Skip to main content

Hothouse Earth - Bill McGuire ****

There have been many books on global warming, but I can't think of any I've read that are so definitively clear about the impact that climate change is going to have on our lives. The only reason I've not given it five stars is because it's so relentless miserable - I absolute accept the reality of Bill McGuire's message, but you have to have a particularly perverted kind of 'I told you so' attitude to actually enjoy reading this.

McGuire lays out how climate change is likely to continue and the impacts it will have on our lives in a stark way. Unlike many environmental writers, he is honest about the uncertainty, telling us 'Despite meticulous and comprehensive modelling, we just don't know how bad things will get, nor can we know.' But any climate change deniers seeing this as an escape clause entirely miss the point. The uncertainty is over how bad things will be, but not over whether or not things will be bad. As we are told, 'tipping points and positive feedback effects are the real flies in the ointment when trying to pin down how bad things will get'.

Possibly the hardest thing to get across to people is why the 'Hothouse' of the title is real. When we're talking about warming of a couple of degrees Celsius, to many this doesn't sound much. We can but hope that the sweltering temperatures of July 2022 make it a bit clearer what an impact a small-sounding increase in average temperatures can have on the day-to-day weather.

What doesn't help is telling us things are going to be disastrous without any guidance on doing something about it - otherwise a book like this would be little more than the literary equivalent of one of those people proclaiming 'end of the world is nigh' on a street corner. McGuire does relatively briefly explore how we can stop a bad situation getting worse. He makes it clear that the efforts of activists might have raised awareness, but they do nothing to actually mitigate the impact of climate change. Accelerating the move away from fossil fuel is one big message, as is to stop destroying forests.

Sometimes McGuire's solutions seem more disputable. We are told that beef and dairy result in greenhouse gas emissions - so cut back consumption. That's fine, but there are also excellent ways to reduce the emissions from the animals without killing them all off, which surely would be better. Similarly, the response can be a little parochial. If the UK, for example, were we to go carbon neutral tomorrow, it would only make a tiny contribution to reducing the speed of advance of climate change. Yes, as McGuire says, 'we all need to do our bit' - but it is only if the really big emitters make quick changes that things will start to turn round. And like almost all academics (who fly a lot and enjoy their conferences a bit too much), he doesn't mention the huge impact of flying as a percentage of the global warming contribution of any individual who flies a lot.

McGuire ends up by pointing out to those who think he is being alarmist that in a situation like the one we are in, alarm is the only sensible response. He's right. This is a book to read and think twice about our future. Before it's too late.

Paperback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more