15 of 17 people found the following review helpful
- Published on Amazon.com
Wonky, wonky, wonky. If you are a policy wonk, you will love this book. If you follow the politics of global warming and are not a climate "skeptic", you will love this book. If you listen to National Public Radio, follow politics, and think the political process is interesting, you will probably love this book. If you are a climate change "skeptic", why bother reading this book? You'll probably disagree with the author about 90 percent of the time, and then think you've wasted your money.
The title of the book is a little misleading. The book really doesn't go back very far in "the climate war", only covers the United States, and covers very little of the rest of the world. The title of the book should have been "How the 2009 American Climate Bill was Defeated". That's what the whole book is about. As such, it is a bit depressing for those of us who think something should be done at the national level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sooner rather than later. Admittedly, when the author started writing the book, he thought it would have a different ending, one in which a meaningful climate bill was successfully passed. However, because no such bill looks feasible currently (2010); the effect of reading the book is to be reminded just how powerful the coal and petrochemical industries really are. I sincerely hope this last statement becomes out-dated soon.
The book gets a maximum 5 of 5 stars for its depth and effort, and from what I can tell, extreme accuracy and fair reporting of climate change politics in America. Having said that, it's not perfect.
A few of the book's limitations:
1) The author does not touch upon the science of global warming, he assumes anybody reading the book is probably familiar with the basic science behind human-caused warming. The author is not a global warming skeptic, although he doesn't appear to be in the "imminent extinction of humanity" camp either.
2) The author writes about the U.S. as if it were the center of the world.
3) Although the author writes extensively on cap and trade, he doesn't actually do a very good job of explaining what it is. A nice graphic would have helped - cap and trade is actually a nuanced and not very inherently obvious concept for those new to it - I believe the author is so immersed in cap and trade politics, he forgot that the average person really does not understand the concept of cap and trade.
4) The author appears to believe that nothing bad should ever happen to the all-mighty corporate business interests, whether or not they are destroying human health or a livable environment. (He's quite an apologist for maintaining existing business practices so that no economic disruption occurs.)
Perhaps the biggest question I have about the author is whether or not he really believes carbon capture and sequestration (storage) is feasible. The author appears to endorse that coal-burning power plants can actually reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by successfully capturing the carbon dioxide, then transporting it and storing it underground or under the ocean, where it is safely kept out of the atmosphere. Unfortunately, carbon capture and storage is the most cynical, manipulative, false "solution" to reducing greenhouse gas emissions that exists today. The coal industry wants you to believe in "clean coal", which simply does not exist and cannot exist with current technology. The reason why "clean coal" is mentioned by industry is to lull people into a false sense of security that there is "a solution". However, anybody who has spent more than one hour researching feasibility of carbon capture and storage will tell you that it's just not going to happen in the next 50 years. Anybody telling you something differently is trying to sell you a bill of goods. I'm not exaggerating, just do your own research.
If "clean coal" will not exist, then instead of complaining, I would suggest the U.S. Senate and Congress to get serious about reducing greenhouse gases by requiring mandatory energy efficient buildings, and passing a minimum gas mileage of 70 mpg by the year 2020 vehicle model year (not as difficult as it sounds). Further, coal power plants can be replaced by power plants operating on natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear (gotcha on that one, maybe). Even painting roofs white can cut down dramatically on air-conditioning in the summer - ever wonder why they whitewashed the houses in hot Mediterranean villages?
I suppose my main criticism of the book is that Mr. Poole seems to fervently believe in the power of the free market to solve problems, even global warming. However, this almost religious and blind belief in capitalism is what got the world into the environmental mess we are in. I suggest "more of the same" will not get us out of the hole we've dug ourselves into. Perhaps more intelligent planning will get us out of the hot state of affairs we are in.