What do you think?
Rate this book
Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed -- and What It Means for Our Future
From the 1992 Rio Earth Summit to the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference there was a concerted international effort to stop climate change. Yet greenhouse gas emissions increased, atmospheric concentrations grew, and global warming became an observable fact of life.
In this book, philosopher Dale Jamieson explains what climate change is, why we have failed to stop it, and why it still matters what we do. Centered in philosophy, the volume also treats the scientific, historical, economic, and political dimensions of climate change. Our failure to prevent or even to respond significantly to climate change, Jamieson argues, reflects the impoverishment of our systems of practical reason, the paralysis of our politics, and the limits of our cognitive and affective capacities. The climate change that is underway is remaking the world in such a way that familiar comforts, places, and ways of life will disappear in years or decades rather than centuries.
Climate change also threatens our sense of meaning, since it is difficult to believe that our individual actions matter. The challenges that climate change presents go beyond the resources of common sense morality -- it can be hard to view such everyday acts as driving and flying as presenting moral problems. Yet there is much that we can do to slow climate change, to adapt to it and restore a sense of agency while living meaningful lives in a changing world.
In this book, philosopher Dale Jamieson explains what climate change is, why we have failed to stop it, and why it still matters what we do. Centered in philosophy, the volume also treats the scientific, historical, economic, and political dimensions of climate change. Our failure to prevent or even to respond significantly to climate change, Jamieson argues, reflects the impoverishment of our systems of practical reason, the paralysis of our politics, and the limits of our cognitive and affective capacities. The climate change that is underway is remaking the world in such a way that familiar comforts, places, and ways of life will disappear in years or decades rather than centuries.
Climate change also threatens our sense of meaning, since it is difficult to believe that our individual actions matter. The challenges that climate change presents go beyond the resources of common sense morality -- it can be hard to view such everyday acts as driving and flying as presenting moral problems. Yet there is much that we can do to slow climate change, to adapt to it and restore a sense of agency while living meaningful lives in a changing world.
266 pages, Hardcover
First published February 3, 2014
48 people are currently reading
891 people want to read
About the author
Dale Jamieson
30 books20 followersDale Jamieson has held visiting appointments at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. He is currently Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy, Affiliated Professor of Law, Affiliated Professor of Medical Ethics, and Director of the Animal Studies Initiative at New York University. He has published widely in environmental philosophy, animal studies, and ethics: most recently Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle to Stop Climate Change Failed—and What It Means For Our Future (Oxford, 2014). Love in the Anthropocene is his first work of fiction.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
January 1, 2022
Depressive Realism
This book is the closest I've found to my depressive realist position on climate change: Damage that makes a difference is already here to stay and the remaining problems are mostly wicked—immune to our best intentions because they manifest from very strong evolutionary pressures and near-impossible coordination problems.
There are no ideal scenarios. Everything is tradeoffs. Policies have to consider social networks as much as environmental networks, but unfortunately study of the former is subject to much more bias and disinterest. Economics is key to understanding social networks and assessing how we got into this mess—and how we might adapt and mitigate its endless repercussions. Just because economics has had bad bedfellows doesn't mean it can't be useful in accurately assessing the situation and providing vital information on social network dynamics and cost-benefit calculation. Acknowledging tradeoffs, costs, externalities, and coordination problems is frustrating and dismal but necessary.
On that note, here are Jamieson's practical takeaways:
• Integrate climate adaptation with development
• Protect, encourage, and increase terrestrial carbon sinks
• Encourage full-cost energy accounting
• Raise the price of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to a level that roughly reflects their costs
• Force technology adaptation and diffusion
• Substantial increases in basic research spending
• Plan for a new world in which humanity is a dominant force on the fundamental systems that govern life on earth.
"Finally, I want to suggest one focus of immediate action. The use of coal should be discouraged, limited, and phased out as soon as possible."
Depressingly limited and vague conclusions? Yes. Reasonable for the darkness of our Anthropocene times? Yes.
This book is the closest I've found to my depressive realist position on climate change: Damage that makes a difference is already here to stay and the remaining problems are mostly wicked—immune to our best intentions because they manifest from very strong evolutionary pressures and near-impossible coordination problems.
There are no ideal scenarios. Everything is tradeoffs. Policies have to consider social networks as much as environmental networks, but unfortunately study of the former is subject to much more bias and disinterest. Economics is key to understanding social networks and assessing how we got into this mess—and how we might adapt and mitigate its endless repercussions. Just because economics has had bad bedfellows doesn't mean it can't be useful in accurately assessing the situation and providing vital information on social network dynamics and cost-benefit calculation. Acknowledging tradeoffs, costs, externalities, and coordination problems is frustrating and dismal but necessary.
On that note, here are Jamieson's practical takeaways:
• Integrate climate adaptation with development
• Protect, encourage, and increase terrestrial carbon sinks
• Encourage full-cost energy accounting
• Raise the price of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to a level that roughly reflects their costs
• Force technology adaptation and diffusion
• Substantial increases in basic research spending
• Plan for a new world in which humanity is a dominant force on the fundamental systems that govern life on earth.
"Finally, I want to suggest one focus of immediate action. The use of coal should be discouraged, limited, and phased out as soon as possible."
Depressingly limited and vague conclusions? Yes. Reasonable for the darkness of our Anthropocene times? Yes.
February 5, 2016
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes."
- American Geophysical Union
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
"The scientific debate is closing ... but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.... Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."
- Republican Strategist and Awful Person, Frank Lunz
The scientific consensus derived from the preponderance of evidence regarding global warming is clear … the earth is warming and human activity is the cause. Given this fact, why has the response to this critical issue been so ineffective?
Dale Jamieson, Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy at New York University, attempts to answer this question in Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed -- And What It Means for Our Future. What he finds is really no surprise:
- Americans are, by-and-large, scientifically illiterate.
- The problem is big, complicated and effects key aspects of our culture and economy.
- The petroleum industry and its allies have been successful at sowing misinformation and confusion about climate science.
- Humans are poorly evolved to respond to threats with long time horizons.
- Dysfunction now rules the US political process.
- Countries can’t agree on emission reduction targets or on how these reductions should be allocated between developed and developing economies.
I would add to the above that a good percentage of US citizens seem preternaturally susceptible to ill-informed demagoguery and are apparently incapable of thinking critically (see in particular right-wing authoritarians).
At any rate, meaningful action has yet to be taken regarding global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and atmospheric CO2 (the gas most responsible for warming) levels continue to rise. The US has been particularly negligent in this respect having until recently been the largest source of GHGs and by virtue of having the largest economy being best positioned to lead the issue.
The effects of our collective behaviors are already being felt. Ocean levels are rising due to thermal expansion, sea ice is in decline, natural plant and animal cycles and behaviors are being altered, and global temperatures have been increasing steadily with 2015 being the hottest year on record to date. Because CO2 remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years these effects will remain with us for many generations.
So what’s to be done (besides selling that ocean-front property and escaping to higher ground)? Jamieson proposes a four part strategy involving:
- Adaptation: A wide range of policies that are directed toward reducing the negative consequences of climate change (for example: building sea walls in areas that may be effected by rising seas, or switching to more drought tolerant agricultural crops).
- Abatement: Take measures to reduce GHG emissions (for example: through increased use of alternative energy and decreased use of fossil fuels).
- Mitigation: Take measures to reduce GHG emissions already in the atmosphere (for example: by planting more trees).
- Solar Radiation Management: Jamieson’s euphemism for geoengineering (for example: by painting rooftops white, or through the use of aerosol sprays in the upper atmosphere to scatter sunlight), though he considers this to be the worst of the bad options open to us and reserves them only for use as a last resort.
These are all things we’ve heard before and Jamieson really has nothing new to add to the conversation. Add to this the fact that his writing style is dry as paste and he goes off on strangely unnecessary tangents that add nothing to the conversation (i.e. his extended, and wonkily academic discussion of the ethical considerations of climate change and his assessment of economic analyses of the issue) and you have what amounts to time that would better be spent elsewhere.
I will also add, that once again we have a supposed environmentalist who fails to consider the root cause of the issue … human population. Human activity both causes and exacerbates every aspect of the problem through increased consumption of fossil fuels, to deforestation, to the raising of livestock (particularly gassy bovines). Through the use of humane measures to reduce population, GHG emissions would decline and there would be less pressure on sensitive ecosystems and species whose extinction is all but assured on a planet whose climate has been irrevocably altered by human behaviors.
As an aside, I always feel cheated when I finish a mediocre book and hold a mild animosity towards the offending author, but it’s really my own fault for stubbornly plodding through knowing full well that the going wasn’t going to get any better.
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes."
- American Geophysical Union
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
"The scientific debate is closing ... but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.... Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field."
- Republican Strategist and Awful Person, Frank Lunz
The scientific consensus derived from the preponderance of evidence regarding global warming is clear … the earth is warming and human activity is the cause. Given this fact, why has the response to this critical issue been so ineffective?
Dale Jamieson, Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy at New York University, attempts to answer this question in Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed -- And What It Means for Our Future. What he finds is really no surprise:
- Americans are, by-and-large, scientifically illiterate.
- The problem is big, complicated and effects key aspects of our culture and economy.
- The petroleum industry and its allies have been successful at sowing misinformation and confusion about climate science.
- Humans are poorly evolved to respond to threats with long time horizons.
- Dysfunction now rules the US political process.
- Countries can’t agree on emission reduction targets or on how these reductions should be allocated between developed and developing economies.
I would add to the above that a good percentage of US citizens seem preternaturally susceptible to ill-informed demagoguery and are apparently incapable of thinking critically (see in particular right-wing authoritarians).
At any rate, meaningful action has yet to be taken regarding global greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) and atmospheric CO2 (the gas most responsible for warming) levels continue to rise. The US has been particularly negligent in this respect having until recently been the largest source of GHGs and by virtue of having the largest economy being best positioned to lead the issue.
The effects of our collective behaviors are already being felt. Ocean levels are rising due to thermal expansion, sea ice is in decline, natural plant and animal cycles and behaviors are being altered, and global temperatures have been increasing steadily with 2015 being the hottest year on record to date. Because CO2 remains in the atmosphere for more than 100 years these effects will remain with us for many generations.
So what’s to be done (besides selling that ocean-front property and escaping to higher ground)? Jamieson proposes a four part strategy involving:
- Adaptation: A wide range of policies that are directed toward reducing the negative consequences of climate change (for example: building sea walls in areas that may be effected by rising seas, or switching to more drought tolerant agricultural crops).
- Abatement: Take measures to reduce GHG emissions (for example: through increased use of alternative energy and decreased use of fossil fuels).
- Mitigation: Take measures to reduce GHG emissions already in the atmosphere (for example: by planting more trees).
- Solar Radiation Management: Jamieson’s euphemism for geoengineering (for example: by painting rooftops white, or through the use of aerosol sprays in the upper atmosphere to scatter sunlight), though he considers this to be the worst of the bad options open to us and reserves them only for use as a last resort.
These are all things we’ve heard before and Jamieson really has nothing new to add to the conversation. Add to this the fact that his writing style is dry as paste and he goes off on strangely unnecessary tangents that add nothing to the conversation (i.e. his extended, and wonkily academic discussion of the ethical considerations of climate change and his assessment of economic analyses of the issue) and you have what amounts to time that would better be spent elsewhere.
I will also add, that once again we have a supposed environmentalist who fails to consider the root cause of the issue … human population. Human activity both causes and exacerbates every aspect of the problem through increased consumption of fossil fuels, to deforestation, to the raising of livestock (particularly gassy bovines). Through the use of humane measures to reduce population, GHG emissions would decline and there would be less pressure on sensitive ecosystems and species whose extinction is all but assured on a planet whose climate has been irrevocably altered by human behaviors.
As an aside, I always feel cheated when I finish a mediocre book and hold a mild animosity towards the offending author, but it’s really my own fault for stubbornly plodding through knowing full well that the going wasn’t going to get any better.
May 6, 2022
Interesting book but a biased one. Smart considerations on ethics in the Anthropocene, human rights and responsibilities. Very interesting moral considerations about possible climate change remedies – mitigation, adaptation and geoengineering, in that carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). Obstacles to Action section author devotes to scientific ignorance, organized denial, climategate and partisanship, all aiming at preventing the formation of consensus for political action on climate change. While himself is far from being objective.
Regarding global warming author focuses only on anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations. This is an undoubtful fact. But at the same time up to 50% of Americans (of Republicans) think that global warming happens due to natural changes. While presenting such statistics, Jamieson doesn’t utter a word about other options, if only to convince this group of his potential readers to his thesis. Eg. he mentions Milankovitch name only once in fine footnote print presenting him as an engineer, apparently to discredit this geophysicist and astronomer’s scientifically accepted, irrefutable theory, which precisely describes cyclic climatic changes, but apparently blurs the author’s main thread on GHG concentrations. The same with regard to Younger Dryas, to which period Jamieson devotes only 2 lines of text. 11,500 years ago temperatures rose 10 deg C within a decade (and 14 deg C within 50 years only). This aspect seems not to be coherent with the author’s main thread which is not struggle against climate change, but struggle against increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations rather. Rapid climate changes in various regions of the world may be also caused by thermohaline circulation changes, due to many and still poorly understood reasons, as it proves that 1300 year lasting incident of the Younger Dryas. Linear relationship between CO2 and average temperature is a fact. Pastafarians claim however that there is statistically significant inverse relationship between the number of Pirates and global temperature. Global warming and shrinking number of Pirates since the 1800s seem to prove this. It’s a pity that climatology is not an objective science any longer, and became a sort of religion now. I read this book in an effort to reasonably convince myself that humanity really should do all its best for stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at 550 ppm. Here the cost of such an effort is estimated at about 1% of global GDP. It is 1% of $87 trillion, i.e. $870 billion a year. And what if instead of that, humanity used this money to speed up thermonuclear fusion research? Current U.S. fusion research budget is around $600 million a year, i.e less than a permille of the sums postulated in Jamieson’s book. In this light scolding humanity for not spending ‘stupid’ 1% of the Gross World Product to abate emissions does not seem so smart, does it?
Reason in a Dark Time was recommended by Jonathan Franzen. For years Franzen has been combating unsupported idea that climate change poses the greatest threat to American birds. I think I know what might have seduced Franzen in this book. The old slogan at its very end: “think globally, act locally”.
Regarding global warming author focuses only on anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations. This is an undoubtful fact. But at the same time up to 50% of Americans (of Republicans) think that global warming happens due to natural changes. While presenting such statistics, Jamieson doesn’t utter a word about other options, if only to convince this group of his potential readers to his thesis. Eg. he mentions Milankovitch name only once in fine footnote print presenting him as an engineer, apparently to discredit this geophysicist and astronomer’s scientifically accepted, irrefutable theory, which precisely describes cyclic climatic changes, but apparently blurs the author’s main thread on GHG concentrations. The same with regard to Younger Dryas, to which period Jamieson devotes only 2 lines of text. 11,500 years ago temperatures rose 10 deg C within a decade (and 14 deg C within 50 years only). This aspect seems not to be coherent with the author’s main thread which is not struggle against climate change, but struggle against increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations rather. Rapid climate changes in various regions of the world may be also caused by thermohaline circulation changes, due to many and still poorly understood reasons, as it proves that 1300 year lasting incident of the Younger Dryas. Linear relationship between CO2 and average temperature is a fact. Pastafarians claim however that there is statistically significant inverse relationship between the number of Pirates and global temperature. Global warming and shrinking number of Pirates since the 1800s seem to prove this. It’s a pity that climatology is not an objective science any longer, and became a sort of religion now. I read this book in an effort to reasonably convince myself that humanity really should do all its best for stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at 550 ppm. Here the cost of such an effort is estimated at about 1% of global GDP. It is 1% of $87 trillion, i.e. $870 billion a year. And what if instead of that, humanity used this money to speed up thermonuclear fusion research? Current U.S. fusion research budget is around $600 million a year, i.e less than a permille of the sums postulated in Jamieson’s book. In this light scolding humanity for not spending ‘stupid’ 1% of the Gross World Product to abate emissions does not seem so smart, does it?
Reason in a Dark Time was recommended by Jonathan Franzen. For years Franzen has been combating unsupported idea that climate change poses the greatest threat to American birds. I think I know what might have seduced Franzen in this book. The old slogan at its very end: “think globally, act locally”.
October 13, 2016
Jamieson is a philosopher, so the first 5 chapters are the best, but particularly the part where he describes the nature of the problem and obstacles to action. Although he is not a scientist or political scientist, he still does a good job of bringing in elements of both through the work. What I like about Jamieson's work is that there is always a foundation of pragmatism in his discussion of philosophy. I don't think he gets at every single reason why we struggle to act on climate change, and I think he could connect more to literature on psychology; but I think he hits on a great number of them, and some of the most important. Though I may disagree about whether the problem he identifies as "the hardest problem" (though I think he might be quite close!), his explanation is clear, coherent, and compelling. It's also a big pill to swallow because it underscores just how great the challenges of climate change are from a human perspective, and not just because of the physical challenges it presents.
I can understand why many people would feel dissatisfied by his policy recommendations because they really are incremental, but this is because of his pragmatism. It may not feel good to read a book that, by its own admission, is trying to provide reason in a dark time. This is neither a book to provide you with an uplifting vision of the future, nor a book to make you feel as though there is no hope. His recommendations include better integration of climate adaptation and development, fostering carbon sinks, reflecting the true costs of energy and emissions, research, and planning. None of this is big and sexy, but all of it is achievable. He avoids big, coordinated actions precisely because climate change is the world's biggest intergenerational collective action problem, and has all the hallmarks that work against collaboration in such situations. We've seen already that action is happening more effectively at local and regional scales. Though it may feel pointless given the scale of the problem (and it is true that local solutions are a mismatch for the scale of climate change), but sometimes incremental changes can lead to bigger reforms. Perhaps more importantly, sometimes it is reasonable to focus on what is most probable, rather than reaching for what is possible.
What I love about reading books by philosophers is that they aren't sloppy with their terminology. When Jamieson uses a term like adaptation, he describes how he is using it. One of my biggest pet peeves with both books and academic literature is that we let authors get away with using words inconsistently. Sometimes reading philosophy can be tedious precisely because there is so much time spent on defining terms and clarifying concepts; but for me, in this book, it worked.
As Jamieson says, climate change is a thinking problem, and humans are feeling animals. This isn't a book for everyone; but it is a book for people who want to think about climate change as a policy and ethical challenge happening in society, rather than just a physical problem happening in the climate system.
I can understand why many people would feel dissatisfied by his policy recommendations because they really are incremental, but this is because of his pragmatism. It may not feel good to read a book that, by its own admission, is trying to provide reason in a dark time. This is neither a book to provide you with an uplifting vision of the future, nor a book to make you feel as though there is no hope. His recommendations include better integration of climate adaptation and development, fostering carbon sinks, reflecting the true costs of energy and emissions, research, and planning. None of this is big and sexy, but all of it is achievable. He avoids big, coordinated actions precisely because climate change is the world's biggest intergenerational collective action problem, and has all the hallmarks that work against collaboration in such situations. We've seen already that action is happening more effectively at local and regional scales. Though it may feel pointless given the scale of the problem (and it is true that local solutions are a mismatch for the scale of climate change), but sometimes incremental changes can lead to bigger reforms. Perhaps more importantly, sometimes it is reasonable to focus on what is most probable, rather than reaching for what is possible.
What I love about reading books by philosophers is that they aren't sloppy with their terminology. When Jamieson uses a term like adaptation, he describes how he is using it. One of my biggest pet peeves with both books and academic literature is that we let authors get away with using words inconsistently. Sometimes reading philosophy can be tedious precisely because there is so much time spent on defining terms and clarifying concepts; but for me, in this book, it worked.
As Jamieson says, climate change is a thinking problem, and humans are feeling animals. This isn't a book for everyone; but it is a book for people who want to think about climate change as a policy and ethical challenge happening in society, rather than just a physical problem happening in the climate system.
February 9, 2022
Highly recommended for an honest look from many perspectives (science, politics, economics, ethics) at why humanity was unfit to act on global warming when it could have made a difference.
August 14, 2022
>Imagine not criticizing capitalism when you are talking about climate change.
The change of the mode of production is the only solution to that social problematic.
The change of the mode of production is the only solution to that social problematic.
October 22, 2022
What should humans do about the climate crisis?
Reason in a Dark Time offers an ethical answer to this question. Dale Jamieson analyzes our civilization's response to global warming, analyzes why so many people have made certain choices, then offers moral recommendations for what we should do.
One caution: published in 2014, the book is dated. Its analysis focuses on the 1990s and 2000s, so it misses both positive and negative developments since then - i.e., the proposed Green New Deal, COVID and its climate implications, a series of governmental efforts (Biden, Johnson, etc), Putin's Ukraine war, the complicated variety of right-wing successes and positions, etc.
I read this because it's not my usual cup of tea. When it comes to philosophy I prefer the continental stuff, rather than this book's Anglo-American approach, so it shows me new perspectives.
Reason in a Dark Time's first two chapters assess the problem, outlining the threats posed by climate change and why humanity has failed to grapple with it seriously. This is a good intro for readers new to the topic.
The central chapters then shift to examine the problem from two specific domains, economics and ethics. The econ chapter is... ok. It dives into some equations in surprising detail, but does handle the key insight of discounting (just how little we are interested in future generations). The key dynamic here is playing the Nobel-winning economist William Nordhaus against Britain's Stern Report, digging into their differences to see how they generate very distinct results. The ethics section then demolishes a number of ethical arguments in favor of various climate actions. Common sense morality is especially useless (170).
Reason climaxes with a dour assessment and some hopeful advice. Dour: humanity is failing this test because we cannot solve the enormous collective action problem. As a result we'll stagger around for years, with different actors (nation-states, nonprofits, companies, activists) trying out different and sometimes contradictory approaches. "This will be a world of 'small ball' climate politics rather than large schemes and big dreams." (228) Yet: "Still, we must go on. How do we live in the face of this silence? What progress can we hope to achieve?" (177)
The hopeful advice is actually sound, as far as it goes. Jamieson, true to form, offers ethical recommendations. He starts with three "green virtues":
-preservation ("reflect[ing] existing values")
-rehabilitation (existing values "but [which] have additional or somewhat different content")
-creation ("new values) (186)
Based on those, there are seven policy priorities:
1: integrate climate adaptation with (economic) development
2: "protect, encourage, and increase terrestrial carbon sinks" - forests, rain forests, etc. Yet this shouldn't conflict with preservation of marginalized populations.
3: improve and use "full-cost energy accounting" - that's an accurate and objective assessment of a given object's greenhouse gas emissions footprint over its life cycle.
4: charge more for carbon and methane, or "raising the price of [greenhouse gas emissions] to a level that roughly reflects their costs."
5: advance climate technology adaptation and diffusion.
6: more support for basic research
7: plan more seriously, assuming that human civilization is already reshaping the Earth system. (228-234)
There are also three principles for seeing these seven into motion:
-everything competes with everything else for support. I think the idea here is to prevent governments or companies from artificially protecting some actions.
-every new action should try piggybacking on already existing "actions, policies, and regimes"
-don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (235-6)
With one additional recommendation, the end of coal burning as simply heinous.
The book is mostly accessible, written in a style somewhere between Anglo-centric philosophy and courtroom discussion. It's trying to convince the reader clearly and openly. For every time it dips into jargon, it turns to vivid prose. For example, describing the impact of pre-existing CO2 in the atmosphere, Jamieson offers this bit:
But where does Reason in a Dark Time leave us?
If you think climate change is occurring but that many proposed measures are overblown, it might be the perfect book. Its principles are practical and measured, easily capable of restraining, say, a Green New Deal.
If you want more action taken, this book will frustrate you with its limited ambition. Yet perhaps the concluding recommendations will be useful in getting some people to act who otherwise would not.
Reason in a Dark Time offers an ethical answer to this question. Dale Jamieson analyzes our civilization's response to global warming, analyzes why so many people have made certain choices, then offers moral recommendations for what we should do.
One caution: published in 2014, the book is dated. Its analysis focuses on the 1990s and 2000s, so it misses both positive and negative developments since then - i.e., the proposed Green New Deal, COVID and its climate implications, a series of governmental efforts (Biden, Johnson, etc), Putin's Ukraine war, the complicated variety of right-wing successes and positions, etc.
I read this because it's not my usual cup of tea. When it comes to philosophy I prefer the continental stuff, rather than this book's Anglo-American approach, so it shows me new perspectives.
Reason in a Dark Time's first two chapters assess the problem, outlining the threats posed by climate change and why humanity has failed to grapple with it seriously. This is a good intro for readers new to the topic.
The central chapters then shift to examine the problem from two specific domains, economics and ethics. The econ chapter is... ok. It dives into some equations in surprising detail, but does handle the key insight of discounting (just how little we are interested in future generations). The key dynamic here is playing the Nobel-winning economist William Nordhaus against Britain's Stern Report, digging into their differences to see how they generate very distinct results. The ethics section then demolishes a number of ethical arguments in favor of various climate actions. Common sense morality is especially useless (170).
Reason climaxes with a dour assessment and some hopeful advice. Dour: humanity is failing this test because we cannot solve the enormous collective action problem. As a result we'll stagger around for years, with different actors (nation-states, nonprofits, companies, activists) trying out different and sometimes contradictory approaches. "This will be a world of 'small ball' climate politics rather than large schemes and big dreams." (228) Yet: "Still, we must go on. How do we live in the face of this silence? What progress can we hope to achieve?" (177)
The hopeful advice is actually sound, as far as it goes. Jamieson, true to form, offers ethical recommendations. He starts with three "green virtues":
-preservation ("reflect[ing] existing values")
-rehabilitation (existing values "but [which] have additional or somewhat different content")
-creation ("new values) (186)
Based on those, there are seven policy priorities:
1: integrate climate adaptation with (economic) development
2: "protect, encourage, and increase terrestrial carbon sinks" - forests, rain forests, etc. Yet this shouldn't conflict with preservation of marginalized populations.
3: improve and use "full-cost energy accounting" - that's an accurate and objective assessment of a given object's greenhouse gas emissions footprint over its life cycle.
4: charge more for carbon and methane, or "raising the price of [greenhouse gas emissions] to a level that roughly reflects their costs."
5: advance climate technology adaptation and diffusion.
6: more support for basic research
7: plan more seriously, assuming that human civilization is already reshaping the Earth system. (228-234)
There are also three principles for seeing these seven into motion:
-everything competes with everything else for support. I think the idea here is to prevent governments or companies from artificially protecting some actions.
-every new action should try piggybacking on already existing "actions, policies, and regimes"
-don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (235-6)
With one additional recommendation, the end of coal burning as simply heinous.
The book is mostly accessible, written in a style somewhere between Anglo-centric philosophy and courtroom discussion. It's trying to convince the reader clearly and openly. For every time it dips into jargon, it turns to vivid prose. For example, describing the impact of pre-existing CO2 in the atmosphere, Jamieson offers this bit:
It is as if someone steps on your foot, politely says excuse me, and then walks away, while the pain in your foot persists for the rest of your life. (164)
But where does Reason in a Dark Time leave us?
If you think climate change is occurring but that many proposed measures are overblown, it might be the perfect book. Its principles are practical and measured, easily capable of restraining, say, a Green New Deal.
If you want more action taken, this book will frustrate you with its limited ambition. Yet perhaps the concluding recommendations will be useful in getting some people to act who otherwise would not.
August 28, 2022
This is a great place to start for a thoughtful and comprehensive assessment of obstacles to effective action to address climate change, particularly at the national and global levels. Jamieson identifies some contingent obstacles, such as, in the US, failure to cultivate scientific understanding as a society and then the power of fossil fuel interests.
But then he also identifies more fundamental obstacles. Climate change evades common sense morality for reasons having to do with the scale of the problem and our individual minuteness relative to it. This makes consensus elusive as to who exactly is culpable and what constitutes responsible behavior. It makes consensus elusive as to how to establish the costliness of actions and therefore to weight trade offs.
The moral ambiguity comes in defining and weighing costs imposed on others from one’s own actions. What is the true cost to others of driving a gasoline powered car? Who are these others? All future generations? How do we assess the standing of these future generations’ ability to bear such costs relative to one’s current standing to do so? Given the minuteness of an individual’s action in affecting the aggregate costs future generations might bear, can we really assign individual responsibility?
However one defines external parties who are harmed and responsibility for creating such harm, Jamieson observes that there is nothing in the way current democratic institutions are structured to ensure responsiveness to these external parties’ concerns. Eg, future generations or those outside the given polity don’t have a vote.
Another illustration of the consequences of moral ambiguity comes with Jamieson’s review of the debate surrounding the Stern report. The key points of contention included technical disagreements about how to model endogenous technological change and, most importantly, philosophical debates about how to discount the future. The debate over discount rates for the future was a reflection of moral ambiguity. Jamieson’s analysis of this debate contains a thought-provoking discussion of whether modeling assumptions for policy forecasting should be based on behavioral findings versus normative ideals (with specific consideration of the Ramsey equation to derive the social discount factor). This alone should is highly recommended reading for students and scholars of public policy. (Jamieson also notes that economic analysis of climate policy have tended not to accept precaution as a principle, and rather has taken a more symmetric view about “overdoing it” versus “underdoing it”—ie, an emphasis on trade offs. The focus has been on optimizing investments versus buying insurance for catastrophe. This is different from how most hard scientists think about the problem, he observes. The pandemic was actually a great example of this again!)
So if moral ambiguity is a major obstacle, then intellectual work is needed to develop moral sensibilities that motivate climate action. Moral sensibilities are not static, and have been subject to change. Jamieson argues that existing intellectual efforts have been problematic. Eg, discourses rooted in human rights or inter generational dominance approaches have been inadequate, due to their inability to overcome the problems of assigning culpability or assessing future generations’ ability to bear costs imposed by current actions. On the latter point, he uses the illustration that the “destruction” of the wilderness haven that was pre-colonial Manhattan is hardly understood as destruction of any sort—what Manhattan has become is constitutive of a current reality that we actually cherish.
With this critical work done, the book then turns to the constructive project of building a moral framework that might inspire climate action. This is not done in depth but rather sketched out. Central to any such project, Jamieson argues, is the cultivation of virtues that secure a respect for nature.
Jamieson closes with practical recommendations: factor climate into development planning, protect and expand carbon sinks (tropical forests), establish methods for comprehensive carbon accounting, factor in the costs of carbon, promote development and diffusion of green technologies, continually press for acknowledging human responsibility for the earth, and last but not least, no compromises on coal, because it’s the absolute worst.
But then he also identifies more fundamental obstacles. Climate change evades common sense morality for reasons having to do with the scale of the problem and our individual minuteness relative to it. This makes consensus elusive as to who exactly is culpable and what constitutes responsible behavior. It makes consensus elusive as to how to establish the costliness of actions and therefore to weight trade offs.
The moral ambiguity comes in defining and weighing costs imposed on others from one’s own actions. What is the true cost to others of driving a gasoline powered car? Who are these others? All future generations? How do we assess the standing of these future generations’ ability to bear such costs relative to one’s current standing to do so? Given the minuteness of an individual’s action in affecting the aggregate costs future generations might bear, can we really assign individual responsibility?
However one defines external parties who are harmed and responsibility for creating such harm, Jamieson observes that there is nothing in the way current democratic institutions are structured to ensure responsiveness to these external parties’ concerns. Eg, future generations or those outside the given polity don’t have a vote.
Another illustration of the consequences of moral ambiguity comes with Jamieson’s review of the debate surrounding the Stern report. The key points of contention included technical disagreements about how to model endogenous technological change and, most importantly, philosophical debates about how to discount the future. The debate over discount rates for the future was a reflection of moral ambiguity. Jamieson’s analysis of this debate contains a thought-provoking discussion of whether modeling assumptions for policy forecasting should be based on behavioral findings versus normative ideals (with specific consideration of the Ramsey equation to derive the social discount factor). This alone should is highly recommended reading for students and scholars of public policy. (Jamieson also notes that economic analysis of climate policy have tended not to accept precaution as a principle, and rather has taken a more symmetric view about “overdoing it” versus “underdoing it”—ie, an emphasis on trade offs. The focus has been on optimizing investments versus buying insurance for catastrophe. This is different from how most hard scientists think about the problem, he observes. The pandemic was actually a great example of this again!)
So if moral ambiguity is a major obstacle, then intellectual work is needed to develop moral sensibilities that motivate climate action. Moral sensibilities are not static, and have been subject to change. Jamieson argues that existing intellectual efforts have been problematic. Eg, discourses rooted in human rights or inter generational dominance approaches have been inadequate, due to their inability to overcome the problems of assigning culpability or assessing future generations’ ability to bear costs imposed by current actions. On the latter point, he uses the illustration that the “destruction” of the wilderness haven that was pre-colonial Manhattan is hardly understood as destruction of any sort—what Manhattan has become is constitutive of a current reality that we actually cherish.
With this critical work done, the book then turns to the constructive project of building a moral framework that might inspire climate action. This is not done in depth but rather sketched out. Central to any such project, Jamieson argues, is the cultivation of virtues that secure a respect for nature.
Jamieson closes with practical recommendations: factor climate into development planning, protect and expand carbon sinks (tropical forests), establish methods for comprehensive carbon accounting, factor in the costs of carbon, promote development and diffusion of green technologies, continually press for acknowledging human responsibility for the earth, and last but not least, no compromises on coal, because it’s the absolute worst.
April 8, 2024
You got a great brain. Me too, if I do say so myself. We all own one of these extremely handy objects that are good at so many things! Unfortunately, solving climate change just isn’t one of them. “Evolution built us to respond to rapid movements of middle-sized objects,” writes Dale Jamieson, “not to the slow buildup of insensible gasses in the atmosphere.” Indeed.
Climate change was international news 75 years ago! There was momentum. Summits! Pledges! Signatures from heads of state saying yes, yes, yes, we’ll reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. What’s happened since? The … exact opposite. The earth is heating up fast. Rising sea levels are soaking coastal cities. Climate migration is spiking. Weather patterns are in disarray. We didn’t even get snow this winter in Toronto! Why? Well, “climate change poses the world’s largest collective action problem. Each of us acting on our own desires contributes to an outcome we neither desire nor intend.” This is a necessary, detailed, devastating story of our increased awareness of human-created climate change, our failed attempts to do anything about it, and what happens next. It’s not simple!
After opening with “The Nature of the Problem” and “Obstacles to Action” (which are worth the buy alone, just for the clear history presented that these days gets washed away in the slipstream of screaming on socials) the book gets into headier topics of morality and philosophy that try and pull apart the problem in the many ways we think about it. One memorable section shows the increasing abstraction that climate change plays on our minds from, you know, Jack stealing Jill’s bicycle is wrong, all the way up to “Acting independently, Jack and a large number of unacquainted people set in motion a chain of events that causes a large number of future people who will live in another part of the world from ever having bicycles.” Which is sort of what’s happening. Over 80% of global carbon emissions come from 10 countries. Who is it? That would be … us. Or people who, you know, drive, fly, buy stuff that comes from the other side of the world. Complexities of global economics and neverending disagreements on how to measure these things prevent the plastic bouncy ball bought from the dollar store and tossed in the birthday party loot bag from coming anywhere close to being properly priced.
So what do we do? Jamieson closes with seven priorities: “integrate adaptation with development” (tie together the math on climate change with our goals on reducing poverty), “protect, encourage, and increase terrestrial carbon sinks” (stop cutting down rainforests and plant new ones), “full-cost energy accounting” (bouncy balls at dollar stores costing more than a buck), “raising the price of emitting greenhouse gasses” (black billowing smoke into the sky isn’t free), “force technology adoption” (like ditching coal-burning plants in favor of newer tech), and then making “substantial increases in research”, and, finally, to “plan for the Anthropocene.” We’re there, he’s saying, so let’s work on that. This is the kind of book most people will run away from. Or think the understandable “I’m just one person and I can’t possibly change things.” But we can take small acts: biking instead of driving, avoiding disposable junk, carbon offsetting flights. And, you know, at minimum, for the future of our species, being informed about what’s happened, what’s happening, and what we can help happen.
Jamieson spent 25 years on this book – “I began writing when I turned 40 and handed in the manuscript when I turned 65” – and the detail, of thoughts, ideas, and research shows. It’s not an easy read. I alternated chapters on audio. (David Sedaris gave us that tip for ‘hard books’.) But it’s a necessary read. Sure, I feel depressed, but in a much stronger, much more aware place, to at least understand what’s happening, why it happened, and then guide myself, and ideally my politicians, to keep the pressure on making change and, finally, ultimately, adapting. Highly recommended.
Climate change was international news 75 years ago! There was momentum. Summits! Pledges! Signatures from heads of state saying yes, yes, yes, we’ll reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. What’s happened since? The … exact opposite. The earth is heating up fast. Rising sea levels are soaking coastal cities. Climate migration is spiking. Weather patterns are in disarray. We didn’t even get snow this winter in Toronto! Why? Well, “climate change poses the world’s largest collective action problem. Each of us acting on our own desires contributes to an outcome we neither desire nor intend.” This is a necessary, detailed, devastating story of our increased awareness of human-created climate change, our failed attempts to do anything about it, and what happens next. It’s not simple!
After opening with “The Nature of the Problem” and “Obstacles to Action” (which are worth the buy alone, just for the clear history presented that these days gets washed away in the slipstream of screaming on socials) the book gets into headier topics of morality and philosophy that try and pull apart the problem in the many ways we think about it. One memorable section shows the increasing abstraction that climate change plays on our minds from, you know, Jack stealing Jill’s bicycle is wrong, all the way up to “Acting independently, Jack and a large number of unacquainted people set in motion a chain of events that causes a large number of future people who will live in another part of the world from ever having bicycles.” Which is sort of what’s happening. Over 80% of global carbon emissions come from 10 countries. Who is it? That would be … us. Or people who, you know, drive, fly, buy stuff that comes from the other side of the world. Complexities of global economics and neverending disagreements on how to measure these things prevent the plastic bouncy ball bought from the dollar store and tossed in the birthday party loot bag from coming anywhere close to being properly priced.
So what do we do? Jamieson closes with seven priorities: “integrate adaptation with development” (tie together the math on climate change with our goals on reducing poverty), “protect, encourage, and increase terrestrial carbon sinks” (stop cutting down rainforests and plant new ones), “full-cost energy accounting” (bouncy balls at dollar stores costing more than a buck), “raising the price of emitting greenhouse gasses” (black billowing smoke into the sky isn’t free), “force technology adoption” (like ditching coal-burning plants in favor of newer tech), and then making “substantial increases in research”, and, finally, to “plan for the Anthropocene.” We’re there, he’s saying, so let’s work on that. This is the kind of book most people will run away from. Or think the understandable “I’m just one person and I can’t possibly change things.” But we can take small acts: biking instead of driving, avoiding disposable junk, carbon offsetting flights. And, you know, at minimum, for the future of our species, being informed about what’s happened, what’s happening, and what we can help happen.
Jamieson spent 25 years on this book – “I began writing when I turned 40 and handed in the manuscript when I turned 65” – and the detail, of thoughts, ideas, and research shows. It’s not an easy read. I alternated chapters on audio. (David Sedaris gave us that tip for ‘hard books’.) But it’s a necessary read. Sure, I feel depressed, but in a much stronger, much more aware place, to at least understand what’s happening, why it happened, and then guide myself, and ideally my politicians, to keep the pressure on making change and, finally, ultimately, adapting. Highly recommended.
August 31, 2018
This book gives a history of the climate change movement and an analysis of why global attempts to act together to stop or slow climate change have fallen short of their objectives. Jamieson shows why standard economic and ethical arguments aren't suited to showing us why it's important to do what needs to be done to address climate change, and thus aren't motivators for us. He also accounts for political interests undercutting attempts to make changes in the United States. Jamieson has some suggestions for proceeding, but he acknowledges that at this point climate change is not going to be stopped.
In spite of the technical language in the sections on economics and ethics, I thought this was a pretty readable book. The history of climate science and investigation into climate change was especially interesting for me, since I didn't know how long ago people began to think that climate change was coming. I found the analysis depressing, but not surprising, and Jamieson's suggestions for how to proceed modest, but probably realistic. Obviously this isn't a cheery beach read, but it's a worthwhile one.
In spite of the technical language in the sections on economics and ethics, I thought this was a pretty readable book. The history of climate science and investigation into climate change was especially interesting for me, since I didn't know how long ago people began to think that climate change was coming. I found the analysis depressing, but not surprising, and Jamieson's suggestions for how to proceed modest, but probably realistic. Obviously this isn't a cheery beach read, but it's a worthwhile one.
October 18, 2020
A 3.5
A curious mix of history, macro-economics, philosophy, and ethics. It is quite intellectual, but fairly approachable. It offered some new ways to think about climate change, but I am not sure if they will influence me much in the long term.
Section 4.3 on Discounting is one of the more fascinating parts. Maybe because I had the self realization that I use Discounting regularly, but have never seen the economic theory behind it. Being able to imagine my future self with more money, has helped me save money in the present. But this section was also the most arbitrary "science" of the whole book. The numbers of the two competing theories were meaningless.....which I think is the author's point. It is impossible for us to value our carbon spending/saving for for the earth 20, 50, 100, or 500 years from now.
Not a book I would be able to recommend to many people, but one I still am glad to have read.
A curious mix of history, macro-economics, philosophy, and ethics. It is quite intellectual, but fairly approachable. It offered some new ways to think about climate change, but I am not sure if they will influence me much in the long term.
Section 4.3 on Discounting is one of the more fascinating parts. Maybe because I had the self realization that I use Discounting regularly, but have never seen the economic theory behind it. Being able to imagine my future self with more money, has helped me save money in the present. But this section was also the most arbitrary "science" of the whole book. The numbers of the two competing theories were meaningless.....which I think is the author's point. It is impossible for us to value our carbon spending/saving for for the earth 20, 50, 100, or 500 years from now.
Not a book I would be able to recommend to many people, but one I still am glad to have read.
November 20, 2023
I wanted to get a feel for how the climate change landscape has changed over the years. Jamieson delivers everything I was looking for and frankly, so much more I got a little depressed. He covers the period between the first comprehensive gathering of stakeholders back in the early nineties until the publishing of this book in 2014 I believe. While he did see some ways we as a planet could muddle our way through what looks to be an inevitable dramatic change, the overall tone is what you'd expect to see when the lack of political will and the incessant demands of virtually unfettered capitalism meet. For those who are interested in this type of historical narration of what went down and how it happened, it's just the ticket.
April 15, 2020
Very factual based book with essays from experts on how to combat the effects of climate change from geoengineering, carbon sequestration, hydro power, nuclear power, sulfate aerosol injections, carbon cap and trade systems for oil companies, etc. He gives very good insight in the beginning too to the many misconceptions people have about Climategate scandal and how climate change since then became a bipartisan issue.
September 4, 2023
Saggio filosofico interessante sui motivi che inducono al negazionismo. L'autore illustra ragioni storiche, economiche e biologiche che stanno alla base del creazionismo e non manca di indicare soluzioni possibili alla soluzione del problema. Il testo è un pochino ostico in alcuni capitoli e a volte un po' ritondante, ma sicuramente vale la pena di leggerlo, specialmente in questo contesto storico.
December 27, 2018
It comes across as a regular non fiction book on climate change when in actual fact, it's a dry ass text book for Oxford Students. I gave up within 40 pages having been bored to tears unfortunately
February 26, 2020
Llegit en diagonal. Menys novedós del que sembla.
October 8, 2020
I am really interested in climate change and I thought this would be a good read, but I got bored quickly during each reading session.
January 11, 2021
Bit dated.
June 23, 2021
3.5 stars
September 15, 2014
Good and concise look at how international policy efforts have failed to "solve" the climate change problem. Here are some of my favorite parts:
A good summary quote:
"In many ways the first part of the story is unexceptional. The development of climate science has been similar to the development of other sciences: incremental contributions from many people, punctuated by occasional new insights and perspective, often enabled by the applications of innovative technologies.
In some ways the second part of the story is unexceptional as well. Climate becomes an issue of public concern because science reveals looming threats to humanity. When it becomes increasingly apparent that these threats originate in human behavior, science collides with economic and political power...
What is important for our purposes is that this story does not have a happy ending. by the 1960s scientists had expressed concerns about the possibility of an anthropogenic climate change to presidents of both parties. At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 the industrialized countries seemed to agree that by 2000 they would stabilize their GHG emissions at 1990 levels. Yet global emissions are still increasing, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is now almost 10% greater than it was in 1992, we have already experienced a warming of .8 degrees C, and there is no end in sight. The underlying drivers continue to increase and intensify: population, consumption, and land transformation. We are already committed to changes that for all practical purposes are irreversible. Each day we act so as to make these changes deeper, and increase their velocity and the risks they impose." (Pp. 59-60.)
A bit about the scale of the problem:
"Since the end of World War II, humans have attained a kind of power that is unprecedented in history. While in the past entire peoples could be destroyed now all people are vulnerable. While once particular human societies had the power to upset the natural processes that made their lives and cultures possible, now people have the power to alter the fundamental global conditions that permitted human life to evolve and that continue to sustain it. There is little reason to suppose that our systems of governance are up to the task of managing such threats." (P. 101.)
The enigmatic nature of a threat like climate change hampers our ability to "deal" with the issue:
"Climate change must be thought rather than sensed, and we are not very good at thinking. Even if we succeed in thinking that something is a threat, we are less reactive than if we sense that it is a threat. Consider the difference between touching a hot stove and being told that the stove is hot. Scientists are telling us that the world is warming but we do not sense it and so we do not act. This is the hardest problem to overcome. Any approach to coming to terms with climate change must respect these facts about ourselves." (P. 103.)
Will the "century-long project to decarbonize the global economy" be too expensive to even contemplate? Jamieson thinks we're focusing on the task from the wrong viewpoint:
"When we imagine in advance large-scale changes over relatively long periods of time, we think that such changes must be draconian and expensive. This is an illusion...Viewed retrospectively such changes may actually be relatively cheap and invisible.
...
Change that is seen upfront as extremely rapid, costly and wrenching may not seem that way when we look back from the comfort of the new world that we have created. Imagine that someone were to say that we were going to move from typewriters, hard copy, and paper storage to computers, light displays, and digital storage in a 20-year period...What is seen from one perspective as rapid and wrenching social change is often seen as irresistible and incremental from another point of view." (P. 108-109.)
Page 168 has a good quote from a 2006 article by Daniel Gilbert(http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/...
"Although all human societies have moral rules about food and sex, none has a moral rule about atmospheric chemistry. And so we are outraged about every breach of protocol except Koyoto. Yes, global warming is bad, but it doesn't make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don't feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species such as flag burning. The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets."
A good summary quote:
"In many ways the first part of the story is unexceptional. The development of climate science has been similar to the development of other sciences: incremental contributions from many people, punctuated by occasional new insights and perspective, often enabled by the applications of innovative technologies.
In some ways the second part of the story is unexceptional as well. Climate becomes an issue of public concern because science reveals looming threats to humanity. When it becomes increasingly apparent that these threats originate in human behavior, science collides with economic and political power...
What is important for our purposes is that this story does not have a happy ending. by the 1960s scientists had expressed concerns about the possibility of an anthropogenic climate change to presidents of both parties. At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 the industrialized countries seemed to agree that by 2000 they would stabilize their GHG emissions at 1990 levels. Yet global emissions are still increasing, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is now almost 10% greater than it was in 1992, we have already experienced a warming of .8 degrees C, and there is no end in sight. The underlying drivers continue to increase and intensify: population, consumption, and land transformation. We are already committed to changes that for all practical purposes are irreversible. Each day we act so as to make these changes deeper, and increase their velocity and the risks they impose." (Pp. 59-60.)
A bit about the scale of the problem:
"Since the end of World War II, humans have attained a kind of power that is unprecedented in history. While in the past entire peoples could be destroyed now all people are vulnerable. While once particular human societies had the power to upset the natural processes that made their lives and cultures possible, now people have the power to alter the fundamental global conditions that permitted human life to evolve and that continue to sustain it. There is little reason to suppose that our systems of governance are up to the task of managing such threats." (P. 101.)
The enigmatic nature of a threat like climate change hampers our ability to "deal" with the issue:
"Climate change must be thought rather than sensed, and we are not very good at thinking. Even if we succeed in thinking that something is a threat, we are less reactive than if we sense that it is a threat. Consider the difference between touching a hot stove and being told that the stove is hot. Scientists are telling us that the world is warming but we do not sense it and so we do not act. This is the hardest problem to overcome. Any approach to coming to terms with climate change must respect these facts about ourselves." (P. 103.)
Will the "century-long project to decarbonize the global economy" be too expensive to even contemplate? Jamieson thinks we're focusing on the task from the wrong viewpoint:
"When we imagine in advance large-scale changes over relatively long periods of time, we think that such changes must be draconian and expensive. This is an illusion...Viewed retrospectively such changes may actually be relatively cheap and invisible.
...
Change that is seen upfront as extremely rapid, costly and wrenching may not seem that way when we look back from the comfort of the new world that we have created. Imagine that someone were to say that we were going to move from typewriters, hard copy, and paper storage to computers, light displays, and digital storage in a 20-year period...What is seen from one perspective as rapid and wrenching social change is often seen as irresistible and incremental from another point of view." (P. 108-109.)
Page 168 has a good quote from a 2006 article by Daniel Gilbert(http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/...
"Although all human societies have moral rules about food and sex, none has a moral rule about atmospheric chemistry. And so we are outraged about every breach of protocol except Koyoto. Yes, global warming is bad, but it doesn't make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don't feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species such as flag burning. The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets."
March 26, 2015
Notable quotes:
"We are constantly told that we stand at a unique moment in human history and that this is the last chance to make a difference. But every point in human history is unique, and it is always the last chance to make some particular difference."
"Human action is the driver, but it seems that things, no people, are in control. Our corporations, governments, technologies, institutions, and economic systems seem to have lives of their own."
"Many will be surprised to learn that in 1965 climate change was mentioned by the president of the United States in a message to Congress."
--This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. (Lyndon Johnson)
"Scientific consensus does not produce action."
"A focus of immediate action should be to discourage, limit, and phase out the use of coal as soon as possible."
"One influential scientist reported that after telling Washington policy-makers that in 50 years there would be a CO2 doubling that would have major impacts on the planet, hew was told that she should come back in 49 years."
Fallback arguments for those who favor the status quo: climate change doesn't exist, it does but it's good for us, it's too expensive to change, or nothing can be done about it.
For people who think that society can't make such a dramatic change in a short time, consider the digital revolution in which in less than twenty years, we went from no personal computers or cell phones to everyone having them. That's a dramatic behavioral change that cost trillions of dollars and affected hundreds of millions of people. Yet people willingly did it because they were excited about the future of these technologies.
The U.S. environmental movement has gone through three phases. It started out with the Republicans: Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt. In the early and mid 20th century both the Republicans and Democrats embraced it: Republican President Dwight Eisenhower created the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and Republican President Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, etc. It didn't become a primarily Democratic issue until the 1980's.
One way of solving the problem of collective action is through love, sympathy, and empathy. Politicians do not display these traits. Tom note: If we are going to care for creation, the Church must lead the way.
The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.
We may come to think of thermostats as ways of controlling carnage as much as temperature.
Perhaps the greatest threat in the world is the widespread perception that "it doesn't matter what I do."
Tom note: For millions of believers in this country, being Christian feels like defending ourselves from the onslaught of secular society. Instead of remaining in a defensive posture, what if we boldly followed Christ to care for each other and God's creation? What a powerful witness it would be to the secular world!
Ethics for the Anthropocene are a lot like The Celebration of Discipline. Jamieson calls for temperance, mindfulness, cooperativeness, simplicity, and respect. The failure to show respect for nature can be seen as a form of narcissism.
The politics of some countries seem to have been seized by resentful adolescents engaged in never-ending popularity contests. In other countries it seems like the lunatics are running the asylum.
Climate change is an injustice that the rich impose on the poor. 96% of disaster related deaths in recent years occur in developing countries.
The first priority is to integrate adaptation with development (helps those in the present AND in the future).
Second priority is to protect, encourage, and increase carbon sinks (forests!)
Third priority is full-cost accounting of producing and consuming units of electricity.
Fifth priority is technology adoption and diffusion. This can be enhanced by government regulation, often at a low cost.
Sixth priority is substantial increase in research investment.
Whether you accept the evidence of global warming or not, coal is a serious problem. It contain lots of toxic substances which are released into water and air when it is processed and burned, harming human health.
"We are constantly told that we stand at a unique moment in human history and that this is the last chance to make a difference. But every point in human history is unique, and it is always the last chance to make some particular difference."
"Human action is the driver, but it seems that things, no people, are in control. Our corporations, governments, technologies, institutions, and economic systems seem to have lives of their own."
"Many will be surprised to learn that in 1965 climate change was mentioned by the president of the United States in a message to Congress."
--This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. (Lyndon Johnson)
"Scientific consensus does not produce action."
"A focus of immediate action should be to discourage, limit, and phase out the use of coal as soon as possible."
"One influential scientist reported that after telling Washington policy-makers that in 50 years there would be a CO2 doubling that would have major impacts on the planet, hew was told that she should come back in 49 years."
Fallback arguments for those who favor the status quo: climate change doesn't exist, it does but it's good for us, it's too expensive to change, or nothing can be done about it.
For people who think that society can't make such a dramatic change in a short time, consider the digital revolution in which in less than twenty years, we went from no personal computers or cell phones to everyone having them. That's a dramatic behavioral change that cost trillions of dollars and affected hundreds of millions of people. Yet people willingly did it because they were excited about the future of these technologies.
The U.S. environmental movement has gone through three phases. It started out with the Republicans: Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt. In the early and mid 20th century both the Republicans and Democrats embraced it: Republican President Dwight Eisenhower created the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and Republican President Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, etc. It didn't become a primarily Democratic issue until the 1980's.
One way of solving the problem of collective action is through love, sympathy, and empathy. Politicians do not display these traits. Tom note: If we are going to care for creation, the Church must lead the way.
The fact is that if climate change were caused by gay sex, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.
We may come to think of thermostats as ways of controlling carnage as much as temperature.
Perhaps the greatest threat in the world is the widespread perception that "it doesn't matter what I do."
Tom note: For millions of believers in this country, being Christian feels like defending ourselves from the onslaught of secular society. Instead of remaining in a defensive posture, what if we boldly followed Christ to care for each other and God's creation? What a powerful witness it would be to the secular world!
Ethics for the Anthropocene are a lot like The Celebration of Discipline. Jamieson calls for temperance, mindfulness, cooperativeness, simplicity, and respect. The failure to show respect for nature can be seen as a form of narcissism.
The politics of some countries seem to have been seized by resentful adolescents engaged in never-ending popularity contests. In other countries it seems like the lunatics are running the asylum.
Climate change is an injustice that the rich impose on the poor. 96% of disaster related deaths in recent years occur in developing countries.
The first priority is to integrate adaptation with development (helps those in the present AND in the future).
Second priority is to protect, encourage, and increase carbon sinks (forests!)
Third priority is full-cost accounting of producing and consuming units of electricity.
Fifth priority is technology adoption and diffusion. This can be enhanced by government regulation, often at a low cost.
Sixth priority is substantial increase in research investment.
Whether you accept the evidence of global warming or not, coal is a serious problem. It contain lots of toxic substances which are released into water and air when it is processed and burned, harming human health.
November 26, 2023
Excellent
July 26, 2016
Dale Jamieson coherently covers a lot of ground in this book and has many good footnotes. He explains the history of climate change politics and economics well, but his consideration of the causes and of climate change philosophy differentiate it from others in the climate policy field.
I especially liked Jamieson's mention of the role of science in US society. He notes the gulf in perspective between scientists and public policy makers caused by the requirements for "success" in their fields (62). An amusing anecdote about the Supreme Court case for the EPA's regulation of CO2 was also apt; Jamieson explains that Justice Scalia mixed up the words 'troposphere' and 'stratosphere'. After being corrected by a scientist, he replied, "Whatever. I'm not a scientist," to laughter among the "sympathetic" audience of lawyers and journalists (62). Jamieson considers how differently the audience would have taken a similar quip if it had been about a basis of economics or politics, such as "Supply and Demand. Whatever, I'm not an economist" (63). He asserts that US society generally doesn't prioritize scientific bases, and our ignorance "can lead people to both overestimate what science can do and feel betrayed when it fails to live up to these pretensions." He says that "we tend to see science as an unimpeachable source of authority" and yet "drown in our contradictions, sometimes behaving like jilted lovers when forced to acknowledge reality" (63).
Two parts of the book stood out to me as having room for improvement. In his explanation of climate change philosophy and values, he focuses exclusively on human impacts for future generations and for people in developing countries. His being an environmental philosopher, it's interesting that he never mentions philosophical ideas related to ecological and non-human impacts in the present and future. This significantly narrows his focus, as may have been deliberate; the book focuses on human society. Jamieson also refers several times in the book to the "biggest problem" in addressing climate change: a psychological component. While he explains other factors in some depth, he addresses this factor in only two pages. I think mentioning some of the research in environmental, climate change and related evolutionary psychology (Robert Gifford, Kari Norgaard, Susan Moser) could have significantly contributed to this section.
Jamieson realistically concludes that we will continue to address climate change in a piecemeal and messy fashion. Overall, I think he does a great job in explaining many aspects of climate change with thought and depth.
I especially liked Jamieson's mention of the role of science in US society. He notes the gulf in perspective between scientists and public policy makers caused by the requirements for "success" in their fields (62). An amusing anecdote about the Supreme Court case for the EPA's regulation of CO2 was also apt; Jamieson explains that Justice Scalia mixed up the words 'troposphere' and 'stratosphere'. After being corrected by a scientist, he replied, "Whatever. I'm not a scientist," to laughter among the "sympathetic" audience of lawyers and journalists (62). Jamieson considers how differently the audience would have taken a similar quip if it had been about a basis of economics or politics, such as "Supply and Demand. Whatever, I'm not an economist" (63). He asserts that US society generally doesn't prioritize scientific bases, and our ignorance "can lead people to both overestimate what science can do and feel betrayed when it fails to live up to these pretensions." He says that "we tend to see science as an unimpeachable source of authority" and yet "drown in our contradictions, sometimes behaving like jilted lovers when forced to acknowledge reality" (63).
Two parts of the book stood out to me as having room for improvement. In his explanation of climate change philosophy and values, he focuses exclusively on human impacts for future generations and for people in developing countries. His being an environmental philosopher, it's interesting that he never mentions philosophical ideas related to ecological and non-human impacts in the present and future. This significantly narrows his focus, as may have been deliberate; the book focuses on human society. Jamieson also refers several times in the book to the "biggest problem" in addressing climate change: a psychological component. While he explains other factors in some depth, he addresses this factor in only two pages. I think mentioning some of the research in environmental, climate change and related evolutionary psychology (Robert Gifford, Kari Norgaard, Susan Moser) could have significantly contributed to this section.
Jamieson realistically concludes that we will continue to address climate change in a piecemeal and messy fashion. Overall, I think he does a great job in explaining many aspects of climate change with thought and depth.
November 21, 2014
Dale Jamieson attempts to cover a lot of ground in a very short amount of time. He packs in tons of notes at the bottom of each page. This is not at all a feel good story and it most likely will not leave you in too great of a mood afterwards. Explaining and detailing the messy history of responses to climate change, or lack of is a depressing tale. While I think there was much that was brought up that could have been expanded on; especially the topic of morality, I do think he did a good job overall.
One of the takeaways for me was that clearly diplomacy and economics have failed to address the problem. Assuming they even attempted to. Many sectors completely deny the problem, or look at the profits to be made in the aftermath of a climate changed world. It's time to embrace the saying, "think globally, act locally".
One of the takeaways for me was that clearly diplomacy and economics have failed to address the problem. Assuming they even attempted to. Many sectors completely deny the problem, or look at the profits to be made in the aftermath of a climate changed world. It's time to embrace the saying, "think globally, act locally".
August 14, 2016
Beginning with a remarkable account of the history of climate science, and the many international efforts to slow the rate of greenhouse gas emissions and and reduce the effects of anthropogenic climate change, philosopher Dale Jamieson brings a unique perspective on the global climate crisis. Reason in a Dark Time efficiently sifts through the many conflicting and misleading ideas about climate change and what, if anything should be done about it, arriving at a recommendations of 7 broad policy priorities, 3 principles for how to pursue them, and 1 suggestion for immediate action. He backs all of this up with a rigorous discussion of the myriad political, economic, and ethical considerations that repeatedly thwarted efforts at the national and international levels to to effectively address GHGs and global warming.
June 21, 2015
This is a 4 star book because it provides a readable exposition of the important topic of climate change. I'm not aware of another like it which surveys the topic from so many povs: science, human psychology, economic theory, ethics, and politics (national and international).
Personally I think he doesn't give enough emphasis to population growth as a causal factor, and the likelihood of catastrophic change (chaos theory's prediction). But he does a great job of skewering geoengineering "solutions" to climate change.
Overall there is enough meat in this book for hundreds of hours of discussion, and a deep reflection on personal responsibility. I recommend it to all serious readers.
Personally I think he doesn't give enough emphasis to population growth as a causal factor, and the likelihood of catastrophic change (chaos theory's prediction). But he does a great job of skewering geoengineering "solutions" to climate change.
Overall there is enough meat in this book for hundreds of hours of discussion, and a deep reflection on personal responsibility. I recommend it to all serious readers.
August 24, 2015
This book is about why our struggle against climate change has failed and what it means for the future. He lists things that have caused climate change. One thing is we burn fossil fuels and put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And we keep cutting down trees. This is giving the earth the Greenhouse effect and is making the planet warm up. Our population is increasing but our resources are not. We are already committed to change that is irreversible. We need to start now and change this path. We can reforest our lands. The whole world needs to help.
December 9, 2015
A book which explains better than any other why we are where we are with climate change. A wonderful example of the power and importance of philosophical thinking applied to real world problems. Curiously optimistic conclusion. Sure, we face an enormous problem, but we can deal with it. Very important book.
February 5, 2022
An unflattering history of what is arguably the greatest social, political, cultural and environmental catastrophe, laid in large part at the feet of the (privileged) baby-boom generation. I wish I could disagree with Jamieson's premise: that we will not solve the climate crisis. Even if you already agree, this book makes sense of why we've failed.
November 15, 2015
Very dense, but very important discussion of climate change and what we can do about it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews