Scan barcode
seclement's review against another edition
4.0
Jamieson is a philosopher, so the first 5 chapters are the best, but particularly the part where he describes the nature of the problem and obstacles to action. Although he is not a scientist or political scientist, he still does a good job of bringing in elements of both through the work. What I like about Jamieson's work is that there is always a foundation of pragmatism in his discussion of philosophy. I don't think he gets at every single reason why we struggle to act on climate change, and I think he could connect more to literature on psychology; but I think he hits on a great number of them, and some of the most important. Though I may disagree about whether the problem he identifies as "the hardest problem" (though I think he might be quite close!), his explanation is clear, coherent, and compelling. It's also a big pill to swallow because it underscores just how great the challenges of climate change are from a human perspective, and not just because of the physical challenges it presents.
I can understand why many people would feel dissatisfied by his policy recommendations because they really are incremental, but this is because of his pragmatism. It may not feel good to read a book that, by its own admission, is trying to provide reason in a dark time. This is neither a book to provide you with an uplifting vision of the future, nor a book to make you feel as though there is no hope. His recommendations include better integration of climate adaptation and development, fostering carbon sinks, reflecting the true costs of energy and emissions, research, and planning. None of this is big and sexy, but all of it is achievable. He avoids big, coordinated actions precisely because climate change is the world's biggest intergenerational collective action problem, and has all the hallmarks that work against collaboration in such situations. We've seen already that action is happening more effectively at local and regional scales. Though it may feel pointless given the scale of the problem (and it is true that local solutions are a mismatch for the scale of climate change), but sometimes incremental changes can lead to bigger reforms. Perhaps more importantly, sometimes it is reasonable to focus on what is most probable, rather than reaching for what is possible.
What I love about reading books by philosophers is that they aren't sloppy with their terminology. When Jamieson uses a term like adaptation, he describes how he is using it. One of my biggest pet peeves with both books and academic literature is that we let authors get away with using words inconsistently. Sometimes reading philosophy can be tedious precisely because there is so much time spent on defining terms and clarifying concepts; but for me, in this book, it worked.
As Jamieson says, climate change is a thinking problem, and humans are feeling animals. This isn't a book for everyone; but it is a book for people who want to think about climate change as a policy and ethical challenge happening in society, rather than just a physical problem happening in the climate system.
I can understand why many people would feel dissatisfied by his policy recommendations because they really are incremental, but this is because of his pragmatism. It may not feel good to read a book that, by its own admission, is trying to provide reason in a dark time. This is neither a book to provide you with an uplifting vision of the future, nor a book to make you feel as though there is no hope. His recommendations include better integration of climate adaptation and development, fostering carbon sinks, reflecting the true costs of energy and emissions, research, and planning. None of this is big and sexy, but all of it is achievable. He avoids big, coordinated actions precisely because climate change is the world's biggest intergenerational collective action problem, and has all the hallmarks that work against collaboration in such situations. We've seen already that action is happening more effectively at local and regional scales. Though it may feel pointless given the scale of the problem (and it is true that local solutions are a mismatch for the scale of climate change), but sometimes incremental changes can lead to bigger reforms. Perhaps more importantly, sometimes it is reasonable to focus on what is most probable, rather than reaching for what is possible.
What I love about reading books by philosophers is that they aren't sloppy with their terminology. When Jamieson uses a term like adaptation, he describes how he is using it. One of my biggest pet peeves with both books and academic literature is that we let authors get away with using words inconsistently. Sometimes reading philosophy can be tedious precisely because there is so much time spent on defining terms and clarifying concepts; but for me, in this book, it worked.
As Jamieson says, climate change is a thinking problem, and humans are feeling animals. This isn't a book for everyone; but it is a book for people who want to think about climate change as a policy and ethical challenge happening in society, rather than just a physical problem happening in the climate system.
bookherd's review against another edition
3.0
This book gives a history of the climate change movement and an analysis of why global attempts to act together to stop or slow climate change have fallen short of their objectives. Jamieson shows why standard economic and ethical arguments aren't suited to showing us why it's important to do what needs to be done to address climate change, and thus aren't motivators for us. He also accounts for political interests undercutting attempts to make changes in the United States. Jamieson has some suggestions for proceeding, but he acknowledges that at this point climate change is not going to be stopped.
In spite of the technical language in the sections on economics and ethics, I thought this was a pretty readable book. The history of climate science and investigation into climate change was especially interesting for me, since I didn't know how long ago people began to think that climate change was coming. I found the analysis depressing, but not surprising, and Jamieson's suggestions for how to proceed modest, but probably realistic. Obviously this isn't a cheery beach read, but it's a worthwhile one.
In spite of the technical language in the sections on economics and ethics, I thought this was a pretty readable book. The history of climate science and investigation into climate change was especially interesting for me, since I didn't know how long ago people began to think that climate change was coming. I found the analysis depressing, but not surprising, and Jamieson's suggestions for how to proceed modest, but probably realistic. Obviously this isn't a cheery beach read, but it's a worthwhile one.
gvenezia's review against another edition
4.0
Depressive Realism
This book is the closest I've found to my depressive realist position on climate change: Damage that makes a difference is already here to stay and the remaining problems are mostly wicked—immune to our best intentions because they manifest from very strong evolutionary pressures and near-impossible coordination problems.
There are no ideal scenarios. Everything is tradeoffs. Policies have to consider social networks as much as environmental networks, but unfortunately study of the former is subject to much more bias and disinterest. Economics is key to understanding social networks and assessing how we got into this mess—and how we might adapt and mitigate its endless repercussions. Just because economics has had bad bedfellows doesn't mean it can't be useful in accurately assessing the situation and providing vital information on social network dynamics and cost-benefit calculation. Acknowledging tradeoffs, costs, externalities, and coordination problems is frustrating and dismal but necessary.
On that note, here are Jamieson's practical takeaways:
• Integrate climate adaptation with development
• Protect, encourage, and increase terrestrial carbon sinks
• Encourage full-cost energy accounting
• Raise the price of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to a level that roughly reflects their costs
• Force technology adaptation and diffusion
• Substantial increases in basic research spending
• Plan for a new world in which humanity is a dominant force on the fundamental systems that govern life on earth.
"Finally, I want to suggest one focus of immediate action. The use of coal should be discouraged, limited, and phased out as soon as possible."
Depressingly limited and vague conclusions? Yes. Reasonable for the darkness of our Anthropocene times? Yes.
This book is the closest I've found to my depressive realist position on climate change: Damage that makes a difference is already here to stay and the remaining problems are mostly wicked—immune to our best intentions because they manifest from very strong evolutionary pressures and near-impossible coordination problems.
There are no ideal scenarios. Everything is tradeoffs. Policies have to consider social networks as much as environmental networks, but unfortunately study of the former is subject to much more bias and disinterest. Economics is key to understanding social networks and assessing how we got into this mess—and how we might adapt and mitigate its endless repercussions. Just because economics has had bad bedfellows doesn't mean it can't be useful in accurately assessing the situation and providing vital information on social network dynamics and cost-benefit calculation. Acknowledging tradeoffs, costs, externalities, and coordination problems is frustrating and dismal but necessary.
On that note, here are Jamieson's practical takeaways:
• Integrate climate adaptation with development
• Protect, encourage, and increase terrestrial carbon sinks
• Encourage full-cost energy accounting
• Raise the price of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to a level that roughly reflects their costs
• Force technology adaptation and diffusion
• Substantial increases in basic research spending
• Plan for a new world in which humanity is a dominant force on the fundamental systems that govern life on earth.
"Finally, I want to suggest one focus of immediate action. The use of coal should be discouraged, limited, and phased out as soon as possible."
Depressingly limited and vague conclusions? Yes. Reasonable for the darkness of our Anthropocene times? Yes.
bi6otter's review against another edition
4.0
Beginning with a remarkable account of the history of climate science, and the many international efforts to slow the rate of greenhouse gas emissions and and reduce the effects of anthropogenic climate change, philosopher Dale Jamieson brings a unique perspective on the global climate crisis. Reason in a Dark Time efficiently sifts through the many conflicting and misleading ideas about climate change and what, if anything should be done about it, arriving at a recommendations of 7 broad policy priorities, 3 principles for how to pursue them, and 1 suggestion for immediate action. He backs all of this up with a rigorous discussion of the myriad political, economic, and ethical considerations that repeatedly thwarted efforts at the national and international levels to to effectively address GHGs and global warming.
More...