Ted Nordhaus & Michael Shellenberger "Breakthrough"

ISBN-13: 978-0-618-65825-1. "Breakthrough - From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility" was published by the Houghton Mifflin Company in 2007. This was the authors' follow up to the highly controversial 2004 essay "The Death of Environmentalism". For your money you get 344 pages consisting of introduction, ten chapters, notes, bibliography, index and lengthy acknowledgements. The authors are young and are described as "managing directors" of American Environics (describing itself as "a social values research and strategy firm"). This appears to boil down to policy advice to Congressmen on new and clever ways to get environmental policies into law by disguising them as something else and far more glamorous. This is sugaring the medicine basically. This is not to say that their work is without merit but they are overly sincere for most of the book. You don't half get the feeling that some "environmentalist" stole their ice cream when they were five years of age and they have never forgotten it. This is their revenge upon the whole rotten lot. The book is by Americans for Americans. Considering that they wish to address Climate Change, which is a global issue, you might think they would have taken a slightly more internationalist approach. Indeed vast swathes of this book deal with the cultural peculiarities of the United States.

For example they believe that American citizens might more relaxed about tackling Climate Change if the US had universal free healthcare. This is all part of their theory that affluent westerners are now unresponsive to environmental messages because we have all become insecure (they describe it as "insecure affluence"). A new social contract might return a sense of security and thus, their theory goes, return people's minds to higher things. Such as saving mankind from itself. Or Americans. This work seeks to articulate a new form of politics free from the "politics of limits" that environmentalists describe. Instead the authors propose a new way of dealing with environmental issues. They must be viewed holistically within the societies that spawned them and sold to the public by wrapping them up in a rich tapestry of other social niceties. For example, you don't just pass a law to improve US automobile efficiency. Instead you agree that the Federal Government should assist with automotive worker legacy healthcare costs. In return the car companies have to improve those MPG figures. All of which leaves those of us in Europe, Japan and the rest of the world scratching our heads and asking "what the hell is wrong with Americans?" Surely the free market should dictate that good miles per gallon sells cars. Likewise, the rest of the world has universal free healthcare but we have been no better at solving global warming.

Well, it is all relative, the authors are glowing in their praise for the European Union in contrast to the Bush Jnr regime. But we wonder how they would be writing this book after eight years of Barack Obama? We even get treated to Nordhaus & Shellenberger's theory that environmentalists would be more successful if they were organised like evangelical Christians. We can't see that of being a great use to Friends of the Earth in places like Tokyo. Maybe these two should just get out more? Clearly they are listening though. They call for the ending of odious third world debt. They often use the example of Brazil. Brazil is cutting down its rainforest to pay the interest on its debt. The debt was incurred by an undemocratic military dictatorship. Why is the whole world paying for this? Quite. Drop the debt.

Many of us will find this book highly frustrating. Whilst you find yourself agreeing with their central thesis, ie, that environmentalism has run out of steam and needs to reinvent itself, you find yourself disagreeing with them about so many of their examples. They are all for a clean energy bill that "would be a vehicle for telling a powerful new story about American greatness, invention and moral purpose". Fine words, but they then round on Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" on numerous occasions because they portray the author as some kind of evil doom-monger. Diamond only points out that it is physically impossible for this planet to support every living human being with the affluence of a modern American. Just because poor people aspire to be as rich as American doesn't mean that it is possible. Nordhaus & Shellenberger's numerous criticisms of Diamond are shocking, unfair and ridiculous. The problem with all of this is that it just becomes a battle of semantics. No one is going to formulate environmentally-friendly policy unless they understand what the stakes are. Hence we need education on how we can avert catastrophe. Hence we need history books such as those by Diamond. Library shelves groan under the weight of books on just how wonderful ancient civilisations are. Knowing how we succeed is only useful when you know how we fail. Hence these sort of criticisms seem pointless.

You have to be careful to pick out the meaning behind their language. They often describe the "politics of limits" as being some sort of failure implying that we have to adopt some "unlimited" policies. What might these be? Drilling for oil in Alaska and the Antarctic? Clearly not, these guys aren't nuts. Their heart is in the right place. They must understand that we are in a century of declining resources. To approach every problem as if resources were infinite would lead to catastrophe. When these guys talk about "limits" they seem to be describing a limit on the imagination and to human freedom. This suggests that if human potential was realised to its maximum then we would all live in a hydrogen-fuelled utopia in fifty years time. However such utopias don't happen by themselves which is why, as is typical of Americans since 1960, they propose lots of new Government spending. This might be fair enough if they were to raid the coffers of the world's largest military war machine to pay for all that clean energy. They do not. They never explain where the money will come from other that to assure the reader that these investments will somehow pay for themselves. The "breakthrough" they describe is in unlimited technology as a result of unlimited spending on unlimited human ingenuity.

However this book is not so much about the technology but more about the political philosophy that has to replace environmentalism. This new form of politics takes "nature" out of the equation. It isn't about "the environment" any more. Whereas Mike Hulme asked "What does Climate Change mean?", Nordhaus & Shellenberger ask not only what it means but "Which of global warming's meanings should we elevate into a pragmatic politics?" (page 222) Whereas Hulme's "Why we Disagree About Climate Change" proved to be empty philosophising, "Breakthrough" really does deliver on the policy. For Nordhaus & Shellenberger we have to talk about our dreams rather than our nightmares. Nightmares do not encourage a cynical public to change anything about their lives. You have to sell them something better. The authors tell us that the modern environmental movement was born of affluence. Before that nobody could afford to care. However, since the birth of modern environmentalism the movement has deluded itself that if only it could open people's eyes to the degradation of the planet then we would all rise up to stop it. Those days have long gone. That isn't what motivates people anymore. They have moved on.

"What is needed today is a politics that seeks authority not from Nature or Science but from a compelling vision of the future that is appropriate for the world we live in and the crises we face." (page 142) Nordhaus & Shellenberger tell us that we seriously need to start talking about climate change adaptation now as a means of engaging the public. Traditional environmentalists ignore this as a distraction from cutting emissions but the authors may have a point. Maybe we should come clean and admit that whatever happens now Global Warming WILL HAPPEN. If we engage the public with the process of getting ready they may move onto the wider picture too. "Properly preparing for disasters, and responding to them effectively, enhances one's self-image and sense of control." (page 223) What doesn't work is the story environmentalists tell to scare people into action. That only "provokes fatalism, paralysis and/or individualistic thoughts of adaptation, not empowerment, hope, creativity and collective action." (page 222) "We need a story that offers immediate, perceptible impacts that can be observed and directly addressed in the present, not the future." Could this be where Peak Oil fits in? Nordhaus & Shellenberger never mention Peak Oil at all. Our vision for how we tackle such problems must not make people feel guilty. Amen. These guys have hit the nail on the head. THIS is how you change the world. Recommended.

Endless pages of American parochial waffle and pretentious political philosophy that will be largely lost on most readers.
They seem to have come to the right answer through lots of the wrong reasoning. But they got there in the end.

Patricia A. McAnany & Norman Yoffee "Questioning Collapse"

xx
xx

Peter North "Local Money"

ISBN 978 1 900322 52 2. "Local Money - How to make it happen in your community" was written by Peter North et al and published by Green Books in 2010. For your money (£Sterling of course) you get 240 pages including obligatory foreword by Rob Hopkins, an introduction, four parts of seventeen chapters, references, resources and index. One important strand of this work is Rob's "Cheerful Disclaimer" which he walks through on the third page of his four page foreword. It is one core principle of Transition that supersedes all others. It can be roughly translated as: we don't know exactly how to do this, it is work in progress, we will make mistakes on our journey to find out what truly works. This fundamental principle is often forgotten by Transitioners who insist that there is a "Transition way" of doing something, or that they can justify their method of working because it follows "transition principles". In truth, if it doesn't work, then try something else. It is a point Peter North returns to several times in the book. Clearly not all experiments in alternative money have worked. Some have been almost disastrous (Argentina) whilst some have run out of steam (Lewes).

We learn from these mistakes and from successes. Anyone who doesn't make mistakes makes nothing. It would also be a mistake to think that this book is solely about Transition Towns and local currencies. Far from it. North covers LETS, time banking, Ithaca hours, Argentina's barter networks, European regional currencies, BerkShares and, finally, multiple Transition Local Currencies (of course). Prior to writing this review we did read an earlier review that pointed out that this list in not exhaustive. There have been other experiments with alternatives to money systems that North doesn't cover. Take for example, the alternative Banking system offered by the likes of Zopa where you lend your money and it is borrowed directly by a needy borrower. It would be a wrong to think that it begins and ends with the likes of the Brixton pound!

It is a common transition-belief that our local economies are somehow a "leaky bucket" where transnational corporations suck money out into the pockets of remote shareholders. The ideal of a local currency is that it can only be spent locally as a form of loyalty scheme. This money cannot be sucked out of the economy hence it bounces about generating local wealth. Of course this is largely illusory. Leaky buckets eventually empty. Our local economies are not a vacuum of money because it continually pours in. This argument pertains to profits. Hence it is largely an issue of ownership - local versus national and international monopolies. But this is often just semantics - an issue of overwhelming importance to global justice and poverty-eradication campaigners. But not core to our problem. The wealth of a local economy depends upon the volume of currency and the speed at which travels through that local economy. Localism is aimed at reduction in carbon footprints and improving the durability of local communities in a changing world. A thriving local economy can work with a national currency. These are not mutually exclusive. The wealthy shareholders who benefit from these "local" profits just spend that money somewhere else in the economy. They are just as likely to spend it in their own local community. The money doesn't disappear. The only way to destroy money is to have a financial collapse where there is not enough confidence for new loans to be requested. Since we have no permanent money supply then the volume of money is utterly reliant upon the manufacturing of new debt. Debt is serviced through interest payments. These have to be met through a perpetually growing economy. This is incompatible with a finite planet so must stop. This system cannot stop. It has no steady state. It can only collapse. Hence our money system is not sustainable and will not see us through into a post-carbon economy nor a low-carbon world. Until an alternative form of MONEY SUPPLY becomes available then our communities are not durable against the threat of collapse. All new forms of money, be they local currency or barter systems, must be able to create new money. Transition currencies do not yet do this. It is a self-evident point that North fails to deliver.

Localism requires us all to think small. Small is the opposite of the current globalised paradigm. The reasons why BIG has been so successful over small has been the economies of scale that BIG gives us. If we accept the advantages of small then we have to accept that is an entirely different economic model. Local is probably going to be more expensive and offer less choice. However, it will be more interesting, robust and resilient. It will be low carbon and bolster the community. Hence this is a desirable alternative model - but it isn't an easy sell. Nor is it easy to explain. Peter largely ignores the macroeconomics of this discussion. He completely ignores monetary reform. Although this is a critical issue in addressing economic growth versus sustainable steady state money systems Peter refers to it only obliquely. In a brief mention of the "Money as Debt" film he refers to it as "conspiratorial". Anyone familiar with this movie (and its successor) will know that it is NOT "conspiratorial" at all. (If you wish to read about conspiracy then check out the books of Ellen Hodgson Brown or Michael Rowbotham.) It does point out that it has not been in the interest of powerful banking elites for the system to be challenged. This is not a conspiracy. It is a systemic fault. The lack of objective discussion about macroeconomic reform leaves one corner-stone off the house. A stranger to the topic would find this book unappealing as the big picture is missing.

We really don't know what the future of money is. Most of the small scale local experiments in alternative currencies have been ideologically driven - particularly the one at Stroud as covered in this book. These have clear social objectives and are unlikely to travel very well. The more successful experiments have involved currencies that freely exchangeable and covering a wide area through a network of traditional banking bodies. It is for good reason that the United States is the world's biggest economy with the most widely acceptable international currency - the Dollar. The Eurozone has been trying to catch up ever since. It is largely a matter of perspective as to the desirability of transnational or national currencies. Local currencies used to be commonplace in an era of local trading. When trading become national and international the local currencies became obsolete as they could not service this new modus operandi. Indeed, as the author points out, the very reason why so many experiments in local currency struggle is that the local businesses, who are expected to use the currency, can't pay their suppliers in a local currency. Until such time as trade become local then local currencies remain a cultural phenomena. They exist and perpetuate through the character of the community. Hence we need different communities and different economics before we have different currencies. Lots of different changes will have to happen at the same time to evolve this system rather than one panacea or revolution. Not every community is a Lewes-style "latte town" full of little locally owned shops, farmers' markets and cooperative vegetable box schemes. Most communities are clone-towns. Until they find their local soul will there be a local change to the money system.

North points out on page 18 that "in our imaginary local economy of the future, more of the food a community needs is grown locally and sold in locally owned shops, cooperatives and markets. More of the electricity is generated locally, and delivered by community-owned local power companies." So it would seem that the cart should be firmly placed behind the horse. Attempts at local currencies in a globalised world get it the other way around. Of course we have to try and it is good preparation but it would be nuts to imagine that creating hundreds of local currencies will make a localised economy happen. A lot of other stuff has to happen. Money is just a medium of exchange. Most Transition Initiatives will never grow to the successful level of sophistication to invest in a local currency experiment. The few who do will find that they need to do it across a large region like the German experiments. Secondly they will need to trade the money through a regular High Street Banking Network. Hence you need local banking before you have local money. Since all our local banks got sucked up into the globalised money system this will have to be undone. We need to go back and do our homework. What sort of economics will sustain the post-carbon world? Currently we are guessing.

Probably a bit unreal and impractical for most small Transition initiatives. Lacking some holistic elements to bring in the necessary macroeconomic reforms.
A good primer giving insight into the monetary aspects of many social change experiments around the world. Worth a read as it is the best book of its kind.

Tamzin Pinkerton & Rob Hopkins "Local Food"

ISBN 978 1 900322 43 0. "Local Food - How to make it happen in your community" was written by Tamzin Pinkerton and Rob Hopkins. Published by Green Books in 2009. 216 pages long including References, Resources and Index. Well it had to happen - finally a really useful book about Transition. Not to say that there was anything wrong with Transition Timeline or the Transition Handbook but "Local Food" is the best stab yet at showing Transition in working practice. This is the real deal - littered with examples from around the globe we get full coverage of everything from "The Great Reskilling" through to School Projects and "Community Supported Agriculture". Whereas the earlier books looked largely at the reasons for change and the theory of Transition, "Local Food" really deals with the meat and potatoes (pardon the pun) of HOW DO WE TRANSITION? It is a question we have all been asked "But what does Transition actually DO!?" Well, here is the answer. We only hope that this is the first of many such practical example books.

Now if a spot of gardening really isn't your thing don't worry. This is not a gardening book. It is more of a 'legs-up' explaining each type of local food project and how to get it started. Clearly it takes a lot of hard work and a little bit of money. But enthusiasm seems to count for a lot too. Some of the projects are really simple - like selling organic veg at a primary school, but they do scale all the way up to full grown farms and supply chain businesses. There is something here for everyone. So if you are asked for a project brief by your Council or funding agency then please plagiarise this book shamelessly. It is eye-opening just how many projects are up and running but also how sophisticated some have become. Many predate Transition and have since been absorbed by the Transition phenomena or are now closely linked to them. One thing I have to say is that book is completely focussed on Peak Oil with little real impact analysis of Climate Change. As we know this will have temporary positive effect in the UK with longer growing seasons which suggests no great urgency for change here.

One of the high points comes on page 16 with a suggested model for local food distribution: 2.5% of food should be from your own garden, 5% from your neighbourhood, 17.5% from local sources, 35% from within 100 miles, 20% from the UK, 15% from Europe leaving 5% from abroad. Hopefully this dispels the myth that Transition is some crazy self-sufficiency cult. It is all about redressing the balance more in favour of the local to build resilience. Highly recommended if you love food and feel the need to do something. Academic reading for the rest of us.

Sometimes seems a bit academic for many.
A perfect score for a book that barely puts a foot wrong. If it is 'local food' it is in this book. Read it now.

Randy Olson "Don't be such a Scientist"

xx
xx

Pat Murphy "Plan C"

ISBN 978-0-86571-607-0. "Plan C - Community Survival Strategies for Peak Oil and Climate Change" by Pat Murphy of 'Community Solutions'. Published in 2008 by New Society Publishers. 'Community Solutions' is famous for bringing us the "How Cuba Survived Peak Oil" documentary that has proven so influential for the Transition Network. From this you would expect this to be something a little like Rob Hopkins "Transition Handbook". However the reader is in for a big surprise. Just flick to the dedication and you will see the name Noam Chomsky. Don't get us wrong - we are great fans of Chomsky's work but this does give you a firm steer on the direction this book takes. Unlike the Hopkins work this takes a more controversial course that almost guarantees it a minority audience in the US. Even worse it is like the work of Amory Lovins in that it is utterly North America-centric. Those of us outside of the US can only shake our heads in disbelief as to how wasteful North American culture is. They easily waste twice as much food and energy as the next most developed nations on Earth. Hence if the US Population just led a life similar to those in Europe, Asia or Japan then this would be a massive contribution to reduction in Global CO2 emissions. Sadly this tells us almost nothing if you are a reader in Europe or Japan! Murphy takes the reader through his analysis of American Empire and dominance my military might. He shows utter disdain for his own country's foreign polices and for the role of the Corporate Media in misleading his country. For him the blame is clear - Corporations make us consume & undermine community. Murphy's solution is for Americans to turn away from the Corporations and create their own local alternatives within their own communities. If it was this simple we would whole-heartedly recommend this book. However things are a little more complicated. His use of the words "Plan C" implies criticism of the Lester Brown's "Plan B" and Murphy launches into a tirade against all forms of technology. For him the message is clear - all technology is bad because it makes Americans consume more Oil. However he supplies no justification for this either scientific, empirical, social or economic. It is opinion based upon a few stats that show our technology grows in efficiency yet we consume more oil. However he misses the alternative argument that shows that it is our growth in affluence, wealth and population that increase GHG emissions. The fact is we generate more units of wealth with less and less energy - however the growth in money outstrips the growth in efficiency leading to economic growth sucking in Oil. If our technology had not improved our society would have hit peak oil, peak soil, peak money and peak food a decade ago. Technology bought us time and is not the enemy. Hence his lack of analysis could present a destructive misdirection in some of the readership. Technology needs to be appropriate and small scale. It cannot give us the same level of food and energy we have in the industrialised countries today - but it sure will preserve a basic level of existence far beyond that of the cave dweller. Despite all this rhetoric Murphy then goes on to describe an alternative transport scheme called "smart jitney" which is nothing more than a large network of taxis working "on demand" where people share the cab ride. This will work, he says, through the use of mobile phones and computer technology. The irony of this escapes him. For Murphy the "C" in his Plan is more to do with personal "curtailment" than Community. For him the man in the street seems to be the problem not the solution. Whereas Hopkins makes a point of discussing the psychology of change Murphy chooses to lecture his fellow American for choosing Hummers over the Toyota Prius. Despite the Peak Oil agenda he also implores his fellow citizens to ignore international news events. As such he is dangerously close to an isolationist point of view whereas the American Public needs to be vastly more world-aware. The criticisms of this book are multiple and distract from what is, otherwise, a great book. The future for all of us will be a little of Plan "C" and a little of Plan "B". Recommended for American readers only and only with the caveat that you read Lester Brown's "Plan" B as well. Disappointing.

This book revels in finding someone else to blame. Lacks objective analysis.
Focuses on community and curtailment.

Hugh Montgomery "The Genie in the Bottle"

ISBN 978 0 9557156 0 0. Written by Hugh Montgomery, illustrated by Matt Murphy and published by Genie Publishing in 2007. What a great idea! Throw together some corporate sponsorship into a project to teach 7 to 11 year olds about Global Warming - and what they can do about it. Get a whole committee together of teachers, scientists, artists and designers to create a slick and professional pack of teaching aids to be made available to every child in Britain. Their intent was to "educate, encourage, enthuse and empower children". There are lesson plans, a short film, slides and a web site. But then.... This book could have been everything you would wish for but the result was a terribly "old-school" environmentalism book designed to scare seven shades of shit our of small children and give them nightmares. Sometimes a good graphic novel can become a cult symbol. Just think of the influence that Raymond Briggs bought about with his books? Remember "Fungus the Bogeyman", remember "The Snowman", remember "When the Wind Blows"? The Graphic Novel came of age and children could learn about the most fantastic fantasy to the most horrid nightmare. You really can make this sort of thing work. The Genie is off by a wide mark.

So what is this all about? Well, you get a 44 page softback book in large A4-ish format which contains a children's story about Climate Change. The story has a grandfather telling his grandson the story of planet earth from its creation through to its demise from run-away climate change. On each page the boys asks if mankind acted to change the course of events. At each step the old man has to disappoint the child. Unrealistically the boy keeps saying "Oh dear". The artwork is ruinously grim - the stuff nightmares are made of - utterly devoid of charm. The foot of each page has a small section on the "reality" of the science (although nothing here that an average skeptic couldn't easily shrug off - it is hardly compelling) and there is a section on what children and adults can do to reduce their carbon footprints. However the latter is often just a platitude or throw-away remark. Pretty standard fare. Towards the rear of the book - just as you are starting to wish for a happy ending - the book takes a nose-dive into a bottomless pit of dark cynicism where it turns on politicians with venom and contempt. Its conclusion? It is all caused by one big word: "GREED". One might prefer "The Age of Stupid" to this Marxism-today-style rant. It is completely inappropriate for children of any age-group. You laugh at the hideous naivety of it all. This could have been a chance to create an entertaining work for children that was informative, a little scary, but ultimately positive. We have to show children that the "good times" their parent had are now over but the future holds out for even better prospects - they'll just be very different form the ones their parents' have come to expect. Let them Transition to a post-carbon world. Tell them that fossil-fuels are finite and they can create a new normality. Do not tell them that they have to make the "planet safe". The planet is just fine thankyou. Mankind is not. The very language of this book will make you cringe. An example: "There's only one Earth. Love it. Save it." and how about "Adults are destroying your world"? Talk about a horse designed by committee. This is a camel with one eye and three legs. What were they thinking? We know how to get through to kids. We know how to talk about Climate Change. We know how to Transition. We know how to build a compelling case. This book falls down on all counts.

This is not the end of the story. You can go and visit www.projectgenie.org.uk to see how it has been taken up by the Charity the "Global Cool Foundation". They do offer downloadable Lesson Plans and other materials on Climate Change. Judging by the quotes from Gordon Brown, Boris Johnson, teachers and children they have got some good support. Apparently 140 schools took it up. We are surprised it was this many. What is more interesting is that they are working on a parallel project called "Global Cool" that aims to use the Cultural Dynamic research from the Institute for Public Policy Research which studied ways of getting Climate Change messages over to the sub-group called "Now People". We are familiar with the IPPR Report (called "Consumer Power") and believe it is an important insight because the Now People have such a powerful effect upon how the rest of the general population behave. More importantly the IPPR Report would recommend approaching the problem from completely the opposite angle adopted by "Genie". So as soon as they join these two dots together (and maybe seek help from the Transition Network) the better. We wish to thank Dave Hampton - the Carbon Coach (www.carboncoach.com) - for the review copy.

Too bleak
Better than nothing.

Ian Plimer "Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: the missing science"

ISBN 978-07043-7166-8. "Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: the Missing Science" was written by Ian Plimer and published by Quartet Books in 2009. This is quite a weighty tome measuring in at 503 pages including eight chapters and an index. It will take you a bit if time to wade through it. You probably shouldn't bother. For once we have a genuine scientist (a Geologist) writing of his doubts about man-made climate change. This does appeal to some of us who would rather not have sensation-seeking journalists & paranoid right-wing radio DJ's make this stuff up. To be fair this book is relatively free of some of the more tiresome polemic of other climate-change denial books. You can wade into this book and be overwhelmed by how all 'sciencey' it sounds but be warned: it is worth checking out some of the expert opinions from genuine Climatologists (available online). This book is riddled with errors, opinions and conjecture wrapped up as science. In the interest of filling 500 pages Plimer seems to have taken the view that his readership is slightly dim therefore if he can get away with blinding them with science. They then might believe him. Even if you hadn't been warned anyone in basic possession of an analytical mind will find themselves scratching their heads in disbelief. That's if you have the patience to get to the end of the book and his "Et Moi" which you SHOULD read FIRST.

Chapter 2 (which deals with the history of the Earth and its climate) stretches for what seems like an endless 68 pages. It quotes so many scientific papers and books in the footnotes that these notes are often longer than the actual text they refer to. However, even just skimming through quickly gives the impression that Plimer is just babbling. He goes around in circles to show that the climate has always changed and sometimes dramatically. "Voila!" you can hear him exclaiming, as he "proves" that man made CO2 cannot cause climate change. Eh? This really is insulting to the intelligence of most readers. Who cares if the climate changed before the industrial revolution? Since this was before the period of anthropogenic interference in the climate then it proves nothing. A child could see that. It is like saying that because you could get a sun-tan before the availability of sun-beds that the UV-tubes can't possibly work! Why Plimer? Even worse he goes on and on about how HE (we assume 'the great and powerful wizard of science') can do what the IPCC cannot do. He can interpret cave paintings, food prices and even the clouds on old paintings to tell us what the temperature was in 1603! Gee, all those PhD's at the IPCC must feel really humbled by this man's awesomeness.

So what drives "Australia's best-known geologist" to write such twaddle in the full knowledge that another set of scientists (in fact the vast majority of actual climatologists) will simply tear him to shreds? Well, of course, no serious scientist (nor Government) is interested in individual cranks like this. The reason the IPCC was formed was to assess the evidence and come up with a reasoned opinion. Sure there have been mistakes, and the process hasn't been perfect, but generally it has got the job done. It has never claimed that ALL the evidence was absolutely conclusive. To be fair to the doubters, there is some mileage in the view that the IPCC found anthropogenic climate change because it was paid to... But that isn't Plimer's angle. The IPCC is a meta-study organisation setup as an agency of the UN to reach a conclusion so that the UN and individual Governments could set policy. Plimer ignores this and claims that the IPCC is flawed because it didn't employ proper scientists. Some of the reviewers were (wait for it) shock (!), horror (!) "environmentalists". With this revelation Plimer lets slip what is really going on in his ideology. This book is based upon the author's distrust of anyone who isn't either an Australian or a Coal Mining Geologist. Since those pesky environmentalists aren't in Plimer's private clique then they are not to be trusted.

You could largely dispense with the first 363 pages of the book, ie, Chapters 1 through 6, as they have little or no bearing upon the authenticity of anthropogenic climate change other than to introduce us to natural cycles and the roles of ocean currents. By Chapter 7 he finally talks about the actual climate by trying to convince the reader that there is serious doubt that temperatures are rising and we aren't sure about man-made CO2 either. He really stretches himself here but proves nothing. He talks about the pre-Mauna Loa infra-red spectroscopy readings as if they were of any use (page 420). Even his own diagram shows them varying wildly between 1810 and 1950 which is probably due to them being taken in the industrial heartlands of Europe. This was the reason they moved the equipment to the middle of the Pacific Ocean. They were unreliable. He even tries to tell the reader there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect (pages 365 and 366) and that it is all down to convective losses. If that sounds a little weird you should reflect on the near-absence of references for large sections of that Chapter. He may not be making it up but he sees no reason to back up any of his numbers or assumptions. Why? This should be the most important section of the book, where he could undermine the IPCC case, but he completely fluffs it. His killer diagram at the bottom of page 375 shows that there is not a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature. Just as adding another layer of glass to your greenhouse doesn't make it twice as hot - all CO2 ppmv beyond about 260 cease to have much effect. He fails at this point either to provide a reference for this diagram or to explain the IPCC view that it is water vapour feedback that does most of the work. He only mentions this right at the end of the book - probably in the hope that the reader will have forgotten his earlier comments where he derided the IPCC for ignoring water vapour feedback!

For all Plimer's claims of 'science' and his self-alleged command of geography, history, climate and physics he has some remarkable weak spots - namely mathematics in general and statistics specifically. He tells us that there is no such thing in science as a "tipping point" (page 338). Well that may be the media-friendly way of describing a "non-linear event" but certainly non-linear systems are very much a matter for science and engineering. He tells us that the 'precautionary principle' is also not scientific. Really? He say the same about consensus. For him the world is black and white. For him the science is either right or wrong. There is no shades of grey, no possibilities, no risks, no need for mitigation and no probabilities. He tells us the 0.8degreesC +/- 0.8degreesC is "meaningless". Actually it is not. Getting a 'mean' result from a 'distribution' of data points and assigning a degree of error tells us a great deal. In this he misleads the reader and for a 'man of science' this is utterly shameful. There is far more to this book than an assessment of the science. That's the problem.

So to Plimer's ideology. On page 298 we get this: "The slightest change in Nature is viewed as a message that we humans are changing the climate, that this is evil and that we must rid the world of this evil." He devotes an entire chapter just to himself "Et Moi" at the end so he could expand upon this "evil" topic. On page 411/412 he writes "To call for the lowering of the carbon footprint is asinine. To refer to "carbon pollution" is ascientific political spin. To tax, ration and control the basic element for life is a micro-management of human freedom." Human freedom? Or the freedom of the Australian Coal Mining industry? On page 428 "One can only speculate as to why political activists concentrate their attention on CO2 rather than methane. It may be because CO2 is linked to industrial growth whereas methane is considered more "natural" and emitted by less developed nations." Or maybe it is because we can clean up industrial processes a lot easier that it would be for us to tell cows not to fart or people not to eat? On page 436 this "Green ideology and political pressure take place in a science-free zone." On page 438 "...the green movements have been taken over by neo-Marxists promoting anti-trade, anti-globalisation and anti-civilisation." Page 446: "Cheap abundant energy is fundamental to all economies." whilst on page 447 he follows up by saying that it is "suicide to impose other energy sources onto communities." For Plimer "extreme environmentalism" is a new religion (page 463). On page 465 "Minority groups (such as farmers and miners) who provide the basic necessities of urban life are sitting ducks for cheap shots by environmental groups..." and this is one of two references to mining (or "mineral extraction" as he euphemistically calls it - he means coal mining) and agriculture in the same sentence. To Plimer there are only three noble professions: science, farming and mining. Everyone else is an environmental extremist or "romantic". According to Plimer the world of the "romantics" does not exist (page 468): "Sustainability creates a miserable existence, poverty, disease, depopulation and ignorance." Plimer believes that it is mankind's divine right to battle and become victorious over Nature because Nature is 'bad' & out-to-get-us. It is us or the bunnies. Only HIS "science" can save us. So what if we don't live sustainably? We'll all die glorious deaths and go to Valhalla. On page 472 he makes a passionate plea for the Gulf States to import cheap Australian Coal to generate electricity because it is so much cheaper than solar energy.

It is difficult to lampoon this guy as he does it so well himself.

The author believes Global Warming is GOOD. Good for biodiversity and humanity. It will not lead to extinctions, and, if it did, that would be completely natural. Whilst he makes some valid points about how warming is more desirable for the human species than cooling he misses the point by a mile.... It isn't that "global warming" in the historical record was a "bad" thing. It is that ANY climate change in THIS time period is dangerous. There is no historical precedence so we must assume the worst. We live in a crowded planet with 7 billion people. Just because a few Cro-Magnons enjoyed a good sun tan 200,000 years ago doesn't mean that this over-populated Earth is going to enjoy it in quite the same way. We have made our ecology fragile. When your biodiversity is already under stress it won't take much to push many species under. That is what we are doing. This is entirely new and utterly dangerous. Ancient history will not hold the answers. Since the soil holds a lot of carbon and we are killing it with nitrate fertilisers (derived from dwindling fossil fuels) then we are piling disaster upon disaster. Our human ecology is a pack of cards on the Titanic and we are steering it towards an iceberg. Yes the bacteria, cockroaches and rats will survive long after man has extinguished its existence from this planet. That doesn't mean we should aim for this self-destruction with gay abandon. You can't just shrug your shoulders.

Lots of words disguising the author's utter contempt for the humanity. He could have done better with genuine science.
Yup, global cooling is worse than global warming. Yup, it is a shame about the Australian Coal Mining Industry Plimer represents. It changes nothing.

Richard Mabey "Food for Free"

ISBN 978-0-00-718303-6. "Food for Free" by Richard Mabey and published by Collins in 2004. This is the condensed "Gem" edition of a book first compiled by Richard as far back as 1972 and revised several times since. If you ever seen a book like this then you will probably know the problem with this kind of thing. Eating from the wild is a minority hobby. It will not sustain a civilisation. Put that out of your mind. It also sounds as if those who treat this as a hobby may need to get in their 4x4 SUV and drive out into the Countryside to find the clean and unpolluted foodstuffs-for-free. I would guess that makes the carbon footprint unsustainably high. It seems that, as long as you have plenty of butter to smother over your boiled weeds then it will be edible. I might also add that mayonnaise, ketchup, salad cream or Branston Pickle would probalbly do as well - you could probably make dry-wall edible with these! So what can you learn from something like this? Well, our peoples have survived for millions of years on stuff that just grows naturally. However we since domesticated then industrialised our food chain until a point where none of us even know where our food comes from. Even those of us with a basic familiarity with gardening see only garden varieties. Work like this puts us back into contact with a simpler and cruder way of existence. The way of the hunter-gatherer. It has almost all the practical worth of dead insects under museum glass. But don't let that put you off. This remains a treasure-trove of ancient wisdom - from old recipes to how to spot a deadly mushroom. It is all here and in a size that slips right into the palm of your hand. If you are a gardener and permaculturist you may find that work like this helps you to understand what is, and is not, a "weed". If something insists on growing then maybe it should be allowed to grow. And if it is an edible plant then who is to say that nature is not trying to tell you a little something? What would probably be of more use for everyone is a book that combines this wisdom with a "how to" on seed preservation. When disaster strikes we may need to return to our hedgerows to realise the genetic potential in those heirloom seeds. After this book you'll look at the natural things around you in a different way. Less of a carpet of green stuff to be somehow "over-come" but more of buffet. One for the foodist only but give it as a gift for its novelty value. An eye-opener.

Probably completely pointless.
Great stuff for the food snob.

Patrick J. Michaels "Meltdown"

ISBN 1 930865 59 7. "Meltdown - The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media". Written by Patrick J. Michaels and published by the Cato Institute in 2004. The Authors talks of the Cato Institute as being a "liberal think tank" and we can interpret this as placing it somewhere BETWEEN the Environmental Lobby and the Market-dogma on the Neo-Cons. Given that 'environmentalism' is somewhat mainstream these days, and that neo-liberalism is becoming increasingly right-of-center then we may think of this as being fairly right wing and broadly Republican. Yes, this is a US-parochial work. The vast majority of the evidence presented concerns the science and reporting of issues in the USA. It only journeys further a field if the author thinks he has evidence to back his cause. And his cause it this: Global Warming is real and man-made but it will only create small increases in temperature and we can adapt to this, as can the environment. He makes a very good case and we do recommend that everyone reads this. But with BIG caveats. This is not an argument for complacency. The Cato Institute is funded by Exxon (see www.exxonsecrets.org). So we should be suspicious when Michaels argues that deaths from heat waves will be mitigated by fitting Air-Conditioning to the homes of old-people. He neglects to tell us where the energy will come from in 2050 in order to power his air-con. So this is certainly 'small-picture' stuff not big-picture. He mostly uses statistics to demolish some stories although these are carefully chosen. He uses the falling temperatures between 1940 to 1960 to counteracts recent temperature rises to try and argue that none of the computer models work and that recent rises prove nothing. However, his analysis doesn't really go back far enough making it a classic case of lies and damn lies.... He does make some VERY good points in the book and sure, there have been some excesses that he has exposed. However, his central thesis that Global Warming hysteria is driven by Politicians and self-serving Scientists defies all intuition. Mind you, he is dealing with the Federal Grant structure for science in the USA and they have a lot of money to give away. As a counterpoint please read Ross Gelbspan's "Boiling Point" which shows the other side of the story. It is far more intuitive to believe that few Politicians are willing talk about Global Warming as they see it as Political suicide. Whilst, for scientists, outside of the USA there is more evidence that they are making it up than there is that Doctors invent new diseases. Do they exaggerate for funding? Possibly but not significantly. Does Michael's argument that the Scientific establishment follows the 'Global-Warming-as-Disaster' "paradigm" such that peer review is ineffective and favours only doom and gloom? This is interesting but holds little water outside the USA. This book cites fifty examples but these predate 2003 and go back as far as the 1980's. Are they pertinent for 2009 now we know so much more? The news isn't getting any better and Politicians still aren't doing anything. Michaels makes no mention of tipping points nor the rising acidity of the oceans. Even if the oceans absorb all that CO2 that still leaves most of the planet dead. Air-con won't help if you are starving....

Gentle Climate Change skeptic's rant. Misses the Peak Oil story big time.
At least he recognises Climate Change is real and man-made. A useful and objective view "over the fence".

Mobbs "Energy Beyond Oil"

ISBN 1 905237 00 6. Published by Matador Publishing in 2005. I read this in the first quarter of 2007. This probably the only the second book I have read that lumps climate change and peak oil together as one topic and studies them together. Mobbs deals far more with the peak oil side of things and he is statistically very thorough. His scope is largely limited to the United Kingdom Energy Market but the work provides lessons for other countries. It is difficult to criticise this work. It can comes across as pretty dull at times and it goes through the science in the manner of a secondary school physics text book. This would make it impenetrable to the casual reader but as it is not meant to be a text book I wonder where the library might stock this? It doesn't quite fit a category. If there is to be a criticism it is for the editors who failed to curb Mobbs' polemic against Carbon offsetting. Quite why he trips off on a pointless rant again carbon reduction schemes is not quite clear. It deserves no place within this book on this topic. Although he repeats the same tired and flawed arguments he digs up a new one that Chomsky would be proud of. Apparently Carbon Trading Markets, that transfer money to Third World countries, is Western selfishness because the only countries that benefit are those where that money is then spent - the West. This lazy piece of logic can be extended to all forms of aid to the Third World so could justify cutting off every penny. Bizarre. Put this stupidity to one side for a moment and you have a fantastic book. It gets fantastic just at the end where Mobbs pulls a rabbit out of the hat. He presents two graphs, one is Business as Usual and the other is with Energy Conservation cutting over to sustainability. What is remarkable is that the two are quite similar. It is just that 'business as usual' may continue the party for a few years more but then comes to an abrupt crash as the energy supplies runs out. And Mobbs does demonstrate that it is ALL Energy supplies: coal, oil, gas and uranium. They will all be gone within fifty years leaving only a residual 20% of sustainable leftovers. So we learn to live with that or stop living. Recommended.

Dangerous polemic against offsetting.
Good science and maths shows us why the Party really is over.

Piggott "Choosing Windpower"

"Choosing Windpower" by Hugh Piggot. ISBN 1 90217 531 X. Published by the Center for Alternative Technology. This is similar to "Wind Energy Basics - A Guide to Small and Micro Wind Systems" by Paul Gipe but is much smaller and a lot less entertaining. It covers a lot of the same ground in a more concise form but covers the UK market rather than the United States. This is a useful contribution. Hence you should probably buy both books together, reading them at the same time, if you based in the UK and Europe. The book is 110 pages long but fits in the neatly into your pocket. It can be downloaded as a PDF from the CAT web site but we chose to buy the review copy from Amazon. It comes as a little spiral-bound notebook which would be cool if this meant you could fold it back upon itself to hold a page open. Sadly you cannot because they have then glued a stiff cardboard cover on to the outside. Why? Inside you get some useful little illustrations and a sprinkling of black-and-white photographs. The introduction bugs the reader by making repeated references to "wind-mills". Let's get this straight - a 'wind-mill' grinds flour directly from the force of the wind. A wind-turbine generates electricity. It is the latter we are talking about here. Through this little book there is repeated reference to four case studies and we look at every aspect of their requirements and how to meet them. It is well written and the explanations are readable. However, like Paul Gipe's work it is, essentially, a text-book. Hence it is not overly-fun to read. In truth it is quite dull in places and will remind you of the bits of school physics lessons you really hated. Putting that to one side, if you need to know why you shouldn't put a wind-turbine on the roof of your house, then this little gem will tell you. You can visit CAT and get a Development Course on the topic. Recommended.

Strange choice in language. Poor packaging. Not fun.
Once again a CAT classic. Indispensible.

Pfeiffer "Eating Fossil Fuels"

ISBN 0 86571 565 3. Published in 2006 by New Society Publishers. Written by Dale Allen Pfeiffer who also authored "The End of the Age of Oil". It is not a long book, at only 85 pages excluding Resource Guide, Bibliography and Index, however Dale has managed to come up with the goods on this topic. He occasionally holds his punches in the language used - he could be a little more direct. Despite the title he covers a broader range of topics including the degradation of the natural environment and how intensive agriculture has had a knock-on effect in declining water tables. It isn't always entirely clear how this is related to fossil fuels other than as an indirect consequence of population over-shoot. Likewise there is a section devoted to soil degradation that is largely derivative of similar work elsewhere. It is also worth comparing such claims about loss of biodiversity and topsoil with counter-claims by Lomborg. It always sounds worse than it probably is. The book also seems to avoid looking at the economics of the oil and gas usage in feedstock's for pesticides and fertilisers. It would be interesting to see how oil prices would effect agriculture but this is not really studied. It is just assumed that one day the oil and gas wouldn't be there leaving us in a hole. In truth it will be a long drawn-out and protracted agony for those members of the human race being slowly priced out of basic foodstuffs. Where this book does draw its great strength is in the examination of Korea and Cuba's different responses to their own post-Soviet Oil crashes. Korea got it all wrong and Cuba got it all right. The books concludes with the oddly titled "Twelve Fun Activities for Activists" however it sounds more grim than fun. The solutions, as always, are local and home-spun. Support local agriculture. invest in permaculture, buy from local markets, and so on and so forth. No surprises really. The book disappoints only in failing to convince the average reader of the precise links between oil and food, but Dale covers almost everything in-between. Recommended as one of the few books on this most important of topics. If Climate Change won't starve you the end of Oil will. Read it and dig up your lawn.

Fails to convince. Sometimes off target. Lacks economic insight.
A book tht had to be written and has to be read.