Coincidently, I just finished reading Monbiot's book, and I thought it was fabulous. Gar's review above is quite right, but in picking lots of nits with Monbiot's solutions, it seems to obscure the main point - that Monbiot sets a fabulous example of joined up thinking. The main point of the book is that we need a "whole system" review of how to achieve the necessary emissions reductions, based on rational analysis rather than wishful thinking. The book is pretty upbeat, considering the task he takes on: how to make a 90% reduction in carbon emissions that would be acceptable to most people - i.e. without sacrificing the comforts of modern life.

Monbiot points out that targets negotiated on the basis of what is politically acceptable are pointless - the only sensible target is one based on the best scientific evidence. He does a quick tour of some recent research, and concludes that 2 degrees is the crucial threshold, and for that we need an average 90% reduction in CO2 per person by 2030 (taking into account projected population growth). Whether this target is the right one might be debated, but that's somewhat beside the point for this book. The real point is that Monbiot shows how to construct a coherent set of constructive solutions to meet such a target.

By concentrating on quibbles with parts of Monbiot's solution, Gar comes across as quite critical of the book. But the point is not whether Monbiot has the right solution - the point is that he has the right approach to working out a solution. If enough people read the book with an open mind, Monbiot will have managed to raise the debate to a whole new level.

The book is full of good insights. Here's one that I'd never considered before: energy conservation on a per-household basis can result in a net increase in energy consumption, as people use the savings to carry out more energy intensive activities - e.g. if I get better fuel mileage in my car, I'll feel okay about driving it more; if I use low energy lightbulbs, I'll feel okay about leaving them on more.

Definitely the most thought-provoking book on cimate change yet.

yes - if I remember correctly, one of his arguments is that the cheapest form of biofuel is palm oil. So countries like Indonesia are busy tearing down more rainforest to plant palm trees, so that the can cash in on the rising demand. With the net result that the emissions are even worse than for petroleum.

He also points out that with increasing worries about food security, switching large amounts of arable land to grow fuel of our cars is untenable - and morally wrong.

More than half of Monbiot's book is devoted to technical solutions. The review opened and closed with strong praise. For that matter I would bet Monbiot would prefer to the book open a dialog rather than chorus of amens.

I agree Gar.  We would be better off providing tax credits than using the various carbon trading schemes.

I think they are ill-conceived plans cooked up by "free" marketeers.  The sincere proponents of these ideas, who actually believe in GHG climate disaster, are being used by the corporatarian faction.  The main push for this is from corporate shilling "think tanks" (propaganda arms of corporate power).

Take subsidies away from fossil and nuclear mega international resource warring entities and put the money into direct tax credits.  Cut the lobbyists for these bad actors off at the knees with reform.  

Sure it's an almost impossible grass roots political task, but is there really any other way to save the human friendly climate of planet earth?  Nope.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Gar,
Again I agree. My worry was only that I'd like to see people read the book first and then debate the solutions, rather than be put off reading it altogether by thinking there's an element of his solution that's wrong from the start.

BTW When is your own book coming out? I see from your website that your proposed book will cover much of the same territory as Monbiot's. It would be nice to read them back to back.

May have news soon.  Not settled yet so I won't share details.

An Australian Senator, Bob Brown of the Greens, said in a Friday interview on ABC that IF "we" could just stop cutting down the rainforests, we could advance the cause of stopping global warming by leaps and bounds.  

It's always a question of who is responsible.  "We" are responsible for politicians elected in bourgeois democracies.  Sometimes, we get a good one, like Brown, but mostly "we're" manipulated by those who have economic interests in maintaining the status quo vis a vis burning things to produce power.  Our whole psychology is built on the socially received wisdom that obeying our masters will make us safe.  Therefore, in Australia, "we" vote in people like John Howard, a capitalist toady who is a climate change skeptic.