Scan barcode
A review by seclement
Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed -- And What It Means for Our Future by Dale Jamieson
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.