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 …

The Universe Speaks in Numbers - Graham Farmelo ****

Theoretical physics has taken something of a hammering lately with books such as Sabine Hossenfelder's Lost in Math. The suggestion from these earlier titles is that theoretical physics is so obsessed with mathematics that many theoretical physicists spend their careers working on theory that doesn't actually apply to the universe, because the maths is interesting. Even experimental physics can be tainted, as the driver for new expenditure in experiments, such as the proposed new collider at CERN, is not driven by discoveries but by these mathematically-directed theories. Graham Farmelo presents the opposite view here: that this speculative mathematical work is, in fact, a great success.
As I am very much in the Hossenfelder camp, I expected to find Farmelo's book rather irritating, as it's effectively a love letter to mathematically-obsessed theoretical physics - but in reality (an entertaining phrase, given the context) I found it both interesting and enjoyable. Far…

The Perils of Perception - Bobby Duffy ****

How we see the world is not the way it really is. There have been several books based on this premise in the last few years, from Hans Rosling's impressive Factfulness to the distinctly fanciful The Case Against Reality by Donald Hoffman. In The Perils of Perception, Bobby Duffy takes an approach that is similar to Rosling's in surveying large numbers of people in different countries (in fact, one chapter of the book specifically references Rosling), but rather than concentrate as Rosling does on the specific topic of development, Duffy takes a much wider sweep of coverage of our perceptions of our world - and just like Rosling finds that most of us are way off on our appreciation of how things really are.
Whether we're dealing with politics and immigration, finance, climate change, sex or crime, Duffy shows that the majority of people tend to get things wrong. (I think I've read too many of these books, as I tended, if anything, to err in the opposite direction to the …