Six Degrees by Mark Lynas AND Heat: How we can stop the planet from burning by George Monbiot
April 5, 2008 by marygm
I’ve just finished reading these two complementary books which, although they have the same basic subject matter, are very different in scope and approach. Mark Lynas’s book takes the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) projections of 1 to 6 degrees for global warming by 2100 and, shows, chapter by chapter, what impact each additional degree would have on our planet. He uses exclusively peer-reviewed scientific publications for his rationale, and having read thousands of them, has converted his findings into more accessible, understandable language for the layman. His final chapter ‘Choosing our Future’ addresses the need for change, the need to move to a low-carbon society, but it remains quite vague in terms of specific actions as the main aim of this book is not to explain how, but why we need to change.
George Monbiot, on the other hand, skims over the scientific explanation of
the problem on the assumption that this has already been understood and assimilated by the reader. His book takes as its starting point the need to cap CO2 emissions at 440 parts per million in order to keep warming below the 2 degree level, a level which would probably mean that significant carbon feedback systems would not be triggered. This means reducing carbon emissions by 90% in the developed world in all major sectors; heating, electricity, transport, retailing, construction etc. Monbiot’s book is a much more opinionated one and, subject matter apart, his style is very enjoyable, intelligent-but-accessible.
Both of these books are frightening to read. In particular, when reading Mark Lynas’s book, several times I had to turn the book over, face downwards, look into the distance and try to calm my racing heart so that I could continue reading. There was a sense of inexorable movement towards catastrophe that took my breath away.
George Monbiot’s book offers, at least superficially, some hope. He demonstrates that ‘the necessary reduction in carbon emissions is – if difficult – technically and economically possible.’ However, he also demonstrates that good intentions are pathetically incapable of resolving this problem. The solution will require single-minded determination by both governments and individuals but even the most optimistic spirit would be hard-pressed to find this determination present today.
So why are we not reacting as the situation requires? Why has a state of worldwide emergency not been declared? We know the problem is a huge one, but we also know that the solutions, although difficult, exist. Why aren’t we applying them? The answer lies perhaps in the strengths and weaknesses of human nature. In his final chapter, Apocalypse Postponed, George Monbiot says:
‘If part of us did not believe that we could – despite the evidence of other people’s mortality – somehow cheat death, we could scarcely struggle to prolong our own lives.’
Somehow, through our enduring optimism, we manage to convince ourselves that this is not really happening, that it won’t happen, that something will come along and ensure that it doesn’t happen and if it does happen, it might not be that bad.
In the struggle between the heart and the head, the heart has secret weapons of self-protection that allow it to win, especially when the stakes are high. I, more than anything, want to believe that this is all a terrible mistake, that the problem is being exaggerated. Although Lynas’s analysis seemed in line with what I have already read on the subject, I checked out what the scientists on the RealClimate blog (the best-known and most reputable climate change blog) thought of Mark Lynas’s book, deeply hoping that they would dismiss his interpretation as publicity-seeking and alarmist. However, they conclude that he ‘honestly represents’ the published scientific literature.
But perhaps, even if we are incapable of believing in our own mortality, we can see that mortality in the eyes of our children and this will give us the motivation to fight. I’m sure it is no accident that both authors dedicate their books to their children; Mark Lynas ‘in the hope that most of the predictions here need not come true’ and George Monbiot with the wish ‘that this may be a fit world for you to inhabit.’
Six Degrees : HarperPerennial (4 Feb 2008), 288 pages, ISBN-10: 0007209053
Heat : Penguin Books Ltd (7 Jun 2007), 320 pages, ISBN-10: 0141026626
This was a good idea, a comparision of two books with the same theme. With such a scary subject, though, it’s unfortunate that it’s not fiction. I appreciate your honest reaction at being frightened by what the authors say. It’s also interesting how you compare the author’s styles.
I’m really intrigued at the reasons given for why this issue, or rather the solutions to deal with it, are not being given more attention. People wring their hands, but will not take even small steps towards helping things. And governments are too spineless to enforce a mandate dealing with it, by the time they do, it may be too late.
Thanks for bringing these books and the topic to our attention.
I don’t understand it either, Jackie. It’s as if the doctors (scientists) have diagnosed cancer (climate change) and we know the treatment is extreme involving amputation (of air travel), chemotherapy (the switching of energy sources) and restraint (of consumers spending) but we persist in thinking that a homeopathic course might do the trick all the while smoking and drinking to our heart’s content.
I attended a conference on Thursday last given by Gilles Ramstein, a well-known climatologist and member of the IPCC who said that at the moment we are exceeding the most catastrophic predictions outlined in the IPCC report of 4 years ago. It’s scary stuff.
When I read the Monbiot last year, it was the only time I’ve been known to be seen in publkic reading Heat. I don’t remember much now - whether that’s a sort of apathy on my part or that the detail was just too much to retain, I don’t know - but I do recall being fascinated by his solutions - and refuting of proposed solutions - to give the book four stars. But getting the message across is nigh on impossible, so while it’s good to be soon doing your bit, subsequent change isn’t likely to happen.
I disagree, Stewart, I think it’s like any large human problem such as racism, worker’s rights, violence against women, etc. in that both society and governments needs to take a firm stand and enforce change for the good. After all, slavery was a world wide problem for hundreds of years, well entrenched around the word. But stronger laws and a different societal mindset eradicated it. I would think that climate change would actually be easier to combat, because the habits causing it are newer and more technological. We have the ability to slow global warming, we just lack the will to do so. Humanity needs to grow up before it’s too late.
Fighting words, Jackie! I’m with you. I know anything any one of us can do is a grain of sand relative to the scale of the problem but it’s important to be able to say we did our best.
What’s making me angry though is that the governments (without exception as far as I can see) are not taking responsibility and dealing with the problem. They continuously push that responsibility on to the shoulders of the well-intentioned individuals who can do very little without a simultaneous structural change in society.
And Stewart, you say that getting the message across is next to impossible but why? It’s very simple to explain (of course you can go into the detailed science if you want but you don’t have to) but there are none so deaf as those who will not hear.
“the governments (without exception as far as I can see) are not taking responsibility and dealing with the problem. They continuously push that responsibility on to the shoulders of the well-intentioned individuals who can do very little without a simultaneous structural change in society”
Agree with this, 100 %. We need more legislation in this case - if we can have anti-terrorist laws that curtail civil liberties, why can’t we have the same severe laws to control environmental problems that are in fact more threatening to the world than terrorism?
Excellent point, Ariadne!
Absolutely, Ariadne. I think they are afraid to accept the obvious; that we in the developed world already have more than our fair share of the finite world resources.
Brilliant piece, Mary. I also picked out this from your comments:
“What’s making me angry though is that the governments (without exception as far as I can see) are not taking responsibility and dealing with the problem. They continuously push that responsibility on to the shoulders of the well-intentioned individuals who can do very little without a simultaneous structural change in society.”
What is making me angry is that I can’t help feel that this “individual responsibility” thing is being used as a distraction from bigger more important measures. Like the way the pressure is put on us to continually clean out our marmite jars for recycling - but no pressure is put on the supermarkets not to put such ridiculous amounts of packaging on their products in the first place. The Now Show had a great sketch on this. Cue: ridiculous seductive voice:
“This is not any old apple. This is a succulent cox apple, nestled on a smooth silky polystyrene punnet and wrapped with long, lustrous swathes of cellophane and covered in a crunchy hard plastic top…”
I can’t remember it but it was something along those lines anyway.
I feel that too many people are sort of CONTENT with their recycling and the “every little helps” mantra - to the point where they aren’t going to push for something bigger to be done.
Thanks, Rosy. It’s a tough one. No one is moving, hoping that someone else will first.
I heard an English comedian recently, I can’t remember who, saying; ‘People say - Look at China, they’re not doing anything but hey, there are lots of things China doesn’t do, like democracy, respecting human rights, eating cheddar but that doesn’t stop us.’
“Look at China, they’re not doing anything but hey, there are lots of things China doesn’t do, like democracy, respecting human rights, eating cheddar but that doesn’t stop us.’”
Really thought-provoking piece. This problem is incredibly scary, which is possibly why so many people were so eager to believe everything in that The Great Global Warming Swindle programme.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
Although I noticed - only last week- that yet more evidence discrediting TGGWS had come to light.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm
I know people who are still absolutely convinced by the idea that ‘the sun’ is somehow to blame for climate change (they cite Solar Variation Theory) rather than anything that humans have done.
When faced with something terrifying, denial is a nice cosy option.