The Future Earth: A Radical Vision for What's Possible in the Age of Warming

by Eric Holthaus

The first hopeful book about climate change, The Future Earth shows readers how to reverse the short- and long-term effects of climate change over the next three decades.

The basics of climate science are easy. We know it is entirely human-caused. Which means its solutions will be similarly human-led. In The Future Earth, leading climate change advocate and weather-related journalist Eric Holthaus offers a radical vision of our future, specifically how to reverse the short- and long-term effects of climate change over the next three decades. Anchored by world-class reporting, interviews with futurists, climatologists, biologists, economists, and climate change activists, it shows what the world could look like if we implemented radical solutions on the scale of the crises we face.

What could happen if we reduced carbon emissions by 50 percent in the next decade?
What could living in a city look like in 2030?
How could the world operate in 2040, if the proposed Green New Deal created a 100 percent net carbon-free economy in the United States?

This is the book for anyone who feels overwhelmed by the current state of our environment. Hopeful and prophetic, The Future Earth invites us to imagine how we can reverse the effects of climate change in our own lifetime and encourages us to enter a deeper relationship with the earth as conscientious stewards and to re-affirm our commitment to one another in our shared humanity.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Climate Change, Environment, Nature, Politics, Sustainability

256 pages, Paperback

First published June 30, 2020

Reviews

[Andrew LeBlanc · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you're looking for some lightweight Woke Pornography, you may enjoy this book!

**Don't read the rest of this review**







Buuuuuuuuuuuuuut, I found this "optimistic" vision of our climate future is probably the most depressing thing I've read all year.

In the book's light Science Fiction mid-section, the author presents as our only way to barely escape climate doom involves everyone on Earth, in the year 2020, somehow magically becoming a super-woke leftist. We solve the climate crisis by: ending Capitalism; dissolving borders and becoming a sort of one-world socialist government, but just barely a government at all, because everything is based on community activist groups and direct democracy; becoming vegans at one with all other humans, animals and plants; decolonizing indigenous lands; reverting to delicate heirloom farming practices; paying climate reparations, etc etc etc.

Other than the farming thing (I'm not sure if this guy is aware how inadequate a tender hipster approach to farming would be to feed 7 billion people), I bet this would work. Hooray. Except:

My dude, we can't even convince people to wear a mask for twenty minutes while buying groceries without morons comparing it to goddamn slavery. We can't even convince people that police murdering people with impunity is a problem to be addressed. Scientists say, "Don't self-immolate", and dumbshits say, "You can't tell ME what to do! Watch me burn, motherfucker!"

The epilogue sort of gets into his approach to how we engage with our neighbours to create this global enlightenment, and it involves a crash course in mindfulness and a guide for a for forming a diverse and non-judgemental community dialogue group for creating positive visions of the future.

Have you ever been on NextDoor? What tiny of microfraction of your neighbours are going to think this is cool thing to do, when instead they could be making posts about "Suspicious looking adult male walking down the street in a black hoodie yesterday afternoon" instead.

I'm not saying that we're definitely screwed. But if this author's solution is the only solution, then... yes. We're fucked.

[Hákon Gunnarsson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have for some time now been immersed in the climate change debate, and I have to admit over time I have come to alternate between cautious optimism, and well, frankly, sorrow or something quite close to it. Listen, I came across an interesting quote by Larry Kudlow in a news article quite recently. He has served as an economist in various positions throughout his career, and he said:

“It turns out President Biden may be the most left-wing president we’ve ever seen,” Kudlow said. “His actions on spending and taxing and regulating, on immigration and fossil fuels and other cultural issues… he may be the most left-wing.”

Fossil fuel, and therefore climate change as the two go together, are in Kudlow's mind a cultural issue. Of course, one has to try to see it from his point of view as well. He is an old man who has spent his career defending a system that some people say are killing the planet we all live on. That is never going to be an easy thing to hear, or accept for that matter, for anybody no matter how strong they are.

So let's think about this for a moment without Kudlow because he isn't the real issue here. Climate change as a cultural issue. I could say a lot of things about this idea, I could rant for a long time about how someone can still hang on to this belief, but I'm not going to. I'm not going to say any more than this: It is at moments like these that I mostly feel sorrow.

On the other hand I feel cautious optimism when I read books like this one by Eric Holthaus. In many ways, I think it is a good book to begin to look into this issue. It explains what is happening to the planet, why it is happening, and what we could do to change it.

It is a nonfiction book that does use fiction a bit to try to show how the world could look like if we would actually take the much-needed steps to prevent disaster. He is basically setting forwards a plan for the future. It is not the only plan I've read, but it seems like a good one, and it appears to be grounded in science.

What will bother some people, I'm sure, is that part of Holthaus's idea will sound pretty close to socialism, tax the rich and so on. I suspect people like Kudlow will not like that, but that doesn't mean Holthaus is wrong. This problem, if we can call the climate crisis a problem, is huge, and it is not going away. It's only getting bigger the longer we talk about it, or even try to ignore it.

Looking past his politics, I think Holthaus explains the complexities of the climate crisis, and how it could develop in the next few decades. He does it with clearer language than a lot of other writers that I've read. The reader doesn't have to have a PhD in anything to understand him, and that is well done with this issue.

Because I've explored this debate so thoroughly, I know there are people, mostly people directly opposite Kudlow on the political spectrum in fact, that would say all Holthaus has done is to write a piece of hopium for the masses. But I don't think so. I can't see anything here that isn't in theory do-able, and as far as I know, it is pretty well grounded in science. The thing is, Holthaus doesn't say it's going to be an easy thing to solve. No, he explains how it is not going to be that.

All in all, I like this book. I think I will read some parts of it again. It is not the only road map of how to deal with climate crisis, and I don't know if it is the best one, but it is a pretty good one at the very least. There is one thing about it that doesn't fill me with optimism, and that is how well it points to the fact that we all on this planet, or at the very least most of us need to come together for this to work, and that would mean the Kudlow's of this world as well. Still, it's a good book, with a good plan.

[Rebecca · Rating 3 out of 5]

A realistic picture of the state of the environment, plus optimistic speculation about how new technologies and models of governance could reverse some of the damage. Holthaus breaks the middle part of the book into three chronological sections, covering the decades between 2020 and 2050. Some of his proposals would be considered radical by current political norms. There is much to admire in this vision of the future. However, there are flaws in how it is delivered. The content feels repetitive and unstructured in places. The first part is an overlong introduction to the meat of the book. Chapters on the future involve yet more recent history and science before switching into speculative fiction. The combination of fact and fiction is unusual. Still, the ideas are well worth engaging with.

See my full review at BookBrowse. (See also my related article on eco-anxiety and related terms.)

[Michael Slavin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am researching climate change for a novel. While this book did not have a ton of reviews, they were still good. I decided to start my research with this book because the author speculates what the earth and sea levels will look like in about 10-year intervals and how we can help reverse it.

What I liked:
-The book was very well researched. I was very impressed. Through research and interviews, he gets a good picture of where we are and where we might be going. That is enough.

What I didn't like:
-The author got very preachy at times. But if you feel as strongly as he does and our earth being destroyed. I understand.
-When the author gets into speculation about what the earth will look like at different intervals of time, he tells what was done as if it were a fact, then mixed into the account is come background, so it got confusing.
-He flat says we will not science our way out of the global warming problem. There is a lot of social discussions, I may get this part wrong, but until women, people of color, and poor people are empowered you will not change the CO2 issue.
-He specially mentions it is all rich white guys' fault and they need to be taxed more, their power is taken away, etc, etc.

A big surprise:
The last 20% of the book are suggestions on how to rally others. And also how, to control your own carbon footprint. The big message I think is that if you don't feel you can do much, get others talking about it. Spread the word. This was not very useful to me.

Overall:
A lot of great facts. Take the facts and take as much action as you can. And I do agree, tell others. I guess my big problem with the book, is all the feel-good solutions are too slow. Yes, we need everyone on board, but we need some BIG, BOLD ACTIONS. Most of the things he suggests will make you feel good, but won't fix the problem. I do respect his hard work and I totally respect his passion. If the author reads this, I hope he appreciates I am on his side that we have a HUGE problem and it must be solved.

Very worth the read!

PS: Lots of positive assumptions. I wonder how much China will cooperate?

[Laurent Franckx · Rating 1 out of 5]

Didn't finish it. This is a textbook example what you get when someone with a background in natural sciences becomes an amateur social scientist. Holthaus falls in all the classical traps: promoting wrong or trivial ideas as profound, emphasizing anecdotes above analysis once he leaves his own field, etc
I have no doubt concerning his good intentions, but this is not the book you want to read if you aim to understand climate policy.

[Catherine · Rating 2 out of 5]

In June I was notified that I'd won a copy of this book through a Goodreads giveaway. In true 2020 fashion, I didn't actually receive the book until December.

In those six months, some of the events Mr. Holthaus writes about (in a speculative fiction sense) did not come true. Luckily, he was right about Trump not winning the election, but he didn't predict how much of an ordeal the election itself and Trump's refusal to concede has become. Additionally, he did not foresee how large the COVID-19 pandemic would loom. (The entire west coast being on fire this late summer/fall does fit into his narrative, though.)

The focus of this book is what it will take to bring our planet back from the precipice of collapse in the wake of climate change. Mr. Holthaus is very optimistic that the global population will somehow all unite to embrace the common good (in the form of an even Greener New Deal) and turn things around by 2050. I'm a cynic. In light of the events of the last 6 months, I don't see humans coming together to care about the residents of tiny island nations anymore than they care about their neighbors with different political views or the people who live just over the national border. (While I'm viewing this from an American perspective, this is a global issue.)

In addition to the overall thesis of the book, the organization is muddled. After a rambling introduction, the middle section of the book is divided into three decades (2020s, 2030s, 2040s), each of which alternates between things which have actually happened and Mr. Holthaus's speculative timeline which is written in past tense. It gets really confusing, especially the parts which (as I previously mentioned) take place between when the book was written and when I was finally able to read it. I imagine this issue will be exacerbated as the overlap between what was future and what is past increases. This isn't a book with much longevity.

[Daniel Mitchell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much of what I found most useful and interesting was actually in the first half of the epilogue.

The optimistic future-forward position was different, and I see why he did it, but it was still hard to buy into... reminds me at a recent leadership retreat participants were challenged to "imagine a world of what could be with no limits" and it was wild how immediate and automatic we'd all self-censor and tell ourselves no and scale things down to "practical, achievable" visions. We're told to imagine when we're little, and then get that stamped out of us. One part of The Work is bridging the gap between what we can imagine and what can actually come to be in our current capitalist hellscape.

[Miguel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Can a book deal with the issue of climate change in an overly glossy and optimistic manner? Apparently so. The author attempts to make a 3 decade future-looking approach to ‘solving’ the climate crisis and yet the entire time it feels like it barely breaks the surface of the science and hard realities that each of his approaches entail. For some of these solutions other authors have written entire books on the subject and seeing as this is a short book to begin with it again just seems too facile of an approach for this weighty topic.

[Shruti Sharma · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked reading this very hopeful book. It helped me deal with my anxiety on why other people are not scared, worried about our environment. The book has some valid points on why 'making conversation' is the best way to deal with our reality. A good read for environmentally conscious people.

[Carolin · Rating 2 out of 5]

1

[Jenni · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thanks so much to Netgalley and the publisher HarperOne (Harper Collins) for providing me with an early copy of this book in exchange for my honest review! The Future Earth is out June 30.

It felt a bit odd to be finishing this book at this present moment given everything that's happening (i.e. covid-19, the murder of George Floyd and the events following) as right now climate change seems to be the least of our worries; however, the hopefulness of this book also made this a phenomenal time to read this book and garner the optimism to imagine a more environmentally, economically, and socially just world for all.

In Future Earth, Eric Holthaus spends the first third of the book situating his readers with the state of things regarding the climate crisis, including discussion of the increasing levels of destruction caused by hurricanes due to changing weather patterns, the activism work by Greta Thurnberg and other young adults like her, the history of colonialism and exploitation that got us to this point, and what has already been lost due to warming. The second two-thirds of the book tracks, as the subtitle suggests, the next three decades (2020-2030, 2030-2040, and 2040-2050) imagining--with the help of various experts in a variety of fields, including law, climate science, and indigenous activism--the changes we need to make (as well as us, globally, making them) and what that will mean for the rising average global temperature.

In these visions, Holthaus implements the resurgence of train and ship travel (although at hyper-speeds); subsistence and regenerative agriculture that focuses as much on restoring the land as on growing the crop; laws criminalizing the burning of fossil fuels; a globalized, circular (or restorative) economy; and so many other ideas that would make most anyone excited about the possibilities and eager to get started on implementation. Although the book does sometimes feel slightly too optimistic, Holthaus continues to remind the reader of the strong possibilities of greed and violence taking over the wheel and sending us back towards impending doom. This helps to reinforce the importance of the work that needs to be done, as well as its urgency.

The last ten percent of the book includes resources for starting dialogues with your friends, families, or even strangers (at one point in the resources section, Holthaus suggests potentially starting an environmentally-focused small business, wherein you could talk with your potential customers about climate change and its impacts) about climate change, which I really appreciated and definitely want to use in the future.

All in all, I think this will be a great resource for many people and hopefully will be the push we need to finally take action in reimagining what our world could look like if we really cared for one another and our planet.

[Auriel Fournier · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is optimistic in a way I didnt expect. It paints pictures of what could be and how it could happen, while recognizing the grief of climate change and the pain and suffering and uncertainty that is coming.

I look forward to using the examples in this book to talk to people about what the future could look like, which is often the part of talking about climate change that can be so hard.

[Michelle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading this book right now was an interesting experience. This author is very optimistic - too optimistic in my opinion. To readers who already share his views, he's just preaching to the choir. He lays out how we can save our planet by mapping out what we need to change by 2050. Decade by decade, he tells us how the world will come together, how capitalism will be ended in favor of a more communal economy, how government leaders will spontaneously do the right thing. I do believe him that if the steps he describes do happen, then we can save our planet.

However, I get the sense from reading this, and especially from the more "woo-woo" sections at the end, that this author has had very little contact outside of a bubble that already shares his views. If I were to show this book to any conservative or republican they would be horrified. This book and it's plans do not take into account the real world. Reading this right now when we have people protesting masks, how can I take it seriously that people all over the world, and in the US especially, are going to do the right thing? I wish this author had really addressed that there are rural Americans who rely on coal and non-climate friendly jobs that will be hurt by this, and how he would fix that. Or just addressing that there would be opposing views at all.

Maybe I'm too skeptical, but I just don't think this author is being realistic.

[Ashley · Rating 2 out of 5]

Utopisch, tegen het infantiele aan. Alsof ik het programma van de jongeren van GroenLinks lees. Grote uitspraken, dunne analyses, toekomstbeelden wuft als kindertekeningen en een schreeuwend gebrek aan voorstellen voor de praktische uitvoering. Hoezeer ik ook het doel van de auteur onderschrijf - de klimaatcrisis uitroepen tot mondiale prioriteit nummer één en met optimisme wereldwijd samenwerken, van hoog tot laag, aan een leefbare planeet -, hij bewijst door de matige kwaliteit van zijn werk ondanks vele goede intenties de groene beweging geen dienst.

[Indira · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit difficult to parse through at times as the author speaks of the future in past tense, while writing in 2019 - with that being said, i think it's a really positive look at what's possible within our lifetime in regards to climate change, while also balancing this vision with real issues that we see today. A great and inspiring read!

[Marie · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Alaska, 92% of the state's revenue is dependent on oil and gas.

If we don't demand radical change, we are headed for a who.e world of people searching for a home that no longer exists.

The loss of a world we believed would always be there.

Coral reefs take up .02 percent of the ocean and support a quarter of all marine species and provide support to livelihoods of 500 million people.

By 2030, we will need to have already cut global emissions in half requiring far reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.

The first step to creating the change we need is imagining that it is possible.

Indigenous people are already in the dystopia.

Climate change isn't the problem, it's the symptom of the problem.

Every single nonviolent movement to create political change that received active participation from at least 3.5 percent of the population succeeded. Every single one.

[Maggie · Rating 5 out of 5]

"As long as we are still here, it means we haven't yet lost the fight. And that realization gives me a glimmer of hope."

When I picked this up I was not expecting an optimistic take on the earth after climate change, but I'm very glad that's what I got. It's not naively hopeful, but managed to strike a solar punk, hope punk kind of vision of our future based on the current state of climate science and activism. As a reader who desperately needed a moment of hope, I really appreciated this book

[Santi · Rating 2 out of 5]

Couldn't finish it. A pile of American-centered wishful thinking.

[Luke · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 rounded up - honestly this had so much potential but it just ultimately fell short. I adore the premise - when talking about climate change and our future, beautiful and positive stories are as much if not more important than the apocalyptic narrative we usually get - and we would be much better served imagining how to navigate our reality for a better world rather than spending our time grieving tragedy that hasn’t yet (and to some extent may not) happened.
The most compelling aspects of Holthaus’s work is the beginning chapter where he describes the current state of things, and the epilogue which discusses what it means to have meaningful conversations.
The issues I had are with the ~100 ish pages in the middle. Again I’d like to restate that I’m all for positive speculation - but Holthaus’s idea that we would all say enough is enough and band together, then hints at “just talking” to one another will be the catalyst feels… more condescending than hopeful. He finally gets to it at the end (the epilogue) but the way he sets up his line of speculation really feels like it’s downplaying how difficult community and solidarity building actually can be, which feels like it’s not paying the full respects people on the ground doing the work right now deserve.
The next issue I have is the seeming contradiction he plays at off and on with the function of electoral politics. While I agree shifting towards more directly democratic systems would help fight climate change, the idea that even under the most duress our current institutions would willfully decentralize their own power is laughable. Bonus points for bringing up the 3.5% rule that in my opinion has been plaguing the climate movement for the past decade.
My last issue was most of the speculations in here weren’t explained in much detail, it was more of just a stringing together of popular ideas in the greater environmentalist sphere all jammed together without a lot of explanation (although the aerosol/geo engineering section was much better). Unless you’ve read quite a bit of other environmental, anti capitalist, de colonial works, this just gives you more questions than answers.

All that being said, I understand this was more of an intro into an idea rather than a full manifesto, and I have to give Holthaus a lot of credit for pushing the narrative. However, the reader would be much better served by either cutting out 100 pages or adding an additional 200.

[Damien · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found the beginning and ending powerful, but the middle part felt tentative and overall gimmicky. In the middle part Eric Holthaus writes a fiction about what could happen between 2020 and 2050, or rather what he hopes will happen. Most of the imagined facts felt to me like ways to refer back to issues that are being discussed or tackled at the moment. I have nothing against it in principle, but it is here done poorly, in a way that I felt diluted the interesting facts and necessary debates in a somewhat both idealistic and catastrophistic story.
The point of the book is to inspire all of us to imagine our desired future, and the last part is doing an overall good part into giving us tools to do that. The middle part, however, mostly feels like the author's own writing excercise rather than really something aimed at the reader.
That story of the futuy Earth is also riddled with contradictions. We somehow have to get rid of supra-national instances but also but at the same time engage in worldwide policy making? We should walk away from techno fixes but also embrace industrial breakthroughs? It is weird to me because I agree with most of what is said in this book and I understand what the author wanted to say, yet am not satisfied about the way facts and ideas are presented.
On a more positive note, the first part does a great job at showing us the scale of the catastrophy we are facing and puts us (or me at least) in an emotional state that is ripe for mourning, acceptance and strive for change. At the end of the book, the author finally proposes ways to engage with these feelings. I especially liked the idea that taking the time to feel one's emotions and talking with others about one's feelings, fears and hope, also is a kind of climate activism, a rebellion against the system that caused the climate crisis, and a way to embody the world we want to see.

[Andrew Epperson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m giving this book four stars because I appreciate the “stubborn optimism” reflected in the author’s predictions for the next few decades. Instead of leading with the doomsday scenario often posited in most climate change-oriented works, he described the steps needed to avert such a disaster. Though they may be idealistic, intersectional, and broad, these ideas will ultimately be necessary if we plan to reverse the dire effects our colonialism and development have inflicted on our future existence.
Saving the world will be difficult. Even when we go to a carbon-neutral planet, we will still see the impacts of climate change. Millions of lives will likely be lost, refugees will be forced to migrate because of uninhabitable homes, and our societies will fundamentally change. But in that challenge is hope: hope for a more-unified world, hope for an economy and system that benefits the many rather than the few, hope for a planet sustainable for hundreds of future generations. It will be hard. It will be necessary. It’ll take action and patience. After reading this book, I’m convinced it’s possible.

[Caleb Kirby · Rating 1 out of 5]

Probably the worst book I’ve ever read. From the mind of an emotionally distressed, immature, weak, privileged, unaccomplished, beta male, comes some pretty horrific ideas about what the future could hold if we just demonize fossil fuels, demolish capitalism, and maybe do a little terraforming when nothing we tried actually works. Woefully lacking in any substantive scientific material, the author favors hyperventilated platitudes and racial justice doctrine over honest dialogue. Why these people can’t think outside of their party baffles me. No mention of Nuclear as a valid energy solution of course. If the the world is ending in 12 years or whatever the next alarmist says, why is it so important that the “movement” is led by women and POC as this white male author honked 1000 times in the book? You guys are clowns. It’s impossible to take these ideas seriously when the goal clearly seems to be remaking society into a communist utopia, not preserving humanity from extinction.

[Lena · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mostly doom and gloom, all the warnings and then naively hopeful imaginings you have heard before.

But then there are some new personal, small scale ideas. He emphasizes that we should talk in groups about climate change. Not with the pressure of coming up with a solution, but on a personal level. Listening to each other, discussing how climate change makes us feel.

Some of this type of thing was discussed in Designing Regenerative Cultures, a book I need to find the patience to finish.

As an introvert, long group talks sound like torture. But he also mentions journaling, and that did sound like a good medium for expressing anthropocene despair.

[Benjamin Myers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eric weaves an imperative web with story, research, and message that is yet another valuable call to action around the climate crisis. I liked the fact that it was from a meteorologist and had a lot to do with democratic reform. I also liked the focus on the next 30 years.

[Elisabeth · Rating 3 out of 5]

A man's vision for the future where we make amends and reverse climate change. Interesting way of delivering, by actively imagining the future by the decade and the changes that need to happen in order to ensure we have a future on Earth.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jag gillar syftet och tanken med boken - att vi kan och bör drömma om en bättre värld och att vi är värda något bättre än kapitalism och megaklyftor. Jag gillar också att författaren verkligen trycker på att det inte räcker med ny revolutionerande teknik eller enstaka entreprenörer, välvilliga företag och politiker för att stoppa klimatkatastrofen, utan att det krävs ett enormt paradigmskifte och ett kollektivt, enormt engagemang för att kunna ställa om snabbt nog.
Annars är boken lite spretig och otydlig på sina håll. Det pendlar mellan verkliga händelser och de utopiska framtidsvisioner författaren målar upp, och det är ibland väldigt oklart vad som är fakta eller fiktion eftersom texten till största del är i dåform.
Även om författarens vision i sig är jättefin och intressant kommer jag på mig själv med att bli nedslagen när jag tänker på hur fruktansvärt lite privilegierade människor hittills har visat sig vilja kompromissa med sina liv och vanor för att dra sitt lilla strå till stacken. Oddsen för att människor skulle kunna ta till sig en vision som är så radikal och omfattande känns minimal.
Viktig och delvis läsvärd bok iaf, en bra motpol till de liknande böcker om klimatkrisen som istället argumenterar för att vi kan luta oss tillbaka och låta makthavare göra jobbet.

[Suzanne · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is likely more of a 2, 2.5, but there are a few gems hidden in here.

[Matthew Tyas · Rating 4 out of 5]

There's some fascinating ideas in here around decentralised and post capitalist societies. Bits of it feel a little too much like speculative fiction but the ideas are solid regardless

[LaanSiBB]

The stand on merging humanities and science is extremely crucial, as we have suffered way long separating two fields. We need to acknowledge our conservative side and engage more with:

Indigenous scientists not for the sake of nostalgia, but to fill affiliation gaps from those who needs to be reminded to care about the land

Colonial historians not for the sake of verbal historiography, but to understand patterns of exploitation

Ecological teachers not for the sake of giving more jobs, but to turn everyone a teacher of themselves

Distribution finance not for the sake of communist ideology, but to radically all visualise resource equity

Open source science not for the sake of escaping institutional funding system, but to engage with wider community

Ethical energy education not for the sake of saving bills, but the routine to embed ourselves in reasonable energy usage and belief

And more to come, we must keep throwing out alternatives, to fit in everyone, and for enabling themselves to fit in the time race

[Alyson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit overly optimistic and to some degree overly simplistic. If you've ever tried to reach consensus in a public stakeholder meeting you'll know how challenging it is to agree on basic items when people have massively competing interests. Also, not fond of the "noble savage" stewardship content. Native American and Indigenous scholars and activists don't deny the fact that, this author doesn't seem to see, still consume of the earth and can destroy, just as all humans do. More nuance would be appreciated.