What do you think?
Rate this book
No Planet B: Guida pratica per salvare il nostro mondo
Terra, xxi secolo. Ogni anno scompaiono fino a 10 000 specie. Le emissioni di anidride carbonica crescono esponenzialmente, ma i governi non riescono ad accordarsi per limitarle. Quando qualcuno percorre un chilometro con un diesel sottrae 7 minuti di vita al resto della popolazione. E anche se sviluppassimo le fonti rinnovabili, con gli attuali tassi di consumi da qui a 300 anni dovremmo coprire di pannelli solari ogni centimetro di terra per avere abbastanza energia. Benvenuti nell'Antropocene, l’epoca dominata dall'uomo.
Mike Berners-Lee, però, è ottimista: il futuro del nostro pianeta non è segnato, non dobbiamo cercarcene un altro. Ci sono molte cose che possiamo fare, qui e ora, per cambiare il corso degli eventi. A partire dalle nostre abitudini alimentari: nelle scelte personali, per esempio diminuendo il consumo di carne e latticini; e soprattutto su scala globale, ridistribuendo la produzione di cibo tra i vari paesi, in modo che si smetta di sprecarlo in Occidente e morire di fame nel resto del mondo. Tra energia e sviluppo industriale, sovrappopolamento e organizzazione del lavoro, Berners-Lee passa in rassegna gli ambiti più problematici, propone soluzioni concrete per ridurre il nostro impatto ambientale e dà conto di tutto quello che la politica potrebbe fare per la sopravvivenza della Terra.
NO PLANET B è una guida pratica per tutti coloro che hanno a cuore il futuro. Un libro sorprendente, che ci rivela come il nostro domani dipenderà non tanto dalla tecnologia, quanto dai valori che sapremo condividere per costruire un mondo più giusto ed equo. Trovando così finalmente una risposta alla domanda posta ormai da milioni di giovani: «Come possiamo continuare a vivere felicemente sulla Terra?».
Mike Berners-Lee, però, è ottimista: il futuro del nostro pianeta non è segnato, non dobbiamo cercarcene un altro. Ci sono molte cose che possiamo fare, qui e ora, per cambiare il corso degli eventi. A partire dalle nostre abitudini alimentari: nelle scelte personali, per esempio diminuendo il consumo di carne e latticini; e soprattutto su scala globale, ridistribuendo la produzione di cibo tra i vari paesi, in modo che si smetta di sprecarlo in Occidente e morire di fame nel resto del mondo. Tra energia e sviluppo industriale, sovrappopolamento e organizzazione del lavoro, Berners-Lee passa in rassegna gli ambiti più problematici, propone soluzioni concrete per ridurre il nostro impatto ambientale e dà conto di tutto quello che la politica potrebbe fare per la sopravvivenza della Terra.
NO PLANET B è una guida pratica per tutti coloro che hanno a cuore il futuro. Un libro sorprendente, che ci rivela come il nostro domani dipenderà non tanto dalla tecnologia, quanto dai valori che sapremo condividere per costruire un mondo più giusto ed equo. Trovando così finalmente una risposta alla domanda posta ormai da milioni di giovani: «Come possiamo continuare a vivere felicemente sulla Terra?».
336 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2019
373 people are currently reading
3966 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 191 reviews
March 1, 2019
There's a real mix of material in this environmental guide from Mike Berners-Lee (let's get this out of the way: brother of the better-known Tim). Some of it presents scientific information in a superb fashion, really getting the point across, while other parts feel more like a personal blog post. Bill McKibben, the American environmentalist quoted on the cover, is certainly correct in describing this as a 'compendium', though when he calls the book 'massively entertaining', my immediate thought was 'Bill, you need to get out more.'
What Berners-Lee sets out to do is to give us a more personalised picture of where we as the human species are environmentally - obviously climate change is the biggest factor here, but he covers much of the environmental gamut from feeding the world to environmental economics to sourcing energy and the bête noir du jour (thanks in no small part to David Attenborough) of the dreaded plastic.
For me, the bit that works superbly well is the first section where Berners-Lee deals with food, and specifically whether it's feasible to feed the world. He does this using a brilliant approach of taking a (fairly generous) daily energy requirement for a human being of 2350 calories (I sort of wish he'd used joules, but I understand why the calories) and breaking down the energy per head (this is the really clever bit) of crops grown (human edible and pasture, 5940 and 3810 respectively), then following through where these calories go. The result is segments of energy breaking off to go to wastage, feeding animals, biofuels and so on, trimming down through distribution losses and waste in the home.
This approach is so wonderful as it gives a clear picture of what's going where and how it would be easy to increase the available food energy. As Berners-Lee points out there's two bits of good news here. We already have more than enough to feed the current world population (though it's only an extra 180 calories on that average) - and if some of those places where energy is lost could be fixed, it should be perfectly possible to cope with the predicted peak human population. Relatively easy examples are cutting down the amount of meat eaten (no need to go completely vegetarian, he emphasises) and cutting down on waste. The only thing I could take issue with is the assertion that tofu is delicious - I eat quite a lot of vegetarian food, and it really isn't. Where the book falls down a bit, though, is that it doesn't then follow through with the much harder problem of how you get the surplus food to the right places at the right prices.
Berners-Lee is also strong on climate change, with a few oddities, which I'll come back to in a moment. But some of the other sections feel poorly addressed, for example when he claims 'Equality in the UK has plummeted' while showing us a graph where it goes from 43% in 2000 to 39% in 2016 - that's not my definition of plummeting. And his odd assessment of how companies should operate, which could only have come from an academic. The biggest problem with some of the rest of the material is that he makes regularly use of mean (average) values, which worked for world food, but in many applications are meaningless when it comes down to what a particular person or country needs to do. We need to know more about both the median (which he only deploys in income inequality) and the shape of the distribution to understand what's going on.
The result of this generalisation is that sometimes his statements don't fit well with reality. For example, when talking about farming, he says 'for the past couple of centuries we have been looking to minimise the number of people working on the land. This is crazy, given the abundance of person power…' How this read entirely depends on who 'we' is. Yes, this might be true of the global average, but it clearly isn't the case in, say, the UK. You can't always apply averages to a specific area or individual - it just doesn't work. The problems Berners-Lee is addressing are global - but you don't understand statistics by taking global averages. It has to be dealt with where it's happening and each country has varying levels of different problems.
Perhaps the worst thing for me (apart from a short, excruciating section on spirituality) was the way he dances around some realities to make them fit with what appear to be personal preferences. This comes across most strongly when it comes to his defence of flying, which he says we should cut down, but then describes how video conferencing with 'some people in Silicon Valley', which should reduce flying actually led to 'six trips across the Atlantic to do some work for them' - yet, if he had stuck to his guns, he could have insisted on doing that work remotely/via video link and, as a result underlined his message rather than giving them (and us) an example of 'do as I say, not as I do.'
Although it's only in a kind of appendix, I was also puzzled by his assertion that we suffer from 'optimism bias' - having a tendency towards thinking that things are better than they are. He clearly hasn't read Hans Rosling's Factfulness, which makes it very clear from data, rather than plucked-out-of-the-air assertion, that we actually have pessimism bias and think things are far worse than they really are.
Overall, my main criticism is that the book is light on solutions, which mostly seem to be along the lines of 'we ought to be more considerate of others and think of the world, not just our own needs.' He gives no idea of how this is going to happen in countries with corrupt regimes, dominated by intolerant religions, or with tribal tensions leading to war. He’s absolutely right, solutions need a global approach - but it won't happen because nice people in the tiny UK want it - and there’s very little evidence in many countries of this kind of thinking.
Even so, this is a challenging and interesting book that I hope will make many people give more consideration to environmental issues. I wish there had been more of the sort of data-driven brilliance that there was in that first section throughout, but it is all worthy of consideration and should be widely read, if only to make the reader really think about the essential issues facing humanity. (It's also great to see a university press finally realising that to reach a wide market you have to price books affordably!)
What Berners-Lee sets out to do is to give us a more personalised picture of where we as the human species are environmentally - obviously climate change is the biggest factor here, but he covers much of the environmental gamut from feeding the world to environmental economics to sourcing energy and the bête noir du jour (thanks in no small part to David Attenborough) of the dreaded plastic.
For me, the bit that works superbly well is the first section where Berners-Lee deals with food, and specifically whether it's feasible to feed the world. He does this using a brilliant approach of taking a (fairly generous) daily energy requirement for a human being of 2350 calories (I sort of wish he'd used joules, but I understand why the calories) and breaking down the energy per head (this is the really clever bit) of crops grown (human edible and pasture, 5940 and 3810 respectively), then following through where these calories go. The result is segments of energy breaking off to go to wastage, feeding animals, biofuels and so on, trimming down through distribution losses and waste in the home.
This approach is so wonderful as it gives a clear picture of what's going where and how it would be easy to increase the available food energy. As Berners-Lee points out there's two bits of good news here. We already have more than enough to feed the current world population (though it's only an extra 180 calories on that average) - and if some of those places where energy is lost could be fixed, it should be perfectly possible to cope with the predicted peak human population. Relatively easy examples are cutting down the amount of meat eaten (no need to go completely vegetarian, he emphasises) and cutting down on waste. The only thing I could take issue with is the assertion that tofu is delicious - I eat quite a lot of vegetarian food, and it really isn't. Where the book falls down a bit, though, is that it doesn't then follow through with the much harder problem of how you get the surplus food to the right places at the right prices.
Berners-Lee is also strong on climate change, with a few oddities, which I'll come back to in a moment. But some of the other sections feel poorly addressed, for example when he claims 'Equality in the UK has plummeted' while showing us a graph where it goes from 43% in 2000 to 39% in 2016 - that's not my definition of plummeting. And his odd assessment of how companies should operate, which could only have come from an academic. The biggest problem with some of the rest of the material is that he makes regularly use of mean (average) values, which worked for world food, but in many applications are meaningless when it comes down to what a particular person or country needs to do. We need to know more about both the median (which he only deploys in income inequality) and the shape of the distribution to understand what's going on.
The result of this generalisation is that sometimes his statements don't fit well with reality. For example, when talking about farming, he says 'for the past couple of centuries we have been looking to minimise the number of people working on the land. This is crazy, given the abundance of person power…' How this read entirely depends on who 'we' is. Yes, this might be true of the global average, but it clearly isn't the case in, say, the UK. You can't always apply averages to a specific area or individual - it just doesn't work. The problems Berners-Lee is addressing are global - but you don't understand statistics by taking global averages. It has to be dealt with where it's happening and each country has varying levels of different problems.
Perhaps the worst thing for me (apart from a short, excruciating section on spirituality) was the way he dances around some realities to make them fit with what appear to be personal preferences. This comes across most strongly when it comes to his defence of flying, which he says we should cut down, but then describes how video conferencing with 'some people in Silicon Valley', which should reduce flying actually led to 'six trips across the Atlantic to do some work for them' - yet, if he had stuck to his guns, he could have insisted on doing that work remotely/via video link and, as a result underlined his message rather than giving them (and us) an example of 'do as I say, not as I do.'
Although it's only in a kind of appendix, I was also puzzled by his assertion that we suffer from 'optimism bias' - having a tendency towards thinking that things are better than they are. He clearly hasn't read Hans Rosling's Factfulness, which makes it very clear from data, rather than plucked-out-of-the-air assertion, that we actually have pessimism bias and think things are far worse than they really are.
Overall, my main criticism is that the book is light on solutions, which mostly seem to be along the lines of 'we ought to be more considerate of others and think of the world, not just our own needs.' He gives no idea of how this is going to happen in countries with corrupt regimes, dominated by intolerant religions, or with tribal tensions leading to war. He’s absolutely right, solutions need a global approach - but it won't happen because nice people in the tiny UK want it - and there’s very little evidence in many countries of this kind of thinking.
Even so, this is a challenging and interesting book that I hope will make many people give more consideration to environmental issues. I wish there had been more of the sort of data-driven brilliance that there was in that first section throughout, but it is all worthy of consideration and should be widely read, if only to make the reader really think about the essential issues facing humanity. (It's also great to see a university press finally realising that to reach a wide market you have to price books affordably!)
November 12, 2020
Una guida davvero completa su tante questioni legate al cambiamento climatico. Decisamente molto tecnico come libro ma tutti dovrebbero leggerlo.
February 22, 2021
Lettura interessante e ad ampio spettro, focalizzata sul far capire al lettore quanto il problema non sia legato a un singolo settore ma riguardi invece una pluralità di ambiti.
E quindi una soluzione dovrà riguardare tutti questi settori, a livello globale e allo stesso tempo, o non ci sarà -semplicemente- un futuro.
Molto buona (e spiegata in maniera semplice e comprensibile) la parte più tecnico-scientifica, sempre supportata da dati e grafici.
Ho trovato meno convincente la parte meno materiale, riguardante la scala di valori da seguire, i sistemi economici e la società nel suo complesso, ma più che altro perché mi pare più fantascientifica o pura utopia. Non fosse altro per le tempistiche di un tale cambiamento\evoluzione umana rispetto a quelle necessarie per salvare il pianeta.
Comunque un libro da leggere per rendersi conto della situazione e di quali possano essere le soluzioni per cercare di uscirne bene.
E quindi una soluzione dovrà riguardare tutti questi settori, a livello globale e allo stesso tempo, o non ci sarà -semplicemente- un futuro.
Molto buona (e spiegata in maniera semplice e comprensibile) la parte più tecnico-scientifica, sempre supportata da dati e grafici.
Ho trovato meno convincente la parte meno materiale, riguardante la scala di valori da seguire, i sistemi economici e la società nel suo complesso, ma più che altro perché mi pare più fantascientifica o pura utopia. Non fosse altro per le tempistiche di un tale cambiamento\evoluzione umana rispetto a quelle necessarie per salvare il pianeta.
Comunque un libro da leggere per rendersi conto della situazione e di quali possano essere le soluzioni per cercare di uscirne bene.
March 10, 2021
Libro pieno di spunti per migliorarsi e cercare di far diventare consapevoli anche le persone che si interessano poco di ambiente che i piccoli gesti contano e tanti piccoli gesti sommati insieme possono fare la differenza.
Di Terra ce n'è una sola, custodiamola...anzi, salviamola!
Di Terra ce n'è una sola, custodiamola...anzi, salviamola!
February 21, 2021
No Planet B, mai titolo più eloquente di questo sul significato intrinseco che questo libro vuole esprimere. Siamo sbarcati su Marte è vero e forse qualcosa succederà, ma sarà molto in là e soprattutto sarà una situazione alla "Atto di forza" rinchiusi in una cupola per l'aria da respirare, insomma non un futuro allettante!
Il saggio qui proposto è un intrecciarsi di dati, grafici con esposizioni, problematiche e sue iniziali risoluzioni per poter prosperare in futuro, insomma se l'umanità si vorrebbe affacciare al 22° secolo dovrebbe rispettare alcune regole naturali. Perchè la Natura tutta non venga sopraffatta dalle sconsiderate, egoistiche ed insensate azioni perpetrate dall'umanità, soprattutto negli ultimi secoli, l'umanità stessa dovrà cambiare ed in fretta, il suo modo di vivere, il concetto che sta alla base della società odierna, consumistica e capitalistica, dovrà svanire facendo posto all'empatia, all'uguaglianza di valori, alla solidarietà, alla comunità dei beni e dei servizi, al rispetto reciproco... insomma dovrà (anzi deve, subito) avvenire un cambio epocale delle fondamenta delle società!
Saggio molto ben scritto, chiaro, scorrevole, riflessivo, che punta su argomentazioni fondamentali quali: empatia, lavoro nel senso di passione e non di costrizione/schiavitù, reddito di cittadinanza/universale per tutti per una dignità e per avere tutti uguali diritti e possibilità, consumare meno e soprattutto non farsi fregare da pubblicità ingannevoli e conseguenti acquisti di cose che non ci servono, meno sprechi, anzi spreco zero per un migliore utilizzo delle cose e soprattutto un migliore approvvigionamento di cibo senza rifiuti di esso, un avveduto progetto di utilizzo dell'energia e molti, molti altri...
Consiglio vivamente a tutti la lettura!
Oggi, tuttavia, la tecnologia avanza a una tale velocità che questa sua aggressività potrebbe annientarci tutti con una guerra nucleare o biologica. Dobbiamo controllare questo istinto ereditato usando la logica e la ragione. Dobbiamo essere più rapidi a identificare queste minacce e agire prima che vadano fuori controllo. [Stephen Hawking]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YTJ8...
Il saggio qui proposto è un intrecciarsi di dati, grafici con esposizioni, problematiche e sue iniziali risoluzioni per poter prosperare in futuro, insomma se l'umanità si vorrebbe affacciare al 22° secolo dovrebbe rispettare alcune regole naturali. Perchè la Natura tutta non venga sopraffatta dalle sconsiderate, egoistiche ed insensate azioni perpetrate dall'umanità, soprattutto negli ultimi secoli, l'umanità stessa dovrà cambiare ed in fretta, il suo modo di vivere, il concetto che sta alla base della società odierna, consumistica e capitalistica, dovrà svanire facendo posto all'empatia, all'uguaglianza di valori, alla solidarietà, alla comunità dei beni e dei servizi, al rispetto reciproco... insomma dovrà (anzi deve, subito) avvenire un cambio epocale delle fondamenta delle società!
Saggio molto ben scritto, chiaro, scorrevole, riflessivo, che punta su argomentazioni fondamentali quali: empatia, lavoro nel senso di passione e non di costrizione/schiavitù, reddito di cittadinanza/universale per tutti per una dignità e per avere tutti uguali diritti e possibilità, consumare meno e soprattutto non farsi fregare da pubblicità ingannevoli e conseguenti acquisti di cose che non ci servono, meno sprechi, anzi spreco zero per un migliore utilizzo delle cose e soprattutto un migliore approvvigionamento di cibo senza rifiuti di esso, un avveduto progetto di utilizzo dell'energia e molti, molti altri...
Consiglio vivamente a tutti la lettura!
Oggi, tuttavia, la tecnologia avanza a una tale velocità che questa sua aggressività potrebbe annientarci tutti con una guerra nucleare o biologica. Dobbiamo controllare questo istinto ereditato usando la logica e la ragione. Dobbiamo essere più rapidi a identificare queste minacce e agire prima che vadano fuori controllo. [Stephen Hawking]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YTJ8...
March 15, 2021
Viaggiare leggeri
E poi ci sono questi numeri dell'Antropocene, che mi hanno raccontato più storie di Shahrazād.
Ed è straordinario perchè con i numeri ci azzecco pochissimo.
Le tabelle, i grafici e le percentuali del disastro mi sono suonati come la lingua universale di migliaia di storie. Numeri che contengono vite che contengono vite che contengono vite.
Di creature ed ecosistemi diversi.
L'equazione è diventata semplice anche per me: il linguaggio della vita è sistemico.
Ogni nostra scelta è la farfalla di un cambiamento.
Una lezione importante che aggiungo a quelle migliori in cui sono inciampata negli ultimi anni (chiedo scusa se in prima battuta non riesco a non pensare a Fisher anche se non si occupava direttamente del clima).
Viaggiare leggeri su questo pianeta, lasciare che il cammino "ci spiumi, ci strigli, ci prosciughi”, o imparare nuove nomenclature, nuovi linguaggi per le menti che sopravvivono su una terra infetta, come suggerisce la Haraway.
Come mi ha fatto notare Magnason," Gesù Cristo nacque appena ventuno nonne fa", e questo significa che nel 2120 potrebbero ancora vivere le figlie delle mie nipoti.
E, accidenti a me, se voglio lasciare loro qualcosa di più di una manciata di plastica o qualche corallo morto.
"Io credo che una foglia d'erba non valga affatto
meno della quotidiana fatica delle stelle.
E poi ci sono questi numeri dell'Antropocene, che mi hanno raccontato più storie di Shahrazād.
Ed è straordinario perchè con i numeri ci azzecco pochissimo.
Le tabelle, i grafici e le percentuali del disastro mi sono suonati come la lingua universale di migliaia di storie. Numeri che contengono vite che contengono vite che contengono vite.
Di creature ed ecosistemi diversi.
L'equazione è diventata semplice anche per me: il linguaggio della vita è sistemico.
Ogni nostra scelta è la farfalla di un cambiamento.
Una lezione importante che aggiungo a quelle migliori in cui sono inciampata negli ultimi anni (chiedo scusa se in prima battuta non riesco a non pensare a Fisher anche se non si occupava direttamente del clima).
Viaggiare leggeri su questo pianeta, lasciare che il cammino "ci spiumi, ci strigli, ci prosciughi”, o imparare nuove nomenclature, nuovi linguaggi per le menti che sopravvivono su una terra infetta, come suggerisce la Haraway.
Come mi ha fatto notare Magnason," Gesù Cristo nacque appena ventuno nonne fa", e questo significa che nel 2120 potrebbero ancora vivere le figlie delle mie nipoti.
E, accidenti a me, se voglio lasciare loro qualcosa di più di una manciata di plastica o qualche corallo morto.
"Io credo che una foglia d'erba non valga affatto
meno della quotidiana fatica delle stelle.
March 3, 2021
Un saggio denso di riferimenti scientifici, ma non per questo pesante.
Mi è piaciuto molto il riferimento alla teoria sistemica (unico modo, secondo l'autore, di comprendere come le nostre scelte quotidiane influiscono sulla crisi globale) e a Carl Rogers (non avevo mai pensato a quanto il suo pensiero fosse riconducibile alla filosofia buddhista).
Ciò che viene presentato in questo libro è agghiacciante sotto molti punti di vista, però il peggiore è il pensiero che siamo arrivati ormai ad un punto in cui, se non cominciamo a fare a meno di alcune brutte abitudini (es. uso smodato della plastica, estrazione del petrolio, ecc.), la Terra non sarà più in grado di sostenere il nostro ritmo.
Mi è piaciuto molto il riferimento alla teoria sistemica (unico modo, secondo l'autore, di comprendere come le nostre scelte quotidiane influiscono sulla crisi globale) e a Carl Rogers (non avevo mai pensato a quanto il suo pensiero fosse riconducibile alla filosofia buddhista).
Ciò che viene presentato in questo libro è agghiacciante sotto molti punti di vista, però il peggiore è il pensiero che siamo arrivati ormai ad un punto in cui, se non cominciamo a fare a meno di alcune brutte abitudini (es. uso smodato della plastica, estrazione del petrolio, ecc.), la Terra non sarà più in grado di sostenere il nostro ritmo.
March 8, 2019
Disappointingly, this “handbook” on the world’s most important issue, bar none, saving the planet, has left me no better educated and really quite irritated by the preachy tone and naive, going on delusional, view of humanity of the author. If these are the answers, we are doomed. I’ve always been pretty green - I reduce, reuse, recycle, spend thoughtfully, abhor waste, and worry about climate change. Like most, I could do more, and was looking for realistic ideas, but didn’t find much here.
Broken down into chapters, starting with food supplies, then energy use, transport, technology etc, this started well, and I found his writing style initially engaging, but found the tendency to give an extreme example to prove or disprove every theory just confusing rather than amusing, and it meant the salient points got lost amongst the silliness. He does at least propose goals for individuals to make a difference, such as reducing meat and dairy consumption, minimising flying, buying an ebike etc, but there is nothing new, or original.
Unfortunately for my trust in the whole book, he doesn’t even touch on the most important issue of all, population control, until well past halfway, and then only to suggest that 15 billion people could be okay as long as we all lived frugally and harmoniously. He whispers, once, that people should only have children if they really want them, and proclaims his virtue at having stopped at two, without daring to suggest that this is what everyone should do. I’m sorry but I’m with David Attenborough that it’s time for a One Child World.
He seems perfectly fine with Africa heading for 2 billion people, with no way to feed them other than the Americas shipping over their excess. Sometimes I think Thanos had the right idea, and that half the population disappearing painlessly would be the best solution, rather than the famine, displacement, war, storms, floods, fires and mudslides that are coming, due to our unsustainably enlarging population. On balance, humankind may be unsaveable, but it’s the thought that all the tigers, whales, polar bears, frogs, penguins, bees, and the rest, will be gone too, that breaks my heart.
He states that a couple choosing not to have children so they can go on skiing holidays is just as bad for the planet as those who do reproduce, but unlike all the other unintended consequences, (and there was a lot on rebound effects of various interventions) at least that couple’s harm is finite, and ends with them: other people don’t have more children because others haven’t, they have as many as they can/want for themselves, who will have more, and every generation uses more resources.
He then goes really off topic to talk about how unpleasant prisons are, and how much better the Norwegian system is, because it makes prison a nice place to be. He claims not to align with any particular political colour, but he’s basically a complete Watermelon (NB in NZ as in the UK, unlike the USA, red is the colour of the left, and this guy is to the left of Corbin and Sanders.) He’s a proponent of the Universal Basic Income (or Citizen’s Wage) despite good evidence that it’s a failure, and despite espousing democracy as the best political system, has beliefs that sound like good old fashioned communism. I do expect that your opinion of this book would be heavily influenced by your place on the political spectrum, but as a pragmatic centrist who believes effort should be rewarded this book started to really annoy me.
His belief in humanity is sweet but so unrealistic as to be laughable: that the planet will be saved by everyone being kind to one another, and willingly sharing resources across nations, when the ultimate dream of most global citizens is a massive lottery win so they can quit work and buy massive cars, houses, boats and planes. The most powerful country on the planet willingly selected a climate change denying pathological narcissist sexual predator as it’s leader, and the author still thinks people can make the right choices to save it?
At one point he states, as a fundamental principle “All people are inherently equal in their humanity. With this comes the principle that all should be allowed, encouraged and enabled to live their lives in whatever way they find meaningful, provided this is negotiated alongside the equal rights of others to do likewise.” I could not disagree more, there are lots of people who are subhuman and should not be allowed normal human rights - like those who hunt animals for “sport”, child abusers, arsonists, anti-vaxxers, I could go on... but by this stage he was so far from the topic I wondered if I’d stumbled into a different book.
It’s not all bad, there were plenty of interesting facts hidden amongst the hyperbole. Unfortunately the ARC I received was so poorly formatted that the graphics and tables were incomprehensible. I assume this will have been fixed for publication. My Kindle copy ended (thankfully) at about 70% then there are notes, references (not as many as I would’ve expected”, repeats of some earlier sections and a glossary to hammer home the main points, which was a useful wrap-up but I was over it by then.
I’m sorry to seem so negative as the intent of the book is so important. I don’t often write such ranty reviews but this one really wound me up.
My thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the arc in exchange for an honest review.
The book is available now.
Broken down into chapters, starting with food supplies, then energy use, transport, technology etc, this started well, and I found his writing style initially engaging, but found the tendency to give an extreme example to prove or disprove every theory just confusing rather than amusing, and it meant the salient points got lost amongst the silliness. He does at least propose goals for individuals to make a difference, such as reducing meat and dairy consumption, minimising flying, buying an ebike etc, but there is nothing new, or original.
Unfortunately for my trust in the whole book, he doesn’t even touch on the most important issue of all, population control, until well past halfway, and then only to suggest that 15 billion people could be okay as long as we all lived frugally and harmoniously. He whispers, once, that people should only have children if they really want them, and proclaims his virtue at having stopped at two, without daring to suggest that this is what everyone should do. I’m sorry but I’m with David Attenborough that it’s time for a One Child World.
He seems perfectly fine with Africa heading for 2 billion people, with no way to feed them other than the Americas shipping over their excess. Sometimes I think Thanos had the right idea, and that half the population disappearing painlessly would be the best solution, rather than the famine, displacement, war, storms, floods, fires and mudslides that are coming, due to our unsustainably enlarging population. On balance, humankind may be unsaveable, but it’s the thought that all the tigers, whales, polar bears, frogs, penguins, bees, and the rest, will be gone too, that breaks my heart.
He states that a couple choosing not to have children so they can go on skiing holidays is just as bad for the planet as those who do reproduce, but unlike all the other unintended consequences, (and there was a lot on rebound effects of various interventions) at least that couple’s harm is finite, and ends with them: other people don’t have more children because others haven’t, they have as many as they can/want for themselves, who will have more, and every generation uses more resources.
He then goes really off topic to talk about how unpleasant prisons are, and how much better the Norwegian system is, because it makes prison a nice place to be. He claims not to align with any particular political colour, but he’s basically a complete Watermelon (NB in NZ as in the UK, unlike the USA, red is the colour of the left, and this guy is to the left of Corbin and Sanders.) He’s a proponent of the Universal Basic Income (or Citizen’s Wage) despite good evidence that it’s a failure, and despite espousing democracy as the best political system, has beliefs that sound like good old fashioned communism. I do expect that your opinion of this book would be heavily influenced by your place on the political spectrum, but as a pragmatic centrist who believes effort should be rewarded this book started to really annoy me.
His belief in humanity is sweet but so unrealistic as to be laughable: that the planet will be saved by everyone being kind to one another, and willingly sharing resources across nations, when the ultimate dream of most global citizens is a massive lottery win so they can quit work and buy massive cars, houses, boats and planes. The most powerful country on the planet willingly selected a climate change denying pathological narcissist sexual predator as it’s leader, and the author still thinks people can make the right choices to save it?
At one point he states, as a fundamental principle “All people are inherently equal in their humanity. With this comes the principle that all should be allowed, encouraged and enabled to live their lives in whatever way they find meaningful, provided this is negotiated alongside the equal rights of others to do likewise.” I could not disagree more, there are lots of people who are subhuman and should not be allowed normal human rights - like those who hunt animals for “sport”, child abusers, arsonists, anti-vaxxers, I could go on... but by this stage he was so far from the topic I wondered if I’d stumbled into a different book.
It’s not all bad, there were plenty of interesting facts hidden amongst the hyperbole. Unfortunately the ARC I received was so poorly formatted that the graphics and tables were incomprehensible. I assume this will have been fixed for publication. My Kindle copy ended (thankfully) at about 70% then there are notes, references (not as many as I would’ve expected”, repeats of some earlier sections and a glossary to hammer home the main points, which was a useful wrap-up but I was over it by then.
I’m sorry to seem so negative as the intent of the book is so important. I don’t often write such ranty reviews but this one really wound me up.
My thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the arc in exchange for an honest review.
The book is available now.
March 8, 2021
Moriremo tutti.
E dopo questo slancio di ineluttabile ottimismo passiamo ai fatti.
OK è vero. Moriremo tutti.
Siamo il cancro della terra.
Per secoli abbiamo sfruttato tutto, causato estinzioni di massa, distrutto ecosistemi per puro diletto e usato il nostro pianeta, l' unico che abbiamo, come una discarica.
Il succo è questo: ogni essere umano ha sul groppone un debito col pianeta. Ogni sua azione rilascerà nell'ambiente in maniera diretta o indiretta un po' di CO2. L' ammontare di questa immissione per ogni singolo individuo si chiama impronta del carbonio. Più aumenta più incasiniamo il clima.
Vi piace la braciola e nn vi importa che venga da un allevamento intensivo? Malissimo. Perché qui abbiamo l' aggravante dell'uso sconsiderato degli antibiotici che contribuiscono ad aumentare la resistenza dei batteri. E avete presente che significa vivere in un mondo in cui gli antibiotici nn funzionano? Ve lo dico io, significa tornare alle gioie del 1800, quando si moriva anche solo per un taglietto infetto.
Usate l'aereo o avete la macchina a gasolio? Peggio del peggio.
Ma quindi dobbiamo rinunciare a tutto e tornare al 1200 e al carretto trainato a braccia? No. Ma occorre essere responsabili e sapere come stanno le cose.
La Terra ha la febbre e se nn riusciamo a bloccare l'aumento di temperatura saremo nei guai. Più la parte povera del mondo, ovvio, perché la vita è sempre uno schiaffo avanti a te, ma anche qui nn è che siamo molto al sicuro perché un lieve aumento provocherà reazioni a catena incontrollabili e imprevedibili.
Siamo in una fase in cui i governi hanno come obiettivo dichiarato emissioni zero entro i prossimi anni... francamente mi sembra utopistico ma sperare nn costa nulla.
Anche noi abbiamo le nostre responsabilità. Dobbiamo ridurre la nostra impronta del carbonio e cambiare il nostro stile di vita.
Questo libro spiega cosa fare nel nostro piccolo dopo averci sbattuto in faccia la tragica realtà della situazione.
Credo che sia un dovere di tutti leggerlo. Una volta partito il processo sarà impossibile tornare indietro e manca davvero poco.
Vi è venuta un po' di angoscia?
Bene.
Potete calcolare la vostra impronta cercando in rete "la tua impronta", fatto il test verrà fuori il vostro impatto sul pianeta e quanti alberi dovrete piantare per azzerare "il debito". Preparate la zappa perché saranno molti. A meno che nn viviate nudi in una grotta e vi nutriate di bacche.
Il concetto rivoluzionario è poi quell'idea assurda e meravigliosa di diversi considerare un popolo unico, senza distinzioni di sorta, ma solo abitanti del pianeta Terra e quindi legati a un unico destino. Non so se siamo ancora pronti per questo.
"12 miliardi di persone avvedute potrebbero vivere bene sul pianeta Terra, mentre un miliardo di persone scapestrate non ci riuscirebbe "
E dopo questo slancio di ineluttabile ottimismo passiamo ai fatti.
OK è vero. Moriremo tutti.
Siamo il cancro della terra.
Per secoli abbiamo sfruttato tutto, causato estinzioni di massa, distrutto ecosistemi per puro diletto e usato il nostro pianeta, l' unico che abbiamo, come una discarica.
Il succo è questo: ogni essere umano ha sul groppone un debito col pianeta. Ogni sua azione rilascerà nell'ambiente in maniera diretta o indiretta un po' di CO2. L' ammontare di questa immissione per ogni singolo individuo si chiama impronta del carbonio. Più aumenta più incasiniamo il clima.
Vi piace la braciola e nn vi importa che venga da un allevamento intensivo? Malissimo. Perché qui abbiamo l' aggravante dell'uso sconsiderato degli antibiotici che contribuiscono ad aumentare la resistenza dei batteri. E avete presente che significa vivere in un mondo in cui gli antibiotici nn funzionano? Ve lo dico io, significa tornare alle gioie del 1800, quando si moriva anche solo per un taglietto infetto.
Usate l'aereo o avete la macchina a gasolio? Peggio del peggio.
Ma quindi dobbiamo rinunciare a tutto e tornare al 1200 e al carretto trainato a braccia? No. Ma occorre essere responsabili e sapere come stanno le cose.
La Terra ha la febbre e se nn riusciamo a bloccare l'aumento di temperatura saremo nei guai. Più la parte povera del mondo, ovvio, perché la vita è sempre uno schiaffo avanti a te, ma anche qui nn è che siamo molto al sicuro perché un lieve aumento provocherà reazioni a catena incontrollabili e imprevedibili.
Siamo in una fase in cui i governi hanno come obiettivo dichiarato emissioni zero entro i prossimi anni... francamente mi sembra utopistico ma sperare nn costa nulla.
Anche noi abbiamo le nostre responsabilità. Dobbiamo ridurre la nostra impronta del carbonio e cambiare il nostro stile di vita.
Questo libro spiega cosa fare nel nostro piccolo dopo averci sbattuto in faccia la tragica realtà della situazione.
Credo che sia un dovere di tutti leggerlo. Una volta partito il processo sarà impossibile tornare indietro e manca davvero poco.
Vi è venuta un po' di angoscia?
Bene.
Potete calcolare la vostra impronta cercando in rete "la tua impronta", fatto il test verrà fuori il vostro impatto sul pianeta e quanti alberi dovrete piantare per azzerare "il debito". Preparate la zappa perché saranno molti. A meno che nn viviate nudi in una grotta e vi nutriate di bacche.
Il concetto rivoluzionario è poi quell'idea assurda e meravigliosa di diversi considerare un popolo unico, senza distinzioni di sorta, ma solo abitanti del pianeta Terra e quindi legati a un unico destino. Non so se siamo ancora pronti per questo.
"12 miliardi di persone avvedute potrebbero vivere bene sul pianeta Terra, mentre un miliardo di persone scapestrate non ci riuscirebbe "
January 21, 2021
There's a real mix of material in this environmental guide from Mike Berners-Lee (let's get this out of the way: brother of the better-known Tim). Some of it presents scientific information in a superb fashion, really getting the point across, while other parts feel more like a personal blog post. Bill McKibben, the American environmentalist quoted on the cover, is certainly correct in describing this as a 'compendium', though when he calls the book 'massively entertaining', my immediate thought was 'Bill, you need to get out more.'
What Berners-Lee sets out to do is to give us a more personalised picture of where we as the human species are environmentally - obviously climate change is the biggest factor here, but he covers much of the environmental gamut from feeding the world to environmental economics to sourcing energy and the bête noir du jour (thanks in no small part to David Attenborough) of the dreaded plastic.
For me, the bit that works superbly well is the first section where Berners-Lee deals with food, and specifically whether it's feasible to feed the world. He does this using a brilliant approach of taking a (fairly generous) daily energy requirement for a human being of 2350 calories (I sort of wish he'd used joules, but I understand why the calories) and breaking down the energy per head (this is the really clever bit) of crops grown (human edible and pasture, 5940 and 3810 respectively), then following through where these calories go. The result is segments of energy breaking off to go to wastage, feeding animals, biofuels and so on, trimming down through distribution losses and waste in the home.
This approach is so wonderful as it gives a clear picture of what's going where and how it would be easy to increase the available food energy. As Berners-Lee points out there's two bits of good news here. We already have more than enough to feed the current world population (though it's only an extra 180 calories on that average) - and if some of those places where energy is lost could be fixed, it should be perfectly possible to cope with the predicted peak human population. Relatively easy examples are cutting down the amount of meat eaten (no need to go completely vegetarian, he emphasises) and cutting down on waste. The only thing I could take issue with is the assertion that tofu is delicious - I eat quite a lot of vegetarian food, and it really isn't. Where the book falls down a bit, though, is that it doesn't then follow through with the much harder problem of how you get the surplus food to the right places at the right prices.
Berners-Lee is also strong on climate change, with a few oddities, which I'll come back to in a moment. But some of the other sections feel poorly addressed, for example when he claims 'Equality in the UK has plummeted' while showing us a graph where it goes from 43% in 2000 to 39% in 2016 - that's not my definition of plummeting. And his odd assessment of how companies should operate, which could only have come from an academic. The biggest problem with some of the rest of the material is that he makes regularly use of mean (average) values, which worked for world food, but in many applications are meaningless when it comes down to what a particular person or country needs to do. We need to know more about both the median (which he only deploys in income inequality) and the shape of the distribution to understand what's going on.
The result of this generalisation is that sometimes his statements don't fit well with reality. For example, when talking about farming, he says 'for the past couple of centuries we have been looking to minimise the number of people working on the land. This is crazy, given the abundance of person power…' How this read entirely depends on who 'we' is. Yes, this might be true of the global average, but it clearly isn't the case in, say, the UK. You can't always apply averages to a specific area or individual - it just doesn't work. The problems Berners-Lee is addressing are global - but you don't understand statistics by taking global averages. It has to be dealt with where it's happening and each country has varying levels of different problems.
Perhaps the worst thing for me (apart from a short, excruciating section on spirituality) was the way he dances around some realities to make them fit with what appear to be personal preferences. This comes across most strongly when it comes to his defence of flying, which he says we should cut down, but then describes how video conferencing with 'some people in Silicon Valley', which should reduce flying actually led to 'six trips across the Atlantic to do some work for them' - yet, if he had stuck to his guns, he could have insisted on doing that work remotely/via video link and, as a result underlined his message rather than giving them (and us) an example of 'do as I say, not as I do.'
Although it's only in a kind of appendix, I was also puzzled by his assertion that we suffer from 'optimism bias' - having a tendency towards thinking that things are better than they are. He clearly hasn't read Hans Rosling's Factfulness, which makes it very clear from data, rather than plucked-out-of-the-air assertion, that we actually have pessimism bias and think things are far worse than they really are.
In terms of the additions in the new edition, clearly some of the data has changed and it's useful to see this presented. Berners-Lee has added a new short section on protest and added more for the business community. I thought the protest section was very much the university academic/metropolitan elite view - he is very pro-Extinction Rebellion, for example (admittedly he lists a lot of mistakes they've made, but that just sits at odds with the positive tone). I suspect outside that bubble (and the mind of film stars flying in to take part), XR has actually done significant damage to the cause. It's also true, for example, that Berners-Lee still stands up for flying, for instance, over video conferencing with the feeble excuse mentioned above - as far as I can see, none of the issues highlighted above have been addressed.
Overall, my main criticism is that the book is light on solutions, which mostly seem to be along the lines of 'we ought to be more considerate of others and think of the world, not just our own needs.' He gives no idea of how this is going to happen in countries with corrupt regimes, dominated by intolerant religions, or with tribal tensions leading to war. He’s absolutely right, solutions need a global approach - but it won't happen because nice people in the tiny UK want it - and there’s very little evidence in many countries of this kind of thinking.
Even so, this is a challenging and interesting book that I hope will make many people give more consideration to environmental issues. I wish there had been more of the sort of data-driven brilliance that there was in that first section throughout, but it is all worthy of consideration and should be widely read, if only to make the reader really think about the essential issues facing humanity. (It's also great to see a university press finally realising that to reach a wide market you have to price books affordably!) I wouldn't buy the new edition if you've got the original one, but otherwise it's a good one to consider.
What Berners-Lee sets out to do is to give us a more personalised picture of where we as the human species are environmentally - obviously climate change is the biggest factor here, but he covers much of the environmental gamut from feeding the world to environmental economics to sourcing energy and the bête noir du jour (thanks in no small part to David Attenborough) of the dreaded plastic.
For me, the bit that works superbly well is the first section where Berners-Lee deals with food, and specifically whether it's feasible to feed the world. He does this using a brilliant approach of taking a (fairly generous) daily energy requirement for a human being of 2350 calories (I sort of wish he'd used joules, but I understand why the calories) and breaking down the energy per head (this is the really clever bit) of crops grown (human edible and pasture, 5940 and 3810 respectively), then following through where these calories go. The result is segments of energy breaking off to go to wastage, feeding animals, biofuels and so on, trimming down through distribution losses and waste in the home.
This approach is so wonderful as it gives a clear picture of what's going where and how it would be easy to increase the available food energy. As Berners-Lee points out there's two bits of good news here. We already have more than enough to feed the current world population (though it's only an extra 180 calories on that average) - and if some of those places where energy is lost could be fixed, it should be perfectly possible to cope with the predicted peak human population. Relatively easy examples are cutting down the amount of meat eaten (no need to go completely vegetarian, he emphasises) and cutting down on waste. The only thing I could take issue with is the assertion that tofu is delicious - I eat quite a lot of vegetarian food, and it really isn't. Where the book falls down a bit, though, is that it doesn't then follow through with the much harder problem of how you get the surplus food to the right places at the right prices.
Berners-Lee is also strong on climate change, with a few oddities, which I'll come back to in a moment. But some of the other sections feel poorly addressed, for example when he claims 'Equality in the UK has plummeted' while showing us a graph where it goes from 43% in 2000 to 39% in 2016 - that's not my definition of plummeting. And his odd assessment of how companies should operate, which could only have come from an academic. The biggest problem with some of the rest of the material is that he makes regularly use of mean (average) values, which worked for world food, but in many applications are meaningless when it comes down to what a particular person or country needs to do. We need to know more about both the median (which he only deploys in income inequality) and the shape of the distribution to understand what's going on.
The result of this generalisation is that sometimes his statements don't fit well with reality. For example, when talking about farming, he says 'for the past couple of centuries we have been looking to minimise the number of people working on the land. This is crazy, given the abundance of person power…' How this read entirely depends on who 'we' is. Yes, this might be true of the global average, but it clearly isn't the case in, say, the UK. You can't always apply averages to a specific area or individual - it just doesn't work. The problems Berners-Lee is addressing are global - but you don't understand statistics by taking global averages. It has to be dealt with where it's happening and each country has varying levels of different problems.
Perhaps the worst thing for me (apart from a short, excruciating section on spirituality) was the way he dances around some realities to make them fit with what appear to be personal preferences. This comes across most strongly when it comes to his defence of flying, which he says we should cut down, but then describes how video conferencing with 'some people in Silicon Valley', which should reduce flying actually led to 'six trips across the Atlantic to do some work for them' - yet, if he had stuck to his guns, he could have insisted on doing that work remotely/via video link and, as a result underlined his message rather than giving them (and us) an example of 'do as I say, not as I do.'
Although it's only in a kind of appendix, I was also puzzled by his assertion that we suffer from 'optimism bias' - having a tendency towards thinking that things are better than they are. He clearly hasn't read Hans Rosling's Factfulness, which makes it very clear from data, rather than plucked-out-of-the-air assertion, that we actually have pessimism bias and think things are far worse than they really are.
In terms of the additions in the new edition, clearly some of the data has changed and it's useful to see this presented. Berners-Lee has added a new short section on protest and added more for the business community. I thought the protest section was very much the university academic/metropolitan elite view - he is very pro-Extinction Rebellion, for example (admittedly he lists a lot of mistakes they've made, but that just sits at odds with the positive tone). I suspect outside that bubble (and the mind of film stars flying in to take part), XR has actually done significant damage to the cause. It's also true, for example, that Berners-Lee still stands up for flying, for instance, over video conferencing with the feeble excuse mentioned above - as far as I can see, none of the issues highlighted above have been addressed.
Overall, my main criticism is that the book is light on solutions, which mostly seem to be along the lines of 'we ought to be more considerate of others and think of the world, not just our own needs.' He gives no idea of how this is going to happen in countries with corrupt regimes, dominated by intolerant religions, or with tribal tensions leading to war. He’s absolutely right, solutions need a global approach - but it won't happen because nice people in the tiny UK want it - and there’s very little evidence in many countries of this kind of thinking.
Even so, this is a challenging and interesting book that I hope will make many people give more consideration to environmental issues. I wish there had been more of the sort of data-driven brilliance that there was in that first section throughout, but it is all worthy of consideration and should be widely read, if only to make the reader really think about the essential issues facing humanity. (It's also great to see a university press finally realising that to reach a wide market you have to price books affordably!) I wouldn't buy the new edition if you've got the original one, but otherwise it's a good one to consider.
February 21, 2021
Cosa mi è piaciuto di questo saggio: l'analisi scientifica, l'approccio logico e razionale ai problemi, la chiarezza dell'esposizione, l'umiltà con cui l'autore cerca di creare un dibattito sui temi proposti. E inoltre: la lungimiranza, il coraggio di pensare a una realtà differente da quella attuale ma comunque possibile, la voglia di migliorarsi, di impegnarsi, di cambiare. La sua analisi sui cambiamenti climatici non riguarda solo le questioni tecniche ma abbraccia tutti gli aspetti della vita. Per imparare a rispettare il pianeta, dobbiamo imparare a rispettare noi stessi, a relazionarci meglio gli uni con gli altri ma soprattutto a cambiare prospettiva: passare dall'Io al Noi, sarà questo il gesto più rivoluzionario. Ne consiglio a tutti la lettura!
December 29, 2020
What a fecking great title.
This book is an excercise in self-awareness. Written by a man who has done a hell of a lot of investigating into his own motivations, biases, desires and behavioural tendencies. It's a comprehensive work on what can and must be done if we are to be delivered from evil.
In attempting to dilute the barrelfuls of damning stats, Berners-Lee has divided the entire thing into 1-2 page answers to the key questions we face. This means the structure progresses from summaries, to shorter summaries of those summaries, and then summaries of summaries of summaries. For this reason it's quite a good one to pick up to read little and often, but not so much of an all-in-one-sitting page-turner.
The reality is bleak. But the only option is to rise to the challenge. And we have all the answers we need, we just need to implement them. It's principled and extremely useful.
This book is an excercise in self-awareness. Written by a man who has done a hell of a lot of investigating into his own motivations, biases, desires and behavioural tendencies. It's a comprehensive work on what can and must be done if we are to be delivered from evil.
In attempting to dilute the barrelfuls of damning stats, Berners-Lee has divided the entire thing into 1-2 page answers to the key questions we face. This means the structure progresses from summaries, to shorter summaries of those summaries, and then summaries of summaries of summaries. For this reason it's quite a good one to pick up to read little and often, but not so much of an all-in-one-sitting page-turner.
The reality is bleak. But the only option is to rise to the challenge. And we have all the answers we need, we just need to implement them. It's principled and extremely useful.
December 30, 2022
A fascinating book written with hope but also containing seeds of despondency for those of us who have watched recent political developments.
I will write a fuller review in due course but a few key points stand out
1) The world already produces more than enough food for its 7 billion population and, with careful management and equitable distribution could support a population of 15 billion without a problem. We have an equity issue far more than a resource issue.
2) The rebound effect means that efficiency and technology gains do not see reductions in fossil fuel consumption, because - in other myriad ways, like water flowing through crevices - human behaviour adapts to take advantage of that opportunity for excess energy consumption. In a similar way, productivity gains never led to an increase in worker's leisure time. Productivity has increased 2.5 times since the 1950s which means that we could all be enjoying 2 day working weeks and 5 day weekends, but instead consumption has grown to match and indeed exceed productivity gains. In the Time Machine H.G.Wells envisaged a far future of indolent surface dwelling humans whose every need was catered for by machines/technology and who (devoid of challenge or need to work) had regressed intellectually and become food for the subterranean Morlocks. So the rebound effect that Berners-Lee identifies for energy/fossil fuel use resonates in other aspects of human "progress." Essentially we need the productivity improving machines to be taxed (or at least pay national insurance) as if they were the employees they had replaced. In that way a suitable proportion of the benefits of productivity would accrue to the state and through them to the people rather than the corporations.
3) biofuels are bonkers, I knew this but it bears repeating. Photosynthesis, fantastic as it is, is 2% efficient at converting sunlight to stored biological energy. Solar cells are 16-20% efficient. Fossil fuels are fantastic energy dense stores of energy only because they are the accumulation of millions of years of sunlight energy that we are burning through in centuries or even decades. To try to "grow" fuel is an absurd waste of precious food reserves. It is the kind of greenwashing we need to be wary of because - in a bid to appear green companies can invest in biofuels and get plaudits (and carbon credits) rather than deserved criticism. It is always better to use land for solar cells to generate electricity than to grow biofuels. Yet in America the amount of biofuel growth is equivalent to 3/4 of the population's food/calorific need (I think he meant America's population).
4) Batteries will be big business. Berners-Lee identifies that battery operated electric planes might be viable for short haul flights, but there is another issue he doesn't address of the lithium shortage and necessary exploitation to drive this explosion in battery usage.
5) We need respect for Truth, an informative press, global political co-operation and a commitment to international fairness and reduced income inequality. This is the point in the book where hope gives way to despondency. As Berners-Lee acknowledges in references to Trump and to Brexit, lies and the demonisation of experts have seized the political helm on both sides of the Atlantic. The robustness of the 40% or so proportion who still adhere to the f*cking liars hint at deep weaknesses in our education system and the critical thinking skills of our population. Weaknesses that the unscrupulous can and have exploited. At the same time the press have failed in their duty to expose lies and corruption, and - in pursuing balance and kow-towing to billionaire owners - have platformed the outrageous and the self-interested.
6) The world is more complex than ever. This is true in every aspect of human activity. As the comedy show "The Good Place" made a point of - it is so complex with so many unintended consequences to our each and every action - it is becoming impossible to lead a "good life" as in a life that does less harm than good. People naturally abhor complexity and will embrace a simple lie far for more readily than a complex truth. The unscrupulous within the political or press sphere can use this, churning out three word sound bites that mislead as readily as they appeal. Until - as Berners-lee points out - lying to the public has immediate career ending consequences we will be in the grip of the shameless charlatans whiping up hate and fear and selling snake oil solutions to problems they have created.
7) we need a shift in values, to value growth in measures other than GDP which, after all, is simply the totality of things that we pay for. We need an enlightened global empathy that sees people 5000 miles away as being just as much our neighbours as those next-door. The challenges of the anthropocene do not fall equally on all nations. As Berners-Lee points out, Russia in the medium term might see much to benefit from global warming as its more northerly regions become accessible for trade, productive farming and resource exploitation. By contrast The Maldives and Bangladesh face imminent flooding.
The experience of the Pandemic has shown how flawed the global response can be to a world encompassing crisis. Misinformation, self-interest and prejudice have muddied the waters in too many countries. Climate change is a slower burn crisis whose reach extends beyond the four or five year concentration span of politicians bound to electoral cycles. It is also a crisis that nations will not be able to "close their borders" to. Climate change, unlike Covid, cannot be screened for at the airports. Again, Berners-Lee points out that the potential for a small minority to absolutely f*ck up any remedial measures we take is huge.
So my final takeaway is we must urgently deal with the crisis of ignorance, misinformation and deliberately divisive populism in order to build values of global empathy, considered reflection, respect for truth/evidence and above all else political accountability and severe personal (custodial) consequences for lies and denigrating experts.
I will write a fuller review in due course but a few key points stand out
1) The world already produces more than enough food for its 7 billion population and, with careful management and equitable distribution could support a population of 15 billion without a problem. We have an equity issue far more than a resource issue.
2) The rebound effect means that efficiency and technology gains do not see reductions in fossil fuel consumption, because - in other myriad ways, like water flowing through crevices - human behaviour adapts to take advantage of that opportunity for excess energy consumption. In a similar way, productivity gains never led to an increase in worker's leisure time. Productivity has increased 2.5 times since the 1950s which means that we could all be enjoying 2 day working weeks and 5 day weekends, but instead consumption has grown to match and indeed exceed productivity gains. In the Time Machine H.G.Wells envisaged a far future of indolent surface dwelling humans whose every need was catered for by machines/technology and who (devoid of challenge or need to work) had regressed intellectually and become food for the subterranean Morlocks. So the rebound effect that Berners-Lee identifies for energy/fossil fuel use resonates in other aspects of human "progress." Essentially we need the productivity improving machines to be taxed (or at least pay national insurance) as if they were the employees they had replaced. In that way a suitable proportion of the benefits of productivity would accrue to the state and through them to the people rather than the corporations.
3) biofuels are bonkers, I knew this but it bears repeating. Photosynthesis, fantastic as it is, is 2% efficient at converting sunlight to stored biological energy. Solar cells are 16-20% efficient. Fossil fuels are fantastic energy dense stores of energy only because they are the accumulation of millions of years of sunlight energy that we are burning through in centuries or even decades. To try to "grow" fuel is an absurd waste of precious food reserves. It is the kind of greenwashing we need to be wary of because - in a bid to appear green companies can invest in biofuels and get plaudits (and carbon credits) rather than deserved criticism. It is always better to use land for solar cells to generate electricity than to grow biofuels. Yet in America the amount of biofuel growth is equivalent to 3/4 of the population's food/calorific need (I think he meant America's population).
4) Batteries will be big business. Berners-Lee identifies that battery operated electric planes might be viable for short haul flights, but there is another issue he doesn't address of the lithium shortage and necessary exploitation to drive this explosion in battery usage.
5) We need respect for Truth, an informative press, global political co-operation and a commitment to international fairness and reduced income inequality. This is the point in the book where hope gives way to despondency. As Berners-Lee acknowledges in references to Trump and to Brexit, lies and the demonisation of experts have seized the political helm on both sides of the Atlantic. The robustness of the 40% or so proportion who still adhere to the f*cking liars hint at deep weaknesses in our education system and the critical thinking skills of our population. Weaknesses that the unscrupulous can and have exploited. At the same time the press have failed in their duty to expose lies and corruption, and - in pursuing balance and kow-towing to billionaire owners - have platformed the outrageous and the self-interested.
6) The world is more complex than ever. This is true in every aspect of human activity. As the comedy show "The Good Place" made a point of - it is so complex with so many unintended consequences to our each and every action - it is becoming impossible to lead a "good life" as in a life that does less harm than good. People naturally abhor complexity and will embrace a simple lie far for more readily than a complex truth. The unscrupulous within the political or press sphere can use this, churning out three word sound bites that mislead as readily as they appeal. Until - as Berners-lee points out - lying to the public has immediate career ending consequences we will be in the grip of the shameless charlatans whiping up hate and fear and selling snake oil solutions to problems they have created.
7) we need a shift in values, to value growth in measures other than GDP which, after all, is simply the totality of things that we pay for. We need an enlightened global empathy that sees people 5000 miles away as being just as much our neighbours as those next-door. The challenges of the anthropocene do not fall equally on all nations. As Berners-Lee points out, Russia in the medium term might see much to benefit from global warming as its more northerly regions become accessible for trade, productive farming and resource exploitation. By contrast The Maldives and Bangladesh face imminent flooding.
The experience of the Pandemic has shown how flawed the global response can be to a world encompassing crisis. Misinformation, self-interest and prejudice have muddied the waters in too many countries. Climate change is a slower burn crisis whose reach extends beyond the four or five year concentration span of politicians bound to electoral cycles. It is also a crisis that nations will not be able to "close their borders" to. Climate change, unlike Covid, cannot be screened for at the airports. Again, Berners-Lee points out that the potential for a small minority to absolutely f*ck up any remedial measures we take is huge.
So my final takeaway is we must urgently deal with the crisis of ignorance, misinformation and deliberately divisive populism in order to build values of global empathy, considered reflection, respect for truth/evidence and above all else political accountability and severe personal (custodial) consequences for lies and denigrating experts.
February 18, 2021
Un ottimo libro di divulgazione anche se sfortunatamente in alcuni aspetti risulta utopistico, non per il concetto in se, ma per la popolazione che dovrebbe metterla in pratica.
Gli spunti dati sono buoni e vengono accompagnati da dati che confermano quanto detto. Molto interessante la parte sulla credibilità delle notizie e su come distinguere le fake news, tema che trovo attualissimo.
Peccato che secondo me non farà molta presa su tutti perché si pone come obiettivo la salvaguardia dell'ambiente e non dell'uomo stesso. Viviamo in un mondo dove l'uomo viene messo davanti a tutto, quindi anche nella divulgazione (sfortunatamente) dovrebbe essere così.
Gli spunti dati sono buoni e vengono accompagnati da dati che confermano quanto detto. Molto interessante la parte sulla credibilità delle notizie e su come distinguere le fake news, tema che trovo attualissimo.
Peccato che secondo me non farà molta presa su tutti perché si pone come obiettivo la salvaguardia dell'ambiente e non dell'uomo stesso. Viviamo in un mondo dove l'uomo viene messo davanti a tutto, quindi anche nella divulgazione (sfortunatamente) dovrebbe essere così.
January 9, 2019
What separates There is no Planet B from other climate change books is the way Mike Berners-Lee looks at the numbers. Instead of boring readers with billions of tons of various nefarious elements, chemicals, and compounds, he has transformed them into calories, something most can grasp.
The world produces 5940 calories in plant based food - per day per person. Humans need to consume 2300. So there’s lots to go round. But. 1740 go to livestock, plus another 3810 they pick up in non-crops like grass and pasture. But livestock only provide 590 calories to humans per day. It becomes evident that livestock is not a great way to use declining land resources.
People consume 44 calories of protein per person per day, but livestock consumes 89. Animals destroy protein. Then, 1320 calories per person per day simply go to waste, in processing, transport and trash. Cutting waste by half would increase global food supply by 20%.
Using this kind of thinking, Berners-Lee examines the usual suspects: food, transport, heating, etc. The conclusion is unchanged. At current rates of increase, Man will be consuming seven times as much energy by the end of the century. This despite electric cars, solar and wind.
Things like carbon taxes can raise trillions annually to help clean up the air, soil and water. But to do that, Berners-Lee wants to charge hundreds of dollars per ton of pollution. The current rate is about 35. It will mean several extra dollars per gallon of gas. This will not result in the desired reduction in driving so much as rioting, as we have seen with Gilets Jaunes in France. Their carbon tax amounted to about fifty cents per gallon.
The Paris Accord whereby all countries work to reduce emissions and consumption, has of course resulted in this continuing increase in both instead. Holding global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius becomes laughable in that context.
He looks at those countries’ attitudes differently as well. He maintains everyone- every individual - must be active participants, but that inequality around the world will cause resentment among the poorer nations, including of all countries, the United States. He shows that the median American is worse off than Italians, Germans, Spaniards, Brits, French, Norwegians and Icelanders. While the average wealth of Americans is much higher than the rest, average means spreading the huge wealth of the top one percent over the whole population. But of course they have no access to that wealth.
When he looks at actual wealth per person using mean instead of average, the chart goes upside down. Italians are twice as well off as Americans at the median, the very center of the range. But neither seems to know that. This will help prevent forward movement in remediating climate change. Inequality has distorted the American Dream to genuine poverty. To top it off, he says “Trickledown, to be blunt, is a neoliberal self-deception at best, and at worst a lie.”
So much for thought-provoking analysis. The bulk of the book is instruction on how to live. Berners-Lee continually repeats his mantra of living mindfully, not wasting, not driving, not flying, not working for any firm that isn’t climate conscious, and demanding that any politician worth a vote can talk intelligently on Berners-Lee’s 14 point program of considerations. Personally, I can’t name a single politician in the United States who can or will do that. Never mind actually agreeing with them. In order for Man to make any dent at all, absolutely everyone in the world has to be onboard with this 14 point plan. Or we need a Planet B.
Berners-Lee is nothing if not optimistic. Despite all the figures he provides, he still sees the cup half full. All he asks is that everyone agree with him, and act like they do. After all, he does.
In some ways, Berners-Lee is already living on Planet B. He says “In the twenty-first century, it is totally unhelpful to have organisations that exist primarily to make profit …. The profit motive has to be yesterday’s thinking.” This is not going to go very far on Planet A.
There is no Planet B is disappointingly naïve, and unsatisfactorily and unjustifiably positive. This is not the way it is going to be, and pretending so is not helpful.
David Wineberg
The world produces 5940 calories in plant based food - per day per person. Humans need to consume 2300. So there’s lots to go round. But. 1740 go to livestock, plus another 3810 they pick up in non-crops like grass and pasture. But livestock only provide 590 calories to humans per day. It becomes evident that livestock is not a great way to use declining land resources.
People consume 44 calories of protein per person per day, but livestock consumes 89. Animals destroy protein. Then, 1320 calories per person per day simply go to waste, in processing, transport and trash. Cutting waste by half would increase global food supply by 20%.
Using this kind of thinking, Berners-Lee examines the usual suspects: food, transport, heating, etc. The conclusion is unchanged. At current rates of increase, Man will be consuming seven times as much energy by the end of the century. This despite electric cars, solar and wind.
Things like carbon taxes can raise trillions annually to help clean up the air, soil and water. But to do that, Berners-Lee wants to charge hundreds of dollars per ton of pollution. The current rate is about 35. It will mean several extra dollars per gallon of gas. This will not result in the desired reduction in driving so much as rioting, as we have seen with Gilets Jaunes in France. Their carbon tax amounted to about fifty cents per gallon.
The Paris Accord whereby all countries work to reduce emissions and consumption, has of course resulted in this continuing increase in both instead. Holding global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius becomes laughable in that context.
He looks at those countries’ attitudes differently as well. He maintains everyone- every individual - must be active participants, but that inequality around the world will cause resentment among the poorer nations, including of all countries, the United States. He shows that the median American is worse off than Italians, Germans, Spaniards, Brits, French, Norwegians and Icelanders. While the average wealth of Americans is much higher than the rest, average means spreading the huge wealth of the top one percent over the whole population. But of course they have no access to that wealth.
When he looks at actual wealth per person using mean instead of average, the chart goes upside down. Italians are twice as well off as Americans at the median, the very center of the range. But neither seems to know that. This will help prevent forward movement in remediating climate change. Inequality has distorted the American Dream to genuine poverty. To top it off, he says “Trickledown, to be blunt, is a neoliberal self-deception at best, and at worst a lie.”
So much for thought-provoking analysis. The bulk of the book is instruction on how to live. Berners-Lee continually repeats his mantra of living mindfully, not wasting, not driving, not flying, not working for any firm that isn’t climate conscious, and demanding that any politician worth a vote can talk intelligently on Berners-Lee’s 14 point program of considerations. Personally, I can’t name a single politician in the United States who can or will do that. Never mind actually agreeing with them. In order for Man to make any dent at all, absolutely everyone in the world has to be onboard with this 14 point plan. Or we need a Planet B.
Berners-Lee is nothing if not optimistic. Despite all the figures he provides, he still sees the cup half full. All he asks is that everyone agree with him, and act like they do. After all, he does.
In some ways, Berners-Lee is already living on Planet B. He says “In the twenty-first century, it is totally unhelpful to have organisations that exist primarily to make profit …. The profit motive has to be yesterday’s thinking.” This is not going to go very far on Planet A.
There is no Planet B is disappointingly naïve, and unsatisfactorily and unjustifiably positive. This is not the way it is going to be, and pretending so is not helpful.
David Wineberg
April 11, 2025
Direct and jargon-free compendium that explains the variety of ways in which climate change needs to be addressed from, and why they matter. It's more than "just" science or "just" the environment: it's also the social, political, economical, and moral issues that are inextricably linked up with them.
I really appreciated how it tried to be positive and how with explain clear and direct action (from individuals, companies, and governments) things can, in fact, get better. No Doomsday or determinism here.
4/5, would love to see an updated version where the gen AI disaster is addressed.
I really appreciated how it tried to be positive and how with explain clear and direct action (from individuals, companies, and governments) things can, in fact, get better. No Doomsday or determinism here.
4/5, would love to see an updated version where the gen AI disaster is addressed.
January 22, 2022
An excellent intro to the systemic nature of climate change and other big crisis of our times. Written in a human voice. Tackles the individual response really well.
January 1, 2020
There Is No Planet B is an excellent climate change call to action reference guide. It is organized around a “there are no dumb questions” structure, and it offers both a lot of admirable number crunching and what often struck me as refreshingly frank answers. On overpopulation, for example, Berners-Lee notes that if people have no children but spend money they might otherwise have spent on raising kids on jet setting around the globe, the planet does not win. He also admirably focuses on balloon effects, such as how efficiency without constraint always leads to greater demands made on the environment. Although I've read my fair share of these books, I still learned a lot. The examination of energy, for instance, looks not only at our current energy needs but also projects what our energy needs might be in 2100. I don't think I'd seen a comparative analysis of the efficiency of electrified bicycles before. There is No Planet B is an excellent overview, the sort that is worth keeping on a handy shelf as a reference guide. For readers who have already consumed a lot of this content, There Is No Planet B reminded me of Monbiot’s Heat, McKay's Sustainability Without the Hot Air, and Paul Hawken's Drawdown.
A final note. I've often found conservative intransigence on this subject frustrating, but perhaps they correctly intuit that these ideas implicitly reveal their values have become, in some ways, awful. But I also see why liberals so often look for moderate policies; at one point, Berners-Lee argues there's no reason for people to live in detached homes rather than row houses--a tough sell, I think. The final section of this book calls for "21st century values," which often recalled Rutger Bregman’s Utopia for Realists.
A final note. I've often found conservative intransigence on this subject frustrating, but perhaps they correctly intuit that these ideas implicitly reveal their values have become, in some ways, awful. But I also see why liberals so often look for moderate policies; at one point, Berners-Lee argues there's no reason for people to live in detached homes rather than row houses--a tough sell, I think. The final section of this book calls for "21st century values," which often recalled Rutger Bregman’s Utopia for Realists.
September 8, 2020
This book will shock you, surprise you - and then make you laugh. And you'll find practical and even inspiring ideas for what you can actually do to help humanity thrive on this – our only – planet. (From the publisher book description).
I have liked this book so much, I bought both the Kindle AND the paperback. Berners-Lee is an engaging author. He writes lucidly and includes prose that is conversational in manner. He has many tables of information and he bolds important ideas. He frequently includes information on how a government, corporation or a human can improve a situation.
This is a must read for anyone who cares about the world and how to improve it so that it lasts.
He summarizes, summarizes and then summarizes some more. What a blessing to a gal who needs to have important ideas repeated and loves checklists.
5 stars
I have liked this book so much, I bought both the Kindle AND the paperback. Berners-Lee is an engaging author. He writes lucidly and includes prose that is conversational in manner. He has many tables of information and he bolds important ideas. He frequently includes information on how a government, corporation or a human can improve a situation.
This is a must read for anyone who cares about the world and how to improve it so that it lasts.
He summarizes, summarizes and then summarizes some more. What a blessing to a gal who needs to have important ideas repeated and loves checklists.
5 stars
February 5, 2020
This book clearly and concisely lays out the problems stemming from anthropogenic climate change, and the steps we humans should take (even though we never will, in my opinion) to mitigate its worst effects in the future. This should be read by all the world's leaders. I know that they won't read this, but they should.
Ah, well. Human civilization is fun while it lasts. Enjoy it for as long as you can.
Ah, well. Human civilization is fun while it lasts. Enjoy it for as long as you can.
January 4, 2022
Fascinating and clear read with great use of diagrams where appropriate to get across how we need to live within reason on this planet, and why it is so important. A necessarily wide range of topics discussed, as the world and life is a complex system after all. A more readable book than How Bad Are Bananas due to the format of fewer facts in favour of discussion.
Rebound effects (or metaphorical "balloon squeezing") explained by Mike are really interesting and thought provoking - the principle that many technological advancements such as making things more efficient in a majority of cases leads to greater demand and consumption, increasing overall societal footprint rather than reducing it. We need absolute constraints to control our impact, careless technological or efficiency improvements in the wrong things without limits on supply/demand will do more harm than good.
Something stunning I had not appreciated is the physical limitations on what we can get out of wind, hydro. Converting every inch of land in the UK into a windfarm would still fail to meet the UK's (very high) energy demand. Hydro is at limits of geography- capturing 100% of the potential energy of every raindrop through a turbine (calculated from height above sea level where each drops land, ignoring ALL losses) would barely meet todays global energy needs. Only solar stands a chance of providing enough energy - cheap 16% efficient solar panels covering an area around 228 miles x 228 miles (0.1% of Earth's total land surface, 56% of UK land area) would meet all of our current energy needs - this is still a hell-of-a-lot of solar panels, and the required area will grow massively as energy demand grows across developing and developed countries (unless demand reduces).
Fossil fuels staying in the ground is critical to fighting the climate emergency.
Rebound effects (or metaphorical "balloon squeezing") explained by Mike are really interesting and thought provoking - the principle that many technological advancements such as making things more efficient in a majority of cases leads to greater demand and consumption, increasing overall societal footprint rather than reducing it. We need absolute constraints to control our impact, careless technological or efficiency improvements in the wrong things without limits on supply/demand will do more harm than good.
Something stunning I had not appreciated is the physical limitations on what we can get out of wind, hydro. Converting every inch of land in the UK into a windfarm would still fail to meet the UK's (very high) energy demand. Hydro is at limits of geography- capturing 100% of the potential energy of every raindrop through a turbine (calculated from height above sea level where each drops land, ignoring ALL losses) would barely meet todays global energy needs. Only solar stands a chance of providing enough energy - cheap 16% efficient solar panels covering an area around 228 miles x 228 miles (0.1% of Earth's total land surface, 56% of UK land area) would meet all of our current energy needs - this is still a hell-of-a-lot of solar panels, and the required area will grow massively as energy demand grows across developing and developed countries (unless demand reduces).
Fossil fuels staying in the ground is critical to fighting the climate emergency.
September 16, 2023
It's no longer a secret that we're killing our planet. It doesn't really matter anymore if environmental issues are your thing or not – too urgent are the problems at hand. Because of that, books like these are a great starter to get into the subject matter without feeling daunted or overwhelmed.
There Is No Planet B is a guide for those who want some background knowledge on our climate crisis at hand. Mike Berners-Lee, English professor and researcher, answers all basic questions on the subject matter: from food to energy, travel and money, he gives brief overviews of the topics followed by pointers of what we all can do individually to help the issues at hand.
This is accessible, easy to follow and thorough. I'd happily recommend this to anyone new to the subject. Berners-Lee opts for a casual tone of voice; despite the serious subject matter he writes in a humorous and chatty way that makes you feel like you're just eavesdropping on a conversation of someone knowledgeable. He covers all his claims with facts, most of which are visualised by graphics and charts as well and remains an overall positive attitude.
Sometimes he doesn't go far enough. My only issue with this whole book is that occasionally, I thought the way he depicts problems is a bit too optimistic. There's a great section about food for example, in which he lays out how we grow calories and where they then go – the conclusion of his calculation is that we already grow enough food to feed the world's population, but clearly the problem we have at present times is distributing that food equally. His solutions feel too careful and well-adjusted: why put emphasis on not having to stop eating meat (though he carefully suggests that eating less would help the matter) when it'd clearly make such a difference? Parts like this made me think that he was too preoccupied with not potentially upsetting his readers, some of which will probably really enjoy consuming animal products.
So overall, this is an informative book that touches a variety of subjects and offers some interesting ideas, but in some aspects the nonchalant way he tackles these serious and important issues just didn't feel quite appropriate.
There Is No Planet B is a guide for those who want some background knowledge on our climate crisis at hand. Mike Berners-Lee, English professor and researcher, answers all basic questions on the subject matter: from food to energy, travel and money, he gives brief overviews of the topics followed by pointers of what we all can do individually to help the issues at hand.
This is accessible, easy to follow and thorough. I'd happily recommend this to anyone new to the subject. Berners-Lee opts for a casual tone of voice; despite the serious subject matter he writes in a humorous and chatty way that makes you feel like you're just eavesdropping on a conversation of someone knowledgeable. He covers all his claims with facts, most of which are visualised by graphics and charts as well and remains an overall positive attitude.
Sometimes he doesn't go far enough. My only issue with this whole book is that occasionally, I thought the way he depicts problems is a bit too optimistic. There's a great section about food for example, in which he lays out how we grow calories and where they then go – the conclusion of his calculation is that we already grow enough food to feed the world's population, but clearly the problem we have at present times is distributing that food equally. His solutions feel too careful and well-adjusted: why put emphasis on not having to stop eating meat (though he carefully suggests that eating less would help the matter) when it'd clearly make such a difference? Parts like this made me think that he was too preoccupied with not potentially upsetting his readers, some of which will probably really enjoy consuming animal products.
So overall, this is an informative book that touches a variety of subjects and offers some interesting ideas, but in some aspects the nonchalant way he tackles these serious and important issues just didn't feel quite appropriate.
October 22, 2019
This is the best book about thriving through the next few decades that I have yet encountered. I have been boring and frightening my friends and neighbors for 30 years now, raving about the coming climate apocalypse and scolding them for their energy wastefulness, and finally, I have been given permission!
Mike Berners-Lee uses a Q&A format to approach the incredibly broad front of the problem -- not just global warming, but ocean acidification, sea-level rise, social injustice, unequal distribution of wealth, misappropriation of resources ...all of which many activists are beginning to recognize as interlinked and mutually reinforcing. He strongly asserts that we cannot hope to solve them individually and one at a time. Writing about the need to leave fossil fuels in the ground and reverse the trend for ever more energy use, he writes "Humanity is going to have to raise its game it if wants to take deliberate control over the amount of energy it uses."
What excites me about this book is his practical approach. after carefully identifying each challenge (many of which I had never identified) he sets out practical suggestions about what we can do, often separated into sectors: what government can do, what manufacturers and communities can do, what we can do individually. Since I am reading books like this to bolster my own understand and add newer and better strategies to my collection of convincing material, this alone makes this book stand out.
I appreciate Mike's gentle approach. Due in part, I am sure, to his work in "industry," helping corporations get their own goals aligned with the needs of the planet in the 21st century, his suggestions, while ambitious and demanding, are within our reach ...leading, of course, to my perennial question, Since so many of us see what's coming, why in the world can't we suck it up and do something constructive? On a bad day, my answer: Extinction is a good idea. Mike's book reminds me that we don't have to keep having more and more bad days.
This book took awhile to read. It's generously seasoned with interesting, thought provoking charts and graphs, some of which I puzzled and wondered over for minutes at a time. Like other books of this genre, I seasoned my reading with escapism, a little Montalbano here, some Robert B Parker there. Unlike other books in this genre, I kept coming back to it, reading right through to the wonderful glossary and notes in the back. This is a worthy book; if adult reading could be compulsory, I would demand that every politician and policy maker from every country should be compelled to read it ...and there should be a quiz at the end.
Mike Berners-Lee uses a Q&A format to approach the incredibly broad front of the problem -- not just global warming, but ocean acidification, sea-level rise, social injustice, unequal distribution of wealth, misappropriation of resources ...all of which many activists are beginning to recognize as interlinked and mutually reinforcing. He strongly asserts that we cannot hope to solve them individually and one at a time. Writing about the need to leave fossil fuels in the ground and reverse the trend for ever more energy use, he writes "Humanity is going to have to raise its game it if wants to take deliberate control over the amount of energy it uses."
What excites me about this book is his practical approach. after carefully identifying each challenge (many of which I had never identified) he sets out practical suggestions about what we can do, often separated into sectors: what government can do, what manufacturers and communities can do, what we can do individually. Since I am reading books like this to bolster my own understand and add newer and better strategies to my collection of convincing material, this alone makes this book stand out.
I appreciate Mike's gentle approach. Due in part, I am sure, to his work in "industry," helping corporations get their own goals aligned with the needs of the planet in the 21st century, his suggestions, while ambitious and demanding, are within our reach ...leading, of course, to my perennial question, Since so many of us see what's coming, why in the world can't we suck it up and do something constructive? On a bad day, my answer: Extinction is a good idea. Mike's book reminds me that we don't have to keep having more and more bad days.
This book took awhile to read. It's generously seasoned with interesting, thought provoking charts and graphs, some of which I puzzled and wondered over for minutes at a time. Like other books of this genre, I seasoned my reading with escapism, a little Montalbano here, some Robert B Parker there. Unlike other books in this genre, I kept coming back to it, reading right through to the wonderful glossary and notes in the back. This is a worthy book; if adult reading could be compulsory, I would demand that every politician and policy maker from every country should be compelled to read it ...and there should be a quiz at the end.
December 10, 2019
This book is an interesting mixture of facts, figures, graphs and prognoses about climate change and our planet, with a bit of zen philosophy thrown in. I can see why some reviewers say that the author is naive and the stuff about 21st century thinking skills, intrinsic values and a global covenant (sorry, I do not see that happening) came across a tad soft at first. Fascinating info about the effects of climate change and renewable energy sources being unevenly spread among countries...sort of like fossil fuel resources are now. However, the more I think about it, the more it seems that Mr Berners-Lee is right. The shift in thinking that we need to save the planet will not happen without the prerequisites mentioned by him - looking at the big picture, putting every piece of information into context and perspective, understanding suppy chains and the impact of our shopping choices, calling out liars and obfuscators, etc. We simply need to become more discerning consumers of both stuff and information. Come to think of it, it is amazing that Mr Berners-Lee manages to maintain a somewhat positive outlook, given what he knows about the past and likely future behaviour of mankind.
Quote: Although we wiped out some other species, we have broadly got away with treating the world as a big sturdy playground. Suddenly it is fragile. The playground will break unless we dramatically change the way we play in it.
Quote: Although we wiped out some other species, we have broadly got away with treating the world as a big sturdy playground. Suddenly it is fragile. The playground will break unless we dramatically change the way we play in it.
November 7, 2019
Mike Berners-Lee is Professor at Lancaster University’s Institute for Social Futures and in this informative, thought-provoking but depressing book (that at times gets too caught up in the numbers and analogies), he sets out some of the facts and figures relating to climate change (which he expands to look at food supply, biodiversity and plastic use) to give the reader ideas for how to reduce the damage they do to the planet.
January 29, 2024
if you want to read an accessible text that will remind you further of how much we humans have crapped on this planet, read this.
note that not every section will be relevant to you so reading it cover to cover will make you fall asleep but other than that, it's scary and hopeful (at the same time, yes i know).
i still want to know why isaac would read this on sports day though 🤔
note that not every section will be relevant to you so reading it cover to cover will make you fall asleep but other than that, it's scary and hopeful (at the same time, yes i know).
i still want to know why isaac would read this on sports day though 🤔
October 10, 2021
The 2021 updated edition is even better than the first edition with brand new material on some of the important levers of change that have been emerging including XR, FFF, new answers for the business community and an elaboration of the "What can I do" section and more.
10/10 recommended read!
10/10 recommended read!
July 22, 2025
I learnt some things, but a lot of it was familiar — not surprisingly, considering that it was written in 2019.
The author sets out to show a bigger picture — which I think is essential for a better understanding of how we are accelerating climate change.
Unfortunately, some things weren’t correct, others were oversimplified, and others felt virtually irrelevant:
For example, he states that we can eat too much protein without knowing it, but in reality, this can lead to health problems and weight gain.
He also incorrectly says that animals cannot make amino acids — but in fact, some can be synthesised (just not the essential amino acids).
He doesn’t mention the difference between heme and non-heme iron, or that vitamin A is manufactured from petroleum.
I know it’s impossible to include everything in a book, but if you’re trying to look at the big picture, these little things are often important.
I don’t disagree with his ideas and ideals, but expecting customers to ask where everything comes from and how it is grown or farmed — and expecting the seller to know all of this — is often an idealistic impossibility.
When talking about energy, he sometimes leaves out important factors, such as the fact that although wind turbine parks produce less energy per km² than solar parks, the land between the turbines can be used for other purposes.
Particularly interesting is the fact that energy efficiency leads to us using more energy: Jevons paradox. Also, the concept of leaving fossil fuels in the ground and what effect that would have on different countries is something that isn’t mentioned enough.
When talking about public transport, it feels like a rather Western-urban mentality to believe that everyone has access to trains, buses, bikes, etc.
Although the author is not an economist, he puts forward some ideas that sound good in theory, but there is no mention of the potential negative economic impacts, such as inflation. That said, if these theories were practical, they do sound good.
Just like the idea of a citizen’s wage — it’s certainly appealing, but would it actually work? And “cutting the crap out of jobs” seems another impossibility: there are plenty of jobs that are essential but not something many would willingly do just to find fulfilment.
So great, you have a citizen’s wage and can fulfil yourself by painting — but who is producing the things you need? And do they know where their raw materials are coming from?
It seems a little strange to represent prison time per person. Most people never go to prison; some spend a few weeks or months, whereas others spend many years. Surely a clearer way to show the data would be as incarceration rates (per 100,000) — for example, Norway: 55.
I liked the ideas about businesses having to play a role beyond simply making profit.
And an important (and little-mentioned) factor made clear in the book is that of intrinsic values.
I especially liked the fact that he was positive about possible solutions, rather than just bemoaning how bad everything is, and that he emphasises the need to think in new ways.
P O S T S C R I P T
Just a little thing that annoys me (and this isn’t a criticism of this book specifically, but a general point):
We aren’t trying to “save the planet” — we’re trying to save ourselves, humankind. The Earth was around for billions of years before us, weathering extinctions and climate disruptions far more dramatic than this one.
If we die out, the planet and life will continue without us. So maybe we should keep that in mind and reword the slogan.
The author sets out to show a bigger picture — which I think is essential for a better understanding of how we are accelerating climate change.
Unfortunately, some things weren’t correct, others were oversimplified, and others felt virtually irrelevant:
For example, he states that we can eat too much protein without knowing it, but in reality, this can lead to health problems and weight gain.
He also incorrectly says that animals cannot make amino acids — but in fact, some can be synthesised (just not the essential amino acids).
He doesn’t mention the difference between heme and non-heme iron, or that vitamin A is manufactured from petroleum.
I know it’s impossible to include everything in a book, but if you’re trying to look at the big picture, these little things are often important.
I don’t disagree with his ideas and ideals, but expecting customers to ask where everything comes from and how it is grown or farmed — and expecting the seller to know all of this — is often an idealistic impossibility.
When talking about energy, he sometimes leaves out important factors, such as the fact that although wind turbine parks produce less energy per km² than solar parks, the land between the turbines can be used for other purposes.
Particularly interesting is the fact that energy efficiency leads to us using more energy: Jevons paradox. Also, the concept of leaving fossil fuels in the ground and what effect that would have on different countries is something that isn’t mentioned enough.
When talking about public transport, it feels like a rather Western-urban mentality to believe that everyone has access to trains, buses, bikes, etc.
Although the author is not an economist, he puts forward some ideas that sound good in theory, but there is no mention of the potential negative economic impacts, such as inflation. That said, if these theories were practical, they do sound good.
Just like the idea of a citizen’s wage — it’s certainly appealing, but would it actually work? And “cutting the crap out of jobs” seems another impossibility: there are plenty of jobs that are essential but not something many would willingly do just to find fulfilment.
So great, you have a citizen’s wage and can fulfil yourself by painting — but who is producing the things you need? And do they know where their raw materials are coming from?
It seems a little strange to represent prison time per person. Most people never go to prison; some spend a few weeks or months, whereas others spend many years. Surely a clearer way to show the data would be as incarceration rates (per 100,000) — for example, Norway: 55.
I liked the ideas about businesses having to play a role beyond simply making profit.
And an important (and little-mentioned) factor made clear in the book is that of intrinsic values.
I especially liked the fact that he was positive about possible solutions, rather than just bemoaning how bad everything is, and that he emphasises the need to think in new ways.
P O S T S C R I P T
Just a little thing that annoys me (and this isn’t a criticism of this book specifically, but a general point):
We aren’t trying to “save the planet” — we’re trying to save ourselves, humankind. The Earth was around for billions of years before us, weathering extinctions and climate disruptions far more dramatic than this one.
If we die out, the planet and life will continue without us. So maybe we should keep that in mind and reword the slogan.
Read
May 28, 2022*no rating for a non-fiction book*
This was a really informative and easy to follow guide to climate change! I listened to the audiobook narrated by the author himself which I think was a very good choice, he has a nice reading voice and it made the whole audiobook feel more realistic and personal, in a way. I love when authors narrate their own audiobooks it's really cool.
I appreciate someone finally seeing that neo-liberalism isn't going to save our planet but I would have appreciated the word "capitalism" to be mentioned at least once as it is an important part of environmentalism and plays a key role in the destruction of our planet but it did not appear in the book. A bit disappointing.
Overall, however, this gives a good insight into climate change, what different groups of people can do about it et cetera. I also loved the glossary at the end that explained all the key words mentioned throughout the book. Definitely recommend.
This was a really informative and easy to follow guide to climate change! I listened to the audiobook narrated by the author himself which I think was a very good choice, he has a nice reading voice and it made the whole audiobook feel more realistic and personal, in a way. I love when authors narrate their own audiobooks it's really cool.
I appreciate someone finally seeing that neo-liberalism isn't going to save our planet but I would have appreciated the word "capitalism" to be mentioned at least once as it is an important part of environmentalism and plays a key role in the destruction of our planet but it did not appear in the book. A bit disappointing.
Overall, however, this gives a good insight into climate change, what different groups of people can do about it et cetera. I also loved the glossary at the end that explained all the key words mentioned throughout the book. Definitely recommend.
February 26, 2023
I wish every politician, CEO and teacher would read this book. In fact, I wish everyone would read this book.
My friends would often call me an "eco-terrorist", but honestly, after reading this book, I think we should all be eco-terrorists. It was almost painful to read at times (especially as I was on a plane and very painfully realising I AM THE PROBLEM), but I think this book bears facts we should all be aware of - regardless if we want to do something about them. I'm a big fan of the way it was written and despite the lowkey cringe name and some of my friends being convinced that all sustainability reports and temperature increase documents are written subjectively, I believed every word I read.
I very much hope that our generation will be the one that aims to more than anything to believe the right sources, limit inequality and battle the climate emergency.
My friends would often call me an "eco-terrorist", but honestly, after reading this book, I think we should all be eco-terrorists. It was almost painful to read at times (especially as I was on a plane and very painfully realising I AM THE PROBLEM), but I think this book bears facts we should all be aware of - regardless if we want to do something about them. I'm a big fan of the way it was written and despite the lowkey cringe name and some of my friends being convinced that all sustainability reports and temperature increase documents are written subjectively, I believed every word I read.
I very much hope that our generation will be the one that aims to more than anything to believe the right sources, limit inequality and battle the climate emergency.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 191 reviews