The Guardian columnist reckons that CO2 emissions must be cut by 90% by 2030, and works out how it could be done without drastically lowering the quality of life (with the exception of air travel, which seems to be environmentally unfixable). Thorough and meticulously referenced, though rather UK-centric. For future cars, he finds that biofuels and hydrogen lose out to electric vehicles with service-station-swappable battery packs charged with wind-generated power. (I have elsewhere seen biofuels described as a crime against humanity. Perhaps we should have known that both they and H2 would be bad options as soon as Dubya Shrubbish came out in favor of them.)

A factual review of the approaches we could take to reduce carbon emissions in 2030 by 90% whilst still maintaining a *normal* quality of life. To illustrate what that normal is I liked the quote from Ian McEwans book Saturday describing the luxury of stepping out of the hot power shower into the heated towels. The book starts by describing the politics of hidden agendas and conflicting data but throughout demonstrated the systemic approached he took to analysing possible solutions that go beyond the tokenistic. I enjoyed the fact that most the areas reviewed had realistic alternatives to what we currently do. All except the section on aviation where he could not report a way forward other than to reduce flights by 90% (a sad chapter to read whilst sitting on a 747 from London to San Fransisco).

Things that stuck in my mind:
a rise of over 2 degress in temperature will cause systemic failure - imagine the mood of the scientists watching the Larsen B collapse (footage online?)
The idea of "love miles" - is it socially possible to reduce the amount of air travel
The stories about the spin surrounding the climate debate was quite amazing but sadly all to believable. It facinates me how people can be manipulated to regurgitate words that they do not understand. When do we learn to stop thinking for ourselves? This is a serious downside to the ubiquity of the network and trust around data and sources of information.
I liked the idea of the icecaps to distribute responsibility based on looking at the system as a whole (ie at a planetary system) I have often wondered what the implications would be if the economy worked in a similar way. (But i have never really understood how we can keep on increasing the amount of money that we have globally to satisfy increasing levels of debt and consumption). I like the fact that in his closing remarks he called this an unusual campaign since it is not a campaign for freedom but for less.
I was reminded that electricity can only be delivered on demand and could imagine the guy at Dinorwig racing to the big red lever just before the commercial break during Coronation Street to release that minimal amount of hydro energy we do have stored.
Kyoto - a scheme to permit *official* levels of pollution?
Carbon trading - are we moving food around the plate in the pretense of eating.
Finally was the call to action - the internet whilst broadening the voice in general does also have the side effect of making things less visible. It will require change, some at a personal level in our daily activities but there is also an opportunity to deliver the large scale change. The Jack Doyle reference to the repurposing of automotive factories to making planes in post Pearl Harbour WWII was excellent and showed that if a sense of urgency is present then large scale activity can be delivered beyond the *normal* constraints of project management.

more at www.monbiot.com ( )

Pretty good overall - its tone is optimistic, positive, though there are some errors. The major one is that George thinks that high voltage DC transmission is the answer to electricity distribution - he's been reading too much ABB propaganda it seems. A more minor error is in the figures for China's CO2 output - its considerably worse than he states and growing fast. The message of global warming won't be heard coming from hypocrites - George says he's one but I'm not sure he really understands what this means. A hypocrite isn't merely someone whose ideals exceed their praxis, rather its someone who condemns others for the very things he does himself, justifying his own action by special pleading. So for example a journalist who condemns others for taking long-haul flights while cruising around in planes claiming to be 'consciousness raising' (and therefore exempt from condemnation) is a prime case of hypocrisy. I don't see George doing this. He does though at times appear to adopt a 'hair shirt' mentality towards his CO2 limiting behaviours - like saying he's 'refusing to own' a car, rather than choosing not to own one. This does smack of holier-than-thou and won't win him friends. ( )

From gas-guzzling America, Great Britain's comparative 'green-ness' is something of a model, at times. And I'm somewhat of an anglophile, so I was prepared to love Heat, a British author's look at climate change, in any case. In this particular case, however, its British-ness may be one of the failings of the book. I didn't realize it when I first picked the book up, but the American edition has hardly been adapted for audiences this side of the pond – the only concession I noticed was a thoughtful introduction explaining the peculiar failures our government has to answer for on the score of global climate change. Faced with figures in pence per kilo and constant references to 10 Downing Street, the average American reader might feel a bit overwhelmed.
Ultimately, though, despite the hundreds of meticulous foot- and end-notes, it's not the details that matter in this book. George Monbiot, the author, describes the book as a "thought experiment." After a lecture on global warming that he gave a few years back, he says, he was startle by an audience member's question: what will our lives look like once we've achieved the carbon cuts scientists are calling for? This book is his answer, an attempt to show what will have to change, in order to achieve a 90% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.Monbiot devotes less than a quarter of the book to the importance of curbing climate change, the science behind his proposed carbon cuts, and the political means by which to achieve them. All that, he says, has been covered elsewhere. Instead, Heat examines the feasibility of different proposals to cut carbon in four areas: heating and cooling our homes, providing the nation's electricity, traveling, and – in a token nod to retail and industry – grocery stores and concrete production. For the most part, his ideas end up somewhat middle-of-the-road: he embraces carbon capture and storage, the technique of hiding our carbon waste deep underground that many environmentalists love to hate, while still arguing for such enormous government-funded changes in our energy infrastructure that all but the most die-hard liberals might argue that it's just too costly.
These kinds of inconsistencies make it hard for me to believe that his plan will ever be implemented. In addition, the British Isles are in a fairly unique political and geographical situation, and what works there cannot simply be held up as a model for the world to follow. These would be large failures if Heat were meant as a policy document. As it is, however, I think that Monbiot's accessible writing style and focus on everyday life target this book as a wake-up call for lay-people. Yes, he argues that fighting global warming takes government legislation and incentives, not just the more motivated among us changing a few lightbulbs. But he points out that we don't really want the government to impose heavy cuts on our carbon-dependent lifestyles. We're happy when politicians wave green banners and make promises, but it's the facade we want to see, not the true changes.
What we need, says Monbiot, is a movement for austerity. Like few movements before it, this one will be fighting not for liberty, but against it – at least, against the sort of false liberty that is really borrowing against our childrens' futures. But, he points out, we've shown we can do it. Like the country-wide change of pace that occurred when the US entered World War II, a worthy cause, successful propaganda, tough government regulation, and financial incentives for industry, can turn transform our society almost overnight. Now let's get out and make it happen before it's too late. ( )

I have to recommend this book fully. It is a thoroughly researched, brilliant book on global warming and the actions we must take to mitigate its consequences. Monbiot starts by voicing the same frustration I’ve often experienced:

"What is the point of cycling into town when the rest of the world is thundering past in monster trucks? By refusing to own a car, I have simply given up my road space to someone who drives a hungrier model than I would have bought. Why pay for double-glazing windows when the supermarkets are heating the pavement with the hot air blowers above their doors? Why bother installing an energy-efficient lightbulb when a man in Lankashire boasts of attaching 1.2 million Christmas lights to his house?"

He does something far more beneficial than just installing an energy-efficient lightbulb: he presents the global warming problem in plain terms, proceeds to calculate what needs to be done to tackle the problem (a seemingly impossible 90% carbon emissions cut), and finalizes making the argument that such a solution is not only necessary, but feasible.

You can find my full review of this book at:
http://catenary.wordpress.com/2007/05... ( )