The Ministry for the Future's setting is not a desolate, postapocalyptic world, but a future that is almost upon us. This extraordinary novel from visionary science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson will change the way you think about the climate crisis.
This collaborative space allows users to contribute additional information, tips, and insights to enhance the original deal post. Feel free to share your knowledge and help fellow shoppers make informed decisions.
The Ministry for the Future's setting is not a desolate, postapocalyptic world, but a future that is almost upon us. This extraordinary novel from visionary science fiction writer Kim Stanley Robinson will change the way you think about the climate crisis.
An unsettling book speculating action needed to stop sea level rise. I starts off predicting mass dieoff in a few cities, because of a heatwave a few degrees hotter than this summer. It does have a happy ending.
Last edited by Regroover August 1, 2026 at 11:08 AM.
2
2
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Aug 4, 2026 5:19 AM
13 Comments
Joined Jan 2015
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users.
People should read 'Inconvenient Facts' by Gregory Wrightstone, regardless of which side they are on with climate change. Use the ability to reason and try to discredit different theories. You'll be better off for it.
Background on the Author and Affiliations. Industry Career: Wrightstone worked for decades as a petroleum geologist in the Appalachian Basin and consulted for energy companies.Think Tanks: He has held roles or associations with organizations that challenge mainstream climate change consensus, including the Heartland Institute and the Cornwall Alliance.The CO2 Coalition: He later became the head of the CO2 Coalition, which has historically listed foundations funded by conservative billionaires like the Koch family and the Mercer Family Foundation among its financial contributors.
Do you have a book written by someone paid off by big tobacco that discredits the negative effects of smoking as well?
LOL. You really got him!
Isn't it interesting how this book's proposed solution to climate change is a $60 billion government bureaucracy? Surely a new government agency will fix the planet. I do wonder that if this really is one of Barack Obama's favorite books, why hasn't he raised the money to form the Ministry for the Future? He did just raise nearly a billion dollars for his own library, but how do we know it will even be standing in a decade after more climate change? That money would have been a great head start on the Ministry for the Future. Jeff Bezos's ex-wife has already given away $26 billion (with no measurable impact on society but who's counting?). Surely all the billionaire and millionaire celebrities who speak out on climate change could pool together $60 billion rather easily.
Do you have a book written by someone paid off by big tobacco that discredits the negative effects of smoking as well?
Ok I see your narrative and raise you one basic question.
If carbon emissions are bad for the planet, why do plants require it to sustain plant life (I.e. food production)? The alternative is to limit it and send the planet into an ice age, of which our planet has already had several. This is the ebb and flow of the planet which humans had nothing to do with historically, but ironically as of late the gas guzzler will help planet sustain life.
Last edited by alvacado August 14, 2026 at 09:01 PM.
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Ok I see your narrative and raise you one basic question.
If carbon emissions are bad for the planet, why do plants require it to sustain plant life (I.e. food production)? The alternative is to limit it and send the planet into an ice age, of which our planet has already had several. This is the ebb and flow of the planet which humans had nothing to do with historically, but ironically as of late the gas guzzler will help planet sustain life.
The science on climate change is solid. Plants breath in Carbon dioxide (a green house gas) and breath out Oxygen. Our burning of fossil fuels is heating the planet and acidifying the oceans. Just finished this book and it was a really good read. Humans are the ones that are going to suffer at our own hands for not living with balance. We barely surrvived the ice age so I'm hopefully we'll survive this too, but we are going to lose some climate deniers along the way.
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!
Top Comments
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!
8 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Use the ability to reason and try to discredit different theories. You'll be better off for it.
The add audio book for $27 is laughable, especially since it is only $7.69 on audible.
Do you have a book written by someone paid off by big tobacco that discredits the negative effects of smoking as well?
Isn't it interesting how this book's proposed solution to climate change is a $60 billion government bureaucracy? Surely a new government agency will fix the planet. I do wonder that if this really is one of Barack Obama's favorite books, why hasn't he raised the money to form the Ministry for the Future? He did just raise nearly a billion dollars for his own library, but how do we know it will even be standing in a decade after more climate change? That money would have been a great head start on the Ministry for the Future. Jeff Bezos's ex-wife has already given away $26 billion (with no measurable impact on society but who's counting?). Surely all the billionaire and millionaire celebrities who speak out on climate change could pool together $60 billion rather easily.
If carbon emissions are bad for the planet, why do plants require it to sustain plant life (I.e. food production)? The alternative is to limit it and send the planet into an ice age, of which our planet has already had several. This is the ebb and flow of the planet which humans had nothing to do with historically, but ironically as of late the gas guzzler will help planet sustain life.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
If carbon emissions are bad for the planet, why do plants require it to sustain plant life (I.e. food production)? The alternative is to limit it and send the planet into an ice age, of which our planet has already had several. This is the ebb and flow of the planet which humans had nothing to do with historically, but ironically as of late the gas guzzler will help planet sustain life.
Join The Conversation
Share your experience with the Slickdeals community
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!