I remember when Crichton's work caused enormous waves of discontent in the review world, not about quality but for the fact that this work suggests that there is an industry of misrepresenting facts in order to create reasons to force policy.
I am not of the opinion that Crichton was saying there is no global warming, I believe he was questioning those who control the data, and the uses they might have for forming opinion.
Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's Fallen Angels
The future sees earth, and the US in particular in the throes of a new ice age. Those in governmental control make policies regarding the environment at the cost of those who live off planet, and those who disagree with the policies.
This work is more adventure than the others offered here, but the consequence of human action or inaction is addressed fully.
George Turner's Drowning Towers
From the breakdown of the environment comes the loss of control, and the apathy of those who are safe from the disasters causes human suffering. The dystopic world is one where government cannot deal with the consequences of the disasters, but more than that inefficiency, human desire to ignore the impending collapse makes dealing with the collapse impossible.
This book is not a mystery. This work is one where the reader knows very well that there is no light at the end of the tunnel, but getting there, and seeing what this author suggests is the result, is worth the journey.
What if you foresaw a disaster, and tried to stop it, but in the end, your actions made things worse? What if earth is a system and self regulates and any human interaction only screws with that?
This book is good, and I enjoyed it very much, but the causes of the global collapse comes from a much different reason than those of the previous books. However, as books go, it is quite good, and I highly recommend it.
So if I am finishing this piece without giving my own view I'll be leaving myself open to interpretation for my choices and commentary... I have studied this issue. Alongside of over-population arguments between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon, I've scoured the literature available that a person who is not a scientist but is educated could understand.
I believe that humans stand upon a precipice, one that will doom future generations to having to deal with our inaction if we do not try something. My son is 14 years old, and I worry for his future. The loss of unique organisms and species from the consequences of global warming alone should call our attention, but the increase of temperatures by up to 4 degrees would, in my opinion, likely permanently change human existence.
I am not of the opinion that all of it, even necessarily most of it, comes from human hands. However, if there is a cycle of warming, and we make it worse, even that little amount we are responsible could be the reason we face collapse.
I won't bother you further with my political views on this, I do find it fascinating, and do find the literature to be surprisingly on each side of the debate, so I thought that I would share.