Malm makes a compelling argument against the pacifism of the mainstream climate movement by first comparing to past liberation movements such as those in Iran, Haiti and the United States; each of which relied on, to some extent, violent means to bring about social and political change. He poses the bold rhetorical question to “locate even one minimally relevant analogue to the climate struggle that has not contained some violence.”

The novel quickly progresses from judgments of the parents’ embarrassing qualities to a full-blown allegory about the end of the world. In particular, the novel asks questions about the role of the young in stopping climate change, while casting a judgmental eye upon older generations who have—through harmful action or willful ignorance—allowed things to get this bad.