The Conundrum: How Scientific Innovation, Increased Efficiency, and Good Intentions Can Make Our Energy and Climate Problems Worse

by David Owen

The Conundrum is a mind-changing manifesto about the environment, efficiency and the real path to sustainability.

Hybrid cars, fast trains, compact florescent light bulbs, solar panels, carbon offsets: Everything you've been told about living green is wrong. The quest for a breakthrough battery or a 100 mpg car are dangerous fantasies. We are consumers, and we like to consume green and efficiently. But David Owen argues that our best intentions are still at cross purposes to our true goal - living sustainably and caring for our environment and the future of the planet. Efficiency, once considered the holy grail of our environmental problems, turns out to be part of the problem. Efforts to improve efficiency and increase sustainable development only exacerbate the problems they are meant to solve, more than negating the environmental gains. We have little trouble turning increases in efficiency into increases in consumption.

David Owen's The Conundrum is an elegant nonfiction narrative filled with fascinating information and anecdotes takes you through the history of energy and the quest for efficiency. This is a book about the environment that will change how you look at the world. We should not be waiting for some geniuses to invent our way out of the energy and economic crisis we're in. We already have the technology and knowledge we need to live sustainably. But will we do it?

That is the conundrum.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Environment, Economics, Technology, Politics, Climate Change

272 pages, Paperback

First published February 7, 2012

Reviews

[Parmida R. A. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Owen takes a penetrating look at the earth’s shrinking resources and the delusion underlying our solutions to these problems. In the process, he persuades us that the serious environmental problems that humanity faces won’t be fixed by scientists and engineers, but by our behavioral changes, namely consuming less. Owen’s latest becomes a declaration against the massive greenwashing campaigns of the past decade and the presentation of scientific data that lets us ignore questions we already know the answers to and don’t like. Owen admonishes locavorism, excoriates solar panels, lambasts natural gas as a substitute for coal, faults compact fluorescent lights, and upbraids innovations in transit. To wrap up, the book concisely analyzes the programs and laws made to protect the planet end up creating far more carbon emissions and encouraging even worse behavior.

I usually don't read environmental books or articles, but this book had very interesting approach toward what they tell us we are ought to do to save the nature. I don't have enough knowledge to assess his arguements, but I think for folks who are interested in environmental issues this book will be thought-provoking. However, I think author left me with questions more than answers. I'm not sure what are his suggestions and if they work.

[Noah · Rating 2 out of 5]

A lot of this book is a bunch of over-the-top contrarianism. It's heavy on complaints and light on solutions, and to the extent that is has anything constructive to say I could sum it up in a sentence if you grant me a semicolon: "Increased energy efficiency is a bad strategy to reduce total energy usage; it only helps if we force ourselves to reduce absolute usage and then use increased efficiency to keep our standard of living high while we do so." There, now you don't have to read it.

[Alison · Rating 4 out of 5]

First, I need to say that I won this book as a first reads. That being said, I really enjoyed this book, honestly more than I thought I would. I generally don't read much non-fiction, but, like a lot of people nowadays, I'm concerned about the environment. This book was an eye-opener on so many levels and really shows the reader that what we think is 'doing our part' is not only never going to be enough at the current rate, but also may be doing more harm than good. So much of what the author says makes perfect sense and it is sad to see how much we as a society turn a blind eye to what we are doing to our world.

The author does use techinal jargon in this book, but he does a great job of explaining it. If he drops a name that came up earlier in the book then he will gently remind you what that person stood for so you aren't left thinking 'Jevons... who was that again?' Owens cites numerous sources and has put a lot of time and effort into the reseach behind this book, and it shows. He does not take the view that he is doing so much better at 'saving the environment' than any one of us and, in fact, willingly uses himself as an example of what society as a whole is doing wrong. This book was written with a wit and cynicism that I truly appreciated. This is a book that I will definitely recommend to a number of my friends!

[David James · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a little known fact that the more we design things to be energy efficient, the more energy we use. This seeming contradiction has been recognized by a few people since at least the nineteenth century, and among a growing number of economists it is now becoming an article of faith. As energy is freed up by replacing inefficient cars, appliances, devices, and the like with more efficient ones, humans simply increase their use of the newer items, ultimately outpacing the savings the new items provided. While it seems counterintuitive, it's a well documented phenomenon. Energy efficiency fuels economic growth, which in turn increases energy use.

This brief little book about energy, economics, and the environment, explains this conundrum quite well, and shows why our technical fixes won't solve our resultant impending ecological disaster. As the author makes clear, sustainability can't be bought by driving a Prius, and we can't innovate and shop our way to a carbon neutral lifestyle.

This is not a hopeful book, but it's an honest one.

[Asma · Rating 4 out of 5]

That main point of the book is that technology isn't necessarily good for the environment. We achieve advances by burning stuff: wood, coal, natural gas...etc.
Made me reconsider my whole set of thoughts, would've liked to finish it, maybe later.
--------------
2-2-2014 update:
This is one of those books that doesn't only change your whole way of thinking but also makes you keep on continuously thinking of it (like it was the only thing on my mind on today's ride), so it has been decided: I HAVE to find an other copy, and finish reading it.

[Ryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Cars are evil, and we should live in dense cities are two propositions that are repeatedly impressed upon readers. That, and the conclusion that we lack the will, not the technology, to fight climate change. I agree with this conclusion and all its pessimistic implications, but I found the book lacking in meaty substance, and a tad toward sensationalistic writing than careful analysis. The complete lack of references and even a bibliography section undermines what the author is trying to say since one cannot double check nor confirm his statements. This is a book of ideas and does the job of getting the reader to think out of the box by going against convention and clearing up the greenwash so prevalent today.

I have to say, I have doubts as to the sustainability and lower environmental impact of concentrating people in cities. Granted there are many economies of scale such that per capita impact is much reduced, but what about having to import almost every resource and consumable from far off places to support the city? The production of said resources is merely transplanted to another geographical location, with its associated infrastructural and logistic needs, so when one counts the costs, I'm not sure they are offset by lower consumption per city dweller vs suburban/rural inhabitants.

[Esther · Rating 4 out of 5]

I received this book from a Good reads giveaway. I was very intrigued and wanted to know from a different perceptive how to be more revolutionary eco-smart. David Owen was the one to give me one. The Conundrum gives a no nonsense approach to serious problems we are continuing to create. The obvious issues that we continue to "try" and fix but in all reality are doing nothing but worsening. I recommend this book to all and hope that more real change will come. Thank you David Owen for stating what needs to be said.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have to give the author credit for when this book was written, 2011. I believe some of his solutions to be truthful because they are not easy, but difficult in pursuit. Some fantastic points are made: Energy efficiencies innovated in technology actually incentivizes more energy consumption. Concentrated human populations incentivizes or unconsciously limits energy consumption. Energy consumption per person is actually lowest in New York City versus a high energy consumer in rural North Dakota. Living a rural life means we must travel by car everywhere and allows oneself to use resources without thought of conservation. Ultimately, his solution is not a nice one. We must all reduce our income, comfort, and convivence to actually reduce carbon emissions and create a sustainable resource consumption. Unfortunately, human nature has proven otherwise and once humans become accustomed to a lifestyle they will inevitably cling to it. India and China are at the beginnings of their own hydrocarbon revolution with populations much larger than the US.

He gets some things wrong and brings up some major problems at the end of the book. For example, fracking does not contaminate our aquifers and watersheds regularly. Fracking is performed thousands of feet below our fresh water tables. Gasland was proven wrong and there are some cleverly filmed scenes that were staged to make its point. In fact, the greatest innovation in recent history is the shale revolution for the continued consumption of cheap energy. The larger concern is the amount of fresh water used in these procedures. We consume fresh water like there is an endless supply. Living out west may cure the public of this false assumption. He mentions the fresh water concern in a paragraph at the end of the book without linking it to the oil and gas industry in a meaningful way.

Lastly, he correctly addresses the fallacy of renewable energy solutions but fails to hammer home the lack of BTU output for wind, solar, or hydroelectric power. Not one of these renewable energy resources can sustain our current energy consumption let alone the rising demand overseas. China is currently consuming over half of the coal mined globally while Africa still uses wood and manure as a primary energy source. To think we can curb the demand for future energy use in continents with quickly rising populations is hypocritical and elitist. The author says it best, "Environmentalism is in our hearts, but not in our actions."

In conclusion, I wish the author could have hammered home the need for a nuclear solution to compensate the electricity demand. I don't see hydrocarbon combustion going away anytime soon especially when "No battery comes anywhere close to holding energy as efficiently as the gas tank of an ordinary car." Not to mention, we will still need all the other cheap products made from petroleum (plastics, makeup, rubber, etc...) Again, I have to give the author some credit since this book was written well before 2022, but allowing national security to fall victim to hostile nations in the name of green energy is foolish. There are not enough rare earth minerals in the US to sustain everyone having battery powered vehicles and less so the rest of the world. The strip mining alone will do more to damage the earth than fracking ever has. I hope we leverage the technologies we have today to couple a nuclear and minimized oil & gas production solution to serve our energy needs for the next century. Otherwise we will have to take a tip from the author. Human beings will need to become less fragile and learn to live uncomfortable once more.

[Brandon Pytel · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really quick read (read it in a day) that zags on what we think of when we think of green actions, particularly in this case, when we think of energy efficiency and science innovation.

Owen argues that when we make things cheaper or more convenient, a logical branch of our consumerist mindset. our technological innovations actually encourage us to do more of it. In reality, when it comes to slashing emissions, we need a behavioral shift, not a technological one. But such a shift is easier said than done.

“We already know what we need to do, and we have for a long time. We just don’t like the answers. That’s the conundrum.”

Part of this is consumerism, but the other part of it is our growth economic mindset, something that has made us healthier, richer, more numerous, and more comfortable, sure, but at the cost of exacerbating climate change.

“The growing cleverness of the human race at turning combustion into affluence doesn't make us less dependent on fossil fuels. On the contrary.”

Owen goes through countless examples of this mental folly at play: the ballooning size (but mpg gains) of SUVs, home ownership and suburban expansion, gas subsidies, locavorism, traffic congestion reduction, natural gas investments.

While offering some solutions: Portland’s urban growth boundary, Manhattan’s green metropolis, wind technology innovations, for example.

Though Owen also misses the mark at times. He argues that long-distance, high-speed rail, by encouraging people to take more trips, is harming the environment. These so-called mobility enhancers give people a reason to commute longer and, therefore, encourage sprawl. But that ignores that such a trip may already be happening, in the form of a car or a plane, without the added incentive of a reliable, convenient electric rail option.

Owen spends a lot of time dissecting Jevons paradox, or the idea that improvements in energy efficiency can exacerbate the problems they are meant to solve; e.g., if A/C units are more efficient, they will be cheaper to operate,thus giving A/C users more of an incentive to use them and therefore use more energy they otherwise would have never used.

All this creates American exceptionalism, grounded in consumerist ideals and a go-go-go mentality at the heart of capitalism: “We keep working and earning and spending and consuming — and we have the energy consumption, carbon output, and three-car garages to prove it.”

This American mindset is slowly spreading to other parts of the world,countries that have historically been left behind in globalism but are now in a position to inject their economies with fossil fuels.

In this book, Owen argues that our good intentions are actually hurting in us: We are creating efficiencies that ultimately make things worse, by incentivizing the same behavior we’re trying to avoid — increasing MPGs for example encourages more gasoline consumption — whereas in reality we must change our behavior to consume less. To that, I say to Owen, good luck.

[John Devlin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Owen does a lot to puncture the smug bubble that so many affluent environmentalists float in.

No, locavores you are actually hurting the environment.

No, Prius fans your cars aren't helping the environment heal.

No, Solar and wind are never going to replace oil bc of the simple physics of energy density and portability.

His more insightful comments are saved for the area of efficiency. Essentially, the better gas mileage and extra amenities you have in a car, the more tempted you will be to drive further. This leads to urban Sprawl, which is the real villain as far as using energy. NYC, Hong Kong, and SF are the greenest of cities bc they are so compacted.

This energy efficiency rebound can be a strong energy drain as regards cars or none at all in regards say home appliances i.e. if your washer is more efficient you're not going to wash more clothes.

Owen delivers his news with an endearing readability and many nods to his own hypocrisy. He notes that eating less meat is better for the environment and that he's made strides in this area mostly bc he redefined bacon as a vegetable.

[Alice · Rating 4 out of 5]

For anyone who is interested in the environment and/or how we should be dealing with energy, etc., this is a slim quick read book that may or may not challenge your thinking. It can be repetitive in the sense that the bottom line is this: we should not be thinking about improving efficiencies, we should be thinking about how to reduce......reduce how many miles you drive, how much electricity or gas you use in your home, what electronic devices you use. I gave this book 4 stars instead of 5 because of the repetitive bottom line. But for those who have not done much reading over the years or who have not had much involvement in environmental type groups, you might find this as a revelation. Owen makes the argument that we have it all wrong. The American federal gov't should not be imposing on the automobile industry an increase in mileage for cars for example. Because what we know now when this happens is that people just drive more essentially negating the positive environmental impact. We should also not be increasing the number of lanes to reduce car gridlock on the roads. Instead we need to make it uncomfortable enough for people to the point where we live in high density areas so that people walk, bicycle or take public transportation. He uses similar arguments for wind power, solar power, etc. Several years ago, I read a compelling research article stating that we have been mislead into believing that going paperless is better for the environment. That we forget that to use all our electronic devices requires the mining of minerals from the earth to create them and that to use your computer, or Kindle or iPod or iPad and so on requires batteries or wireless routers. Which means that energy has to come from somewhere for these devices to work. And now we have Clouds which are essentially server farms which use a lot of energy. USA Today recently had an article stating where the server farms were for Google, Apple, Yahoo, Amazon and how much energy is required. I love Apple but the energy they use to power their server farms is one of the worst out of all the groups. The aforementioned research article also mentioned that we had come along way in making the manufacturing and use of paper for printing-most of which was recycled paper and lighter in weight.

[Liana · Rating 1 out of 5]

I spent my time reading this book fluctuating between thinking the author had a good point (10%) and that he was a complete idiot (90%). It describes why most of society's efforts to be more energy efficient are actually total wastes of time, but offers no solutions. He bases some of his findings on the idea that people that consider themselves "green", will still jump on the energy-use bandwagon, purchasing all the latest gadgets, thereby offsetting their "greenness". And he claims that when people see a cost savings (by installing CFL's for example), they respond by adding more lights around their house because they now have "extra" money to spend. He clearly doesn't understand a truly green mentality. In my world, being "green" goes hand-in-hand with eliminating many of the energy-suckers from life in general, consuming less stuff entirely, and saved money stays saved - not spent in a different way.
He goes on to condemn individual cities that have identified non-fossil fuel solutions, because their solution cannot be expanded to a global scale. (But if each city developed their *own* different solution, wouldn't we be better off?)

If you like rolling your eyes and snorting in exasperation, I recommend this book.

[Dick Edwards · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an interesting book that stands conventional wisdom on its head. Basically Owen is saying that increases in energy efficiency INCREASE energy consumption and environmental impact. Human behavior is the important thing. We must use less energy. The problem with the book is that the author’s proposed remedies seem not to be possible. He wants to make energy much more expensive, but only for the rich. It is not clear how this would be done, except that he hints that he would return to the income tax rates of the 1950s (when we were paying off our WW2 debt). This is reminiscent of the soak-the-rich solution that left-wingers want to apply to all problems with a wave of the hand, meaning that it solves all problems. I don't think so. Nevertheless, I rate this book an 8 out of 10 because of the many interesting facts and figures he includes. Just as an example: The average American consumes 22 pounds of coal, 180 cubic feet of natural gas, and 3 gallons of oil per day. That much energy in Roman times would only have been available only to someone owning 6000 strong slaves.

[Gary · Rating 3 out of 5]

I felt like a quick skim of this book was enough - but did find a few things that I really value. Did you know that U.S. EPA says that if the powder from inside a broken compact fluorescent gets on your clothing, you should not wash it but instead seal it in a plastic bag & throw it away?

Dense cities provide the best environmental/sustainable future for the human race but all are not equal. NYC & HONG KONG are paragons but Dubai, which from a distance appears similar, is a disaster.

Natural gas is more destructive to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide when not burned - thru leaks.

Neighbors who rely on solar panels rather than pay their local power co. might as well put a sign in their yard saying 'My neighbors pay my electric bills."

My fav. reportage was of the 200 acre dairy farm where the author lives in NW CT that says: "Every cow in this barn is a lady; please treat her as such."

DO WE HONESTLY CARE enough to be willing to commit to taking steps that involve really changing our lifestyle? That is the conundrum.

[Lori Tatar · Rating 5 out of 5]

David Owen brings s a revolutionary way of thinking in "The Conundrum". I half expected a bunch of hullabaloo over nothing, but Mr. Owen makes a rational, well-supported argument to encourage us to re-think everything we believe we already know about our lifestyle and its impact to the environment. The book follows very logically what we have mistakenly allowed to guide our decisions, and provides information and real results of our actions. We almost need to unthink all the things we try to be environmentally correct and more green. It was a refreshing view and certainly has given me pause.

[Kathy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an amazingly important book. I hope Nancy will read it, I hope Lee will read it, David probably has either read it or knows everything in it already, and I hope President Obama and every member of Congress will read it. There were so many important facts in this book and it concluded with no positive suggestions, only the reality of the conundrums we face. My head is spinning!

[Noran Miss Pumkin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Give away book received from Goodreads first read give-away.

[Liz Throop · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are far longer books about climate change, but they will mean little until we come to grips with the core issues Owen spells out.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

An important subject, with a refreshingly realistic tone, and a readable style.

He lost me though with chapters 29-33 which were off topic, and subtly undermined his thesis.

[Kyle · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve worked in conservation for more than five years now, so I’ve spent a lot of time around environmental circles. I’ve observed a lot of quirks, nuances, and double standards in the industry, and I’m happy to say The Conundrum has brought a much-needed dose of clarity to my thinking. I’m sure it can do the same for yours, too.

The conundrum Owen writes about is simple: we know how to fight climate change—we need to emit less carbon—but we lack the willpower to make meaningful sacrifices toward achieving that goal. We can’t just “go green” and buy our way into harmony with nature, because mass consumption itself exacerbates our carbon woes. For example, buying a Prius might reduce your gasoline consumption, but it doesn’t change the fundamentals of owning a car because the entire infrastructure still exists: the sprawling highways, the massive parking lots, the requisite thirty-mile commute, the car culture embraced by you and your friends. You haven’t reduced your carbon footprint so much as you've bought a flashy new toy, one that bolsters your ego and elevates your status among the eco-conscious. In this scenario, innovation doesn't mitigate consumption—it actually perpetuates it.

So far Owen and I are on the same page: yes, there’s a meaningful difference between driving a Prius and forgoing cars altogether. So what then is the solution to climate change? Owen meanders a bit before concluding that, because his fellow citizens lack the discipline and rationality to deny themselves things like cars, meat, and air travel, we need the government to essentially change our values for us. In Owen's words, we need to effect a "vast, unprecedented transformation of human behavior, a revolution in our relationship with energy and consumption" by using economics as an "instrument of sacrifice."

If you’re of a certain political persuasion, I suppose that’s music to your ears, God help you. But once you peel away the jargon, I read something fairly sinister: “we need urgently to elect a government whose mission is to purposefully and rapidly impoverish us, and we need them to make us like it.” Isn't this the exact opposite of what a government is supposed to do for its people? Why should a prosperous nation support such a narrow, enervating philosophy like that? Owen's "Green New Deal" (he never uses the phrase, but that's basically what it is) ignores human nature, won’t see lasting support in a democracy, and more pressingly, it won’t actually solve our climate dilemma.

As I see it, Owen's beef lies with the free market. From his perspective, the fundamental "problem" is that the market is simply too damn good at getting us what we want—not what we say we want, and not what we think we want, and certainly not what some ambitious politician and her cronies think we should want—but what we actually, genuinely want. And what we actually, genuinely want is often mass consumption—cheap products, quick services, and easy entertainment. We are hardwired to prefer convenience over hassle, to value the present over the distant future, and to do what’s easy rather than what’s right. Folks might not be proud of this—I’m certainly not—but it’s typical human behavior, and no amount of wishful thinking and bureaucratic oversight will change that reality.

Owen's approach—top-down, centralized planning—is profoundly flawed because it presents climate change as a social problem rather than a values problem. If it’s incumbent on all of us to change, then no one in particular needs to step up, least of all the author. Who will be the first among us to willingly give up air travel? Not Owen—his message is too important to limit to New England, and besides, he’s a busy man. Who wants to live in a jam-packed city far from the outdoors? Not Owen—his budding family needs privacy and access to nature, to foster their mental health, of course. Who wants to never set foot in a car again? Not Owen—he requires one to do all his flippant errands in the verdant countryside. Who wants to limit their diet to vegetables grown within a fifty mile radius of where they live? Actually, Owen does want to do this, provided he can call bacon a vegetable. Go you, Owen. Take one for the team!

This blatant hypocrisy is increasingly common among the eco-conscious. It’s trendy to blame the rich (and only the rich) for the world’s problems. It’s fashionable to fret about the state of the planet, then turn around and spend gobs of money on yourself and your loved ones—a week-long vacation in Japan, a $300 phone to replace the one you purchased last year, flights to the mainland for Thanksgiving, and so on. None of those things are strictly necessary, but because they bring bring joy to people’s lives we do them anyway, carbon qualms or not. So, if you strive to make the world a better place, ask yourself this: when those who advocate massive social change can’t even summon the courage to change themselves, what does that tell you about the quality of their ideas? What does it say when men like Al Gore and Thomas Friedman and David Owen hopscotch around the world to lecture the rest of us about the sin of carbon emissions? Why do these people rise to such commanding heights when they don’t even practice what they preach? Which do you think they’re more invested in: living by example, or elevating themselves above the rest of us?

If you believe that recent headlines are a good approximation of reality, that we’re on our way to an unmitigated climate disaster regardless of whether we act or not, isn’t that just an argument to go full speed ahead with rapid economic growth? If our choice is between being poor and fucked or being rich and fucked, why shouldn’t we choose the latter? If rapid warming in some parts of the world is unavoidable, shouldn’t we do everything within our power to ensure that folks there have access to air conditioning, durable housing, and reliable food, water, and energy? Isn’t that what the free market, through fossil fuels, did and continues to do for us? If sea level rise is going to inundate a hundred million homes no matter what source of energy we use, shouldn’t we build up our infrastructure and adapt to this reality, rather than waste all our resources on a renewable boondoggle?

In my judgment, climate change is here to stay, whether you like it or not. Either the United States has already pumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere to start some sort of positive feedback loop, or other nations will push us over the brink, regardless what our country does. Fortunately, human beings are incredibly adaptable to change. The irony is that it's easier for us to change the biosphere than it is to change ourselves—and that’s precisely why Owen's so-called solution is likely to be an unparalleled disaster: it pits human nature against the coercive power of the state. It’s a battle that human nature—however flawed—will win every time.

[Brad Lockey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written in 2012, still relevant today.
In fact, we have not changed much.
I do look at things differently now.
As much as many of us want to be green, the fact of the matter is that green does not necessarily have to mean obtaining the most energy efficient things out there.
It's more a mindset and behavioural change.
The author begins the book talking about flying from New York to Australia, staying in a hotel, taking cabs to a speaking gig about "global warming" that lasts ... 20 minutes.
Irony?
There are currently services in China to rescue you from gridlock and traffic congestion by having a scooter with 2 individuals on it to meet you in your traffic jam, take you to where you need to get and one of the individuals will bring your car to that venue and fight traffic on your behalf.
Carpooling has been declining since the 1980s because we all think our hybrid or electric vehicles are "better" for the environment, driving across the city to save $0.02 / litre of gas etc...
Lots of points, eye-opening read, but sadly, I will not change enough because change is tough.
If, and only if, tariffs are placed on energy consumption will I change my ways, hit me where it hurts - in my wallet.
Otherwise, energy is abundant and things I enjoy consume energy.
Don't hate me.

[Pj · Rating 5 out of 5]

No matter what 'side' you are on regarding this topic. Three words: WE ARE DOOMED.

Quick reading book that doesn't bog you down with details or tries to change your mind one way or another. The topic just is what it is regardless of what got us here or how to get out of it...
Many points I had already been thinking about (the fallacies of doing green and myth of efficiency- the energy consumption/waste increased as a result (my words) ...but to do nothing isn't helpful either. So, WHAT do we do? Last chapter had some ideas, but to get humans to get out of the way of themselves basically is the conundrum. Hint: it's beyond the electric cars, being vegan and not using straws. Just a note- this book is SO 2011-ish. Look at us now...11 years later! We should be so proud- NOT.

I'll be honest, sadly, the book surely didn't prompt me to 'do' anything. As what is required, isn't what most Americans will ever consider. (drop consumption and live in masses in closet sized apartments)

[Eron · Rating 2 out of 5]

While Owen brings up good points, they would likely have occurred to a wide-eyed environmentalist. I read the book for some nuance, or a way out of the conundrum. Instead, this book reads like the rantings of a jaded environmentalist after a few drinks, unscientifically and haphazardly hitting on points as he thinks of them. I put the book down about 3/4 of the way through when I realized there wasn't a section for citations. Not that I don't believe the guy...I'm right there with him. But a lack of references speaks to a larger lack of organization and thoroughness. I shook my head not because Owen was wrong, but because he just wanted to whine.

[Tina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Author Owen maintains that we have the technology and knowledge we need to live sustainably, but will we do it? Will our quest for efficiency conflict with living more greenly? He also points out several relationships that impact our environment that we usually wouldn’t even consider, much like Malcolm Gladwell does when he connects the dots between seemingly unrelated things. An excellent example is the car in the chapter “Why Oil is Worse than Coal”. It isn’t the actual fuel consumption that is the major energy drain, but all it represents and has caused us to change in regards to our way of living, our needs and relationship to the environment.
An incredibly thought-provoking book.

[Ian · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is one environmentalists defeatism regarding all attempts to solve the climate equation tried thus far. He concludes that in order for our carbon output to change we all must get behind it, and yet to what end?
If the only solution to this problem is changing human psychology away from what it means to be human; i.e. innovative thinking and innovative mastery of the world around us, then I think he is right, this plan will fail.
Three stars because it only poses the problems and not the alternative or solution.

[Rusty · Rating 4 out of 5]

A doozy and a half for anyone who fancies themselves an optimistic climate activist. Thought-provoking, challenging and at times difficult to swallow. Owen’s portrait of the sorry state of our economic and political system leaves one feeling part dejected and part hopeful. Engaging all the way through, and the short chapters made it a breeze to read, as expected. It is also chock full of useful data and well-informed arguments that I will likely continue to refer back to.

[Nishant · Rating 4 out of 5]

David Owen argues that only behavioral change rather than technological solutions can alleviate the climate change and dangers associated with that. Case studies ranging from energy innovations to technological advances in transportation illustrate this unorthodox argument.

[Charlie Devlin · Rating 4 out of 5]

David Owen excellently reveals the utter hypocrisy of much of the green movement in its misguided quest to save the world. The book concisely analyzes and reveals the problems that come from misguided individuals trying to help the planet. The Conundrum was very eye opening revealing nearly unequivocally how much of the programs and laws made to protect the planet end up creating far more carbon emissions and encouraging even worse behavior.

[Sylvia M Anderson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author made some good points, but over all, left the reader with the impression that any real solution was unlikely to happen because anything less is pointless. Also, the book could have used some hardcore editing. Many of his points were hard to find in the volume of unnecessary details.

[Llewyn Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Spoiler: we ain’t fixed it
Tax the rich
Consume less and more responsibly
Stop eating meat
Ends with: “Do we care? That’s the conundrum.” Or something like that.
Funny cuz he used the title of the book in the book. But no, we don’t care.

Also I’d give it 3.5 out of 5 but I can’t.