What do you think?
Rate this book
Losing Earth: The Decade We Could Have Stopped Climate Change
By 1979, we knew all that we know now about the science of climate change - what was happening, why it was happening and how to stop it. Over the next 10 years, we had the very real opportunity to stop it. Obviously, we failed.
Nathaniel Rich’s groundbreaking account of that failure - and how tantalisingly close we came to signing binding treaties that would have saved us all before the fossil fuels industry and politicians committed to anti-scientific denialism - is already a journalistic blockbuster, a full issue of the New York Times Magazine that has earned favourable comparisons to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and John Hersey’s Hiroshima. Rich has become an instant, in-demand expert and speaker. A major movie deal is already in place. It is the story, perhaps, that can shift the conversation.
In the audiobook Losing Earth, Rich is able to provide more of the context for what did - and didn’t - happen in the 1980s and, more important, is able to carry the story fully into the present day and wrestle with what those past failures mean for us in 2019. It is not just an agonising revelation of historical missed opportunities but a clear-eyed and eloquent assessment of how we got to now and what we can and must do before it's truly too late.
Nathaniel Rich’s groundbreaking account of that failure - and how tantalisingly close we came to signing binding treaties that would have saved us all before the fossil fuels industry and politicians committed to anti-scientific denialism - is already a journalistic blockbuster, a full issue of the New York Times Magazine that has earned favourable comparisons to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and John Hersey’s Hiroshima. Rich has become an instant, in-demand expert and speaker. A major movie deal is already in place. It is the story, perhaps, that can shift the conversation.
In the audiobook Losing Earth, Rich is able to provide more of the context for what did - and didn’t - happen in the 1980s and, more important, is able to carry the story fully into the present day and wrestle with what those past failures mean for us in 2019. It is not just an agonising revelation of historical missed opportunities but a clear-eyed and eloquent assessment of how we got to now and what we can and must do before it's truly too late.
Audible Audio
First published August 5, 2018
286 people are currently reading
8141 people want to read
About the author
Nathaniel Rich
26 books173 followersNathaniel Rich is an American novelist and essayist. He is the author of Losing Earth: A Recent History, which received awards from the Society of Environmental Journalists and the American Institute of Physicists and was a finalist for the PEN/E.O. Wilson Literary Science Writing Award; and the novels King Zeno, Odds Against Tomorrow, and The Mayor's Tongue. He is a writer-at-large at the New York Times Magazine and a regular contributor to Harper's and the New York Review of Books. His next book, Second Nature: Scenes from a World Remade, will be published in late March. Rich lives in New Orleans.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 513 reviews
March 29, 2020
Climate change is not a new phenomenon. We have known for decades that it’s happening. And to put it quite simply, we have not done enough about it.
Considering the scope of what we face, we have done absolutely nothing to prevent it.
As the years have passed, the problem has got progressively worse. We burn more fossil fuels and we cut down more of the rain-forest to accommodate our ever growing and longer living population. We live in the now, engaging in the same circular petty politics that only exist to serve the neoliberalist state and continue to destroy our home with our consumerism. We don’t grow. We don’t learn. And, if we carry on, we’re all going to die because we are losing the earth.
This book is a brief history, chronicling the decade that we really could have prevented the destruction we have subsequently wrought on our home. We have permanently changed the biology of our planet. The damage is totally irreversible as we have lost so many species because their habitat has ceased to exist because of our actions. We will never get them back. They will never walk the earth again and it’s completely on us. We are to blame.
Nothing but a globally co-ordinated action plan could have prevented it, but nobody proposed it because nobody was listening. The problem, the major problem we still face today and the one that is often wielded by climate change deniers, is that it’s bad for business. Environmentalism is bad for business so it’s easier to pretend like it doesn’t exist and continue on as normal, so the massive corporations don’t lose any of their precious money. We ignore the problem and we carry on.
And our children must face the aftermath.
We have known for 50 years.
Let that sink in.
Facebook| Twitter| Insta| Academia
Considering the scope of what we face, we have done absolutely nothing to prevent it.
As the years have passed, the problem has got progressively worse. We burn more fossil fuels and we cut down more of the rain-forest to accommodate our ever growing and longer living population. We live in the now, engaging in the same circular petty politics that only exist to serve the neoliberalist state and continue to destroy our home with our consumerism. We don’t grow. We don’t learn. And, if we carry on, we’re all going to die because we are losing the earth.
This book is a brief history, chronicling the decade that we really could have prevented the destruction we have subsequently wrought on our home. We have permanently changed the biology of our planet. The damage is totally irreversible as we have lost so many species because their habitat has ceased to exist because of our actions. We will never get them back. They will never walk the earth again and it’s completely on us. We are to blame.
Nothing but a globally co-ordinated action plan could have prevented it, but nobody proposed it because nobody was listening. The problem, the major problem we still face today and the one that is often wielded by climate change deniers, is that it’s bad for business. Environmentalism is bad for business so it’s easier to pretend like it doesn’t exist and continue on as normal, so the massive corporations don’t lose any of their precious money. We ignore the problem and we carry on.
And our children must face the aftermath.
We have known for 50 years.
Let that sink in.
Facebook| Twitter| Insta| Academia
September 17, 2020
"It is not yet widely understood, though it will be, that the politician who claims that climate change is uncertain betrays humanity [sic]. It is not yet widely understood, though it will be, that when a government relaxes regulations on coal-fired plants or erases scientific data from a federal website, it is guilty of more than merely bowing to corporate interests; it commits crimes against humanity."
Losing Earth is a stunning book to read in the middle of 2020. Not stunning as in amazingly beautiful or a "stops you in your tracks" sort of read. Stunning as in the realization that all of the overwhelming issues that we seem to be facing in 2020 are related. I live in California and have not left the house for several days because the air quality is terrible due to superfires fueled by drought and climate change. The earth is burning. On the other side of the country, there is the constant concern of hurricanes and flooding. Year after year it gets worse. In Iowa, they dealt with a wind event that destroyed homes and crops and bankrupted farmers. And then there is COVID. This fairly short book on how climate change has been dealt with by the engines of our society (particularly but not exclusively US). Conclusion? They knew what was coming. They've known for more than 100 years. They knew the point of no return. They all knew and worked to restrict regulation to deal with it. We are no longer facing the task of preventing global warming. Global warming is here. We are now faced with the task of trying to limit this to less than 2 degrees. The book is chronicles a number of studies both industry and government, and attempts at legislation to address some elements of climate change and the efforts to curtail them. The book also touches on the impacts on the environment and the tell-tell signs we are seeing today. The afterword is primarily opinion and prognostication, but the author has based much on the contents of the book. "They" are the Federal government, the oil industry, fossil fuels industry, the energy utilities, and the automobile industry, ect. THEY KNEW!! They made informed, conscious decisions and actions about the future of mankind.
"Forty years ago, the political scientists, economists, social theorists, and philosophers who studied the slow-moving threat of climate change generally agreed that we could not be counted on to save ourselves. Their theories shared a common principle: that human beings, whether in international bodies, democracies, industries, political parties, or as individuals, are incapable of sacrificing present convenience to forestall a penalty imposed on future generations."
"Adaptation to climate change, the philosopher Klaus Meyer-Abich observed in 1980, “seems to be the most rational political option.” It is the option that we have pursued, consciously or not, ever since."In other words, we're just going to wing it.
It's not like this was hidden. This information was available. Even the industries made their studies and concerns known, but the was no political will. They couldn't get the people's attention. Some even tried to co-opt what's known as the hole in the ozone to try to drum up public support. A marketing ploy that was only mildly effective. According to this book, the effects of the ozone were in fact cyclical; but in a cynical move to get people to pay attention, they hyperbolized the impact on people. For a while folks were extra conscientious about wearing sunscreen, otherwise...
"it was an existential problem—the fate of civilization depended on it, the oceans would boil, all of that. But it wasn’t a political problem. Know how you could tell? Political problems had solutions. And the climate issue had none."
"William Nordhaus, upon winning the Nobel Prize in 2018, made the same point: “The problem is political, rather than one of economics or feasibility.” We can trust the technology and the economics. It’s harder to trust human behavior."Not that the industries didn't contribute to a growing desire to deny climate change. Similar to tobacco, they began to push the studies towards "inconclusive" and "it isn't the fault of humans", knowing that was false. And the Federal government walked hand in hand with industries to obfuscate.
" But Hansen [scientist] would have his way too. As soon as he hung up, he drafted a letter to Gore[Senator Al Gore. Not yet VP]. He explained that OMB wanted him to demote his own scientific findings to “estimates” from models that were unreliable and “evolving.” His anonymous censor wanted him to say that the causes of global warming were “scientifically unknown” and might be attributable to “natural processes,” caveats that would not only render his testimony meaningless but make him sound like a moron. The most bizarre addition, however, was a statement of a different kind. He was asked to demand that Congress consider only climate legislation that would immediately benefit the economy, “independent of concerns about an increasing greenhouse effect”—a sentence no scientist would ever utter, unless perhaps he was employed by the American Petroleum Institute."
How do you get people to care about what happens 40-50 years in the future. Especially a capitalist society driven more by current day material wealth than the abstract well being of mankind in the future.
"He also included a statistic rarely mentioned in accounts of the science. A warming world, he explained, would stimulate greater energy use, mainly due to higher demand for air-conditioning and refrigeration. By 2055, he told the executives, climate change would increase national energy consumption by 4 to 6 percent."And bonus, initially the impact of climate change would first be felt by people who contributed the least to the problem at hand.
"The greatest victims will be the world’s most impoverished, particularly in those nations that have not yet enjoyed the benefits of industrial energy consumption, and particularly those who do not have white skin, who will disproportionately suffer from natural disasters, declines in arable land, food and water shortages, and migratory chaos. Climate change amplifies social inequity."
Why can't we deal effectively with COVID? The economy. For all our religious teachings, mankind is not motivated by morality or compassion toward his fellow man. Never has been.
"Actions to hasten carbon dioxide emissions are the ineluctable corollary of climate denialism. Once it becomes possible to disregard the welfare of future generations, or those now vulnerable to flooding or drought or wildfire—once it becomes possible to abandon the constraints of human empathy—any monstrosity committed in the name of self-interest is permissible."We have watched these last 4 years as Trump eliminates regulations designed to curtail energy use and reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere. He flouts these regulations as obstacles to capitalism. He removed a mileage constraints that even the automobile manufacturers didn't want. He brought back the energy inefficient and much less effective light bulb. Got rid of mining regulations air and water pollution standards. Deliberately sabotaged alternative energy initiatives. The list goes on. Mankind is motivated by greed. Unfortunately, very clearly witnessing what is happening today, there is a reckoning. The things that Trump has done are stupid and they set us back. But the truth is that those things were not enough to impact the climate change in a meaningful way but were enough to encourage complacency.
"The cost-benefit analysis is rapidly shifting; the distant perils of climate change are no longer very distant. Many now occur regularly, flagrantly. Each superstorm and superfire is a premonition of more terrifying convulsions to come. But disasters alone will not revolutionize public opinion in the remaining time allotted to us. It is not enough to appeal to narrow self-interest; narrow self-interest, after all, is how we got here."And narrow self interest is still in power. And will be no matter who is elected in November. We are past the point of no return. The climate is changing. The question is how much longer can we continue before we own up to the fact that we have to make drastic changes. Just look at how Americans have reacted to COVID. Asking them to sacrifice their SUVs is a bridge too far for many. We have to convince folks that they should care about the future even though they may not see the benefits of their sacrifice in their lifetimes. The future really does depend on it.
The afterword of this book for me was compelling. Here the author pulls down the veil of impartiality and states his views. In Rich's view, the Republican Party has been instrumental in defeating most attempts to deal with climate with the magnitude the resolution requires. It has always been Republicans who refuse to move forward with any meaningful climate legislation going back to Reagan. Still. Democrats are the opposition party and they know they won't be able to implement significant changes. One can imagine that once action is possible legislatively, it won't be politically feasible. People will not sacrifice their comfort and convenience for a catastrophic future that they will probably not see. Yes we are seeing unmistakable signs of climate change. We are also seeing a President who says and I quote "Just watch, it will get cooler [sic] I don't think science knows" and 35% of voters cannot be shaken from this man. Resistance to science.
"The denialist does not care about winning a war of ideas, only about avoiding the appearance of amorality. If the science is uncertain, inaction is blameless."More sociology than climate change, this book chronicles the reaction to the science of climate change. In order to respond effectively, the world must undergo some kind of "emotional intelligence" metamorphosis aka "GROW UP!! Remember, we have known this was coming for over 100 years. It is hard to resist liking a book that is almost hypnotizing in its righteous indignation about the ineffectiveness of government and society to deal with what is basically a potential extinction event.
h/t Howard
4.5 Stars
Listened to the audio book, but I am also rereading/highlighting passages on kindle. Matt Godfrey is an excellent narrator for this book.
**I will note that though the author cites numerous studies, public record and published comments, the book is lacking in annotation. A shortcoming that didn't bother me as much as it should because I'm a climate change sheeple. The fucking superfires and hurricanes were enough to convince me.
April 16, 2023
A sobering book on how momentum was initially gained and then lost in respect to combatting climate change in the 1970s and 1980s. Well written and engaging, despite the glum conclusions one could reach
The discussion we had in 2019 about climate change are the same as those of 1979
Losing Earth: A Recent History is written in a smooth way that keeps you interested in the many actors involved in raising the initial awareness on climate change. Risks of climate change were already being named in a 1965 Lyndon Johnson report and a 1979 report estimating an increase of temperature of 3c half 21st century. This was followed in 1980 with a first congressional hearing on carbon dioxide.
How much do we value the future? is a consistent question the narrative of Nathaniel Rich seems to ask. The question if science can overcome inherent political and economic inertia swings as a pendulum, and is at times hampered by politicians (like Reagan taking over after Carter) and bolstered by them (Al Gore his efforts in bringing the topic into the mainstream).
Power of images and narrative in conveying the message grow as the story progresses, and bipartisan agreement breaks down as more and more money is poured into lobbying by fossil fuel industry and the chance of easy fixes diminish. Ozone layer action on the one hand is a positive, an achievement by the world to halt a destructive effect on the environment, but the problem of global warming is both more complex and more encompassing, with accompanying higher economical stakes. First president Bush approving CO2 reduction goals and the world then being close to a global binding agreement is a high and low point of the book, captured in quotes like It’s already later than you think and False hope is worse than no hope.
Still in no way is this a polemical or dark book to read, despite all the chances missed, with Rich painting a vivid picture of the idiosyncratic Americans who brought the problem of carbon emission in the public consciousness.
The discussion we had in 2019 about climate change are the same as those of 1979
Losing Earth: A Recent History is written in a smooth way that keeps you interested in the many actors involved in raising the initial awareness on climate change. Risks of climate change were already being named in a 1965 Lyndon Johnson report and a 1979 report estimating an increase of temperature of 3c half 21st century. This was followed in 1980 with a first congressional hearing on carbon dioxide.
How much do we value the future? is a consistent question the narrative of Nathaniel Rich seems to ask. The question if science can overcome inherent political and economic inertia swings as a pendulum, and is at times hampered by politicians (like Reagan taking over after Carter) and bolstered by them (Al Gore his efforts in bringing the topic into the mainstream).
Power of images and narrative in conveying the message grow as the story progresses, and bipartisan agreement breaks down as more and more money is poured into lobbying by fossil fuel industry and the chance of easy fixes diminish. Ozone layer action on the one hand is a positive, an achievement by the world to halt a destructive effect on the environment, but the problem of global warming is both more complex and more encompassing, with accompanying higher economical stakes. First president Bush approving CO2 reduction goals and the world then being close to a global binding agreement is a high and low point of the book, captured in quotes like It’s already later than you think and False hope is worse than no hope.
Still in no way is this a polemical or dark book to read, despite all the chances missed, with Rich painting a vivid picture of the idiosyncratic Americans who brought the problem of carbon emission in the public consciousness.
August 4, 2025
‘Losing Earth’ was a revelatory and highly informative read. It gripped me from the beginning till the end. In fact, the afterword is the best part of the book that packs quite a punch in the gut. If you are one of those bizarre readers who are sceptical about global warming, then that afterword is certainly meant for you.
This sociopathic denialism towards global warming that most people especially in the USA are harbouring is something I personally did not expect when I was growing up in the 1990s. I thought people, especially in developed countries, knew better, but as this book shows between the years 1978 to 1989 the USA managed to kill all our chances to reverse the detrimental processes of climate change. I just feel thankful that right from the time I was a 2nd grader, I decided that the world was getting too hot and unhealthy for me to bring a baby into it. I think we as a species would be doing a great service to humanity by making sure to not produce more children to inhabit this planet of extreme temperatures and natural disasters and more! Our kids don’t deserve this.
As I am speaking now, temperatures in my hometown are around 32 degrees Celsius to 35 degrees Celsius with a lot of humidity, making it absolutely impossible to breathe in without the AC. And yet it is the constant usage of this AC and the ACs in all my living spaces that makes me complicit with the nefarious individuals who I term as sociopathic environmentalist denialists. It will have to take a lot of will power and forbearance to forgo a present comfort for the future and future generations, even though I’ll technically be the last of my family line. Am I or are you ready to forgo that present comfort for a long-term gain? That is for you to decide as a member of civil society by reading this book titled ‘Losing Earth.’
It is a book that must be read and remembered. A salute to all those scientists who tried to make sense of our predicament way back a decade before I was born. Way to go guys, you did your best and don’t blame yourself for our current deplorable predicament!
This book obviously gets 5 stars from me.
As I type this review, I am suffering from influenza – yet another offshoot of the extreme temperatures of my highly polluted and virus-filled overpopulated city of Mumbai. The weakness of this viral attack is so debilitating that it makes a person want to lay in a coffin and just die already!!!
This sociopathic denialism towards global warming that most people especially in the USA are harbouring is something I personally did not expect when I was growing up in the 1990s. I thought people, especially in developed countries, knew better, but as this book shows between the years 1978 to 1989 the USA managed to kill all our chances to reverse the detrimental processes of climate change. I just feel thankful that right from the time I was a 2nd grader, I decided that the world was getting too hot and unhealthy for me to bring a baby into it. I think we as a species would be doing a great service to humanity by making sure to not produce more children to inhabit this planet of extreme temperatures and natural disasters and more! Our kids don’t deserve this.
As I am speaking now, temperatures in my hometown are around 32 degrees Celsius to 35 degrees Celsius with a lot of humidity, making it absolutely impossible to breathe in without the AC. And yet it is the constant usage of this AC and the ACs in all my living spaces that makes me complicit with the nefarious individuals who I term as sociopathic environmentalist denialists. It will have to take a lot of will power and forbearance to forgo a present comfort for the future and future generations, even though I’ll technically be the last of my family line. Am I or are you ready to forgo that present comfort for a long-term gain? That is for you to decide as a member of civil society by reading this book titled ‘Losing Earth.’
It is a book that must be read and remembered. A salute to all those scientists who tried to make sense of our predicament way back a decade before I was born. Way to go guys, you did your best and don’t blame yourself for our current deplorable predicament!
This book obviously gets 5 stars from me.
As I type this review, I am suffering from influenza – yet another offshoot of the extreme temperatures of my highly polluted and virus-filled overpopulated city of Mumbai. The weakness of this viral attack is so debilitating that it makes a person want to lay in a coffin and just die already!!!
April 23, 2019
while I'm familiar with the science obviously and the political situation of the recent past, this was a clear-eyed and thorough investigation of the period between roughly 1979 and 1989 when the science was accepted and policies were being considered and we actually could have kept warming below 1.5C and absolutely nobody did anything, as per usual, I'm screaming endlessly into the void
that was the main body of the book, which was very good, but the reason it's getting five stars is the afterword, which is a piece of scathing, excruciatingly true rhetoric that just slapped me in the face on the train this morning
"It is not yet widely understood, though it will be, that the politician who claims that climate change is uncertain betrays humanity in the same fashion as the politician who fabricates weapons of mass destruction in order to whip up support for a profiteering war. It is not yet widely understood, though it will be, that when a government relaxes regulations on coal-fired plants or erases scientific data from a federal website, it is guilty of more than merely bowing to corporate interests; it commits crimes against humanity. The rejection of reason—the molten core of denialism—opens the door to the rejection of morality, for morality relies on a shared faith in reason. Actions to hasten carbon dioxide emissions are the ineluctable corollary of climate denialism. Once it becomes possible to disregard the welfare of future generations, or those now vulnerable to flooding or drought or wildfire—once it becomes possible to abandon the constraints of human empathy—empathy—any monstrosity committed in the name of self-interest is permissible."
again, I am screaming in fruitless rage
that was the main body of the book, which was very good, but the reason it's getting five stars is the afterword, which is a piece of scathing, excruciatingly true rhetoric that just slapped me in the face on the train this morning
"It is not yet widely understood, though it will be, that the politician who claims that climate change is uncertain betrays humanity in the same fashion as the politician who fabricates weapons of mass destruction in order to whip up support for a profiteering war. It is not yet widely understood, though it will be, that when a government relaxes regulations on coal-fired plants or erases scientific data from a federal website, it is guilty of more than merely bowing to corporate interests; it commits crimes against humanity. The rejection of reason—the molten core of denialism—opens the door to the rejection of morality, for morality relies on a shared faith in reason. Actions to hasten carbon dioxide emissions are the ineluctable corollary of climate denialism. Once it becomes possible to disregard the welfare of future generations, or those now vulnerable to flooding or drought or wildfire—once it becomes possible to abandon the constraints of human empathy—empathy—any monstrosity committed in the name of self-interest is permissible."
again, I am screaming in fruitless rage
May 22, 2020
Before I start my review let me say this. This book is very easy to read and does a great job at showing that the whole World has had it's head stuck up its ass regarding global warming and to an extent, we still do. I believe in global warming, environmentalism, and the Republican Party purposefully spouting lies in order to confuse the American People.
However.
I am a librarian and as a librarian I absolutely require authors to include sources, bibliographies, and PROOF to back up what they are trying to prove in their writing. This book NEVER SHOULD HAVE MADE IT PAST ITS EDITOR. The author provides no sources whatsoever for any part of his book.
THIS IS WHY WE THE PEOPLE CAN NO LONGER TRUST WHAT WE HEAR AND READ. AUTHORS, EDITORS, AND PUBLISHERS are no longer REQUIRING the use of sources. HOW CAN WE BELIEVE WHAT WE'RE READING IF WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER SOMETHING IS AN OPINION?
I AM SO FUCKING ANGRY OVER THIS!!!
However.
I am a librarian and as a librarian I absolutely require authors to include sources, bibliographies, and PROOF to back up what they are trying to prove in their writing. This book NEVER SHOULD HAVE MADE IT PAST ITS EDITOR. The author provides no sources whatsoever for any part of his book.
THIS IS WHY WE THE PEOPLE CAN NO LONGER TRUST WHAT WE HEAR AND READ. AUTHORS, EDITORS, AND PUBLISHERS are no longer REQUIRING the use of sources. HOW CAN WE BELIEVE WHAT WE'RE READING IF WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER SOMETHING IS AN OPINION?
I AM SO FUCKING ANGRY OVER THIS!!!
January 11, 2024
A really fast glimpse into the political history of climate change negligence that’s an amazing companion to the more popular climate change books that tend to focus on the science and social implications. On its own, might feel a little too brief, but for people reading other climate change books, this is important
November 6, 2020
The truth is:
Humans are selfish
Humans are stupid
Humans are ignorant
Humans are selfish
Humans are stupid
Humans are ignorant
April 27, 2019
In 1979, scientists learned everything we needed to know about Earth's changing climate and the human factors that have led to it. Not much has changed, scientifically, in the intervening years. Our predictive models have gotten better, and, if anything, we've learned that the original estimates offered by scientists regarding warming trends were too generous.
Nathaniel Rich explores the decade of 1979-1989, when global warming first came into the public purview and scientists and some politicians attempted to begin curbing carbon emissions and atmospheric pollution contributing to the rise of greenhouse gases that will, inarguably, have severe effects on human survival and extreme weather effects upon the Earth. It's also the decade that, despite George Herbert Walker Bush running on a pro-environmental campaign, that the GOP became the party of science denialism.
Narrating all this is Matt Godfrey, whose narration is crisp and even-keel. Rich writes in a highly accessible manner, avoiding technical and scientific jargon, and Godfrey's narration follows a similar For Everyone approach. It's not highly dramatized, but simple and to the point. It's very well done.
It's a chilling account, and also one that is deeply disheartening. The scientific consensus on the validity of climate change is there -- 97% of all the world's scientific community agrees that it is real and that humans are the cause), regardless of what right-wing politicians, conservative commentators, and businesses that have grown fat and rich off the production of fossil fuels would have you believe. One of the arching themes of LOSING EARTH surrounds the economy of climate change, and whether or not humanity as a collective will allow itself to suffer short-term pains in order to ensure long-term benefits. Sadly, the answer, as is obvious to anybody that's been paying attention, is no, we will not. Humanity simply doesn't care enough about its long-term survival. We are too greedy to care about the world we leave behind for future generations. Greed rules all. Greed will, ultimately, destroy us. With 2018 the fourth hottest year on record, the science is clear. We are on the brink. Maybe -- maybe -- scientific advancements might come along to help us, but it's hardly a guarantee. We had our chance to save ourselves, and we squandered it.
Nathaniel Rich explores the decade of 1979-1989, when global warming first came into the public purview and scientists and some politicians attempted to begin curbing carbon emissions and atmospheric pollution contributing to the rise of greenhouse gases that will, inarguably, have severe effects on human survival and extreme weather effects upon the Earth. It's also the decade that, despite George Herbert Walker Bush running on a pro-environmental campaign, that the GOP became the party of science denialism.
Narrating all this is Matt Godfrey, whose narration is crisp and even-keel. Rich writes in a highly accessible manner, avoiding technical and scientific jargon, and Godfrey's narration follows a similar For Everyone approach. It's not highly dramatized, but simple and to the point. It's very well done.
It's a chilling account, and also one that is deeply disheartening. The scientific consensus on the validity of climate change is there -- 97% of all the world's scientific community agrees that it is real and that humans are the cause), regardless of what right-wing politicians, conservative commentators, and businesses that have grown fat and rich off the production of fossil fuels would have you believe. One of the arching themes of LOSING EARTH surrounds the economy of climate change, and whether or not humanity as a collective will allow itself to suffer short-term pains in order to ensure long-term benefits. Sadly, the answer, as is obvious to anybody that's been paying attention, is no, we will not. Humanity simply doesn't care enough about its long-term survival. We are too greedy to care about the world we leave behind for future generations. Greed rules all. Greed will, ultimately, destroy us. With 2018 the fourth hottest year on record, the science is clear. We are on the brink. Maybe -- maybe -- scientific advancements might come along to help us, but it's hardly a guarantee. We had our chance to save ourselves, and we squandered it.
January 2, 2020
Enlightening but depressing. We knew everything we needed to know in 1988 to make the decision to start taking action to avert the global warming catastrophe, but oil companies banded together to block action and support Republicans who did their bidding to oppose action. So now we will get at least 3 degrees C warming when it might have been held to 1.5C, which, in terms of ultimate effects is a huge difference. I voted for Reagan, in ignorance of his anti-environmentalism. I vowed after 2000 never to vote for a Republican again; this book lays out the case for the complicity or the fossil fuel industry and the Republican Party in the coming global disaster. For crying out loud, even Margaret Thatcher understood that global warming was real, and was man made. Sad, when an entire political party does not care what happens to the generations to come.
September 14, 2019
3.5 stars-- If you need a historical non-fiction read to reinforce your bitterness against the boomers, this is it :D. A little lacking as a book in terms of the narrative drive, but the history it recounts is incredibly important & will be an important story to remember as our planet faces the challenges ahead
August 7, 2023
This book documents opportunities that existed from 1979 to 1989 to address climate change, and the manner in which the US went from bipartisan agreement that something must be done to our current state of polarization. Many people may not be aware that climate change and the science associated with it were not always political issues, and that many leaders of both parties (along with the global community) agreed that this was an impending crisis that needed to be addressed. World leaders came very close to a global agreement back in 1989 at a conference in the Netherlands to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
“More carbon has been released into the atmosphere since [the Noordwijk conference ended in 1989] than in the entire history of civilization preceding it.”
The author traces the efforts to raise awareness and take actions, resulting in the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He cites the early acceptance by the oil industries in their programs focused on alternative sources of energy and studying the issue from within. The author provides the history of what occurred to lose the previous momentum. The primary reasons relate to economics, politics, and human nature, with a common bond of short-term thinking.
The Afterword provides some hope and notes that the fundamentals of the science behind climate change have not changed. I think it is enlightening to see how close the global community came to an agreement on this issue in the 1980s, which provides at least a glimmer of optimism that it may be possible in the future.
“More carbon has been released into the atmosphere since [the Noordwijk conference ended in 1989] than in the entire history of civilization preceding it.”
The author traces the efforts to raise awareness and take actions, resulting in the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He cites the early acceptance by the oil industries in their programs focused on alternative sources of energy and studying the issue from within. The author provides the history of what occurred to lose the previous momentum. The primary reasons relate to economics, politics, and human nature, with a common bond of short-term thinking.
The Afterword provides some hope and notes that the fundamentals of the science behind climate change have not changed. I think it is enlightening to see how close the global community came to an agreement on this issue in the 1980s, which provides at least a glimmer of optimism that it may be possible in the future.
January 31, 2023
This is recommended by Dr Simon Clark as one of the books to understand climate change and specifically the politics involved: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLLKf...
And it makes for an infuriating read when one realises that the US Congress was having hearings on global warming forty years ago where scientists like James Hansen was presenting the findings of their climate models which have turned out to be remarkably accurate. As one scientist remarks at the end of the book there has been no major breakthroughs in climate science in the past twenty years, because it is a mature science. There was opportunities to commit to real reductions in greenhouse emissions in 1989 and 1992 when the ozone layer focused minds yet governments chose to through doubt on the science and postpone taking actions hoping that human ingenuity will save the planet. Every oil major knew the science and chose to obfuscate and develop more carbon fuels.
This is not an explanation of the science as such and therefore an easier and also shorter read than some of the more technical works on climate change. However, if you want to know how we have ended up delaying action and creating climate change doubters, it is a good, short read.
And it makes for an infuriating read when one realises that the US Congress was having hearings on global warming forty years ago where scientists like James Hansen was presenting the findings of their climate models which have turned out to be remarkably accurate. As one scientist remarks at the end of the book there has been no major breakthroughs in climate science in the past twenty years, because it is a mature science. There was opportunities to commit to real reductions in greenhouse emissions in 1989 and 1992 when the ozone layer focused minds yet governments chose to through doubt on the science and postpone taking actions hoping that human ingenuity will save the planet. Every oil major knew the science and chose to obfuscate and develop more carbon fuels.
This is not an explanation of the science as such and therefore an easier and also shorter read than some of the more technical works on climate change. However, if you want to know how we have ended up delaying action and creating climate change doubters, it is a good, short read.
April 13, 2019
I am one behind on my commitment to read 12 science books this year, so I need to catch up.
This is a short book based on a long-form piece from The New York Times Magazine earlier this year, and it captures a brief period of time--20 years or so--when taking on climate change was a possibility. From Carter, through Reagan, and into Bush the First, climate change (then called The Greenhouse Effect) was a widely accepted phenomena in the halls of government and the boardrooms of American corporations. Exxon officials, government agencies, environmentalists, and politicians, all understood that man-made climate change was real, that the consequences would be awful, and that we needed to act in concert with other nations to address the burgeoning crisis.
Except we didn't. One of the people cited in this books ask, "What do you do when the past is no longer a guide to the future?" which is, literally, the problem we are facing. We have lived in a stable climate for as long as there has been an us. Now, we are faced with a problem that requires politicians--who think in iterations of 2, 4, and 6 years cycles--to champion policies that people will hate. Use less energy. Pay more for energy. Change how you live. Be inconvenienced. Higher taxes. Less choice. It's not wonder that people forty years ago thought, "Well, that's going to be someone else's problem." And now it is.
Climate change is a part of our national and global understanding now, which is good, but since the time period this book covers (until the early 90s or so), the forces of denial have gone in to overdrive, and have made incredible headway politically. Since the 1990s, we have burned more carbon than the rest of human history combined. The United States government is pulling out of the Paris Accords, which offered some tiny sliver of hope. And science itself is under attack by the forces of irrationality.
I first heard about climate change in the spring of 1989, during the period the author discusses in this book. I was 19 years old, and I thought, "Well...that doesn't sound good." Now I am 50, and the reality predicted by the environmentalists and scientists has come to pass. What's worse, the political reaction to climate change in the United States has become even more toxic. I do not think our civilization is up to the challenge of sacrificing now to benefit those who come after us. At least, America isn't.
It's sad.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...
This is a short book based on a long-form piece from The New York Times Magazine earlier this year, and it captures a brief period of time--20 years or so--when taking on climate change was a possibility. From Carter, through Reagan, and into Bush the First, climate change (then called The Greenhouse Effect) was a widely accepted phenomena in the halls of government and the boardrooms of American corporations. Exxon officials, government agencies, environmentalists, and politicians, all understood that man-made climate change was real, that the consequences would be awful, and that we needed to act in concert with other nations to address the burgeoning crisis.
Except we didn't. One of the people cited in this books ask, "What do you do when the past is no longer a guide to the future?" which is, literally, the problem we are facing. We have lived in a stable climate for as long as there has been an us. Now, we are faced with a problem that requires politicians--who think in iterations of 2, 4, and 6 years cycles--to champion policies that people will hate. Use less energy. Pay more for energy. Change how you live. Be inconvenienced. Higher taxes. Less choice. It's not wonder that people forty years ago thought, "Well, that's going to be someone else's problem." And now it is.
Climate change is a part of our national and global understanding now, which is good, but since the time period this book covers (until the early 90s or so), the forces of denial have gone in to overdrive, and have made incredible headway politically. Since the 1990s, we have burned more carbon than the rest of human history combined. The United States government is pulling out of the Paris Accords, which offered some tiny sliver of hope. And science itself is under attack by the forces of irrationality.
I first heard about climate change in the spring of 1989, during the period the author discusses in this book. I was 19 years old, and I thought, "Well...that doesn't sound good." Now I am 50, and the reality predicted by the environmentalists and scientists has come to pass. What's worse, the political reaction to climate change in the United States has become even more toxic. I do not think our civilization is up to the challenge of sacrificing now to benefit those who come after us. At least, America isn't.
It's sad.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...
dnf
April 16, 2020To dla mnie dnf nie dlatego ze to zła książka, ale to zupełnie nie to czego oczekiwałam. To historia polityki radzenia sobie z globalnym ociepleniem w Ameryce. Nic więcej. To opis konferencji i prób rządu opanowania sytuacji. O samym globalnym ociepleniu nie dowiedziałam się nic po 64 %
August 17, 2019
101st book for 2019.
Covering a period roughly between 1979 and 1989, Nathaniel Rich's book chronicles the rise of the political awareness of the dangers of global warming and early attempts to create legislation to fix the problem. What's really stands about from this book is that all the basic facts and arguments about global warming were already present by the mid-1980s.
Definitely worth a read.
4-stars.
Covering a period roughly between 1979 and 1989, Nathaniel Rich's book chronicles the rise of the political awareness of the dangers of global warming and early attempts to create legislation to fix the problem. What's really stands about from this book is that all the basic facts and arguments about global warming were already present by the mid-1980s.
Definitely worth a read.
4-stars.
February 8, 2023
When did humanity learn about global climate change and the seriousness of its ramifications? If you started any part of your answer with sometime in the twenty-first century, you would be incorrect. In this well-researched and enlightening book, Rich presents us with the disquieting revelation that many entities—including political leaders, scientists, and the energy industry, had working knowledge of the climate crisis in the 1970s, and in many cases, further back than that.
At one point in time, climate change was not the politicized mess it is today. There was a tiny window when most players took the issue with sincerity, and had it not been mucked up by a few irresponsible individuals, things may look far different today. As things stand, industries and their allies in politics and the media have taken a page from the tobacco industry playbook and sow distrust and confusion. I would argue that climate denialism is even more ostentatious than Big Tobacco—imagine if tobacco execs didn’t just claim that we don’t know if cigarettes have any connection to lung cancer, but rather maintained that lung cancer doesn’t exist!
Today, most of society has accepted the link between tobacco use and serious and fatal illness. We laugh at the brazenness of vintage cigarette ads that depict doctors and roll our eyes at old footage of tobacco execs claiming that their product isn’t addictive. We may still someday do that regarding climate science deniers, but by then, it will most likely be too late. In some respects, it is already too late.
Unlike cigarettes, however, the fossil fuel industries have entrenched themselves so pervasively in our society that we frequently don’t have any other options when it comes to energy and transportation. It doesn’t have to be this way, but they have made it so. That’s what makes the world leaders’ inaction, as detailed in this book, so tragic and frustrating. They have not only made it so the industries haven’t had to innovate and implement renewable options to get the things we need; they’ve made it so we usually don’t even have a choice in the matter, either.
What I would have liked to see in this book is an examination of when, exactly, the factory farming industry became implicated in all of this, and how long they’ve been sitting on their hands in regards to global warming. Aside from a single aside in which the author wonders if a plant-based diet will offset his airplane trips, there is nary a peep about animal agriculture in this book. Which doesn’t make a lot of sense, as it’s second only behind industry (and ahead of transportation) in its contribution to damaging greenhouse gases to the planet.
At one point in time, climate change was not the politicized mess it is today. There was a tiny window when most players took the issue with sincerity, and had it not been mucked up by a few irresponsible individuals, things may look far different today. As things stand, industries and their allies in politics and the media have taken a page from the tobacco industry playbook and sow distrust and confusion. I would argue that climate denialism is even more ostentatious than Big Tobacco—imagine if tobacco execs didn’t just claim that we don’t know if cigarettes have any connection to lung cancer, but rather maintained that lung cancer doesn’t exist!
Today, most of society has accepted the link between tobacco use and serious and fatal illness. We laugh at the brazenness of vintage cigarette ads that depict doctors and roll our eyes at old footage of tobacco execs claiming that their product isn’t addictive. We may still someday do that regarding climate science deniers, but by then, it will most likely be too late. In some respects, it is already too late.
Unlike cigarettes, however, the fossil fuel industries have entrenched themselves so pervasively in our society that we frequently don’t have any other options when it comes to energy and transportation. It doesn’t have to be this way, but they have made it so. That’s what makes the world leaders’ inaction, as detailed in this book, so tragic and frustrating. They have not only made it so the industries haven’t had to innovate and implement renewable options to get the things we need; they’ve made it so we usually don’t even have a choice in the matter, either.
What I would have liked to see in this book is an examination of when, exactly, the factory farming industry became implicated in all of this, and how long they’ve been sitting on their hands in regards to global warming. Aside from a single aside in which the author wonders if a plant-based diet will offset his airplane trips, there is nary a peep about animal agriculture in this book. Which doesn’t make a lot of sense, as it’s second only behind industry (and ahead of transportation) in its contribution to damaging greenhouse gases to the planet.
June 10, 2019
If you take one thing from this short but powerful book (expanded from an issue-length article Rich wrote for The New York Times Magazine), it's this quote:
"More carbon has been released into the atmosphere since November 7, 1989, the final day of the Noordwijk conference, than in the entire history of civilization preceding it."
In the 1980s we had a real chance to stop climate change. Rich tells you how the science came together and how one man - Bush I advisor John Sununu - played the prime role in starting us down the road we're on now, where the Republican Party have made climate change denial an article of religious faith, where huge companies use the same tactics they created to deny that smoking causes cancer to inculcate doubt, and where we are plunging headlong into a runaway climate holocaust.
Rich tells the story well and succinctly - the book is just over 200 pages - with engaging portraits of the characters involved, in particular NASA scientist James Hanson, who the right wing continues to pillory and lie about for telling the scientific truth about how pouring gigatons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere affects the climate. There's a lot of useful material here you'll be able to deploy against deniers - climate change isn't something Al Gore pulled out of his ass in 1990, it's been talked about since the 1950s.
In the end, Rich thinks there's still time to save the climate, and civilization. I don't share his optimism.
"More carbon has been released into the atmosphere since November 7, 1989, the final day of the Noordwijk conference, than in the entire history of civilization preceding it."
In the 1980s we had a real chance to stop climate change. Rich tells you how the science came together and how one man - Bush I advisor John Sununu - played the prime role in starting us down the road we're on now, where the Republican Party have made climate change denial an article of religious faith, where huge companies use the same tactics they created to deny that smoking causes cancer to inculcate doubt, and where we are plunging headlong into a runaway climate holocaust.
Rich tells the story well and succinctly - the book is just over 200 pages - with engaging portraits of the characters involved, in particular NASA scientist James Hanson, who the right wing continues to pillory and lie about for telling the scientific truth about how pouring gigatons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere affects the climate. There's a lot of useful material here you'll be able to deploy against deniers - climate change isn't something Al Gore pulled out of his ass in 1990, it's been talked about since the 1950s.
In the end, Rich thinks there's still time to save the climate, and civilization. I don't share his optimism.
August 29, 2019
simultaneously one of the most enthralling and TOTALLY FRUSTRATING books i have ever read. made me both hopeful and completely and utterly enraged at the world at the same time. the fact that we had all the knowledge to deal with our climate crisis back in the 1980s only to be brought down by fewer naysayers than can be counted on one hand is, in a word, horrifiying. have times changed? hard to say. i just hope that we don't keep going round in circles for another 40 years.
this book should be a warning to everyone who reads it.
this book should be a warning to everyone who reads it.
March 19, 2020
This book is an explicit account of the extent of human selfishness and stupidity. Learning about our history should give us an incentive to avoid the mistakes we have repeatedly made in the past: that of denying the bleak future that all of humanity is clearly facing. We need to stop with our self-delusions, stop worshipping politicians and act now before it’s too late. A decade has already been squandered. Let us not ruin another one.
April 27, 2019
I need to stop reading Global Warming books because they’re depressing the fuck out of me. But, this is an incredibly important subject and I’d rather be existentially depressed than ignorant.
Anyway, this was a nice political counter to the apolitical Uninhabitable Earth I read recently. While that one focused on the science and the environmental consequences, this focused on the political machinations that will be our undoing. It took us back to the beginning of the climate crisis, when the ozone hole first became a social issue, and the world first met to organize a treaty. When we lost Earth before we even had a chance to fight for it.
If anything, this book made it very clear to me how likely it is we as a species will ever make any significant change towards slowing warming (unlikely) and just how hard it is to affect those changes. It was just as important and eye opening as Uninhabitable Earth, and I again highly recommend it.
Anyway, this was a nice political counter to the apolitical Uninhabitable Earth I read recently. While that one focused on the science and the environmental consequences, this focused on the political machinations that will be our undoing. It took us back to the beginning of the climate crisis, when the ozone hole first became a social issue, and the world first met to organize a treaty. When we lost Earth before we even had a chance to fight for it.
If anything, this book made it very clear to me how likely it is we as a species will ever make any significant change towards slowing warming (unlikely) and just how hard it is to affect those changes. It was just as important and eye opening as Uninhabitable Earth, and I again highly recommend it.
May 24, 2020
With all the propaganda and distractions, do you really know what humanity is up against and how we got to this reckoning of human existence?
This book tells it as well as most any I've read, at least the more recent history.
Not a lively read, but an important one if you value your future.
This book tells it as well as most any I've read, at least the more recent history.
Not a lively read, but an important one if you value your future.
December 15, 2020
A must read for everyone!
July 24, 2020
The most common takeaway from Nathaniel Rich's Losing Earth: A Recent History seems to be that the USA could have addressed climate change in the 1980s. But it didn't. That common takeaway is fine, but today we should highlight this conclusion after reading Losing Earth:
This passage further shows that when evaluating comments made about climate change, we would do well to consider historical trends, whether they go back 10 years or 40. ExxonMobil, Rich writes, announced in 2008 that it would
Today, the Sunrise Movement says it has "no permanent friends, no permanent enemies." This policy is practical, but they, and we, should add an asterix that reads, roughly, "trust but verify by examining the individual, institution, or group's past actions." People mostly default to past behaviors and mostly change at the margins. In trying to shift skeptics and deniers into responding to climate change, greens are not only asking their most skeptical audience to change but to change after seeking out up to forty years of climate denial messaging.
Nearly every conversation we have in 2019 about climate change was being held in 1979. That includes not only the predictions about degrees of warming, sea level rise, and geopolitical strife but also the speculations about geo-engineering technology, the appeals to help developing nations overcome starvation and diseases without relying, as we did , on massive increases in coal consumption, and the cost-benefit analyses that always seem to favour inaction.I was convinced by Rich's claim that we knew enough to act in 1979 and that we could have acted in the 1980s, even if he seems to overstate the likelihood of action.
This passage further shows that when evaluating comments made about climate change, we would do well to consider historical trends, whether they go back 10 years or 40. ExxonMobil, Rich writes, announced in 2008 that it would
"no longer fund 'public policy research groups' that advanced climate skepticism. But ExxonMobil has continued to do so to this day, even as it places national television advertisements featuring attractive young scientists experimenting with green algae."The advertisements are not isolated lies but rather longstanding structural deceptions designed to shape (or prevent) policy. This wariness should be applied to institutions, corporations, and individuals. So although George H.W. Bush made some bold comments about addressing climate change while on the campaign trail, we should not be surprised that his administration opposed meaningful action in response to climate change because his commitment to the issue was limited to a few signals made while campaigning.
Today, the Sunrise Movement says it has "no permanent friends, no permanent enemies." This policy is practical, but they, and we, should add an asterix that reads, roughly, "trust but verify by examining the individual, institution, or group's past actions." People mostly default to past behaviors and mostly change at the margins. In trying to shift skeptics and deniers into responding to climate change, greens are not only asking their most skeptical audience to change but to change after seeking out up to forty years of climate denial messaging.
March 21, 2020
Nie jestem ekologicznym freakiem, choć bardzo takich podziwiam. Staram się jednak od kilku lat być bardziej eko na tyle na ile mogę. Nie jem mięsa (choć to ze względów etycznych), noszę ze sobą materiałowe torby na zakupy, segreguję śmieci, piję wodę z kranu, etc. Czy jednak zwykłe jednostki są w stanie zatrzymać podstępujące zmiany klimatu i zwiększenie temperatury na Ziemi? Zdecydowanie nie, bo to tylko kropla w morzu, a za sznurki pociągać mogą tylko rządy światowe i koncerny.
O globalnym ociepleniu słyszymy wszędzie, a czy wiedzieliście, że mogliśmy to wszystko zatrzymać już dobrych kilkadziesiąt lat temu? Że naukowcy przewidzieli to do czego doprawdzi nadmierna emisja gazów cieplarnianych, tylko ich głos był skutecznie zagłuszany przez lobbystów branży paliwowej, którym ekorozgłos się nie opłacał oraz przez polityków, którzy myślą tylko w kategoriach czasu najbliższego, swojej kadencji, więc nie chcą zajmować się czymś, co da swój wynik jak będą już dawno na emeryturach. I tak wygląda to do dziś.
Nathaniel Rich amerykański eseista przedstawia czytelnikom historię zza drzwi polityków, biznesu i nauki, historię tego jak kilkadziesiąt lat temu mimo posiadanej wiedzy o zagrożeniach wynikających z nadmiernej emisji gazów cierplarnianych, zaprzepaścicili oni szansę na zatrzymanie katastrofy.
„(...) jak bardzo niepokoimy się o naszych prawnuków i ich praprawnuków? Czy na tyle, by zeezygnować ze standardów, do których jesteśmy przyzwyczajeni? Gwałtowne przejście do odnawialnych źródeł energii wymaga poświęceń. Czy perspektywa glodu za sto lat wystarczy. by zmotywować czlowieka do jazdy autobusem? Czy wystarczy, by przekonac czteroosobowa rodzine dorezygnacji z suszarki mechanicznej na rzecz sznurka?”
Bardzo polecam ! Książka uświadamiająca, ale czy zdążymy jeszcze jakoś zareagować zanim zniszczymy naszą planetę do końca?
O globalnym ociepleniu słyszymy wszędzie, a czy wiedzieliście, że mogliśmy to wszystko zatrzymać już dobrych kilkadziesiąt lat temu? Że naukowcy przewidzieli to do czego doprawdzi nadmierna emisja gazów cieplarnianych, tylko ich głos był skutecznie zagłuszany przez lobbystów branży paliwowej, którym ekorozgłos się nie opłacał oraz przez polityków, którzy myślą tylko w kategoriach czasu najbliższego, swojej kadencji, więc nie chcą zajmować się czymś, co da swój wynik jak będą już dawno na emeryturach. I tak wygląda to do dziś.
Nathaniel Rich amerykański eseista przedstawia czytelnikom historię zza drzwi polityków, biznesu i nauki, historię tego jak kilkadziesiąt lat temu mimo posiadanej wiedzy o zagrożeniach wynikających z nadmiernej emisji gazów cierplarnianych, zaprzepaścicili oni szansę na zatrzymanie katastrofy.
„(...) jak bardzo niepokoimy się o naszych prawnuków i ich praprawnuków? Czy na tyle, by zeezygnować ze standardów, do których jesteśmy przyzwyczajeni? Gwałtowne przejście do odnawialnych źródeł energii wymaga poświęceń. Czy perspektywa glodu za sto lat wystarczy. by zmotywować czlowieka do jazdy autobusem? Czy wystarczy, by przekonac czteroosobowa rodzine dorezygnacji z suszarki mechanicznej na rzecz sznurka?”
Bardzo polecam ! Książka uświadamiająca, ale czy zdążymy jeszcze jakoś zareagować zanim zniszczymy naszą planetę do końca?
May 24, 2020
Not much longer than a feature length New Yorker article, this is a must read both for its recent history of the science and politics of climate change, and because it lays what's at stake right on the line. Today's adults will face difficulties, our children will see real hardship, their children will fight for survival in a devastated world. Our current path into the future will take us to extreme ugliness - need, war, disaster, collapse. Perhaps Greta Thunberg (not mentioned in the book) and her "woke" friends around the world will manage to close the gap between reality and political action, but if not...
September 19, 2021
To nie jest książka o ekologii, nawet nie jest książka o polityce ekologicznej, tylko ogólnie o polityce na bardzo wysokim szczeblu oraz poziomie ogólności w kontekście działań aktywistycznych Rafe'a Pomerance'a, bo to on wydaje się być głównym bohaterem i spiritus movens całego zamieszania z globalnym ociepleniem. Skupia się na latach 80. w USA. Inne kraje są wspominane tylko mimochodem. Daje wgląd w debate i jej wyciszanie wokół tego tematu, która rozgorzała w tamtym latach i zaskutkowała protokołami z Kioto, czy Paryża. Jak skuteczne są te protokoły świadczy o całej tej debacie. Ksiązka jest napisana jak sensacyjniak, więc czyta się mega szybko.
April 24, 2019
This book has an amazing quality of presenting what would normally be quite boring(apart from the fact that it's the fate of the planet involved) board meetings in the 80s as these mega cool superman vs batman events. Well written, short and bittersweet.
August 12, 2019
One of the most hopeless and also hopeful books I've read in a long time. The conclusion is worth reading on its own, on the imperative of reframing climate change as a moral issue to stop the end of civilization, not just a political issue to be solved.
December 11, 2019
Short and impactful. Should be mandatory reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 513 reviews