Scan barcode
yates9's review against another edition
3.0
This book encapsulates the problem and the meta problem very well. It is a terrifying tale based on real science and that describes how impact of warming leads to unsustainable outcomes and liely human and planetary collapse of ecosystem and civilisation.
It goes by degrees where two degrees are apready morally unacceptable but the book covers values up to six which are uncharted.
The author accepts that Nuclear Power is the only potential energy that could be dense enough to enable life in the extreme six degree scenario, under some sort of domes
where a fraction of the world population grows its own food (the rest is wiped out a la mad-max).
But if any crtitical thinker wants to really progress on this issue read the last two chapters. We go from a moral extreme of decimating human population at six degrees to the self-stated religious position in the end chapter where
the author will simply not consider man made intervention on climate, period. And to further this accepts as morally just for people to make more children despite their near assured misery.
1. How can thw author ignore that geo-engineering could include anything from replanting to air sequestration or carbon capture, even before other more radical methods?
2. How can the author present a near inevitable catastrophe, then call to unspecified action, and encourage mote children to bring this battle forward? There is a contradiction in values here...
3. How can the author find it “acceptable” or at least ok to describe a planet of mad-max plus covered biospheres but does not imagine that state powers would jump his ethocal concerns on geo-engineering before that point?
Ultimately I guess the book is trying to drive political consensus toward reducing fossil fuel based dependence. But even in this dimension things are not very easy on the policy side. Overall there isn’t even consensus that a carbon tax would be socially fair.
Warming is a wicked problem, I wish we spent more time admitting how tricky rhis is. And examine all reasonable solutions.
It goes by degrees where two degrees are apready morally unacceptable but the book covers values up to six which are uncharted.
The author accepts that Nuclear Power is the only potential energy that could be dense enough to enable life in the extreme six degree scenario, under some sort of domes
where a fraction of the world population grows its own food (the rest is wiped out a la mad-max).
But if any crtitical thinker wants to really progress on this issue read the last two chapters. We go from a moral extreme of decimating human population at six degrees to the self-stated religious position in the end chapter where
the author will simply not consider man made intervention on climate, period. And to further this accepts as morally just for people to make more children despite their near assured misery.
1. How can thw author ignore that geo-engineering could include anything from replanting to air sequestration or carbon capture, even before other more radical methods?
2. How can the author present a near inevitable catastrophe, then call to unspecified action, and encourage mote children to bring this battle forward? There is a contradiction in values here...
3. How can the author find it “acceptable” or at least ok to describe a planet of mad-max plus covered biospheres but does not imagine that state powers would jump his ethocal concerns on geo-engineering before that point?
Ultimately I guess the book is trying to drive political consensus toward reducing fossil fuel based dependence. But even in this dimension things are not very easy on the policy side. Overall there isn’t even consensus that a carbon tax would be socially fair.
Warming is a wicked problem, I wish we spent more time admitting how tricky rhis is. And examine all reasonable solutions.
simoneclark's review against another edition
5.0
For someone who loves post-apocalyptic/dystopian books, this was a great read. Unfortunately, this is not a fiction book. While the author speculates about the various degrees of global warning based on information currently available, this is a book about events that are inevitable if we don't start doing something about it. It sounds like a modern George Orwell, but it's not so far-fetched.
ccollins11's review
4.0
Frightening at times but well worth a read for anyone who wants to be more informed on the climate emergency
duggireads's review against another edition
4.0
This book was really informative for explaining the most recent science on what the earth will be like at each degree of additional warming. It can get very scientific at points, but I still found I could follow it fine. I did find it incredibly depressing. Despite the note at the end that we still can avoid many of the possible outcomes, it feels incredibly unlikely. I don't feel like I needed the scale of the catastrophe spelt out to me so bluntly, but that is my fault for reading on, rather than any fault of the book. It is a very well researched and fleshed out analysis of what our world will end up like should we continue as we are doing. Definitely a call for change!