there were severe temperature swings and increases in sea level in the past, people were not rooted in place as they are today. An entire city such as New Orleans or New York cannot pick itself up and move as its coast is threatened by the rising sea level. Furthermore, past eras did not have to deal with carbon emissions and the resulting threats to the climate, which in turn threaten species and ecosystems. Kolbert makes the point that once carbon dioxide is in the air, it doesn’t go away. She compares it to a stoppered bathtub with a running tap. You can turn the tap down, but the tub will continue to fill.

The author makes the point that the only way to face a no-analog future is to acknowledge that nature and humanity are now inseparable. She describes this as “a planet remade [that] spirals back on itself.” She offers as an example the fact that humans built a canal to reverse the flow of the Chicago River and are now electrifying the canal to repel the invasive fish that subsequently entered it.

“If control is the problem, then, by the logic of the Anthropocene, still more control must be the solution.” (Part 1, Chapter 2)

—Elizabeth Kolbert

Analysis: Kolbert repeatedly returns to the main idea that further human activity can barely control the impact that humans have already made by defying nature in order to control it. In Part 1, she offers the examples of the electrification of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to repel invasive carp, the building of artificial marshes in Louisiana, and the creation of openings in Louisiana levees to divert sediment and replenish land. All are attempts to fix problems that humans created when trying to control the flow of water.

In Part 2, Kolbert describes projects that attempt to fix human-made threats to animals. Such projects include the replica Devils Hole cavern, meant to keep alive and study the highly endangered Devils Hole pupfish found in nature in the real Devils Hole cavern, and Ruth Gates’s research on breeding a coral that can live in warming sea temperatures. They also include the work being done by Mark Tizard to genetically engineer the destructive cane toad. The pupfish are now “conservation-reliant,” the corals are undergoing a type of “assisted evolution,” and the cane toads are blurring the lines between laboratories and nature—all perfect examples of attempts to use control to fix problems created by trying to control nature. Part 3’s discussion of projects to capture carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere provide further examples of Kolbert’s main idea about control. As she points out, humans don’t “have a very good track record” when it comes to the sort of intervention proposed by David Keith, one of the scientists whom she interviews.

“I was struck . . . by how much easier it is to ruin an ecosystem than to run one.” (Part 2, Chapter 1)

—Elizabeth Kolbert

Analysis: Kolbert has this thought as she watches scientists meticulously pick tiny beetles out of mesh traps using tweezers. To save the critically endangered Devils Hole pupfish, scientists have created a concrete replica of the cavern pool that is the only place the pupfish are found in nature. However, a species of beetles found in nature in the original pool has changed its behavior in the concrete replica. For some reason, it reproduces faster in the concrete version, and it is now devouring pupfish larva.

Kolbert uses the example of threats to the pupfish and the difficulty of preserving its ecosystem—the smallest range of any vertebrate—to discuss the broader topic of saving species from extinction. In Part 2, Chapter 1, she describes the “sheer pace of the violence” in which humans wiped out species such as the passenger pigeon in the 19th century. In the 20th century, this “biodiversity crisis” only worsened, with extinction rates hundreds or thousands of times higher than would occur in nature. Some animal species, such as raccoons, house mice, and cockroaches, can benefit from living near humans. Some plant species thrive when people move into their range or people move them around. But, Kolbert points out, “for every species that has prospered with humans, many more have declined.”

“For whatever reason . . . people are reluctant to be the asteroid.” (Part 2, Chapter 1)

—Elizabeth Kolbert

Analysis: In Part 1, Kolbert first mentions the asteroid impact that wiped out about 75% of all species on Earth and ended the age of dinosaurs about 66 million years ago. It is one of “only a handful” of examples of global change in Earth’s history that can be compared to the effects of the Anthropocene era, the geological age of humans.

In Part 2, Kolbert compares the biodiversity crisis on Earth to the asteroid impact. Either because they love nature, they consider it God’s creation, or they are simply afraid of the results, people “are reluctant to be the asteroid.” In other words, they do not want to be the cause of the extinction of enormous numbers of species.

The result, however, is the creation of a new, “conservation-reliant” class of animals, such as the Devils Hole pupfish, that depend on humans to live. The pupfish is just one of thousands of species currently depending on human intervention for survival. Kolbert cites enclosures, managed burning of territory, hand-pollination, artificial insemination, and other methods in addition to the captive breeding and supplemental feeding that keep the Devils Hole pupfish alive.

“A future is coming where nature is no longer fully natural.” (Part 2, Chapter 2)

—Ruth Gates

Analysis: This quotation by marine scientist Ruth Gates echoes the conclusions Kolbert has drawn about “conservation-reliant” species, that is, those that depend on humans for survival. Gates studies corals, tiny animals with smaller plants, a type of algae, growing inside their cells. The corals protect the algae, which in turn provide nutrients for the corals. As water temperatures rise, however, the algae begin to give off dangerous levels of oxygen-containing molecules that can damage cells. The corals expel their algae, turn white, and die in what is called a “bleaching event.”

Gates is trying to breed corals that can survive changing ocean temperatures and other stressors, such as overfishing and pollution. She has accepted the fact that it is more realistic to try to create corals that can adapt to stress caused by global climate change than it is to try to stop the damage done to corals by human activity. Her work exemplifies some of Kolbert’s main ideas. One is that in the world of the future, the line between humans and nature will be increasingly blurred. Another is that humans may need to think differently about the issue of using technology in order to help species and ecosystems to survive. Such intervention may be the only way to save them.

“We are using our understanding of biological processes to . . . benefit a system that is in trauma.” (Part 2, Chapter 3)

—Mark Tizard

Analysis: Biologist Mark Tizard says this in response to the question that people pose about whether or not molecular biology is a form of “playing God.” Tizard says it is not; rather, it is an attempt to correct a traumatic environmental situation. His work exemplifies one of the overarching main ideas in Under a White Sky: that perhaps the best way to move forward with issues such as invasive species and carbon emissions is to accept that they are a problem, remove them from the issue of guilt, and go about trying to solve them using the best technology available.

Tizard’s perspective is that the world is already damaged by invasive species, so humans should try to break the destructive patterns they have set in motion. The tool at hand for Tizard happens to be a technique called CRISPR, or “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats.” Tizard is experimenting with using CRISPR to make cane toads less toxic and to alter the toad’s genes so its eggs cannot be fertilized. As Kolbert later points out, rejecting technologies such as CRISPR because they are “unnatural” will not restore nature. The only choice is to look ahead to the future.

“People are ingenious. They come up with crazy, big ideas, and sometimes these actually work.” (Part 3, Chapter 1)

—Elizabeth Kolbert

Analysis: In Part 3, Chapter 1, Kolbert interviews physicist Klaus Lackner. Lackner tells her how he and a friend wondered why physicists weren’t trying “really crazy, big things anymore” to find the energy source of the future. The two come up with the idea of a solar-powered project that could be used to scrub carbon from the atmosphere. While this “big idea” didn’t get off the ground, the concept of trying to pull carbon out of the air spread. Eventually, Lackner founded the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions at Arizona State University. Here he works on a project that would use a powder that, when dry, could absorb carbon dioxide and, when wet, could release it.

The project would need to work at a huge scale to be successful, yet Kolbert clearly admires it. She quotes the scientist’s own words when she says that “crazy, big ideas” can sometimes work. In particular, the author doesn’t list the sort of daunting possible consequences of some of the other carbon-scrubbing projects she investigates, such as the “white sky” of the book’s title. In discussing solar geoengineering, for instance, Kolbert says it has been described as “a broad highway to hell.” Lackner’s project, in contrast, seems rational and well worth pursuing.

“This has been a book about people trying to solve problems created by people trying to solve problems.” (Part 3, Chapter 3)

—Elizabeth Kolbert

Analysis: Kolbert prefaces her discussion of the attitude of all the scientists and engineers whom she interviewed by describing them as “people trying to solve problems created by people trying to solve problems.” She says that “without exception,” everyone to whom she spoke was “enthusiastic about their work.” But, she continues, “this enthusiasm was tempered by doubt.” All the solutions she describes, from electric fish barriers to geoengineering by sending particles into the air, are presented to her “less in a spirit of techno-optimism than what might be called techno-fatalism.” They may be the best hope for the future, though they cannot bring back Earth’s natural ecosystems. 

Kolbert goes on to say that this is the spirit in which technological interventions that might seem far-fetched, such as assisted evolution and gene drives, “have to be assessed.” Humans must consider every option to save species and ecosystems. She quotes one scientist who compares these technical solutions to chemotherapy. While nobody would choose to have chemotherapy, these options might be the only ones available. Of course, she points out, ultimately the use of these interventions will be in the hands of politicians—a concept that does not give her a great deal of hope.

“Contemporary culture is practically a recipe for a pandemic.” (Afterword)

—Elizabeth Kolbert

Analysis: Kolbert devotes most of her afterword to a discussion of COVID. The virus “both interrupted this book and belongs within it.” She compares the virus to the ecological problems she describes in Under a White Sky, such as the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef’s corals, as “a manmade natural disaster.” Nobody intended COVID to imperil the health of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. However, because humans failed to contain the virus when the first cases were reported—because politics got in the way—the disease quickly spread around the world.

Kolbert believes that the spread of the virus should not have been surprising—that epidemiologists have warned about a possible pandemic for decades. It is in this context that she says contemporary culture is “practically a recipe for a pandemic.” The density of many cities, our close proximity to animals that can be infected by other animals, and the speed and ease of our travel all create conditions under which a pandemic can flourish.

The author sees another similarity between COVID and the ecological problems she discusses in the book. Once scientists realized the virus could not be contained, they rushed to find a “bio-technofix,” or COVID vaccines. But the vaccines are not absolute fixes for the virus, just as “technofixes” for saving species and ecosystems have their drawbacks.

“In the end, this marvelous, fragile planet is all we’ve got.” (Afterword)

—Elizabeth Kolbert

Analysis: Kolbert closes Under a White Sky with these words. Earlier in the afterword, she has stated that she can’t use the standard three pages following a contemporary book about the environment with a message of hope, such as “plant native flowers, ride a bike, take to the streets.” Yet she later says there are things that can be done to combat threats to the environment, and she cites some of the steps—like planting native flowers—she has criticized earlier as being far too inadequate as a response. Political action, she says, is especially important.

But, she adds, with the book she has tried to “be honest about the scale of the challenge.” Echoing her earlier description of the experts she interviewed as having a spirit of “techno-fatalism,” she stresses the difficulty of stopping the processes of global change once they have begun. Finally, she points to the importance of the choices that people make now to determine the future of life on our “marvelous, fragile planet.”