Skip to main content

Regeneration - Paul Hawken **

This is a really big book. I don't mean big in the sense of important, but physically enormous for what it is - it's roughly the size of a children's annual, though a lot thicker. Interestingly, the format appears to be a Paul Hawken speciality - he did it with his previous title, Drawdownthough that was far less glossy.

Paul Hawken's aim is to put forward a solution to climate change driven from humans rather than from the science. The tag line on the back of the book reads 'The climate crisis is not at science problem. It is a human problem.' And that itself is a problem.

It's not that climate change isn't a human problem, but rather that it's both a human problem and a science problem - requiring human and science-based solutions. But the approach taken in this book is anything but scientific. It's a bit like saying the Covid-19 pandemic is a human problem, not a science problem. The pandemic is indeed a human problem, but if we'd tried to fix it by ignoring key scientific interventions, such as vaccination, it would have been far more devastating.

This book is really an odd way to try get an environmental message across. It's a chunky, glossy, resource-intensive book, which suggests, sadly, that it's more about posturing than value, something that is echoed in the contents. It's not that Hawken doesn't make a good shot at the key requirements to deal with climate change - reducing, protecting and sequestering - but that the approach taken throughout is designed to appeal to the trendy, middle class metropolitan elite. (So, for example, 'equity' is given as the first essential for fixing climate change, rather than reducing, protecting and sequestering.) We get page after page of emotive essays and warm, wooly appeals to nature, but Hawken rarely dips a toe into the comprehensive package of scientific solutions we need. Where science does come in - for example in energy generation - what we get is very selective.

So, for example, you might think that nuclear power does not exist in reading this book - yet it's an essential to balancing a green energy supply. Wind, solar and storage are brilliant - but not enough to keep things going in low wind, low sunlight periods like the one we're in at the time I write this. As Gaia originator James Lovelock made clear, the green movement has to get over its knee-jerk reaction to nuclear. Even looking at other sources of generation, for part of this book I could not decide whether to laugh or cry. Hawken heaps praise on Germany. Germany. He tells us '[Germany] has made the transition [to more solar] without any disruption to consumer and industrial power.' What he doesn't point out is that thanks to abandoning nuclear, Germany is now using far more coal generation than it should - the worst source for climate change - a lot more than any equivalent European nation. Germany's approach is a disaster, not an exemplar.

Similarly, the coverage of electric vehicles is one that sits well with the chattering middle classes, but gives no consideration to the real world of economics. Hawken claims 'carmakers can offer an EV at a price comparable to or lower than an internal combustion vehicle as early as 2023.' That's pie in the sky. I would love to be able to afford an electric car. I'd buy one today. But right now, to get an equivalent EV to basic petrol car in the £7,000 to £12,000 range will cost at least £25,000 and more likely £30,000. Can prices really fall that much so quickly?

One last example of the chattering class bubble for which this book is written. The biggest contribution a one-off activity makes to our carbon production is taking a flight. Yet though the book has page after page on vaguely interesting (but pretty) ecological matters with limited impact on climate change, there is just one line where Hawken specifically mentions cutting back on flying. For the target market of this book, exotic holidays, letting your kids go travelling, and most of all flying off all over the world to conferences (the academic's favourite pastime) mean that air travel gets pushed under the carpet.

Although not the same kind of thing, I was also appalled by the section on the 'Healthcare industry'. Hawken draws a line between the lovely public and global health professionals and the nasty big Pharma. The front line workers 'have been and continue to be the tireless heroes and sheroes [seriously??] in virtually all countries, espousing and teaching about nutrition, preventative care, prenatal care and vaccines.' So remind me where those vaccines came from? What Hawken refers to as the 'allopathic medical system that, abetted by big Pharma, focuses on symptoms instead of causes.' Instead, apparently we should abandon those nasty drugs and resort to probiotic yoghurt. As someone kept alive by said drugs, I'd beg to differ. Of course the pharmaceutical industry, especially in the US, has real problems, but as soon as you see that 'allopathic' word, you know the kind of medical twilight zone we're heading into.

I can't remember when I've last read a book that made me so angry. This was an opportunity to make a real difference. The climate crisis is real and has to be addressed. But this Sunday supplement, glossy appeal to touchy-feely, knit-your-own-medicines, anti-scientific viewpoints is not the answer.

Paperback: 
Bookshop.org

  

Kindle 
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

  1. Well done taking the author to task over Germany's catastrophic switch from nuclear on the most tragically stupid pretext.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that â€˜Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...