The Great Disruption: Why the Climate Crisis Will Bring On the End of Shopping and the Birth of a New World

by Paul Gilding

"One of those who has been warning me of [a coming crisis] for a long time is Paul Gilding, the Australian environmental business expert. He has a name for this moment-when both Mother Nature and Father Greed have hit the wall at once-'The Great Disruption.' " -Thomas Friedman in the New York Times

It's time to stop just worrying about climate change, says Paul Gilding. We need instead to brace for impact because global crisis is no longer avoidable. This Great Disruption started in 2008, with spiking food and oil prices and dramatic ecological changes, such as the melting ice caps. It is not simply about fossil fuels and carbon footprints. We have come to the end of Economic Growth, Version 1.0, a world economy based on consumption and waste, where we lived beyond the means of our planet's ecosystems and resources.

The Great Disruption offers a stark and unflinching look at the challenge humanity faces-yet also a deeply optimistic message. The coming decades will see loss, suffering, and conflict as our planetary overdraft is paid; however, they will also bring out the best humanity can compassion, innovation, resilience, and adaptability. Gilding tells us how to fight-and win-what he calls The One Degree War to prevent catastrophic warming of the earth, and how to start today.

The crisis represents a rare chance to replace our addiction to growth with an ethic of sustainability, and it's already happening. It's also an unmatched business Old industries will collapse while new companies will literally reshape our economy. In the aftermath of the Great Disruption, we will measure "growth" in a new way. It will mean not quantity of stuff but quality and happiness of life. Yes, there is life after shopping.

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

304 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2011

Reviews

[Katie · Rating 2 out of 5]

For those who are truly interested in how the coming crisis will unfold, read The End of Growth instead of this incomplete analysis.

The author makes a lot of really great points and presents some very compelling information, but his arguments are all over the place, unorganized, and often contradictory. He often comes very close to hitting on logical points, but, in many cases, falls short of identifying the real underlying problems and realistic solutions for them. Although his main points about limited resources, the end of growth, and climate change are important ones, he fails to bring everything to the logical conclusion that capitalism, in creating this situation, has failed and will not be able to continue. Capitalism is based on growth, therefore, with the end of growth comes the end of capitalism. As we radically change how we live, we will also have to create a radically different, completely new way of organizing society and our markets in a way that incorporates his main points (which are incompatible with a capitalist system): fixed levels of consumption and a more equitable distribution of resources and wealth.

First of all, I had a really hard time getting through this book because the points were so unorganized. It came across as rambling. Every time I read things like "but we will get back to this later" and "And back to the reasons why..." I wanted to scream. Was there an editor for this book? If so, how could they allow this to be published? There was way too much jumping around and repetition of points already made.

Furthermore, every time the subject shifted to economics, markets, or systems of societal organization (representative democracy, communism, marxism, or the surprisingly absent participatory democracy) he totally missed the mark. He clearly has no understanding of Marxism and shouldn't have even touched on it. He throws around the words cooperative and sharing (central to Marxist philosophy) and somehow thinks they can be applied within capitalism, which is a system based on competition against one another (not very compatible with sharing). At times he equates capitalism with markets in general, dismissing well-established arguments against capitalism by simply saying that "we can't just destroy markets - we need them!" (capitalism is just one way of organizing markets - markets can be organized in other ways and most people who speak out against capitalism believe that markets play a vital role in society). He even seems to equate our advanced capitalist system with democracy! He argues at one point that we can't let the great disruption destroy democracy, as if what we have right now is a thriving democracy rather than an increasingly brutal and oppressive corporatocracy. He doesn't seem to understand the definitions of any of these terms but doesn't hesitate to throw them around as if he does. It only hurts his case.

Many of his arguments seem to place all the blame on consumers, as if consumers themselves are the driving force behind our recent economic development. Consumers never asked specifically for many of the things we have. Rather, companies created products because they thought they could convince people to buy them and profit from the sales. Consumerism is not the root cause and it certainly is not what drives growth, as he absurdly states. Consumerism is an attitude that was created, through decades of advertising and propaganda on a massive scale, by corporations in order to feed and sustain the growth model that our economy is based on. Then he makes the ridiculous claim that we actually need to continue behaving as consumers (while still somehow fighting comsumerism - huge contradiction) by buying the right kinds of things so that the market will adjust on its own....

And this argument comes after he makes many valid points about how the market has failed us. Amazingly, the author manages to poke many holes in capitalist market theory, including debunking the self-correcting market fallacy, but then bases some of his arguments on the idea that the market will self-correct. For example, toward the end of the book he encourages people to make good choices as consumers, which will supposedly push the market in the right direction. However, earlier in the book he explains that unless governments change regulations, the market is going to continue delivering more of the same and will not change on its own. Not only can consumers only buy what is on the market, but they can only buy what they can afford - a big problem when considering that 1 in 5 Americans are either unemployed or underemployed.

Likewise, he claims at some point that the system worked for a while but doesn't work any more. How can any intelligent person claim that a system "worked" when it created the very problem that he is worried about?! If it brought us to where we are today, then it absolutely did not "work"!

Similarly, his discussion of poverty is pure nonsense. After establishing that measures like GDP do not accurately measure improvements across society (as they include many negative costs to society) he goes on to use rising GDP to support the idea that many people have been lifted out of poverty. While it is true that people in some areas of the world have been lifted out of poverty, others have been driven down into poverty because in order for one group to make gains, another group is often exploited. There is no discussion of real wages or real buying power. Instead, he falls into the same trap that he rails against just pages earlier by citing aggregate wealth levels as evidence that more people are living better lives (better by what measure?).

Add to all this that he doesn't even mention our global financial problems (which are likely to lead, very soon, to a severe restriction on the investment capital that his plan will require) or discuss how government subsidies are continuing to prop up oil, coal, and agribusiness markets, thus preventing the market reactions he predicts, and his arguments unravel very quickly.

Overall, there were some very good points made, albeit in an unorganized and annoying way, that are extremely important for people to understand. There is very likely an audience for which this is appropriate, such as skeptics who might require the repetition and simplicity. However, aside from his evidence regarding climate change and the physical limits on growth, his logic is severely flawed and his understanding of our global economic system is rudimentary at best. He gives plenty of reasons to be hopeful and I can only hope that his logical failures don't negate his overall argument that we are capable of saving ourselves before it's too late.

[Rob · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well good in parts.
His basic premise is that as things get truly awful government, business and the general population will then go into full gear combating climate change. The effort will be as fierce as the American, British and Russian (although can't remember him saying Russian) effort during WW2.

I'm not so sure.

The depths vested interests will go to save their position is pretty damn low. You could make out a case that it is not so much a WW2 response that is instructive but rather the response of the slave holding class in America's South. As time went on the South's position hardened. So much so that slave holding was held up as a moral good by 1860. A small class pushed the South into a fratricidal war.

The response NEEDS to be as magnificent as the fight against fascism. It NEEDS to be as quick and as flexible and as all encompassing. When we have the will it will be done. BUT....but in English speaking countries the fight against climate change is for the moment lost. The deniers have won for the moment. And maybe it is too late.

The weirdest part of the politics is that every section of government is preparing for climate change. Big business is preparing for it. Yet today 27/06/2011 60% of the Australian population do not believe we should do anything about climate change. This is a 27% change in 18 months. What kind of politics will we have when virtually all the broadly defined intelligensia (except for those in the pay of big polluters and Murdoch) believe the situation is getting critical but 60% of punters think it is due to sun spots or a vast international conspiracy of scientists making it up.

It will be messy. The response may be authoritarian. It may be chaotic; it may be vengeful. When opinion does change, as it inevitably will, it could well be like that Italian angry crowd response to Mussolini in 1943. But what about the technocrats in every level of government working for either the denying or the spineless politician? Will the rest of big business be willing to fry to save the big polluters? We live in interesting times.

The books point however, is because we need this response it will happen. I think that the author is naive. He IS a good person. The science IS right. The suggested way of tackling climate IS on the money but things are gonna get a lot worse before they get better. And this is the part that he should have looked at and that is that the politics of the situation will be fought out in unfamiliar and uncomfortable ways for Western democracies.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gilding's premise is that the current "system" (economy and culture based on continuous growth and the accumulation of "stuff") is unsustainable and must be replaced by one that is sustainable (steady state economy with redistribution of wealth and a focus on personal development, human relationships, and community). Using climate change as an example of how the current system is dysfunctional, he points out that we are currently using 1.4 planets worth of resources to fuel the growth of our economy and support our exploding population and, in the process, destroying our ecosystem through anthropogenic global warming. He proposes that we may have reached the end of economic growth in 2008 and that we have already damaged the climate through the release of greenhouse gasses to the point that the planet will warm two degrees (F) by the end of the century without drastic action. He believes that the collapse of the old economy and the effects of global climate change will lead to "The Great Disruption," a kind of bottleneck through which humanity must pass in order to survive. The disruption (droughts, crop failures, loss of land to rising seas, mass migrations, economic collapse, failed states -- in other words, chaos) will result in the loss of a few billion people, but it will inspire an effort equivalent to that of the West in World War II, which will end global warming through "The One Degree War," effect a transition to clean energy sources, create a new and socially just economic system, and focus the energies of those who remain on achieving happiness (I assume in the Aristotelian sense) rather than on shopping. Although he has the science right, I think he is a bit too sanguine about human nature. His "one degree war" (intended to limit global warming to only one degree) relies heavily on untried, expensive, and possibly unsafe technical fixes carried over the century. The transition to a new economy and clean energy technology will take place largely during "The Great Disruption" and will be given urgency and credibility by that destabilizing event. (We only have to look at Somalia to get an idea of how difficult it is to effect major changes in the midst of chaos.) Gilding is a bit too glib about the prospect of losing a few billion people and 50% of the species now living and coming out of that disruption with our optimism intact, our priorities reordered, a more just economic system, clean energy, a stabilized climate, and a healthier Weltanschauung. He fervently believes that we will respond too slowly to the coming crisis but with overpowering zeal and ingenuity when we do respond. I hope he is right about that response; I fear that he is very wrong.

[Chris · Rating 1 out of 5]

No mas!! This was "the great disruption" to my reading zen. I could only make it to page 64. I was very, very disappointed with this book. I had heard an interview with the author on NPR and he was stimulating. This book is a poorly organized rant and all over the place with gratuitous information about his personal life and belaboring a point and going down streets and alleys of irrelvant information and a myriad of metrics. He has too much passion and tries too hard to make his point that the environment drives the economy and the world will be changing soon. I believe him,I'll listen to him, but I can't read his book.

[Natasha · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the last five years I have read a lot of books about climate change, peak oil and the economic outlook caused by these events. In the past I would be filled with a sense of dread over the coming global changes. Now it seems that authors are trying to give us a sense of hope rather than despair. They tell us that, yes, the Earth has changed for good due to human activity, but all is not lost, things will actually be better in the long run when we are forced to change our ways. This book falls in line with the Optimist point of view.

All in all Eaarth, by Bill McKibben, is a more compelling read, but this book is excellent reading as well. Here is the bottom line according to Gilding:

"With all of us in charge, we live in the ultimate global democracy and we vote every minute of every day. We all know what we need to do. Shop less, live more. Raise chickens, and children who think. Build more community, make our lives more connected. Make good companies grow stronger, make bad companies go broke. Elect good political leaders, throw out bad ones. Roll out technologies that work and phase out those that don't. Most of all, we need to stop waiting for some else to fix it. There is no one else. We are the system; we have to change."

[Steve H · Rating 4 out of 5]

Gilding is evidently in between the strong environmentalist and climate change denying camps. He's worked for Greenpeace but has also been an environmental consultant for many a major corporation. So, I tend to think of him as coming from a somewhat fair and balanced place.

This book is disturbing in its implications that climate change as well as issues related to overpopulation and overconsumption will have dramatic and inevitable impacts on the world, its environment, its species, and our economic and social systems. Gilding says that you don't have to believe the changes are coming, but the world must prepare to do something about the changes once they start happening in a way that catches people's attention.

One way is what he outlines as the "one degree war" where he compares a global response to climate change and resource scarcity to the global response to WWII. This is a comparison he makes frequently with, I think, convincing reasoning. His idea is that global governments will lead the charge in demanding changes to manufacturing and creating regulations that will help keep temperature rise to one degree. He acknowledges that many people are pessimistic that such changes can occur given the utter failure to respond to climate change thus far despite decades of evidence and warnings, but he is ultimately somewhat optimistic about the possibility, in part because to be pessimistic is to admit failure and simply write off the future of the world. Note that even his optimistic view still has perhaps a billion people (1,000,000,000) starving and becoming refugees that destabilize the world as we've come to know it.

As part of this "optimism," Gilding spends the last third or so of his book painting scenarios of success and recommending things that can be done now to help lessen the effects of the impending changes. These are the parts I find inspiring, though in the 3 years since the book's publication I see that some of his recommendations have failed to catch on or have actually failed, like a company called E+co, which was supposed to improve energy efficiency in developing countries and provide good return on investment but which suffered major losses and had to be reorganized. Still, I hope to look at some of his other recommendations and predictions and see how they've done since his writing.

One final thought - Gilding sees an "end to growth" as inevitable given that we're using resources faster than the Earth can sustain. This changed to a steady state economy is intriguing and sounds quite logical if only enough people would embrace it. I'm ready to give it a try.

Overall, this is an important, if somewhat flawed (could use some editing), book that shows at least one path by which civilization can lessen the impacts of the coming changes. I hope my political representatives and leaders of companies I support will read (enough of) it to start thinking about what they can do to prepare for the future.

[Amy Flaherty · Rating 4 out of 5]

I heard of this book on NPR and was intrigued because it was a book about the next 20-50 years that was not completely doom and gloom. Much different than the usual "run for the hills and raise hogs and chickens" type of message. The author is a veteran environmentalist who has actually put his money where his mouth is several times. He writes of his personal struggle with the change in the environment but then also how he has worked with many of the "game changers" such as the CEO's of large companies as a consultant for them to get ready for the changes in the economy which will be a result of the stress of the planet from overpopulation, overuse of resources and poor planning. His basic thesis is one of hope though, again it still surprises me. He makes the argument that our species is very good at facing very poor odds and still making it; he states we are "slow not stupid." According to the book, one day (although he doesn't say exactly when, one thing I would have liked to of seen more in the book) that there will be a tipping point and humanity will finally see the train heading for them and jump off the tracks just in time to avert the collapse of our race. We will do this through many different methods, which he outlines in the book. I recommend this book if you are curious about the changes in the economy in the next 20 years and how it will affect you and yours BUT don't want something that makes you want to go ahead and put a bullet in your head. Overall, I feel I am better informed for reading the book and that's one of the best things about a good book :)

[Laura · Rating 2 out of 5]

I want to believe that Gilding is creating a book to convince CEOs to do fewer bad things, and that that's why he wrote it, and no other reason. I want to believe he doesn't necessarily agree with himself because a lot of the things he's saying don't make sense for people living CEO-free lives. He says that innovative companies can survive the "great disruption" that climate change will bring to the economy when consumers shift towards more eco-friendly products. Then, he outlines a world where people focus on communities and not on money. It's like, soft Marxism, baby Marxism for cowards and/or CEOs, branded as something that can be brought about through market forces.

What?

Next, the main argument in this book can be summarized as: "We're on the brink of ecological collapse--but don't worry, humans aren't stupid and we'll figure our way out of it, we just have to plan. We will end up planning and preparing because we'll have to. Don't worry it will happen, because it has to happen." He reiterates this several times throughout the book. In fact, it's most of the book. He spends more time reassuring the reader than humanity will eventually change than he does talking about what that change might/should look like. By a LARGE margin.

Plot twist, Paul! People don't just do things because they have to. I want you to check out the concept of the argument of adverse consequences. It's a concept that describes...a logical fallacy. Yeah. You relied almost entirely upon fallacious reasoning, Paul. Sorry.

Oh, and at some point he says, "We have to do this soon, and we will because there's no situation in which we can realistically solve the climate issue if we wait past 2020 to start preparing." Oh, dear God. These ideas did not age well. Yikes.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you no longer need argument and proof that the resources of this planet are finite skip to chapter 16. The author's premise from that point on is that the imminent catastrophic events that will precipitate the meltdown of our ecosystem as well as our civilization will jolt us into a mode of hyper-focused activity and creativity that he compares (relentlessly) to the war effort in America and Britain during WWII. This pulling together will then guarantee the human race a triumphant emergence on the other side of the "great disruption": a time of enormous hardship during which all of us will set aside every one of our personal priorities to labor shoulder to shoulder on annihilating CO2, developing new sources of energy, create new farmland, and on, and on.

What disappoints me most about the book is that in its — to my sense — naive eagerness to put an almost euphoric spin on our ability to overcome every problem to be faced, the author (conveniently?) ignores the most pressing issue that needs addressing: the unchecked growth of the global population.

Building energy efficient cars, and finding solutions for our dwindling supplies of fresh water will not stop the world population from growing exponentially every time we breathe. Nobody will disagree with me that cars don't pollute unless people drive them, and resources don't dry up unless there's too many people to consume them.

My view is that if it is true that every few seconds, somewhere in the world, a woman gives birth...then we need to find her immediately and make her stop!

Mister Gilding, lets not worry about electric cars and biodegradable diapers until we find her...OK?

[Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Please read this book. Gilding makes the most coherent argument that I have read about the interconnections between capitalism, peak energy, and climate change, including several basic arguments that would ideally be understood by everyone.
1) The capitalist expectation of infinite economic growth is unsustainable because it cannot surpass the natural limits of the Earth.
2) Because our capitalist society is based on growth, significant social and economic destabilization will occur when those natural limits are reached.

Gilding doesn't mince many words in describing the undesirable outcomes of reaching this point. Things look pretty bleak after the first few chapters. However, Gilding then responds to this bleak picture with his inspiring ideas for transitioning to a new economy. He probably spends too much time on these and rambles too much. But, after dismay-inducing initial chapters, I welcomed every idea that he had.

The main point of the final chapters is that we need to start making changes now.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

We have much more than climate change to worry about. The unraveling of the global economy due to limits on growth which the environment is placing on the system (peak oil, overfishing, lack of irrigation water for food crops, etc) is the other Big Problem which we are beginning to face. Paul Gilding thinks that things will get much worse before we finally "get it" and get to work on facing these predicaments. He assumes that once the majority finally sees the problems they will pressure governments to act and that a WWII-style focus (on steroids) will reconfigure the world we live in. I have my doubts but it is good to see some hope.

[Ben Thurley · Rating 3 out of 5]

According to Paul Gilding:

We’ve been borrowing from the future, and the debt has fallen due. We have reached or passed the limits of our current economic model of consumer-driven material economic growth. We are heading for a social and economic hurricane that will cause great damage, sweep away much of our current economy and our assumptions about the future, and cause a great crisis that will impact the whole world and to which there will be a dramatic response.

Predicting an upcoming crash of inter-related food shortages, climate disasters, economic disruption and geopolitical instability, Gilding also predicts that human beings won't change in time to avoid the crisis – but will mobilise with massive speed and resilience, "when our backs are to the wall." He sees the global economy as a massive Ponzi scheme, using up the earth's resources and contributing to climate instability at an unsustainable rate. Political commitments to economic growth (an unassailable dogma) will soon come hard against the unforgiving laws of physics, biology and chemistry.

The earth is full; there is nowhere to put an economy that is twice the size of the earth, let alone five times the size. We will try hard to grow it; indeed, we will throw everything we have at the task, as we did when growth stalled in 2008. We will have some success, and growth will occur in individual countries and companies, and at different times it will occur globally for periods. But it will not happen on a significant scale or for sustained periods, for many decades to come. It will be prevented from doing so by the physical constraints of resource availability and the physical response of the global ecosystem, particularly the climate, on which our economy depends.

Through this massive disruption, which will cause huge personal, social and economic losses and devastation – particularly for the poorest and most vulnerable people and countries – Gilding still believes that people will be able to shift towards a more intelligent, conscious, stable, sustainable and ethical civilisation in its aftermath.

He sketches the great benefits of taking action to prepare for the disruption – cheaper transport, cleaner energy and air, smaller nimbler businesses, more cohesive communities – as well as the "one degree war" we will need to wage in order to prepare well and avoid perhaps unmanageable results. Basically, he argues, we will need to undertake a massive mobilisation of zero-emissions technology (carbon capture and storage, nuclear, wind and solar), demonstrate an unbreakable commitment to leave unburnable carbon in the ground, and embed sustainability and equity into all our systems of production, consumption and trade.

I am less of a techno-optimist than Gilding and found that although he does outline the likely physical and social effects of the coupled climate and economic disruption the world is facing, he is rather glib about who will be hurt and how bad the damage could be – even within our lifetimes. Looking at the changes to the global coal, oil and gas industry and the investment environment for fossil fuels – I think Gilding may be right that businesses are on the verge of massive change. I am less sanguine that the end outcome will be a wartime-style mobilisation of effort to respond to disruption and a shift to more empathetic, ethical and sustainable societies.

[Jeff Posey · Rating 5 out of 5]

I give this 5 of 5 stars because of Gilding's synthesis and thinking, not because of his writing. As a writer, I give him 2 of 5 stars. This book could have been about a third of its total length and it would have been better. But, that's not a valid reason to dismiss it. The intellectual content is worthy of digging through all those extra words.

Gilding, the former head of Greenpeace, has been an environmental activist essentially all of his life. As such, he did what many others have done -- he descended into despair. There is a natural limit to our growth on this planet, and all logic and reason point to us either having already reached that limit or we're darned near it. Yet we're continuing along as a society as if we're not about to fall off a catastrophic environmental cliff.

There are three possible responses: give up and watch the calamity ensue; build a bunker and stock it with food and weapons; envision a better way and proselytize. The third way is Gilding's path, and I admire that. He believes we will have a sudden awakening and address it in the equivalent of a war footing, much as England and the U.S. belatedly, but energetically, entered World War II.

Don't expect a how-to in this book, or advice on what we as individuals can do. It's more of an attitude-adjustment book, a reality check, a challenge to pull our collective heads out of our collective rear-ends. As such, it should be read by every sentient being on the planet.

[Patricia · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciate that Paul Gilding takes time and care to build a wide context for his discussion of climate change: historically and culturally. He draws us into catalytic turning points in awareness about the natural world at various stages of his childhood and early adulthood, which ultimately became part of the foundation for his profession. He illustrates a cultural shift from nature as a nice place in which to retreat, toward perceiving the inherent interconnectedness of people and nature. There is much detail, but I consider it necessary and worth it. I am on page 162 and am still impressed.

[Rachel Bayles · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a solid, well thought-out book by a man who I can respect. Yet, he doesn't quite make his case. Maybe it's because there are so many examples of societal collapse (see Diamond Jared) in situations of resource overreach, that Gilding's analogy to WWII doesn't entirely ring true. Or at least not as strongly as I would like. I came away from this book wanting to be optimistic, but not being comfortable with the reasoning.

[Ron Joniak · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book misses the mark. Many of the author's arguments are rooted in truths, but the author does a poor job at coherently organizing his arguments. His analysis of other socioeconomic ideas (other than capitalism led) are severely poor.

His plea to optimism is not logical.

The book does hit some good points, but I would skip this.

[Andrea Athos · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was ok but like in many of those kinds of books there is not much about animal agriculture which is one of the biggest polluters of our climate. Well people seem to not look at it....

[Sher · Rating 3 out of 5]

_The Great Disruption_ is a lively, excellent book written in 2011. What's tragic about this book and so many others written around 2000, is that it is full of solutions and hope and energy, and none of the advice has been followed. Gilding hopes we - as individuals and small groups can make change, but it's obvious that is not possible. He's advocating a year without shopping and talks of a 1 degree warming. People are not longer talking about a 1 degree warming, and we are still shopping. He does hit the nail on the head when he writes that we have come to the end of economic growth being the core from which all good things flow; "that game is over" ( 255).

[Josie · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first 60 pages and the last 100 were very interesting. Somewhere in the middle, though....yawn...he goes on and on about his opinion and the people he talked to who think the same way he does, but with very little fact to back things up. I also feel he did a poor job marrying his two theses: that the impending doom of climate change (never really spelled out, but "hundreds of thousands will probably die") will cause the collapse of the world's financial system. I don't think anyone argues that the two are tied together in many ways, but considering it's the sub-title of his book, I think Gilding could have spent a bit more time flushing it out.
By far the most interesting part of the book was toward the end when he discusses the economy. Very interesting was his take on how "growth economy" (the idea that politicians must continue to promise and show growth in order to be looked on favorably) is at an end, because we simply can't grow anymore. It seems like a "no duh" now that he says it, but I'd never really thought before that you can only grow so far, and then there's no where to go. And then what do you promise people? How do you create a sustainable economy?
Also interesting were his facts on happiness and how it relates to the ratio between the highest earners and lowest earners. For example, in the military, the person paid the most in the whole system gets about 20X what the person paid the least gets. In corporate America, the highest paid person gets around 500X what the lowest gets paid. And this, apparently, has an inverse relationship with how happy the people in that system are. Not just the lowest paid people, all the people in the system, including the man earning the big bucks. And there is no evidence that these obscene wages are in exchange for smarter, better decisions (as if that isn't now clearly evident).
This also leads into another discussion which he just touches on, but I think could be an interesting follow-up: now that we have the material needs that have driven us for the past umpteen years (food, shelter, ect), what will drive our decision making in the future? Personally, I see society starting to make decisions based on happiness, and what will lead to it. We've gotten sidetracked by consumerism, because material wealth has been the driving factor in happiness in the past (full stomach v. starvation), but what will it be in the future? More free time? Better education? More sun? I'd be interested to read more about this and also to see what the next 100 years takes us.

[Steve Bivans · Rating 5 out of 5]

By nature, I’m a doom n gloom kinda guy; just ask my friends. And Gilding’s book starts out that way; the picture he paints of the Earth’s near future isn’t a pretty one, not one bit. But it’s accurate, and there’s nothing we can do to stop the Great Disruption that he predicts.

Gilding draws upon the science of climate change to warn us, again, that the end of civilization ‘as we know it’ is upon us. The clues are all around us: economic crashes, unstable oil prices, depleted soil injected with poisons to produce cancerous food, revolutions, refugees, war, and an addiction with economic growth. It is this addiction, that in the end, will drive us over the cliff. Infinite growth is a mathematical impossibility in a world of finite resources. Consumerist-Capitalism is dead, and it’s time to bury it.

Gilding doesn’t just rely on the ‘science’ to make his case; even the ‘forefathers’ of our capitalist system, John Maynard Keynes, John Stuart Mill, and the man who arguably started it all, Adam Smith, all pointed to the end of growth and a time when we would exploit our resources beyond what they would supply. That time has come. To argue otherwise might make you feel better, but it won’t change the facts. The only real question left is, “What the hell do we do now?”

Luckily, Gilding isn’t just a doom n gloom kinda guy—neither am I, anymore—he’s actually an optimist. Gilding does NOT think we will slip into chaos. Gilding draws on the example of WWII, when freedom-loving peoples all over the world banded together to defeat the threat from fascist dictators. Even then, our grandparents and great-grandparents waited till it was almost too late, as we have done. But just like them, Gilding argues that when the crisis finally hits home, we will be moved to swift action to deal with the real dangers of climate change, and that during that process, we will find a way to build a better, more balanced, happier world.

If you want my opinion—and I’m sure you do since you’re reading this damned review—I think he’s dead on. We WILL wake up in time to save the Earth, and our place on it. How will that happen? Mostly, it will be the job of you and I, the little people of the planet, just like it was for the Greatest Generation, when Hitler came knockin’. Yes, our governments, and the business sector will play a major role in the early process, because they won’t have a choice; they’ll either get it done, or be replaced. But most of the work falls to us, the ordinary, average people of the world. Read the book! Then let’s get to work!

[Michael Young · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is indeed a marvelous book. So many words, arranged around marks of punctuation, formed into sentences and paragraphs which are then grouped into chapters, while at once remaining so utterly vapid and devoid of syntax. Had I not viewed it with my own eyes, I would not have believed that it could be done. One cannot help but marvel. It's packed with rhetorical gems, such as this from page 116: "This means that to succeed we will have to rapidly expand our response to other sustainability issues, including addressing the consequences of a range of other environmental and resource constraints, creating a new model of economic development that doesn't involve consumerism or material growth, and eliminating poverty and extreme inequity." Precisely! Now I know what needs to be done! Why didn't someone explain this to me before?

Described is a world both wondrous and terrifying, in which steam possesses the ability to explode into fireballs; carbon monoxide gas is flammable and can ignite into nuclear reactor fires that burn for nine days (page 19); and where Winston Churchill was in actuality a climate change strategist, whose wartime speeches were warnings of impending ecological doom (page 29, et seq). While reading, I had a feeling of deja vu. Then, I remembered: "Alice felt dreadfully puzzled. The Hatter's remark seemed to her to have no sort of meaning in it, and yet it was certainly English."

I cannot honestly say that this book was a total waste of time and money, since it led to my rediscovery of the wonderful illustration by John Tenniel that I now use in online personal profiles. In that respect, it was worth every penny.

Mr. Gilding seems to be a very nice man, who has done some very deep thinking about some very serious issues, reaching some very important conclusions, and who very earnestly desires to share them with as very many people as possible. To accomplish that, he should employ a very competent ghost writer, who will very carefully assist him in the very difficult task of transforming this very nonsensical thing he has produced into something that approaches comprehensible English.


Michael James Young

[Miz Lizzie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A difficult book to read but an important one. Gilding painstakingly outlines why we can't continue on our current course as limited resources and climate change are rapidly bringing the economic crisis that he calls The Great Disruption to a head. He theorizes in great detail how the crisis will arrive. Since we are already consuming the resources of 1.4 planets, it's coming soon. Ultimately, however, his outlook and his message is positive as he believes that when the environmental crisis becomes our economic crisis that we will finally act, quickly and innovatively, and that it will not be too late. Each one of us is the catalyst for change and Gilding believes that crises bring out the best in human ingenuity and commitment.

Where To Go From Here:
I coincidentally learned about the Transition Town movement while reading this book. This is a movement for building resilience, relevance, and connection right in the communities in which we are currently living. http://www.transitionnetwork.org/
Gilding also specifically references the Freecycling Network http://www.freecycle.org/, the No Impact Project http://noimpactproject.org/change/, and the Buy-Nothing Compact http://sfcompact.blogspot.com/ as places for individuals to start.

[Esther · Rating 4 out of 5]

The world faces some hard limits to growth that are threatening to smack our economy in the face. Paul Gilding has a hard look at these limits and how we need to deal with facing them.

What is interesting about this book is it is not just a set of policy prescriptions on how to respond; it is a deeply personal account of how to deal with facing the harsh realities which most of the world is still denying.

Gilding's argument is that we are unlikely to avoid slamming into the limits on our growth and that when we do, humanity will respond quickly and decisively to combat the ills that we have been ignoring. He argues that as we respond to clamp down on environmental degradation, particularly carbon emissions, there will also be an opportunity to start building a new system that works within all of our systemic limits.

This is an excellent book for anyone grappling with both the personal and practical implications of hitting our environmental limits in our lifetimes.

[Harry Steinmetz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Of all the future is going to hell in an environmental handbasket books out there, this one best answers the implicit question, where do we go from there? Cogent and well versed in politics and economics, Guilding suggested the path forward may not be as rough as others have suggested; but it depends on our choices. I came away form this book with a clear sense and a reassuring feeling that corporate capitalism is over. Since a hack salesman like Romeny seems to be the best they can come up with, my feelings seem to be confirmed. Either that or they are so overconfident that they really do think they can sell a president like a tube of toothpaste. When the chips are down, the American people seem to make the right choice to save this country and, perhaps, to lead the world out of the environmental mess we have created. That is true American Exceptionalism.

[Alan Cunningham · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've endured a couple of huckstery books this spring, and am thirsting for something more informative. I can always tell how I'm going to read something by the frequency of exclamation points at the end of the sentences. This book had plenty I had little patience for the author's fundamental assertion that people he agreed with were "respected" and those he disagreed with merely venal. While there were some good interactions with industry types, it was always as reformed monsters, no longer the chemical and nuclear ogres they once were.

Though I sincerely believe that we are moving towards a happiness or plentitude economy, I found his description of it to be pat. Perhaps it was because I had such a hard time engaging with the rest of the book. I would have liked his conclusions to have been more than Whole Foods set pieces of liberal orthodoxy.

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Usually with these end of the world type books they are just depressing and you lose all hope and want to curl up in bed and die.

But this book is different -- it is an optimistic view of the end of the world! I truly believe that as a society we will be able to get through our failing economy, etc. etc. etc. I do. I also believe that we have reached a tipping point and SOMEthing will happen, whatever it will be. I am not sure when it will be (and neither do any of the experts) but I suppose we are there now. It's not going to be a cataclysmic event (like the movie, 2012) just a series of failures that we will be able to deal with. I am sure of it!

I would recommend this book if you have a feeling that we're on a path of change.

[Caroline · Rating 2 out of 5]

I have given up on this book.

Before I started reading, I was already convinced that climate change and peak oil would change the way we live. I was hoping for a glimpse at HOW it would change things, and how we might best prepare.

Three chapters in, the author is reiterating in 500 different ways that 'he told us so' and no-one listened. So I skipped forward to chapter 10, hoping for some practical advice... more of the same, alas.

Perhaps this book holds hidden gems about the future, but I've given up looking.

[Xavier Shay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fantastic high-level book from former Greenpeace CEO and environmental consultant Paul Gilding. He directly addresses activist nihilism ("everything is fucked what's the point") at a time when I needed it. He's not optimistic in the "everything will work out fine" sense, but talks from direct experience figuring out what role he was going to play. If you're feeling down about the climate situation, have a read.

[Wolfgang · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is an intense warning of the accelerating climate crisis and its sources as well as consequences. But the author does not stop at climate. The scope is much larger than that. He puts the climate crisis in context of the limits of growth of human activities on earth.

The core argument is very simple : exponential economic growth is just not sustainable and we are headed for a wall. The data is compelling and the book tries to simply make a logical argument, and succeeds.

I have two issues with the book :

1) It is incredibly chatty. The author has been in the eco lobbying business for decades. Surely he ran more seminars, given more speeches and interviews the he can remember. The writing style reminds me of a friend who once tried to "write" a book by dictating the text into the computer. The result is a wildly meandering stream of consciousness. Not bad, but very tiring as you feel the author just keeps repeating redundant arguments at times and is not moving the argument forward, while constantly reminding you that he will soon get to the next point.

2) The book is taking the argument that the coming crisis is healthy and that humanity, which certainly has the mental and technological resources to deal with the catastrophe , will be forced to overcome it owns man-made crisis before it really hits hard. All it will take a resolve akin to the resolve the allies mustered to mobilize and win WWII. It would be wonderful if things were THAT easy. There is no external enemy here that can focus the will. Aren't the chances sky-high that large parts of the consumerist world will just simply refuse to acknowledge that there is no god-given right to a higher living standard than is sustainable.

A welcome book to address a pessimistic outlook in an optimistic, constructive way, but unfortunately, the optimism is not very convincing to me.

[Terry · Rating 4 out of 5]

2011 printing

Gilding expected? that with climate, economic, env events accelerating in freq and intensity, that within say 7 years (2018), enough people would recognize we have a crisis that couldn't be fixed w/ a band-aid this time. Using a WWII analogy (others have done this), the US and others would mobilize, make sacrifices, etc for the common good. And with a wholesale effort, it might just be possible to limit global warming to 1 deg C. Gilding like some scientists believes the 2 deg goal set in Paris is way too risky for the planet and our grandkids.

He does a good job of condensing the issues and looking for a balance between realism and (personal) optimism given the unknowns and political barriers.

My major interest in reading the book was to 1) study a scenario that accepted the reality that people, political leaders were not capable of making changes in the short-term for benefits in the long-term; 2) revisit Gilding in 2018 and see what his Plan B is since clearly in the US we have not accepted that our GDP growth-based capitalism economy is NOT sustainable.

Gilding has credentials w/ Greenpeace and w/ mediating changes in the culture at Dupont. He understands that the sincere half-measures and the green-wash tactics by major corporations will not get us to where we need to be to stem env disaster. An actual crisis (Pearl Harbor analogy) is needed but it has to be now.

I found a 2018 interview where he is asked to reevaluate his views. I interpreted his answers to be - the window where we can actually prevent tipping pts is rapidly closing; it may already be closed; the best we can do is remain optimistic and keep trying; the alternative leaves us w/ no hope.