In the 1990s, an American journalist visited many environmentally blighted places: a refugee camp in South Sudan, Russian villages downstream of Kombinat Mayak, Bangkok, Chinese and Brazilian countryside, and many more. The air and water are terribly polluted, and people are sick. For several years, not a single boy from several villages around a heavily poluted river in North China has been able to pass the army physical examination; in a village in Amazonia, children routinely die of dehydration and dysentery, especially children from very large families and children of unwed mothers; Soviet doctors routinely lied to the residents of villages around Kombinat Mayak about the cause of their various radiation-related illnesses. Hertsgaard implies that if radical measures are not taken, the entire world will live like this. Among environment-disrupting technologies, he is particularly fond of automobiles and nuclear energy. Hertsgaard calls for a "Global Green Deal" that would "renovate human civilization from top to bottom in environmentally sustainable ways".
The narrative is interesting, and it is good for one's mental health to be occasionally reminded, how the less fortunate live. Yet while reading this book (and Laurie Garrett's Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health, which is also a slumming book, and quite a few more), I kept getting the feeling that there is more to the story than we are being told. There has been a war between Sudan's Arab North and black African South for most of Sudan's independence, causing enormous suffering - who made these two areas one country, and why? If many environmental problems of the Third World have political causes, then how can we blame the UN and rich countries for not doing enough to address them? Imagine Martian peacekeepers and aid workers descending on Europe in 1943.
Hertsgaard writes, "The claim that high-efficiency cars are impractical was publicly mocked when Greenpeace activists "kidnapped" a Renault Vesta-2 prototype in 1993 and brought it to the International Car Show for spectators to test drive. The Vesta-2 had a maximum speed of 140 miles an hour but got 107 miles per gallon in highway driving. Toyota, GM, Ford and Volkswagen had produced similar prototypes but, like Renault, had not put them on the market, claiming they were uneconomical". A Google search shows that the Renault Vesta-2 weighed 475kg. A Honda Insight with a 5-speed manual transmission and air conditioning weighs 848kg. Will anyone venture to guess, why Vesta-2 was not put into production? He also repeats the GM-destroyed-public-transportation-in-Los-Angeles canard that has been refuted so many times (when will it ever die? Probably the day the story about Prince Grigory Potemkin constructing fake villages and the story about Polish cavalry attacking German tanks kick the bucket). When I read things like this in a book, I ask myself the question: in what other areas, which I do not know as well, is this book as true to the facts as here?