Monbiot does a number of important things in this book. He first sets out the importance of tackling CO2 emissions now rather than later. He then proceeds to examine how in about 20 years time the actions of enlightened governments could have introduced new technologies that enable CO2 emissions to be reduced to be reduced by 80% (I think), while at the same time allowing us to maintain our current lifestyles. We can keep our cars, shop at supermarkets, produce waste, tumble dry our clothes, and live in an economy predicted on economic growth. In Monbiot’s future the only thing that we can’t do is go on holiday. The technical solutions include biofuels including wood from Scandinavia, hydrogen from natural gas, benevolent supermarkets, buses on the motorway, and possibly even nuclear power. My feeling is that the premise of the book is wrong. I can see that a plan in which business continues as usual and people just continue to live their lives as they are with technological changes occurring in the background, is the most palatable solution to many people (apart from the holidays). Two things. Doesn’t this require benevolent and visionary governments to be both elected here and abroad and to spend large sums of money on results that are by definition invisible. Doesn’t it also require that these technologies actually work (I’m thinking hydrogen here)? In this plan the only thing we need to do to ameliorate climate change do is elect such a government. I’ll turn the light off while I wait shall I?
Nasty cover. Nearly fell asleep half way through. RJT