Scan barcode
A review by seclement
The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World by Oliver Morton
3.0
I really went back and forth on this book, chapter by chapter. Some chapters I quite liked, but others were frankly out of place an inexplicably included in this book. In fact, it is these two things that made me ultimately rate the book as 3 stars. It badly needs an editor, as it is not really sure if it is a book about the history of human impact on the environment, a book about the anthropocene in general, or a book about geoengineering in particular. I expected it to be a coherent story about the third category, and this is why I rated it as I did. Frankly, I wanted to read a book about the current status of geoengineering research, and this book was not that, but instead largely an argument about how we a) have already modified the earth significantly (i.e. it's the anthropocene), b) what we might be able to do about climate change (though this description is more limited than I expected), and c) why these things are simply a continuation of previous thinking on the topic.
If you have read the book Arming Mother Nature, then this is in the same vein. The author is politically astute and historically interested in where we come from, with the idea that it tells us where we should be going. I'm not necessarily on board with this premise, but I understand the point, and the rationale behind the intention. I also agree with the author (wholeheartedly) that, given the sad state of political "progress" in terms of how we're dealing with climate change, then geoengineering merits much more attention and much more consideration as an option. Morton clearly understands the nuances of political negotiation, and he is by no means naive. Nor does he overstate the potential contribution of geoengineering. He even addresses many of the concerns his readers might have, and preemptively at that. Morton's lack of a scientific background - and extensive experience as a grumpy journalist - is an asset in this regard.
But what it does not deal with is the uncertainty of science, especially when it comes to translating models and ecosystem understanding to reality. We don't have a good track record in this area, and this book does nothing to alleviate the concern that we would do any better when we enter the stratosphere (for instance) and spray a thin veil around the earth to mimic volcanos. Sure, it works in theory....and sure, the models say it might work to alleviate the effects of rising CO2 in many regions....but there is nothing to indicate that our models will align with reality, and our track record is so poor, the reader can be forgiven for their distrust. If you read this book and you are aware that we can't even introduce one species in an ecosystem to control another, then this book won't give you the reassurance and/or evidence you are after to show that this time will be different, nor will it directly confront the difference between knowledge in theory and in practice (or in soft vs hard science).
Still, what it does provide is a very strong and sophisticated argument about why geoengineering merits more research, and it is here where I can't disagree with Morton. I am, like him, shocked that this is not an area that we are attending to, given the institutional failure of global negotiations. So while the book has succeeded in convincing me that this is an area that deserves our attention, it has failed in convincing me that we have enough evidence to say that there are potentially strong effects that offset the risks of geoengineered interventions. Ultimately, the logic of this book is built on an argument about how much we have already modified the world, and an argument that engineering it for the benefit of the climate is simply a logical step; but even so, it does not convince me of the ethical arguments. Yes, we are in the anthropocene. Yes, we have modified the world beyond what we could have possibly imagined. But nowhere in the book is a strong case made that this leads to a logical conclusion - and a proven intervention - that we should try to manipulate this to our own ends, as a means of adapting to climate change. There just isn't the data to support a stronger, more coherent argument.
And speaking of coherency...this book is in need of a good editor. I love the historical bits. They are interesting. But they are completely out of place. This book is a mix of information about the anthropocene (which many authors have addressed already), information about how we've modified the earth already (with the aim to lump all global environmental change drivers under the concept of "geoengineering), and information about how formal geoengineering solutions might work. I read this book because I wanted more information on the final category, but it was confusingly mixed in with everything else. {As an example, chapter 5 suddenly talks about the history of discussions about humans modifying the planet, with the argument being that there is precedence...but wouldn't logic dictate that you start with that?} It was thus about twice as long as it needed to be, given the content, and I'd love to see this book after a tough (but fair) editing.
If you haven't read other books on the anthropocene, then this is probably worthwhile, but otherwise I would suggest that you wait until a more focused book on geoengineering- and more focused research in general - is developed before reading this book. Morton is poitically astute and quite realistic, but ultimately his message is a bit mundane and unfocussed in this book.
If you have read the book Arming Mother Nature, then this is in the same vein. The author is politically astute and historically interested in where we come from, with the idea that it tells us where we should be going. I'm not necessarily on board with this premise, but I understand the point, and the rationale behind the intention. I also agree with the author (wholeheartedly) that, given the sad state of political "progress" in terms of how we're dealing with climate change, then geoengineering merits much more attention and much more consideration as an option. Morton clearly understands the nuances of political negotiation, and he is by no means naive. Nor does he overstate the potential contribution of geoengineering. He even addresses many of the concerns his readers might have, and preemptively at that. Morton's lack of a scientific background - and extensive experience as a grumpy journalist - is an asset in this regard.
But what it does not deal with is the uncertainty of science, especially when it comes to translating models and ecosystem understanding to reality. We don't have a good track record in this area, and this book does nothing to alleviate the concern that we would do any better when we enter the stratosphere (for instance) and spray a thin veil around the earth to mimic volcanos. Sure, it works in theory....and sure, the models say it might work to alleviate the effects of rising CO2 in many regions....but there is nothing to indicate that our models will align with reality, and our track record is so poor, the reader can be forgiven for their distrust. If you read this book and you are aware that we can't even introduce one species in an ecosystem to control another, then this book won't give you the reassurance and/or evidence you are after to show that this time will be different, nor will it directly confront the difference between knowledge in theory and in practice (or in soft vs hard science).
Still, what it does provide is a very strong and sophisticated argument about why geoengineering merits more research, and it is here where I can't disagree with Morton. I am, like him, shocked that this is not an area that we are attending to, given the institutional failure of global negotiations. So while the book has succeeded in convincing me that this is an area that deserves our attention, it has failed in convincing me that we have enough evidence to say that there are potentially strong effects that offset the risks of geoengineered interventions. Ultimately, the logic of this book is built on an argument about how much we have already modified the world, and an argument that engineering it for the benefit of the climate is simply a logical step; but even so, it does not convince me of the ethical arguments. Yes, we are in the anthropocene. Yes, we have modified the world beyond what we could have possibly imagined. But nowhere in the book is a strong case made that this leads to a logical conclusion - and a proven intervention - that we should try to manipulate this to our own ends, as a means of adapting to climate change. There just isn't the data to support a stronger, more coherent argument.
And speaking of coherency...this book is in need of a good editor. I love the historical bits. They are interesting. But they are completely out of place. This book is a mix of information about the anthropocene (which many authors have addressed already), information about how we've modified the earth already (with the aim to lump all global environmental change drivers under the concept of "geoengineering), and information about how formal geoengineering solutions might work. I read this book because I wanted more information on the final category, but it was confusingly mixed in with everything else. {As an example, chapter 5 suddenly talks about the history of discussions about humans modifying the planet, with the argument being that there is precedence...but wouldn't logic dictate that you start with that?} It was thus about twice as long as it needed to be, given the content, and I'd love to see this book after a tough (but fair) editing.
If you haven't read other books on the anthropocene, then this is probably worthwhile, but otherwise I would suggest that you wait until a more focused book on geoengineering- and more focused research in general - is developed before reading this book. Morton is poitically astute and quite realistic, but ultimately his message is a bit mundane and unfocussed in this book.