As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, a national discussion about science and politics is taking place. News coverage implies that “science” is sufficient for policy decisions and that “politics” should not play a role. Cato senior fellow Peter Van Doren, however, explains that scientific findings, by themselves, are rarely sufficient for individual or policy decisions. Such findings can tell us about the causes of outcomes but nothing more. In this Pandemics and Policy study, Van Doren says that the question of how we should evaluate those outcomes in our own decisionmaking requires other considerations, and the relative importance of those considerations will vary across individuals. Trying to aggregate these differences into policy requires further nonscientific decisions.

As a staunch advocate for the environment and a nonpartisan pragmatist, Michael Shellenberger was dismayed to see many other leaders within the environmental movement engaging in apocalypticism while forgoing advocacy for tractable, evidence‐​based solutions to climate change, such as the adoption of nuclear power. In fact, many environmentalists actively oppose humanity’s only scalable green energy source even while painting an apocalyptic picture that has contributed to rising anxiety among adolescents. Watch the online forum where Shellenberger examines the rise of apocalyptic environmentalism and shows how parts of the environmental movement have become mired in misunderstanding and partisanship. He also gives reasons to oppose a despairing outlook and makes a strong case for rational optimism that humanity will be able to rise to the occasion and effectively tackle environmental problems such as climate change.