You can skip George Monbiot's book Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning.
Slightly longer book review:
Because there are far too many climate books to read, I confess I apply a litmus test. I look up "hydrogen" in the index. If the writer thinks it's a climate solution, the book can be skipped.
I thought I would like this book, since I like many of the columns by the British author, including an early excerpt on the connection of the global warming deniers to big tobacco. But on page 162, he writes, "hydrogen fuel cells are beginning to look like a feasible technology for motor transport, if not on the time scale the producers predict."
No. Not even close. They are looking less feasible these days. They are a post-2050 climate solution at best. And Monbiot is a man in a hurry -- he believes the only hope for mankind is "for rich nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 90 per cent by 2030."
Heck, it would require three major breakthroughs -- in fuel cells, storage, and renewable hydrogen -- just for hydrogen cars to be 1% of the cars on the road by 2030 -- and they would still be a lousy way to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
But perhaps I'm being unfair focusing on hydrogen. So I start reading the foreword. Monbiot explains how President Bush's climate policies have damaged international negotiations -- a good start -- but then comes this outrageous line:
But the inconvenient truth we seek to forget is that the Clinton-Gore administration did even greater damage.
No. This is the Ralph Nader line -- and it just doesn't fly. Maybe Clinton-Gore didn't try hard enough, but they did try to do the right thing, rather than the very, very wrong thing.
But maybe I'm too close to this as a former Clinton-Gore appointee. Let's give him one more chance.
He likes hydrogen for transport, but what is his solution in electricity sector? He writes on page 99:
… with sufficient political will, gas-fired power stations fitted with carbon capture equipment could provide roughly 50% of our grid-based electricity by 2030.
Well, that tells me all I need to know. First, if that statement is even true for the U.K., which I doubt, it certainly has no relevance whatsover to this country -- or countries like Japan and China and India. Second, very little work is being done on carbon capture for gas fired plants, since they already have one third the emissions of coal-fired plants.
Three strikes. Skip this book. There are too many better ones out there.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Why the ‘SuperFreakonomics’ global-warming chapter is worth your time
Reactions to Al Gore’s book o’ solutions, “Our Choice”
Comments
View as Flat
GreyFlcn Posted 8:40 am
06 Jun 2007
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/05/california_arb_.h ...
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog2/?p=51
California ARB is starting to get off the hydrogen kick.
Making them have to compete 1 for 1 to electric cars. (Which they can't)
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:36 am
06 Jun 2007
The most important contribution that Monbiot makes in Heat is to lay out a methodology for reducing greenhouse gases. It's the methodology that is important, not the specifics.
Keep in mind that Monbiot covers a lot of territory, both in the book and in his weekly columns in the Guardian. I don't know how he can do it. I don't think he has the dozens of research assistants that he really would need.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 4:32 pm
06 Jun 2007
His motivation is to show it is at least possible to have a 90% reduction by 2030 without destroying British industrial civilization. His reading of the science is that anything over a 2 degree Centigrade rise above preindustrial level (450 ppm, more or less) will likely lead to a runaway Greenhouse effect. I wish he could be proved wrong, because then I could sleep a lot better. I don't know of anyone else as passionate about saving the planet as Monbiot.
On transportation, he only talked about a system of inter-city buses with circular connections to town and city centers.
I'm not sure why "with political will" we couldn't have carbon-captured gas-fired power plants by 2030.
Permalink
MarkUK Posted 6:32 pm
06 Jun 2007
Permalink
truffula Posted 11:11 pm
06 Jun 2007
I have read it. Its secret message is that cutting carbon by 90% and maintaining our current lifestyle is impossible.
From the Faustian metaphor that begins each chapter to the super-comprehensive appendix, this book is worth reading.
Permalink
Tod Posted 12:58 am
07 Jun 2007
There are a number of critical insights to be found in this book. Don't get sensitive because he assails your patron saint - Gore. If there are better books out there that urge more direct action (other than Kunstler's "Long Emergency" and Brown's "Plan B 2.0"), please, don't just say "There are better out there." Provide a list.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:27 am
07 Jun 2007
This book will definitely be on my summer reading list.
I'll be at the beach in Dash Point State Park -- enjoying the wonders of Global Heating and dreaming about owning a Chevy Volt in a few years (oh, of course I'll get the hydrogen fuel cell option).
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
merrick Posted 1:52 am
07 Jun 2007
He spends the following two and a half pages discussing the issues with hydrogen as car fuel, before concluding that it will, as you point out, be decades before it could possibly work. Thus, it's useless in a world that need to cut emissions in the next couple of decades.
His premise is that the science demands a 60% global cut in around 30 years in order to (hopefully) stay below a 2 degree rise. If we're to share the emissions equally, for the over-emitting UK it means a 90% cut. Given that making everyone live in non-electric primitivist utopia is not gonna happen in that timeframe, how do we reduce the emissions without social collapse?
He does manage to show how it can be done (with some radical restructuring but feasible and using only technology that does exist) with all industries bar aviation.
I defy anyone to write several hundred pages of anything political and have you agree with it all. There are certainly things in Heat that I'd question, but these things are a handful among literally hundreds of ideas that are definitely practical.
More, he's sifted through thousands of sources and cites them all. There are so many figures bandied around on climate change, if nothing else Heat is an invaluable reference text for finding the ones that are scientifically sound.
It leads to some surprising conclusions. For example, microgeneration using wind turbines seems something of a no-go, despite the fact that we all (and Monbiot admits he too is one) like the sound of it.
Bristling Badger
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 1:58 am
07 Jun 2007
He gets by without zillions of research assistents because he's a lot smarter than almost any other journalist I've ever met, and intellectually fearless.
Cheers
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 2:01 am
07 Jun 2007
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Easterbunny Posted 7:22 am
07 Jun 2007
Monbiot spends a lot of time dashing many illusions that environmentalists hold dear, as he holds them up to careful scrutiny. And as far as I can tell, he's the only one that's hammered home the message that a 60% overall cut in output is effectively a 90% (or more) cut per person once you take into account population growth. That's sobering. And he's the only one who has attempted to add everything up to make sure the targets are possible. His methodology is inspiring.
Joseph - you could learn a lot from this book. Instead of shooting the messenger because his conclusions differ on a few points from yours, try applying Monbiot's careful and honest analysis to your own proposals. Do the math - can you show that your proposals will get us to 90%?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:42 am
07 Jun 2007
Two, Hydrogen will. never. work.
Three, all these Prius's and Hybrids we're currently enamoured with? Those came specifically from a Clinton-Gore program.
_
It's far more valuable to tell someone what is wrong, than to tell them 12 things, and let them guess.
Permalink
plum Posted 3:31 pm
07 Jun 2007
While mobile fuel cells might one day change the world, in other words, as far as my target is concerned they are pretty well useless. In lobbying for lower emissions, out time would be better spent demanding the mass production of a hypercar -- which faces no significant technical barriers -- rather than the use of hydrogen.
[In the next paragraph, Monbiot discusses how an electric vehicle powered by off-peak wind energy is far more feasible, ending the paragraph:] Given that the alternatives are so much easier to develop, our governments' obsession with hydrogen cars seems incomprehensible.
Permalink
plum Posted 3:31 pm
07 Jun 2007
Permalink
Tod Posted 3:52 pm
07 Jun 2007
Sorry, but I have to call utter and pure bullshit on that one.
Permalink
jimbeyer Posted 1:42 am
11 Jun 2007
An alternative energy system based on renewable/nuclear/biomass to replace fossil fuels would be about 80% electric, 10% biofuel (hopefully renewable methane -- the cheapest biofuel), and 10% synthetic fuel (yes, that means electrolyzing hydrogen from water) and hopefully making something else with it, like methane via the Sabatier reaction (and some far-too-easy-to-find carbon dioxide).
Why any purely synthetic fuel at all? Because it is a stretch to expect more than 80% electric for all of our power needs; we simply need some fuel some of the time. And it is also a stretch to assume more than 10% from biomass. 10% is quite a stretch as it is.
Practically, that missing 10% could also be handled with our existing, depleting oil and gas reserves, and that would probably the "good enough" solution for 100 years or so
Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.
Permalink
Hudson Posted 8:26 am
02 Aug 2007
Book reviewers have an obligation to read the whole book. Period.
Even when the book stinks from page 1, you've got to finish it -- or don't review it.
It's not only the only ethical way to review books; it is also the only way to avoid making glaring mistakes like the one made here (mistaking Monbiot's position on certain issues by only reading a few indexed passages).
I expect more from Grist!
Animals are my friends. And I don't eat my friends. -- George Bernard Shaw
Permalink
JMG Posted 8:49 am
02 Aug 2007
Just as troubling is this:
"Three strikes. Skip this book. There are too many better ones out there."
Ummmmm, OK, and their titles are ??????
(As far as I know, HEAT is sui generis for its stated intent. If there's another book that tries to show in detail how we reach a 90% cut, I sure as hell am interested in knowing what it is.)
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink