You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Scan barcode
zfeig's review
2.0
Another reviewer said of this book: what's right isn't new and what's new isn't right. That pretty much sums up the book.
The author makes a case for pragmatic approaches to climate change. For example if you burn wood now switch the coal if you burn cold house switch to natural gas. Instead of pushing for more creative or radical solutions that are necessary to actually confront a warming planet he promotes what is easy.
He makes some good points worth noting, but The following few sentences pretty much cover it. Nuclear is is better for the environment than fossil fuels and probably gets an unfairly bad rap. When climate activists take money from fossil fuel interests it hurts their credibility. If you want people to care about the climate you should make sure they have at least a minimum standard of living first - Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a thing. Forest fires aren't helped by poor forest management, and in fact corruption and mismanagement have particularly deleterious effects after any natural disaster. Factory farms take up less space than ethical animal management, so theoretically utilizing factory farming we could impact a smaller portion of Earth's surface (as long as the excess space really goes back to nature). Wind farms probably have killed a few birds.
However, at the end of the day it's not enough to just to say "I believe humans are causing global warming" and suggest if we just stick to "the most rational policy choices" everything will work out in the end. The author does a remarkable amount of data cherry picking, and hand waving. Ultimately he concludes all our problems will go away with enough economic development, cheap nuclear energy, and cooler heads. It's a nice idea, but his conclusions are in contrast to a vast scientific consensus.
Also before you read this book, it's worth knowing the author is frequent witness called by the US Republican party and he's a journalist not a scientist.
The author makes a case for pragmatic approaches to climate change. For example if you burn wood now switch the coal if you burn cold house switch to natural gas. Instead of pushing for more creative or radical solutions that are necessary to actually confront a warming planet he promotes what is easy.
He makes some good points worth noting, but The following few sentences pretty much cover it. Nuclear is is better for the environment than fossil fuels and probably gets an unfairly bad rap. When climate activists take money from fossil fuel interests it hurts their credibility. If you want people to care about the climate you should make sure they have at least a minimum standard of living first - Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a thing. Forest fires aren't helped by poor forest management, and in fact corruption and mismanagement have particularly deleterious effects after any natural disaster. Factory farms take up less space than ethical animal management, so theoretically utilizing factory farming we could impact a smaller portion of Earth's surface (as long as the excess space really goes back to nature). Wind farms probably have killed a few birds.
However, at the end of the day it's not enough to just to say "I believe humans are causing global warming" and suggest if we just stick to "the most rational policy choices" everything will work out in the end. The author does a remarkable amount of data cherry picking, and hand waving. Ultimately he concludes all our problems will go away with enough economic development, cheap nuclear energy, and cooler heads. It's a nice idea, but his conclusions are in contrast to a vast scientific consensus.
Also before you read this book, it's worth knowing the author is frequent witness called by the US Republican party and he's a journalist not a scientist.
steeluloid's review
5.0
Fascinating, uplifting and easy to read.
Not at all what I was expecting. I got the book to read the counter-argument to the man-made CO2 / climate change debate, but instead, I found a highly entertaining book on the unintended consequences of bad science and rushed initiatives.
Can’t recommend it enough.
Not at all what I was expecting. I got the book to read the counter-argument to the man-made CO2 / climate change debate, but instead, I found a highly entertaining book on the unintended consequences of bad science and rushed initiatives.
Can’t recommend it enough.
srsotolongo's review
Likely not going to win over anyone who rests on the “apocalyptic” side of things (especially with that last chapter) but certainly fascinating. Lots of interesting insights. I can appreciate discussion such as this that doesn’t resort to force feeding you black pills.
bfoster116's review
4.0
Very good and important book arguing against extreme, political alarmism surrounding climate change. Yes the climate is changing, and yes people have a role to play in that, but the world is not facing an extinction level event. The greatest threats facing humanity are extreme poverty in the developing world, lack of true understanding of renewables and natural gas, and nuclear weapons. Shellenberger is a very smart guy who presents great arguments explaining the importance of nuclear energy, natural gas, investing in the developing world, needing sophisticated storm and fire prevention, waste collection, etc. Investing in these key areas is how we take practical steps to take care of the environment and push back against the negative effects of carbon heavy fuels. Environmental humanism, not environmental apolocaptysim, is key to managing climate change. Extreme, political alarmism serves no one!
My one complaint is the book is so data heavy (which is actually a great thing, this book has a thick section of references and endnotes) that sometimes you lose sight of the larger narrative while in the weeds of the details of so many data points. Just a small gripe of an otherwise important and well written book!
My one complaint is the book is so data heavy (which is actually a great thing, this book has a thick section of references and endnotes) that sometimes you lose sight of the larger narrative while in the weeds of the details of so many data points. Just a small gripe of an otherwise important and well written book!
dornage's review
2.0
Disappointing. I had to quit a quarter of the way in. Mr Shellenberger's premise seemed to be "if you keep hitting the panic button every other minute, people will become desensitized to the alarm. Here's how we actually fix the problem." Instead, it was just one overly simplified dismissal after another. I enjoyed his story telling ability which is why I think people are willing to jump on board with his confirmation bias approach to "common sense" solutions.
Are plastic straws the entire problem? No. Does he acknowledge single use plastics are everywhere? Yes. His solution? Sunlight degrades styrofoam sooner than 1000 years, besides plastics prevent elephant and turtle poaching. What?
Is it hypocritical of nations with historically bad environmental policy to smack talk other countries with bad environmental policies? Yes. Should that end the discussion? According to him, yes, because the rainforest doesn't actually provide as much oxygen as we were told 50 years ago.
Penguins are starving due to over fishing. "Oh my, I ate their food today. I'm the villian." This is when I had to stop. It's just petty sarcasm.
He did occasionally lob new ideas out but ultimately just to distract from whoever he was attacking at the moment. This could have been a book about what we can do and not sound like we're crying wolf. Instead it's a book that placates climate change deniers into not needing to act upon anything because it's not as bad as the alarmists make it. Alarmists want people to actively help save the environment. Shellenberger is just like a mocking child, he points at the alarmist making the crazy sign so people feel validated in their inaction.
Are plastic straws the entire problem? No. Does he acknowledge single use plastics are everywhere? Yes. His solution? Sunlight degrades styrofoam sooner than 1000 years, besides plastics prevent elephant and turtle poaching. What?
Is it hypocritical of nations with historically bad environmental policy to smack talk other countries with bad environmental policies? Yes. Should that end the discussion? According to him, yes, because the rainforest doesn't actually provide as much oxygen as we were told 50 years ago.
Penguins are starving due to over fishing. "Oh my, I ate their food today. I'm the villian." This is when I had to stop. It's just petty sarcasm.
He did occasionally lob new ideas out but ultimately just to distract from whoever he was attacking at the moment. This could have been a book about what we can do and not sound like we're crying wolf. Instead it's a book that placates climate change deniers into not needing to act upon anything because it's not as bad as the alarmists make it. Alarmists want people to actively help save the environment. Shellenberger is just like a mocking child, he points at the alarmist making the crazy sign so people feel validated in their inaction.
jksmith's review
3.0
It was good, and I agree with the main tenets. But why entirely write off solar, wind and vegetarianism like they're bad? I feel like the conversation could have been more productive saying these aren't solutions but will help.
No where did he bring up the average square footage of North Americans homes is rising. It was kind of an afterthought that NA's need to use less energy. He was far more focused on supplying the energy required for an ever growing population. Don't get me wrong we need more energy and I support nuclear for doing it. But reduce, reuse, recycle starts with reduce. Reduce the size of houses, reduce the amount of meat you eat, reduce your consumption of energy. Two people in a house don't need a 2500 square feet and 2 extra bedrooms for when their kids visit. Instead of focusing on developing nations less focus on ourselves. As Jordan Peterson says, "Before blaming anything else, think: have I done everything within my ability to solve the problem?"
The other issue he glossed over was the usage of fertilizer. North Americans lead the way and our corporations are the worst for it, at throwing fertilizer to grow food stuffs. We need to help developing nations need less fertilizer in order to keep their waterways unpolluted. Rotating crops and ensuring proper nutrients stay in the soil is essential. Vertical gardens would be lovely but again we need to provide the technology and help developing nations implement.
TLDR: Nuclear power is going to save us all.
No where did he bring up the average square footage of North Americans homes is rising. It was kind of an afterthought that NA's need to use less energy. He was far more focused on supplying the energy required for an ever growing population. Don't get me wrong we need more energy and I support nuclear for doing it. But reduce, reuse, recycle starts with reduce. Reduce the size of houses, reduce the amount of meat you eat, reduce your consumption of energy. Two people in a house don't need a 2500 square feet and 2 extra bedrooms for when their kids visit. Instead of focusing on developing nations less focus on ourselves. As Jordan Peterson says, "Before blaming anything else, think: have I done everything within my ability to solve the problem?"
The other issue he glossed over was the usage of fertilizer. North Americans lead the way and our corporations are the worst for it, at throwing fertilizer to grow food stuffs. We need to help developing nations need less fertilizer in order to keep their waterways unpolluted. Rotating crops and ensuring proper nutrients stay in the soil is essential. Vertical gardens would be lovely but again we need to provide the technology and help developing nations implement.
TLDR: Nuclear power is going to save us all.