What do you think?
Rate this book
Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning
Started to worry about just how hot our world is going to get, and whether you can do anything about it? As the effect of climate change grows by the day, so does the amount of hot air and bluster spouted by politicians and businessmen on what we should do about it. What with the excuses, the lies, the fudged figures, the PR greenwashing and the downright misinformation on the power of everything from wind turbines to carbon trading, when it comes to saving the world, most people don't know what they're talking about. Luckily, George Monbiot - scourge of big business, riler of governments, arch-enemy of climate change deniers everywhere - does. Packed with killer facts and inspiring ideas, shot through with passion and underlined by brilliant investigative journalism, with a copy of "Heat" you really can protect the planet. 'I defy you to read this book and not feel motivated to change' - "The Times".
320 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
58 people are currently reading
2346 people want to read
About the author
George Monbiot
42 books1,066 followersGeorge Joshua Richard Monbiot is a British writer known for his environmental and political activism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews
December 4, 2013
The most important teaching in these pages is that there is no coming technofix for climate change: the tech is here, we have the tech, and further developments will only be made if economic pressure throws the awesome power of human ingenuity behind making them. What is needed to create that pressure is political will, nothing else. From economic perspective, Tim Jackson points out more or less the same thing in Prosperity Without Growth.
Monbiot exposes the sneaky tactics (astroturfing, bribing famous people etc) that multinationals use to spread bare-faced malicious LIES about climate change. The doubt-mongers really are paid to spread fake stats and attack environmental campaigners.
He advocates the contraction and convergence strategy and calls for carbon rationing. His reimagining of Britain's transport infrastructure particularly struck my imagination, so much so that my brother painted a picture of it for me...
Monbiot exposes the sneaky tactics (astroturfing, bribing famous people etc) that multinationals use to spread bare-faced malicious LIES about climate change. The doubt-mongers really are paid to spread fake stats and attack environmental campaigners.
He advocates the contraction and convergence strategy and calls for carbon rationing. His reimagining of Britain's transport infrastructure particularly struck my imagination, so much so that my brother painted a picture of it for me...
December 4, 2013
A well written, well-informed and, crucially, well-sourced book. Hardly a point is made without a footnote, and this is essential as Monbiot has to convince his reader that everything he is saying is founded in reality. To my knowledge he is one of very few who has made the assertion that it is not too late to tackle Climate Change AND demonstrate how it can be done. It drives him to an unpalatable conclusion: that government has to take control and force change upon society, something few politicians have the guts to do. There are some shocking revelations here too, such as the changing of energy efficiency ratings at the behest of white goods manufacturers, which amounts to deceiving the public of all European nations.
July 15, 2025
Detailed and technical discussion on the possibilities of saving the planet from environmental destruction. Great for your debates with climate-changer deniers.
March 17, 2019
Monbiot gives out very little sugar with his pronouncements. He considers the notion that the only way to reduce carbon emissions by 90% is to live in what is described as a third world country. Thinking that modernity is mostly quite nice, Monbiot sets out in this book to see if he can design a way to reduce carbon emissions by 90% without reducing quality of life.
A 90% reduction in emissions? If this sounds alarmist, Monbiot starts from the position that most government documents twist science to sound less dire because "if they adopted the position determined by science rather than the position determined by politics, no one would take them seriously." Having said that, because people are not going to sacrifice the many fossil fuelled comforts of modernity, he favors regulation. Even here, Monbiot is less than enthusiastic:
The notion that a majority of people will just become some form vegans, vegetarians, flexitarians, or pescatarians, for example, is in other words unrealistic. But what is the difference between this expectation and placing hope in mass movements or grassroots movements or punching up movements that would lead to the election of leaders who would endorse the sort of massive regulation Monbiot calls for here? I note a similar phrasing of this argument from Klein, David Roberts, and Bill McKibben, but if people won't reduce their consumption, why should we predict that they'll vote for it?
By the way, I don't ask this question in order to imply market based solutions will save us. When it comes to buildings, for example, Monbiot points to efficient designs that could be adopted but that aren't because there is little market incentive to pay for them. But what about efficiency? Monbiot cites the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate, which if I understand it correctly, suggests that as we increase energy efficiency, people use more energy. The money saved is spent elsewhere, maybe in consuming more energy. This was both the first time I'd encountered this theory as well as the first time I've encountered 'postulate' used as a noun.
For the most part, he reaches his 90% goals, except when it comes to aviation. In the end, Monbiot concludes that people will have to mostly give up long-distance travel. Given that "I travel the world and have been to every continent" has become a sort of lifestyle declaration, I worry that this will be a tough nut to crack.
Heat was published in 2007. Much of its commentary on denialism is backed up in Merchants of Doubt (2010). I'd love to see an update on these chapters. The Tesla batteries seem unexpected by this writing, as does battery development in general. Natural gas has increased relative to coal, though Naomi Klein notes that its production releases methane, so perhaps we're not as far ahead as we might have hoped. Methane is being released from the tundra, so his worries about positive feedback loops have begun. Nevertheless, there is a willingness to get into the weeds in this book that I admire and that I'd welcome in more of these climate change books.
A 90% reduction in emissions? If this sounds alarmist, Monbiot starts from the position that most government documents twist science to sound less dire because "if they adopted the position determined by science rather than the position determined by politics, no one would take them seriously." Having said that, because people are not going to sacrifice the many fossil fuelled comforts of modernity, he favors regulation. Even here, Monbiot is less than enthusiastic:
"But the thought that worries me most is this. As people in the rich countries--even the professional classes--begin to wake up to what the science is saying, climate-change denial will look as stupid as Holocaust denial, or the insistence that AIDS can be cured with beetroot. But our response will be to demand that the government acts, while hoping it doesn't. We will wish our governments to pretend to act. We get the moral satisfaction of saying what we know to be right, without the discomfort of doing it."
The notion that a majority of people will just become some form vegans, vegetarians, flexitarians, or pescatarians, for example, is in other words unrealistic. But what is the difference between this expectation and placing hope in mass movements or grassroots movements or punching up movements that would lead to the election of leaders who would endorse the sort of massive regulation Monbiot calls for here? I note a similar phrasing of this argument from Klein, David Roberts, and Bill McKibben, but if people won't reduce their consumption, why should we predict that they'll vote for it?
By the way, I don't ask this question in order to imply market based solutions will save us. When it comes to buildings, for example, Monbiot points to efficient designs that could be adopted but that aren't because there is little market incentive to pay for them. But what about efficiency? Monbiot cites the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate, which if I understand it correctly, suggests that as we increase energy efficiency, people use more energy. The money saved is spent elsewhere, maybe in consuming more energy. This was both the first time I'd encountered this theory as well as the first time I've encountered 'postulate' used as a noun.
For the most part, he reaches his 90% goals, except when it comes to aviation. In the end, Monbiot concludes that people will have to mostly give up long-distance travel. Given that "I travel the world and have been to every continent" has become a sort of lifestyle declaration, I worry that this will be a tough nut to crack.
Heat was published in 2007. Much of its commentary on denialism is backed up in Merchants of Doubt (2010). I'd love to see an update on these chapters. The Tesla batteries seem unexpected by this writing, as does battery development in general. Natural gas has increased relative to coal, though Naomi Klein notes that its production releases methane, so perhaps we're not as far ahead as we might have hoped. Methane is being released from the tundra, so his worries about positive feedback loops have begun. Nevertheless, there is a willingness to get into the weeds in this book that I admire and that I'd welcome in more of these climate change books.
December 4, 2013
This is the most important book I have ever read, and I encourage everyone to deeply consider the points Monbiot has exhaustively researched and lucidly described. No issue today compares in importance to climate change - everything else is made irrelevant if it is not tackled. Monbiot illustrates why this is and what must be done to combat it. He is deeply sympathetic to the condition of industrialized societies, yet appropriately harsh and realistic. I honestly cannot stress enough the brilliance of Heat and how essential it is that we adopt Monbiot's proposals.
December 4, 2013
Monbiot argues emissions must be reduced 90% by 2030 and shows how we can do it in several areas. Well written with passion and humor. Cement was a surprise. A ton of CO2 for a ton of cement cured. Who knew? Air travel was the only category with no constructive suggestions. He gets at the core of the matter for those of us using more than our share-- we need to learn to adapt voluntarily.
December 4, 2013
This is an essential book for anyone who cares about the planet and social justice... so that should be everyone.
February 3, 2017
An extremely well written book where Monbiot offers a plan to drastically cut our current carbon footprint by examining our transportation systems (cars / airplanes / boats), houses and construction infrastructure, energy, and distribution of goods.
In all parts of the book, the author offers a fair and balanced review of the current technology on hand and the political and economical structures available. Unfortunately, many of the solutions Monbiot offers is not currently being implemented, likely as (he admits) they will cause many disruptions in our everyday life that we have come to cherish.
This book left me feeling more pessimistic about society, especially considering that this book is now dated.
Regarding Monbiot's plan here, one thing he did not take into consideration was the displacement of workers in his plans. He suggests shutting down airfare travel quite drastically (as airlines are highly detrimental to the planet and we currently have no real alternative), shutting down superstores/large grocery stores (and instead, having some mix of delivery services and local shops), and finding ways to keep cars off the roads (many people depend on truck driving/cars for their jobs). While, I agree that all of these things NEED to happen, Monbiot makes no mention of the elephant in the room here. The elephant I speak of is capitalism.
Capitalism, in its current form, will not allow us to live the type of world Monbiot envisions. I think, deep down, he knows this too. In any case, this is a fantastic read, and you WILL learn something by reading this book. It's just a tad bit dated now and unfortunately, gave me a very pessimistic look on climate change (note: I had a pessimistic view going into this read).
In all parts of the book, the author offers a fair and balanced review of the current technology on hand and the political and economical structures available. Unfortunately, many of the solutions Monbiot offers is not currently being implemented, likely as (he admits) they will cause many disruptions in our everyday life that we have come to cherish.
This book left me feeling more pessimistic about society, especially considering that this book is now dated.
Regarding Monbiot's plan here, one thing he did not take into consideration was the displacement of workers in his plans. He suggests shutting down airfare travel quite drastically (as airlines are highly detrimental to the planet and we currently have no real alternative), shutting down superstores/large grocery stores (and instead, having some mix of delivery services and local shops), and finding ways to keep cars off the roads (many people depend on truck driving/cars for their jobs). While, I agree that all of these things NEED to happen, Monbiot makes no mention of the elephant in the room here. The elephant I speak of is capitalism.
Capitalism, in its current form, will not allow us to live the type of world Monbiot envisions. I think, deep down, he knows this too. In any case, this is a fantastic read, and you WILL learn something by reading this book. It's just a tad bit dated now and unfortunately, gave me a very pessimistic look on climate change (note: I had a pessimistic view going into this read).
January 30, 2024
If you think there is any confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists about the existence and severity of the climate change crisis, you are fully under the wrong impression.
I found this book in a free little library a year or so ago. I was immediately intrigued by the title. As an environmentalist myself, I thought it would be good to know how to stop the planet from burning, and whether that is even possible. Well, according to George Monbiot and his sources, it can. I was a little worried about the quality of this book and the authority of its author to speak about this issue. No worries. George's extensive research is quoted and sourced with a 48 page works cited in this edition. I was relieved that George tries to look at these issues from every angle, and only makes his final opinions based on the evidence. He provides a mix of good and bad evidence, evidence that backs up his points, evidence that challenges it, and fully admits when he can’t find enough to back it up, consequently exposing where more studies need to be undertaken. He also exposes how governments have been able to get away with not doing enough about climate change, and proves that there is no good excuse for them to keep ignoring the issue.
“Does the government really believe it can put a price on the Amazon? On Bangladesh? This must, in other words, be a moral decision, not an economic one. Either we decide that it is right to spend a lot of money seeking to prevent catastrophic climate change or we decide that it isn't, but we must make that decision on the grounds of how much we value people and places as people and places, rather than as figures in a ledger.”
His big vision, and the only way he can see out of the current climate crisis, is a 90% global carbon cut. Through this book George discusses the different ways to do this, and making it clear what changes we cannot get away with not implementing. He explores energy, transportation, shopping, our 'leaky homes,' and alternative fuels. He does dive into the science of energy and carbon, and most of those parts did go over my head, but he does a great job of explaining things clearly and in as simple a manner as possible, often using metaphors or similes about concepts and daily practices. Without fail, he gets the point across and gives a final statement about whether a concept will work or not.
"Heat is both a manifesto for action and a thought experiment. Its experimental subject is a medium-sized industrial nation: the United Kingdom. It seeks to show how a modern economy can be decarbonized while remaining a modern economy. Though the proposals in this book will need to be adjusted in countries with different climates and of greater size, I believe the model is generally applicable: if the necessary cut can be made here, it can be made by similar means almost anywhere.”
The one thing that he cannot find a way around is air transportation. We cannot fly and reach the 90% carbon reduction. George spent a whole chapter discussing ways around this but he could not find one. I will feel appropriately terrible when I take my flights to Spain and New York in the coming months. As I often say about such things, the environmentalist in me is going to feel like they're dying.
“By turning on the lights, filling the kettle, taking the children to school, driving to the shops, we are condemning other people to death. We never chose to do this. We do not see ourselves as killers. We perform these acts without passion or intent.”
There are several concepts, some actually in practice even when this was written, that I have made notes to investigate further. I want to know what the most recent data is about the issues George discussed, and see if any of his requests have been put into practice or are at least being further explored. Many of his requests have not been put into practice, I know. It's terrifying to know that this book was published 18 years ago. In 18 years - my lifetime - what has been done? Where is our 90% carbon cut, George!?
“One of the arguments made by those who claim that we should take no action is that if the same amount of money were spent on relieving hunger, or supplying clean water, or preventing AIDS or tuberculosis or malaria, it would save more lives. This approach tends to overlook the fact that climate change is likely to cause more hunger, more water stress and more communicable disease, thereby raising the cost of addressing them.”
Yes, this is a lot. I took me over 2 months to read this for a reason. This is a lot to process. George does not hold back. He states it as it is. The reality of the future of our planet, of us, is not nice. There are a lot of sacrifices and sugarcoating that will not help anyone. There really is no safety zone for how much more carbon we can emit before there will be irreversible changes to our climate. He is brutally honest, and he gives us a lot to think about. Despite the heaviness of this topic, he leaves me with hope. It’s reassuring to know that there was/is someone who was dedicated enough to spend all the hours of research and writing that this book must have taken. George Monbiot is still an optimist. I applaud him for that because it’s a hard state to maintain.
Other quotes that stood out to me
“If our governments decide that climate change is an issue as urgent as the international crisis in 1941 – in my view a reasonable comparison – they could turn the economy around on a sixpence. Planning objections would be ignored, incentives and regulations would be used to make companies move as swiftly as General Motors and Ford responded to the war. Wind farms, powerlines and nuclear power stations – if this is what we want – could all be built in much less than a decade.”
“Complex ideas seldom do well in politics, as most people do not have the time or patience required to understand them. We are likely to react against one part of the package before we have grasped the whole idea.”
“The link between nuclear electricity and nuclear weapons is a real one. There is a grim symmetry in the technology's development. In the first nuclear nations, nuclear power generation was a by-product of nuclear weapons development. In the later nuclear nations, nuclear weapons development was a by-product of nuclear power.”
“Like that of many other rich nations, the British government wants to see a massive number of new homes built - 1.2 million by 2016 - to accommodate the people desperate to escape from their families.”
“...in order to deliver a carbon cut of the size I have discussed, everyone will have to limit their emissions, either today or, in the poorer nations, in the future. There is no choice to be made about whether to abstain from flying or to help poorer people buy better lightbulbs. We must abstain from flying and help poorer people buy better lightbulbs. Buying and selling carbon offsets is like pushing food around on your plate to create the impression that you have eaten it.”
“...as I know to my cost, writing, reading, debate and dissent change nothing. They are of value only if they inspire action. Action means moving your legs. Indeed, if this book has not encouraged you to want to do something, then I urge you to return it to the shop and demand your money back, for it has proved to be useless.”
“…the campaign against climate change is an odd one. Unlike almost all the public protests which have proceeded it, it is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but also against ourselves.”
“I have one purpose in writing this book: to persuade you that climate change is worth fighting. I hope I have been able to demonstrate that it is not - as some people...have claimed - too late. In doing so, I hope to prompt you not to lament our governments’ failures to introduce the measures required to tackle it, but to force them to reverse their policies, by joining what must become the world's most powerful political movement.
Failing all that, I have one last hope: that I might make people so depressed about the state of the planet that they stay in bed all day, thereby reducing their consumption of fossil fuels.”
I found this book in a free little library a year or so ago. I was immediately intrigued by the title. As an environmentalist myself, I thought it would be good to know how to stop the planet from burning, and whether that is even possible. Well, according to George Monbiot and his sources, it can. I was a little worried about the quality of this book and the authority of its author to speak about this issue. No worries. George's extensive research is quoted and sourced with a 48 page works cited in this edition. I was relieved that George tries to look at these issues from every angle, and only makes his final opinions based on the evidence. He provides a mix of good and bad evidence, evidence that backs up his points, evidence that challenges it, and fully admits when he can’t find enough to back it up, consequently exposing where more studies need to be undertaken. He also exposes how governments have been able to get away with not doing enough about climate change, and proves that there is no good excuse for them to keep ignoring the issue.
“Does the government really believe it can put a price on the Amazon? On Bangladesh? This must, in other words, be a moral decision, not an economic one. Either we decide that it is right to spend a lot of money seeking to prevent catastrophic climate change or we decide that it isn't, but we must make that decision on the grounds of how much we value people and places as people and places, rather than as figures in a ledger.”
His big vision, and the only way he can see out of the current climate crisis, is a 90% global carbon cut. Through this book George discusses the different ways to do this, and making it clear what changes we cannot get away with not implementing. He explores energy, transportation, shopping, our 'leaky homes,' and alternative fuels. He does dive into the science of energy and carbon, and most of those parts did go over my head, but he does a great job of explaining things clearly and in as simple a manner as possible, often using metaphors or similes about concepts and daily practices. Without fail, he gets the point across and gives a final statement about whether a concept will work or not.
"Heat is both a manifesto for action and a thought experiment. Its experimental subject is a medium-sized industrial nation: the United Kingdom. It seeks to show how a modern economy can be decarbonized while remaining a modern economy. Though the proposals in this book will need to be adjusted in countries with different climates and of greater size, I believe the model is generally applicable: if the necessary cut can be made here, it can be made by similar means almost anywhere.”
The one thing that he cannot find a way around is air transportation. We cannot fly and reach the 90% carbon reduction. George spent a whole chapter discussing ways around this but he could not find one. I will feel appropriately terrible when I take my flights to Spain and New York in the coming months. As I often say about such things, the environmentalist in me is going to feel like they're dying.
“By turning on the lights, filling the kettle, taking the children to school, driving to the shops, we are condemning other people to death. We never chose to do this. We do not see ourselves as killers. We perform these acts without passion or intent.”
There are several concepts, some actually in practice even when this was written, that I have made notes to investigate further. I want to know what the most recent data is about the issues George discussed, and see if any of his requests have been put into practice or are at least being further explored. Many of his requests have not been put into practice, I know. It's terrifying to know that this book was published 18 years ago. In 18 years - my lifetime - what has been done? Where is our 90% carbon cut, George!?
“One of the arguments made by those who claim that we should take no action is that if the same amount of money were spent on relieving hunger, or supplying clean water, or preventing AIDS or tuberculosis or malaria, it would save more lives. This approach tends to overlook the fact that climate change is likely to cause more hunger, more water stress and more communicable disease, thereby raising the cost of addressing them.”
Yes, this is a lot. I took me over 2 months to read this for a reason. This is a lot to process. George does not hold back. He states it as it is. The reality of the future of our planet, of us, is not nice. There are a lot of sacrifices and sugarcoating that will not help anyone. There really is no safety zone for how much more carbon we can emit before there will be irreversible changes to our climate. He is brutally honest, and he gives us a lot to think about. Despite the heaviness of this topic, he leaves me with hope. It’s reassuring to know that there was/is someone who was dedicated enough to spend all the hours of research and writing that this book must have taken. George Monbiot is still an optimist. I applaud him for that because it’s a hard state to maintain.
Other quotes that stood out to me
“If our governments decide that climate change is an issue as urgent as the international crisis in 1941 – in my view a reasonable comparison – they could turn the economy around on a sixpence. Planning objections would be ignored, incentives and regulations would be used to make companies move as swiftly as General Motors and Ford responded to the war. Wind farms, powerlines and nuclear power stations – if this is what we want – could all be built in much less than a decade.”
“Complex ideas seldom do well in politics, as most people do not have the time or patience required to understand them. We are likely to react against one part of the package before we have grasped the whole idea.”
“The link between nuclear electricity and nuclear weapons is a real one. There is a grim symmetry in the technology's development. In the first nuclear nations, nuclear power generation was a by-product of nuclear weapons development. In the later nuclear nations, nuclear weapons development was a by-product of nuclear power.”
“Like that of many other rich nations, the British government wants to see a massive number of new homes built - 1.2 million by 2016 - to accommodate the people desperate to escape from their families.”
“...in order to deliver a carbon cut of the size I have discussed, everyone will have to limit their emissions, either today or, in the poorer nations, in the future. There is no choice to be made about whether to abstain from flying or to help poorer people buy better lightbulbs. We must abstain from flying and help poorer people buy better lightbulbs. Buying and selling carbon offsets is like pushing food around on your plate to create the impression that you have eaten it.”
“...as I know to my cost, writing, reading, debate and dissent change nothing. They are of value only if they inspire action. Action means moving your legs. Indeed, if this book has not encouraged you to want to do something, then I urge you to return it to the shop and demand your money back, for it has proved to be useless.”
“…the campaign against climate change is an odd one. Unlike almost all the public protests which have proceeded it, it is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, it is a campaign not just against other people, but also against ourselves.”
August 4, 2022
This was a very informative and interesting book about climate change.
This book was very fact and statistic heavy. I can't lie some of this information went over my head.
However, the majority of this book was easy to understand. The writing style wasn't particularly engaging but it was still largely easy to follow and read.
I liked how this book was was divided into chapters regarding different areas of things which contribute to climate change including energy, travel and cemet. That last chapter wasn't the most interesting I can't lie.
Unfortunately, this book was written in 2007. It's sad to read how some things mentioned in this book haven't changed or gotten worse.
Some of the information doesn't seem particularly relevant. They didn't see covid coming and how it would effect our shopping and working habits.
Overall, a very interesting book for anyone interested in climate change, what causes it and what can be done to tackle it.
This book was very fact and statistic heavy. I can't lie some of this information went over my head.
However, the majority of this book was easy to understand. The writing style wasn't particularly engaging but it was still largely easy to follow and read.
I liked how this book was was divided into chapters regarding different areas of things which contribute to climate change including energy, travel and cemet. That last chapter wasn't the most interesting I can't lie.
Unfortunately, this book was written in 2007. It's sad to read how some things mentioned in this book haven't changed or gotten worse.
Some of the information doesn't seem particularly relevant. They didn't see covid coming and how it would effect our shopping and working habits.
Overall, a very interesting book for anyone interested in climate change, what causes it and what can be done to tackle it.
September 8, 2013
MONBIOT'S MANIFESTO
George Monbiot's Guardian columns are always well worth reading, as was his well received and best selling book on the links between big business and the state in Britain ("Captive State"). "Heat", whose subject matter is global warming, is likewise a well written, and informative read, dealing with some of the issues thrown up by the dangers of climate change.
The book begins by summarising the state of scientific knowledge at the time of its initial publication in 2006, and how this bears on the reductions of greenhouse gas emissions required in a country such as ours in order to make a fair share in reducing the risk of damaging global climate change. The result appears to be a reduction of 90% by 2030. Before moving on to the important questions of how this can be achieved, Monbiot takes time out for an entertaining look at what he terms the "denial industry". Publications such as the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail seem to be the leading sites for those who are keen to rubbish climate change, among the authors he cites are leading climatologists Melanie Phillips, Peter Hitchens, and most disturbingly of all for those of us who have fond memories of him from childhood, David Bellamy. Bellamy is apparently now a campaigner who vigorously denies the possibility of climate change, some of the information cited in his Daily Mail Article ("Global Warming? What a Load of Poppycock!") came from millionaire American Lyndon Larouche's publication "21st Century Science and Technology" - other propositions that Larouche has supported over the years include the notion that the Royal Family is running an international drugs syndicate, and that Jewish bankers control the British Government. One wonders if fellow Daily Mailist Mad Mel knows about this last one? One wouldn't have thought it was amongst her favourite causes?
The main body of the text involves examining a number of sectors of the economy including housing, transport, power generation, airlines, retail and industry and looking at what could be done to meet the targets that science appears to indicate. Monbiot's aim, which some in the environmental movement may find controversial, is to look at each sector individually and work out how they could meet the targets with the minimal amount of change to their functioning, and by association to the functioning of the economy as a whole. With the exception of the airline industry, which he would drastically curtail, his proposed solutions appear to meet those criteria.
This is an interesting book that clearly brings into the public debate a serious set of proposals for limiting the possibility of climate change occurring while minimising the effects on the way we live now. No doubt climate change doubters, and those whose pecuniary interests seem to compel them to muddy the water (primarily the oil, coal and automobile industries), will scoff at Monbiot's efforts; but even if their doubts were to be taken seriously, the desirability of reducing our reliance on finite energy resources ought to be sufficient reason for making the changes, or changes that are just as effective, in reducing our output of greenhouse gasses. A book I'd well recommend to anyone with an interest in this issue, which going on the current scientific evidence, should be all of us.
George Monbiot's Guardian columns are always well worth reading, as was his well received and best selling book on the links between big business and the state in Britain ("Captive State"). "Heat", whose subject matter is global warming, is likewise a well written, and informative read, dealing with some of the issues thrown up by the dangers of climate change.
The book begins by summarising the state of scientific knowledge at the time of its initial publication in 2006, and how this bears on the reductions of greenhouse gas emissions required in a country such as ours in order to make a fair share in reducing the risk of damaging global climate change. The result appears to be a reduction of 90% by 2030. Before moving on to the important questions of how this can be achieved, Monbiot takes time out for an entertaining look at what he terms the "denial industry". Publications such as the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail seem to be the leading sites for those who are keen to rubbish climate change, among the authors he cites are leading climatologists Melanie Phillips, Peter Hitchens, and most disturbingly of all for those of us who have fond memories of him from childhood, David Bellamy. Bellamy is apparently now a campaigner who vigorously denies the possibility of climate change, some of the information cited in his Daily Mail Article ("Global Warming? What a Load of Poppycock!") came from millionaire American Lyndon Larouche's publication "21st Century Science and Technology" - other propositions that Larouche has supported over the years include the notion that the Royal Family is running an international drugs syndicate, and that Jewish bankers control the British Government. One wonders if fellow Daily Mailist Mad Mel knows about this last one? One wouldn't have thought it was amongst her favourite causes?
The main body of the text involves examining a number of sectors of the economy including housing, transport, power generation, airlines, retail and industry and looking at what could be done to meet the targets that science appears to indicate. Monbiot's aim, which some in the environmental movement may find controversial, is to look at each sector individually and work out how they could meet the targets with the minimal amount of change to their functioning, and by association to the functioning of the economy as a whole. With the exception of the airline industry, which he would drastically curtail, his proposed solutions appear to meet those criteria.
This is an interesting book that clearly brings into the public debate a serious set of proposals for limiting the possibility of climate change occurring while minimising the effects on the way we live now. No doubt climate change doubters, and those whose pecuniary interests seem to compel them to muddy the water (primarily the oil, coal and automobile industries), will scoff at Monbiot's efforts; but even if their doubts were to be taken seriously, the desirability of reducing our reliance on finite energy resources ought to be sufficient reason for making the changes, or changes that are just as effective, in reducing our output of greenhouse gasses. A book I'd well recommend to anyone with an interest in this issue, which going on the current scientific evidence, should be all of us.
December 4, 2013
Having read quite a few books on the subject I approached this book thinking that I would reinforce what I already knew and while there was definitely some familiar subject matter I was pleasantly surprised to find that within it's pages are detailed steps to curtail global warming by addressing the greatest contributors to the warming of the planet.
The author acknowledges that much of what he proposes must be broached by the political leaders of the world through rigid policies strong leadership he does not explain how the various countries can go about implementing any of his recommendations. What he does tackle is setting a target of reducing carbon emissions by 90 percent by 2030 by various improvements in the way we do things as well as reducing or eliminating certain activities in order to achieve the goal.
I learned a lot of interesting things in the book and have become more wary of bold claims, achieving a carbon cap of 0.33 tonnes per person is not an easy matter and anyone who professes to have an easy way out is often selling something. The book also opens your eyes to frivolousness of our society and how we've come to accept it as normal. The biggest shock was the chapter on flights, if what he suggests is true many people in the developed countries are going to have a hard time adapting given that we all aim to please ourselves rather than think of others welfare where our actions are concerned.
I have a hard time seeing our country develop the political will to meet the targets described in this book considering the current leaders in charge and the widespread ignorance on the subject and I for one don't see either of those two things changing in the near future. 2030 isn't very far away and with so much work and change to implement are we all just doomed like all other civilizations before us. It's sad to see a race incapable of learning from it's mistake and worse some of them breeding doubt and lies where there ought to be clarity and action.
If you are interested in trying to make a difference give this book a go, chances are you were already aware of the issue, those who should be paying attention will unfortunately not read this book or any others on this subject. They'll get the summaries just so they can say they are educated on the subject in order to continue to manufacture doubt.
The author acknowledges that much of what he proposes must be broached by the political leaders of the world through rigid policies strong leadership he does not explain how the various countries can go about implementing any of his recommendations. What he does tackle is setting a target of reducing carbon emissions by 90 percent by 2030 by various improvements in the way we do things as well as reducing or eliminating certain activities in order to achieve the goal.
I learned a lot of interesting things in the book and have become more wary of bold claims, achieving a carbon cap of 0.33 tonnes per person is not an easy matter and anyone who professes to have an easy way out is often selling something. The book also opens your eyes to frivolousness of our society and how we've come to accept it as normal. The biggest shock was the chapter on flights, if what he suggests is true many people in the developed countries are going to have a hard time adapting given that we all aim to please ourselves rather than think of others welfare where our actions are concerned.
I have a hard time seeing our country develop the political will to meet the targets described in this book considering the current leaders in charge and the widespread ignorance on the subject and I for one don't see either of those two things changing in the near future. 2030 isn't very far away and with so much work and change to implement are we all just doomed like all other civilizations before us. It's sad to see a race incapable of learning from it's mistake and worse some of them breeding doubt and lies where there ought to be clarity and action.
If you are interested in trying to make a difference give this book a go, chances are you were already aware of the issue, those who should be paying attention will unfortunately not read this book or any others on this subject. They'll get the summaries just so they can say they are educated on the subject in order to continue to manufacture doubt.
February 14, 2008
How many light bulbs do we need to change in order to save the planet? None, points out Monbiot, so its too late, we're doomed! Unless we reduce carbon emissions by 90% by 2030 which is of course completely unthinkable. The US war machine will probably still be on overdrive all over Mesopotamia in 2030. George positions himself as a somewhat fanciful alchemist coming up with lots of totally implausible measures - like no more flying - to put a break on global warming. There are a few good diehards who are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices but the great majority, of course not. As George points out the campaign to save civilization is a campaign not against other people but against ourselves. And "we", are our own worst enemy. Meanwhile, the corporations and the wealthy are arming themselves for the future, buying water rights, privatizing all the natural resources, putting enclosures around everything, building fortresses, and are probably prepared to let a few billion undesirables perish to save themselves.
The tragedy of Monbiots book is that he still talks in terms of "us", the people of the world, the United Nations, how "we" can save the world, when the captains of industry and those in first class have already drawn up their contingency plans. For the rest, it will be a fight for survival and the possibility of all out class war.
PS: Me and my boy will be holed up in the Zapatista autonomous zone where at least the Zapatistas have control over food production, water supplies and a potential army of self defense.
The tragedy of Monbiots book is that he still talks in terms of "us", the people of the world, the United Nations, how "we" can save the world, when the captains of industry and those in first class have already drawn up their contingency plans. For the rest, it will be a fight for survival and the possibility of all out class war.
PS: Me and my boy will be holed up in the Zapatista autonomous zone where at least the Zapatistas have control over food production, water supplies and a potential army of self defense.
January 23, 2009
We've got to do something about global warming. This book outlines the high carbon producing sectors of our daily lives, from industry, transportation, farming, and the costs associated with cutting CO2 emissions by 90%.
The author calls for improved home insulation/heating systems, an end to air travel, more local and seasonal farming, "carbon rationing", wind power generation, more mass transport and carbon sequestration.
The final technology has been proven in limited cases (to extract oil from rock), so the case is offered that if the technology were extended as a necessary measure for companies, it would be viable.
Most environmentalists and environmental groups seem to not actually take action on this problem seriously, or they only look at a small set of facts. They are merely lobbying for aesthetic changes. The author is also highly critical of carbon trading schemes proposed by the Kyoto Protocol, which have now been proven to not work.
The bottom line is that unless world governments tackle this problem together, and impose and strictly enforce a lot of the ideas in this book, we're going to see a 2 degree C rise in temperatures by 2030, which is enough to cause major environmental catastrophe.
The author then goes to say that we'll have a major environmental catastrophe by 2030, but we'll have a major global economic depression in addition if we hit peak oil before that time.
All in all, this was probably the most comprehensive 12 step program off of carbon that I've ever seen published.
The author calls for improved home insulation/heating systems, an end to air travel, more local and seasonal farming, "carbon rationing", wind power generation, more mass transport and carbon sequestration.
The final technology has been proven in limited cases (to extract oil from rock), so the case is offered that if the technology were extended as a necessary measure for companies, it would be viable.
Most environmentalists and environmental groups seem to not actually take action on this problem seriously, or they only look at a small set of facts. They are merely lobbying for aesthetic changes. The author is also highly critical of carbon trading schemes proposed by the Kyoto Protocol, which have now been proven to not work.
The bottom line is that unless world governments tackle this problem together, and impose and strictly enforce a lot of the ideas in this book, we're going to see a 2 degree C rise in temperatures by 2030, which is enough to cause major environmental catastrophe.
The author then goes to say that we'll have a major environmental catastrophe by 2030, but we'll have a major global economic depression in addition if we hit peak oil before that time.
All in all, this was probably the most comprehensive 12 step program off of carbon that I've ever seen published.
March 13, 2012
Well written coverage of a number of behavioural, cultural and political changes that could be made to combat a uncomfortable level of climate change. Monbiot suggests that a 90% reduction in C02 emissions is needed to stop global warming from taking off to unsuitable levels. I tend to agree, but the stats and science he used (or at least how he showed it) didn't quite seem to provide as much statistical evidence for that position as I would have liked. Similarly all of his ideas on how to cut emissions from various activities by 90% didn't seem to have the proof that those suggestions would equate to a 90% cut.
Overall, he covered a lot of different aspects and all the important ones when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases and climate change. He also had some good points that we need drastic cuts and not the weak efforts of Kyoto etc.
I just think he could have backed up the arguments with more stats on exactly how those ideas get us to 90% cuts. I think that he has the scientific research backing to prove it, he just didn't quite make those connections in the book. Still would recommend.
Best take-away message - that politicians and governments are happy to vocalise their concern for climate change and sustainability, but not worried about making change because people are too comfortable in their high emission lives to do anything about it. In other words, people are more inclined to say that they want change than to actually accept change themselves.
Overall, he covered a lot of different aspects and all the important ones when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases and climate change. He also had some good points that we need drastic cuts and not the weak efforts of Kyoto etc.
I just think he could have backed up the arguments with more stats on exactly how those ideas get us to 90% cuts. I think that he has the scientific research backing to prove it, he just didn't quite make those connections in the book. Still would recommend.
Best take-away message - that politicians and governments are happy to vocalise their concern for climate change and sustainability, but not worried about making change because people are too comfortable in their high emission lives to do anything about it. In other words, people are more inclined to say that they want change than to actually accept change themselves.
April 20, 2010
Following the dismissal attempts by the world's politicians to reach some kind of agreement at last year's (2009) climate change summit, this book makes very interesting reading. Not only does Monbiot address what needs to be done on a global scale to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere below 450ppm (parts per million), which is the level needed to prevent run away global warming and a unmitigated ecological and global disaster, he also addresses why governments are so slow to actually take action (if they do at all).
Monbiot has provided an objective look at each of the main sectors that contribute to carbon emissions and how these can changed through technology and changes in usage (including individually) to reduce emissions. The only problem with many of his suggests, as he happily (or should I say un-happily) admits himself, is that many of his suggests needs politicians to make changes that neither we nor big business will particularly enjoy or be happy about, which lets face it is not something politicians are ever likely to do. This book should have been compulsory reading at that failed climate summit, and had it have been the outcome could've have been very different. Let's hope they find it in time for the next one.
Monbiot has provided an objective look at each of the main sectors that contribute to carbon emissions and how these can changed through technology and changes in usage (including individually) to reduce emissions. The only problem with many of his suggests, as he happily (or should I say un-happily) admits himself, is that many of his suggests needs politicians to make changes that neither we nor big business will particularly enjoy or be happy about, which lets face it is not something politicians are ever likely to do. This book should have been compulsory reading at that failed climate summit, and had it have been the outcome could've have been very different. Let's hope they find it in time for the next one.
December 4, 2013
One of Cambridge Sustainability's Top 50 Books for Sustainability, as voted for by our alumni network of over 3,000 senior leaders from around the world. To find out more, click here.
Heat begins by making a powerful and compelling case that climate change is a threat to be taken extrememly seriously and is caused by human-made emissions. Exacerbating the problem is what Monbiot calls the 'denial industry': an active campaign of dissuasion by certain sectors of business, wealthy classes, media and governments to deny climate change with bold assertions based on poor science, often financed by the corporations. The result is that the public remains confused or sceptical and the politicians feel dismepowered to take the bold action that is needed.
Heat begins by making a powerful and compelling case that climate change is a threat to be taken extrememly seriously and is caused by human-made emissions. Exacerbating the problem is what Monbiot calls the 'denial industry': an active campaign of dissuasion by certain sectors of business, wealthy classes, media and governments to deny climate change with bold assertions based on poor science, often financed by the corporations. The result is that the public remains confused or sceptical and the politicians feel dismepowered to take the bold action that is needed.
December 4, 2013
Monbiot on top form, and really quite worrying predictions about the lack of political will to tackle climate change. Monbiot is exhaustive in his pursuit of seeking solutions to reduce carbon emissions by 90% by 2030. And frankly, we're not going to make it. The section on nuclear power was surprising, as was the analysis on coal and 'carbon capture' technologies. My favourites though were his prescriptions for the transport sector. The notion of using Storkey's coach network was inspired, as was the role for airships for short haul flights. And he was right, the section on cement was dull.
Read it, people.
Read it, people.
September 12, 2018
Always weird to read a book 15 years after it was published about climate change and have the reaction of ‘wow you thought it was bad then? Wait till you get to 2018!’ Does not hold up with test of time and I imagine future generations would view his suggestions as naive at best.
February 12, 2019
Everyone should read this
January 22, 2020
Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning marks an important moment in our civilization’s thinking about global warming. The question is no longer Is climate change actually happening? but What do we do about it? George Monbiot offers an ambitious and far-reaching program to cut our carbon dioxide emissions to the point where the environmental scales start tipping back—away from catastrophe.
Though writing with a "spirit of optimism," Monbiot does not pretend it will be easy. The only way to avoid further devastation, he argues, is a 90% cut in CO2 emissions in the rich nations of the world by 2030. In other words, our response will have to be immediate, and it will have to be decisive.
In every case he supports his proposals with a rigorous investigation into what works, what doesn’t, how much it costs, and what the problems might be. He wages war on bad ideas as energetically as he promotes good ones. And he is not afraid to attack anyone—friend or foe—whose claims are false or whose figures have been fudged.
After all, there is no time to waste. As Monbiot has said himself, "we are the last generation that can make this happen, and this is the last possible moment at which we can make it happen."
George Monbiot is the best-selling author of The Age of Consent and Captive State, as well as the investigative travel books Poisoned Arrows, Amazon Watershed, and No Man’s Land. In 1995, Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement. He has held visiting fellowships or professorships at the universities of Oxford (environmental policy), Bristol (philosophy), Keele (politics), and East London (environmental science). Currently visiting professor of planning at Oxford Brookes University, he writes a weekly column for the Guardian newspaper.
Though writing with a "spirit of optimism," Monbiot does not pretend it will be easy. The only way to avoid further devastation, he argues, is a 90% cut in CO2 emissions in the rich nations of the world by 2030. In other words, our response will have to be immediate, and it will have to be decisive.
In every case he supports his proposals with a rigorous investigation into what works, what doesn’t, how much it costs, and what the problems might be. He wages war on bad ideas as energetically as he promotes good ones. And he is not afraid to attack anyone—friend or foe—whose claims are false or whose figures have been fudged.
After all, there is no time to waste. As Monbiot has said himself, "we are the last generation that can make this happen, and this is the last possible moment at which we can make it happen."
George Monbiot is the best-selling author of The Age of Consent and Captive State, as well as the investigative travel books Poisoned Arrows, Amazon Watershed, and No Man’s Land. In 1995, Nelson Mandela presented him with a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement. He has held visiting fellowships or professorships at the universities of Oxford (environmental policy), Bristol (philosophy), Keele (politics), and East London (environmental science). Currently visiting professor of planning at Oxford Brookes University, he writes a weekly column for the Guardian newspaper.
March 29, 2022
This was a difficult book for me to get through. I picked it up upon recommendation from a professor during a conversation about the current(ly dire) scope and direction of climate economics, i.e. I went into this book with an already-somewhat-glum state of mind. Suffice it to say that upon reading this book, I have been left even more disheartened about the unfolding of this climate crisis—I believe Monbiot to BE! SO! RIGHT! and yet we eternally fail to mobilize our political forces in accordance to this agenda.
I had another professor remind me recently that our planet will survive; the question is whether or not humanity will. It's hard to find hope right now that we will, so I recommend this book to everyone. Will it relieve climate anxiety? Probably not. So why recommend it at all? Because our species needs Better People to put their foot down and say to the world: "hey, we're doing this now, because this is the best possible solution of all our options to enter into our best possible future."
I had another professor remind me recently that our planet will survive; the question is whether or not humanity will. It's hard to find hope right now that we will, so I recommend this book to everyone. Will it relieve climate anxiety? Probably not. So why recommend it at all? Because our species needs Better People to put their foot down and say to the world: "hey, we're doing this now, because this is the best possible solution of all our options to enter into our best possible future."
September 16, 2019
Monbiot is one of the few writers today who get it and don’t mince words. I wish I could get everyone I know to read this book and others he’s written, so they finally truly understand. When the proof is too real for anyone to ignore, it will be far too late to act.
September 22, 2007
Making the choice
After reading on the internet a number of unsatisfactory articles about climate change, I decided to read a good book on this essential topic. I compared them basing my choice on the information I could find about the three books I’d been proposed, and on the need to verify some of my opinions: first, the opinion I had since thirty years ago that the industrial revolution has an important negative effect on climate - this lead me to easily trust those who fifteen years later said that the reduction amount agreement in Kyoto was just a symbolic act because of the irrelevant quantity; second, the opinion that the data published by the FAO about animal farming, which would be responsible of 18% of the CO2 equivalent emissions, is correct and is just a little further confirmation we need to considerably change our lifestyle.
I scannedd 'Heat!' in a library to find the data I was looking for. What I read on the internet about it made me sure it was at least good for an important step: understanding the real needs in terms of reduction.
One of the first things I read were the tables at the end of the book. I got the impression that the book was not very good for me: it seemed not to mention the animal farming contributes, ascribe to the traffic part of the emissions which are probably due to other fuel combustion and one of the first things the author says is he doesn’t want to change his lifestyle. But, he sais, It’s possible and easy to quickly reduce the emissions by 90% and save the human race this way. In my quick search I couldn’t find positive suggestions or solutions, but only the demolition of suggestions made by others, and an apparently useless report on untrue writings. No way to believe it would say the things I wanted to find. Anyway, it certainly said something important. Well then, I thought, I’ll have to read it all.
Surprising though known
Monbiot chose very well his sources and writes very well. He points out that science reports need to be selected by peer review to be considered valid, while politicians and journalists (not scientists) make a tremendous confusion and get victims of false reports especially for a main reason: they attribute the more importance and credibility to a speaker the more he appears in the media. He shows how some big industries like Philip Morris and Exxon can manipulate the public opinion. It’s enough to get the information selected by peer review, that is, all the articles published by scientists’ magazines as Science and Nature to understand what is happening and will happen in the very next decades according to all scientific contributes, none excluded.
At the end of the second chapter, Monbiot even easily explains the psychology that brings scientists to accept politicians’ decisions even if they know they are a simply ridiculous and mad suicide.
Achieved results
The quick reduction of greenhouse gases emission must become the most important task of our governments. We must ask for this. The reduction must involve everybody. Most of it has to take place before 2012.
Monbiot succeeds in his scopes: convince that in the case of climate change and fighting is worth the trouble, and find the most politically efficacious ways to reduce our energy need and its CO2 content. His comparison among all the suggested solutions brings to evidence which are the best solutions for behaviours and policies in the main fields to take into account: energy production and use, transport and building trade. Only in one sentence, though, it speaks about animal gases production, and as in the case of Al Gore not a word is spent to say how important vegetarianism among the necessary solutions. We can forgive him just because of its starting point (I don't want to change my lifestyle), which he thought so important to attract readers. He got me, and I'm happy about that.
After reading on the internet a number of unsatisfactory articles about climate change, I decided to read a good book on this essential topic. I compared them basing my choice on the information I could find about the three books I’d been proposed, and on the need to verify some of my opinions: first, the opinion I had since thirty years ago that the industrial revolution has an important negative effect on climate - this lead me to easily trust those who fifteen years later said that the reduction amount agreement in Kyoto was just a symbolic act because of the irrelevant quantity; second, the opinion that the data published by the FAO about animal farming, which would be responsible of 18% of the CO2 equivalent emissions, is correct and is just a little further confirmation we need to considerably change our lifestyle.
I scannedd 'Heat!' in a library to find the data I was looking for. What I read on the internet about it made me sure it was at least good for an important step: understanding the real needs in terms of reduction.
One of the first things I read were the tables at the end of the book. I got the impression that the book was not very good for me: it seemed not to mention the animal farming contributes, ascribe to the traffic part of the emissions which are probably due to other fuel combustion and one of the first things the author says is he doesn’t want to change his lifestyle. But, he sais, It’s possible and easy to quickly reduce the emissions by 90% and save the human race this way. In my quick search I couldn’t find positive suggestions or solutions, but only the demolition of suggestions made by others, and an apparently useless report on untrue writings. No way to believe it would say the things I wanted to find. Anyway, it certainly said something important. Well then, I thought, I’ll have to read it all.
Surprising though known
Monbiot chose very well his sources and writes very well. He points out that science reports need to be selected by peer review to be considered valid, while politicians and journalists (not scientists) make a tremendous confusion and get victims of false reports especially for a main reason: they attribute the more importance and credibility to a speaker the more he appears in the media. He shows how some big industries like Philip Morris and Exxon can manipulate the public opinion. It’s enough to get the information selected by peer review, that is, all the articles published by scientists’ magazines as Science and Nature to understand what is happening and will happen in the very next decades according to all scientific contributes, none excluded.
At the end of the second chapter, Monbiot even easily explains the psychology that brings scientists to accept politicians’ decisions even if they know they are a simply ridiculous and mad suicide.
Achieved results
The quick reduction of greenhouse gases emission must become the most important task of our governments. We must ask for this. The reduction must involve everybody. Most of it has to take place before 2012.
Monbiot succeeds in his scopes: convince that in the case of climate change and fighting is worth the trouble, and find the most politically efficacious ways to reduce our energy need and its CO2 content. His comparison among all the suggested solutions brings to evidence which are the best solutions for behaviours and policies in the main fields to take into account: energy production and use, transport and building trade. Only in one sentence, though, it speaks about animal gases production, and as in the case of Al Gore not a word is spent to say how important vegetarianism among the necessary solutions. We can forgive him just because of its starting point (I don't want to change my lifestyle), which he thought so important to attract readers. He got me, and I'm happy about that.
May 20, 2008
With Heat, George Monbiot has moved past the obfuscating arguments being slung like mud back and forth across the globe, and faces not just the alarming truth of global warming but the seemingly impossible task of actually doing something about it.
This book is, as he points out in the introduction, a manifesto. It is a plan of action. The goal is to cut our carbon dioxide emissions by 90% by 2030. This is the "seemingly impossible" aspect, especially when you look at Canada's current situation (this Canadian edition includes a foreward designed to wipe the smug smiles off our faces, and effectively brings his manifesto into our own backyard).
Using the UK as his base, Monbiot focuses on high-energy users and high emission-producing industries, from "our leaky homes" to gas, coal and nuclear plants, cars, public transport, the cement industry, heat, lighting and aviation. Before getting onto the task of fixing our situation before it gets worse, he spends a chapter on the current data and where it will lead us, and on the "denial industry". This chapter alone is worth your time. It is engrossing, enlightening and actually quite entertaining.
For all his sources, Monbiot does a thorough background check. This process, of following individuals and organisations from their comments all the way to who is funding them, adds a detective element to the book - a bit like the TV show House. It also serves to add legitimacy to the people Monbiot does quote - although he makes a point of being sceptical of anyone who is selling something.
One of the other truly great chapters in this book is on public transport. Using models put forward by other thinkers, Monbiot restructures the English transit system, making it more user-friendly, affordable, quicker, and drastically reduces not only the amount of cars on the road, but also the amount of road. As with the aviation industry, more money is being spent on expanding roads, which will only fill up with twice as many cars, than on finding other transport solutions or "greener" cars.
His chapter on fuel, especially his breakdown on so-called "green fuels", is less heartening. Although he remains incredibly optimistic throughout the book, his conclusions regarding our fuel options are downright depressing. Still, we can only persevere. Likewise, the amount of energy a supermarket uses to keep the fridges on while at the same time heating the place, is shocking, but not surprising. What is really shocking, is that we are all so accustomed to it that no one even thinks about the waste of energy our expectations of convenience cause.
Heat moves nimbly past all the bickering politicians and scientists and everyone else with an opinion, and looks at ways we can save the planet without sacrificing as much as we will if we do absolutely nothing. But his final point is clear: as long as we refuse to change our lifestyle, make some cuts in our own way of living, we are going to be pretty adverse to politicians regulating - as Monbiot says they need to do - and also give them a good reason to not even try.
As a manifesto, Heat provides a great deal of clear-headed, well-researched and rational information. When one of our politicians decides to take the situation seriously, they would do well to start here.
This book is, as he points out in the introduction, a manifesto. It is a plan of action. The goal is to cut our carbon dioxide emissions by 90% by 2030. This is the "seemingly impossible" aspect, especially when you look at Canada's current situation (this Canadian edition includes a foreward designed to wipe the smug smiles off our faces, and effectively brings his manifesto into our own backyard).
Using the UK as his base, Monbiot focuses on high-energy users and high emission-producing industries, from "our leaky homes" to gas, coal and nuclear plants, cars, public transport, the cement industry, heat, lighting and aviation. Before getting onto the task of fixing our situation before it gets worse, he spends a chapter on the current data and where it will lead us, and on the "denial industry". This chapter alone is worth your time. It is engrossing, enlightening and actually quite entertaining.
For all his sources, Monbiot does a thorough background check. This process, of following individuals and organisations from their comments all the way to who is funding them, adds a detective element to the book - a bit like the TV show House. It also serves to add legitimacy to the people Monbiot does quote - although he makes a point of being sceptical of anyone who is selling something.
One of the other truly great chapters in this book is on public transport. Using models put forward by other thinkers, Monbiot restructures the English transit system, making it more user-friendly, affordable, quicker, and drastically reduces not only the amount of cars on the road, but also the amount of road. As with the aviation industry, more money is being spent on expanding roads, which will only fill up with twice as many cars, than on finding other transport solutions or "greener" cars.
His chapter on fuel, especially his breakdown on so-called "green fuels", is less heartening. Although he remains incredibly optimistic throughout the book, his conclusions regarding our fuel options are downright depressing. Still, we can only persevere. Likewise, the amount of energy a supermarket uses to keep the fridges on while at the same time heating the place, is shocking, but not surprising. What is really shocking, is that we are all so accustomed to it that no one even thinks about the waste of energy our expectations of convenience cause.
Heat moves nimbly past all the bickering politicians and scientists and everyone else with an opinion, and looks at ways we can save the planet without sacrificing as much as we will if we do absolutely nothing. But his final point is clear: as long as we refuse to change our lifestyle, make some cuts in our own way of living, we are going to be pretty adverse to politicians regulating - as Monbiot says they need to do - and also give them a good reason to not even try.
As a manifesto, Heat provides a great deal of clear-headed, well-researched and rational information. When one of our politicians decides to take the situation seriously, they would do well to start here.
October 24, 2007
Upon finishing George Monbiot's Heat, I am reminded by what a public affairs executive at the Singapore office of an oil major whispered over at a conference: that the debate on global warming seems confusing because it involves so many issues. What do you think we can do? he said.
For a start, read Monbiot's book. Not because Heat will answer questions, or make them simpler, but it will help frame the issues.
Actually, global warming is easy to understand - the world is getting warmer as a result of human activity, with disastrous consequences for both nature and ourselves. The complex part is the myriad approaches to mitigating global warming, for many of which the estimated costs and benefits are still under debate. There is no panacea, no one single area which, if addressed, would be sufficient in and of itself to combat climate change.
That, effectively, is the thesis of Heat. What must we do to avoid global warming?, Monbiot asks in the first chapter. His answer: slash the amount of greenhouse gases we release by 90 per cent by 2030. (This, he argues, is necessary to keep carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to under 450 parts per million, which means a two-thirds chance the world will warm by no more than 2 degrees Celsius.)
The rest of the book has Monbiot, a columnist for the Guardian and visiting professor at Oxford Brookes University, poking through reports and chasing down leads, leaving few stones unturned as he attempts to find out whether, and how, the reduction is possible.
His target is vastly more stringent than what governments are pledging, and Heat shows why. Monbiot damn near gets his carbon reductions, but only after renewing much of the existing housing stock, revamped the public transport system and energy grid, introduced hydrogen fuel cells and carbon capture and storage. Given the current states of political will and economic structures, all these are unlikely. In the chapter on aviation, even Monbiot concedes defeat, after concluding that to slash emissions there, humans must fly 10 times fewer miles.
Besides this, Heat is a great example of the questions we should ask policy makers as they decide our future. Monbiot chases down the “denial” camp, showing that many of the naysayers of manmade climate change are themselves quoting spurious evidence. Writing on nuclear energy, he notes that while plants can, in theory, be run safely, plant operators in the UK are notorious for cheating and covering up on leaks.
The book is best seen an a pioneering attempt to take stock of wide research, to cut through noise and blather and to try to come to hard conclusions about what, if anything, must be done. The problem is that in many cases, the information isn’t there. On how much nuclear energy really costs, for example, Monbiot quotes various reports, then says: “The only honest reply is that I haven’t the faintest idea.”
For a start, read Monbiot's book. Not because Heat will answer questions, or make them simpler, but it will help frame the issues.
Actually, global warming is easy to understand - the world is getting warmer as a result of human activity, with disastrous consequences for both nature and ourselves. The complex part is the myriad approaches to mitigating global warming, for many of which the estimated costs and benefits are still under debate. There is no panacea, no one single area which, if addressed, would be sufficient in and of itself to combat climate change.
That, effectively, is the thesis of Heat. What must we do to avoid global warming?, Monbiot asks in the first chapter. His answer: slash the amount of greenhouse gases we release by 90 per cent by 2030. (This, he argues, is necessary to keep carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to under 450 parts per million, which means a two-thirds chance the world will warm by no more than 2 degrees Celsius.)
The rest of the book has Monbiot, a columnist for the Guardian and visiting professor at Oxford Brookes University, poking through reports and chasing down leads, leaving few stones unturned as he attempts to find out whether, and how, the reduction is possible.
His target is vastly more stringent than what governments are pledging, and Heat shows why. Monbiot damn near gets his carbon reductions, but only after renewing much of the existing housing stock, revamped the public transport system and energy grid, introduced hydrogen fuel cells and carbon capture and storage. Given the current states of political will and economic structures, all these are unlikely. In the chapter on aviation, even Monbiot concedes defeat, after concluding that to slash emissions there, humans must fly 10 times fewer miles.
Besides this, Heat is a great example of the questions we should ask policy makers as they decide our future. Monbiot chases down the “denial” camp, showing that many of the naysayers of manmade climate change are themselves quoting spurious evidence. Writing on nuclear energy, he notes that while plants can, in theory, be run safely, plant operators in the UK are notorious for cheating and covering up on leaks.
The book is best seen an a pioneering attempt to take stock of wide research, to cut through noise and blather and to try to come to hard conclusions about what, if anything, must be done. The problem is that in many cases, the information isn’t there. On how much nuclear energy really costs, for example, Monbiot quotes various reports, then says: “The only honest reply is that I haven’t the faintest idea.”
August 30, 2008
This book starts with a simple premise. Since a two degree centigrade increase in global temperatures by 2030 will have devastating effects on the climate, the world has to reduce it's carbon footprint drastically; and Britain's fair share in this regard is a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The rest of the book is an exercise in seeing if there is any way for Britain to do this and still maintain a modern economy. Monbiot writes clearly. The arguments are laid out well with lots of footnotes documenting every idea. He is very thorough in working through the problem. There are few stones left unturned in searching for a solution to the problem. Monbiot looks at how well Britain's homes are insulated and what can be done about it, how electricity can be generated without generating greenhouse gases, how it can be transmitted more efficiently, the transportation problem, and finally he looks at two high carbon footprint industries to see to what extent they can reduce their emissions (supermarkets and concrete production). The book is full of ingenious pragmatic ideas for meeting the stated goal (e.g., moving bus terminals to major highway intersections outside of city centers, and switching to direct current for long-range power transmission), as well as obvious ideas (e.g., goodbye airline industry for mass transit). Every idea mentioned is doable. The book concludes that in fact a 90% reduction in Britain's carbon footprint can be combined with a modern society, but that it will be an immense undertaking and time is running out. Working through this problem with Monbiot is an exercise every informed citizen needs to undertake. Turning this thought experiment into an exercise in reality is something every citizen should be working for. The book is really a breath of fresh air in that it takes climate change seriously, but is not a doomsday book. The problem can be solved if the political will is there. The political will won't be there if people don't educate themselves on these issues.
The book was penned in 2006. Since then Monbiot has become a little more pro nuclear energy and less skeptical of the idea of peak oil. Unfortunately, little progress has been made in the first world on implementing any of the ideas in the book. In fact, there are few signs that first world governments are even taking the problem seriously. An exception might be with regards to allternative energy generation, but that is being motivated by peak oil not by climate change. Humankind is apparently determined to enter a dark age and undergo a population crash.
The book was penned in 2006. Since then Monbiot has become a little more pro nuclear energy and less skeptical of the idea of peak oil. Unfortunately, little progress has been made in the first world on implementing any of the ideas in the book. In fact, there are few signs that first world governments are even taking the problem seriously. An exception might be with regards to allternative energy generation, but that is being motivated by peak oil not by climate change. Humankind is apparently determined to enter a dark age and undergo a population crash.
February 18, 2017
I have a interesting personal relationship with this book. The year of the publication of the 2007 edition I graduated with a Bachelors Degree from Cardiff University in Modern History and Politics, where George Monboit (introduced as the author of this book) received a honourary doctorate at my graduation. In his speech he urged us all to follow the path we wanted in life, and not the path we should take because when we have the money to enable us to follow our dreams we are too old and tied down to do anything about it. I followed his advice.
Fast forward a decade and I am now doing a PhD in a topic related to sustainability, and finally got around to reading this book.
In this book George Monbiot offers a manifesto of sorts for preventing climate change, mainly by claiming that a 90% reduction is needed. In each chapter he goes through various carbon emitting sectors (energy generation, transport, etc) to show how this can be done (and occasionally not done).
The book is thoroughly well researched and referenced, making it a dream for people who want to look deeper into what he has written about. It is also fairly holistic, even doing as far as to attach the 'climate change denial industry'. Another strength of this book is that he presupposes no knowledge of these topics by the reader.
There are however shortcomings. Firstly, its use is limited in 2017 due to the age of the data. Whilst much of it is still relevant, we have moved a bit further in 10 years in some of the technologies he and ideas he discusses, however I'm sure it is not at a pace that he is happy with. Some of the aspects of the work are quite numerical and dry, and he is a bit of a grumpy bugger at times (but that's probably necessary).
It's biggest weakness though is it's feasibility, it requires such a a huge sacrifice from everyone that I can't really see his ideas being adopted. Points for effort though.
All in all this worth a read for people who are interested in climate change (although fairly UK centric) literature, but it is more of a curiosity exercise (both historically and practically) than it is a feasible manifesto for change.
Fast forward a decade and I am now doing a PhD in a topic related to sustainability, and finally got around to reading this book.
In this book George Monbiot offers a manifesto of sorts for preventing climate change, mainly by claiming that a 90% reduction is needed. In each chapter he goes through various carbon emitting sectors (energy generation, transport, etc) to show how this can be done (and occasionally not done).
The book is thoroughly well researched and referenced, making it a dream for people who want to look deeper into what he has written about. It is also fairly holistic, even doing as far as to attach the 'climate change denial industry'. Another strength of this book is that he presupposes no knowledge of these topics by the reader.
There are however shortcomings. Firstly, its use is limited in 2017 due to the age of the data. Whilst much of it is still relevant, we have moved a bit further in 10 years in some of the technologies he and ideas he discusses, however I'm sure it is not at a pace that he is happy with. Some of the aspects of the work are quite numerical and dry, and he is a bit of a grumpy bugger at times (but that's probably necessary).
It's biggest weakness though is it's feasibility, it requires such a a huge sacrifice from everyone that I can't really see his ideas being adopted. Points for effort though.
All in all this worth a read for people who are interested in climate change (although fairly UK centric) literature, but it is more of a curiosity exercise (both historically and practically) than it is a feasible manifesto for change.
October 27, 2017
Monbiot says we must reduce global carbon release by 90 percent by 2030 in order to stop catastrophic climate change -- and he shows how we can do it.
He relentlessly tears down the arguments of those people -- many from industry -- who say we can stop climate change through technological quick fixes. He shows that biofuels, for example, are an ecological disaster, and actually are one of the most carbon-intensive fuels you could burn.
He also owns up to the real limits to wind and solar power. Using Britain as an example, he shows that it would be basically impossible to switch to full wind, wave, and solar power -- there will still be a need for auxiliary carbon-based to handle peak demands. But then he shows that a push for wind, wave, and solar -- combined with more energy efficient homes and offices; more efficient appliances; and better energy storage; and carbon capture and storage -- could reduce carbon usage by 90 percent for electricity.
This book is full of good ideas that an ecosocialist local or state level government could apply to reduce carbon emissions -- he has a great chapter on creating high speed bus lines; lots of good stuff about how to improve how we insulate and heat our homes and offices; and his chapter on cement manufacture (which is responsible for 5% of global carbon emissions) is a surprising page-turner. But he makes clear that without action at the national level to ration carbon, these efforts will fail.
Monbiot wrote this book ten years ago. It still holds up. But in one way I think he's improved his message. In this book he talks about the changes needed as "austerity." And certainly we need severe restrictions on carbon usage by the rich. But lately, as the possibility of a Corbyn-led government gets nearer, George has started to talk about a new vision: we need to fight for, what he calls private sufficiency -- making sure everyone has enough food and money to live a decent life -- and public luxury -- creating great parks, hospitals, housing projects, libraries and public transit for all to enjoy. That's a vision that I think can help us make his program real.
He relentlessly tears down the arguments of those people -- many from industry -- who say we can stop climate change through technological quick fixes. He shows that biofuels, for example, are an ecological disaster, and actually are one of the most carbon-intensive fuels you could burn.
He also owns up to the real limits to wind and solar power. Using Britain as an example, he shows that it would be basically impossible to switch to full wind, wave, and solar power -- there will still be a need for auxiliary carbon-based to handle peak demands. But then he shows that a push for wind, wave, and solar -- combined with more energy efficient homes and offices; more efficient appliances; and better energy storage; and carbon capture and storage -- could reduce carbon usage by 90 percent for electricity.
This book is full of good ideas that an ecosocialist local or state level government could apply to reduce carbon emissions -- he has a great chapter on creating high speed bus lines; lots of good stuff about how to improve how we insulate and heat our homes and offices; and his chapter on cement manufacture (which is responsible for 5% of global carbon emissions) is a surprising page-turner. But he makes clear that without action at the national level to ration carbon, these efforts will fail.
Monbiot wrote this book ten years ago. It still holds up. But in one way I think he's improved his message. In this book he talks about the changes needed as "austerity." And certainly we need severe restrictions on carbon usage by the rich. But lately, as the possibility of a Corbyn-led government gets nearer, George has started to talk about a new vision: we need to fight for, what he calls private sufficiency -- making sure everyone has enough food and money to live a decent life -- and public luxury -- creating great parks, hospitals, housing projects, libraries and public transit for all to enjoy. That's a vision that I think can help us make his program real.
September 14, 2018
Comprehensive discussion and researched concepts detailed at length. Unfortunate conclusions implying necessary unwelcome options.
"I have sought the means of proving otherwise, not least because it would make my task of persuading people to adopt the proposals in this book much easier. But it has become plain to me that long-distance travel, high speed and the curtaiment of climate change are not compatible. If you fly, you destry other people's lives." Chapter 9 Love Miles.- Enjoyed most the last chapters.
"I have sought the means of proving otherwise, not least because it would make my task of persuading people to adopt the proposals in this book much easier. But it has become plain to me that long-distance travel, high speed and the curtaiment of climate change are not compatible. If you fly, you destry other people's lives." Chapter 9 Love Miles.- Enjoyed most the last chapters.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews