Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning

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 show more 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. show less

This is a thorough and careful book, but also amusing in places. Monbiot manages this well. He is unafraid to call a spade a spade, and correctly diagnoses the wishful thinking that sometimes afflicts environmental activists. Rooftop wind turbines are no solution to anything. He makes a compelling case that that we should all demand that our economic system be issued new rules. Like NHL hockey players, no one (country/individual/business) wants to be the *first* to put on the helmet, yet we all wish we could wear them. The solution in the NHL was a rule change, and our global economy needs new, bold measures to protect us from us. I read the Canadian edition and it points out just how stuck in the 1950s our current government is.

I am a big fan of George Monbiot - yes I tend to share his opinions, but regardless of your views, you have to accept he is a thoughtful writer, and scrupulous in his sourcing. I strongly recommend his blog if you wish to get a flavour of his views / style: http://www.monbiot.com/
This book first gives a very grim (but fair) view of the urgency of global warming, and the few pages devoted to rebutting the sceptics are the most succinct I have come across.
However the main aim of this book is to show that a modern industrial economy (the UK) can be transformed into a sustainable one in terms of climate within a very short timeframe (by 2030). As a practical guide to the policy measures available it is brilliant. As a guide to what is show more desirable it also excellent.
It won't find favour everywhere - he is sceptical about the advantages of micro energy generation, and scathing of the weak policies currently in place to tackle climate change. He sees no way round massively reducing our flying. He made me reconsider my attitude to carbon capture as part of the solution, and I am now much more in favour.
It is hard to think of any major weaknesses, although some will be unhappy with his (relatively) easy dismissal of nuclear power (while I agree it is not part of the solution, I think he concludes this too readily).
All this is an accessible style. A must read book. I toyed recently with the idea that all MPs should be given set reading lists (like students). Why should they be one of the only professions where training is not required or provided? This would certainly make my set text list for policy makers. show less

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 show more 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. show less

Reading a book first published in 2006 in 2024 was a bit challenging, because I would have liked to have an easy reference to see if the kinds of things the book talks about have been achieved or not. To some extent I felt we have made progress on how things stood in 2004-2005ish, but in some ways we've also stood still. On the whole I still found this book interesting and worthwhile.

'Heat' is an optimistic response to more pessimistic works such as Lovelock's 'The Revenge of Gaia' which suggest we should prepare for the consequences because it is too late. Monbiot asks the hard question: what specific solutions could reduce carbon emissions by 90% by 2050 and thus save the world from the worst impacts of global warming?

He examines electricity production, transportation, housing and some case examples, such as retail stores and concrete production. Relying on government reports, think tanks and other sources he discovers that it may "just" be possible, so long as a society we approach it like we did WWII, with a massive and focused effort and some sacrifices. Except for long distance travel (by air, train or ship), show more everything else it should be possible, says Monbiot, to reduce by 90%.

Monbiot mainly addresses England. However, England is one of the worlds best organized countries politically and economically, so anything difficult for England is going to nearly impossible for other nations - can Georgia or Belarus or Chile or China reduce carbon emissions by 90%? It is a global problem and Monbiot doesn't look beyond England and the US, thus it is difficult to see how the entire world can turn around in such a short period of time. There are big areas that Monbiot does not address, such as agriculture. He also does not look at "climate surprises" or tipping points, where a little CO2 increase by humans triggers a massive CO2 release in nature (see Fred Pearce 'With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change').

Monbiot is optimistic solutions are available, but I found his solutions so politically difficult to implement, and nearly impossible globally, I came away even more depressed about our prospects. However, one thing is clear, we have no choice but to try. show less

A dutifully researched and well-reasoned book on how we could reduce
our carbon pollution to appropriate levels.

Which is all well and good.

The problem being, we
don't have technological obstacles, we have psychological, governmental
and social ones.

We need books on fixing mass psychology, if we're going to fix this problem.