Skip to main content

SOS - Seth Wynes ***

This very compact book (it took significantly less than an hour to read) offers a beguiling reward: ‘What you can do to reduce climate change’. This promise presents a real challenge, because it’s easy to think that as individuals we can make little difference. But would I feel any different after reading it?

Seth Wynes (who, we are told, is studying for a PhD in climate change) is sure, with all the enthusiasm of youth, that we can make our actions count. He divides up the book into getting around, what we eat, collective action and everyday living (basically energy use and purchases). Most of this is, frankly, very familiar ground. So we’re told to walk and use bikes more, drive less, fly less, eat less meat, use green energy and don’t buy new stuff unless we have to. The only part I’ve not seen very (very) many times before was is the collective action section. This is based primarily on a survey of MPs and the public in Belgium, with MP comparisons with seven other EU countries, including the UK and Germany.

The recommendations range from most effective being voting, getting active in a party or organisation and writing to your MP, through to the least effective, which were internet discussions, boycotting and divesting, and illegal action. (Wynes doesn’t mention that the authors of the paper he cites point out that the population as a whole have less belief in the effectiveness of politicians than the MPs do.) This is quite interesting, but again is pretty much stating the obvious.

Overall, it’s a likeable book, in a light, fuzzy style with large print and lots of white space. I did have some issues, though. Wynes chickens out of pointing out that nuclear is an important energy source to minimise climate change. Nuclear is only mentioned in the voting section, where he points out that ‘in Europe there is the occasional vote on the use of nuclear energy.’ What he doesn’t say is that to help prevent climate change we should be voting for nuclear, contrary to the stance of many green organisations. The reader could take his ambiguous comment as meaning ‘vote against nuclear’ - absolutely the opposite of what’s required.

Wynes also makes the classic mistake of seeing the world only from his own position. So, despite a couple of longhaul flights producing the equivalent of two thirds of the entire carbon footprint of a UK citizen, he advocates ‘Take one fewer flight a year’, but ‘live car free.’ This is easy advice if you are a city-dwelling academic like Wynes - I’d suggest he should try ‘Live flight free’ and ‘half your car use’ - but academics do love to fly to conferences, and rarely seem inclined to give up this perk to save the environment.

Finally, there’s a degree of naivety in the way he only provides per capita emissions figures. They are important, but they don't give the full picture. We don't discover, for example, that the fact is the entire UK could go carbon neutral and it would only counter one year's increase in emissions from China. The only way to achieve the desired results is to get international agreement. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do our bit (so stop flying now, Seth!) - but it won’t hold back climate change unless we tackle the far more significant international issues.

Review by Brian Clegg 


Popular posts from this blog

Where are the chemistry popular science books?

by Brian Clegg
There has never been more emphasis on the importance of public engagement. We need both to encourage a deeper interest in science and to counter anti-scientific views that seem to go hand-in-hand with some types of politics. Getting the public interested in science both helps recruit new scientists of the future and spreads an understanding of why an area of scientific research deserves funding. Yet it is possible that chemistry lags behind the other sciences in outreach. As a science writer, and editor of this website, I believe that chemistry is under-represented in popular science. I'd like to establish if this is the case, if so why it is happening - and what can be done to change things. 

An easy straw poll is provided by the topic tags on the site. At the time of writing, there are 22 books under 'chemistry' as opposed to 97 maths, 126 biology and 182 physics. The distribution is inevitably influenced by editorial bias - but as the editor, I can confirm …

Artificial Intelligence - Yorick Wilks ****

Artificial intelligence is one of those topics where it's very easy to spin off into speculation, whether it's about machine conciousness or AI taking over the world (and don't get me onto the relatively rare connection to robots - cover designer please note). All the experience of AI to date has been that it has been made feasible far slower than originally predicted, and that it faces dramatic limitations. So, for example, self-driving cars may be okay in limited circumstances, but are nowhere near ready for the commute home. Similarly, despite all the moves forward in AI technology, computers are so-so at recognising objects after learning from thousands of examples - sometimes fooled by apparently trivial surface patterning - where humans can recognise items from a handful of examples.

Even so, we can't deny that AI is having an influence on our lives and Yorick Wilks, emeritus professor of AI at the University of Sheffield, is ideally placed to give us a picture …

Apollo 11 - David Whitehouse *****

The problem with doing a book about the Apollo programme is that it's hard to find something that hasn't been said before - but with the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing just weeks away, the publication of this elegant book is extremely timely, and science-reporting veteran David Whitehouse manages to make the story feel fresh, even if you're one of the just 20 per cent of the world population who were alive on the remarkable day in 1969.

Although he has worked a lot with New Scientist, Whitehouse was for many years a TV journalist, and that comes through in his impressively engaging prose as he takes us back to the origins of the US/USSR space race that would lead to the moon landing. He passes through the wartime aspects relatively quickly, but once the two superpowers are flexing their space technology muscles, Whitehouse achieves a near perfect balance between the far less-heard USSR side of the story and the US. This is probably the best bit of the whole bo…