Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning, by George Monbiot, 2007, South End Press, 277 pages, $22

Review by Richa, May, 2007
            First published in Britain in 2006, it is not surprising that South End wasted no time in putting out a USA edition, making the book more accessible in this country. South End Press is a collective non-profit publishing firm, majority women and people of color, dedicated to “radical social change”.

            It is very important that those in the United Kingdom seriously address the issues of global atmosphere change – their emissions are roughly eight times the amount Monbiot figures are needed per person globally to stabilize the atmosphere at a tolerable level. But USA per capita emissions are slightly more than double those of the UK, and with a population five times as large, that makes our country’s emissions more than ten times those of the UK. So the importance of what we in the USA do is clear.
             Note that i prefer the term “atmosphere change”, where appropriate, over “climate change”, which is Monbiot’s focus. The two are not the same: Climate change is largely a result (and not the only result) of atmosphere change. As we are clearly dependent on the atmosphere for our lives (try not breathing for a few minutes), this focus might be more meaningful for some – such as the growing number who suffer asthma.
            The Foreword, Introduction, and first chapter all give an overview. Monbiot concludes that we in the richer nations need to reduce our total carbon emissions by roughly 90% by 2030. Much of the rest of the book is based on the assumption of such a cut, though he figures a 94% reduction is needed in the USA.
            There figures will no doubt keep changing, up or down, as we learn more. But the variation can be expected to narrow as science keeps informing us more completely.
            Make no mistake: This is science-based. Politically, he notes: “By contrast, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – the only international agreement that has been struck so far – commits its signatories to cut their carbon emissions by a total of 5.2 percent by 2012.” The book does not note that the USA failed to sign even this extremely weak agreement.
            There is already a significant chance, according to Monbiot’s sources, that atmosphere change has reached a “tipping point” in which feedback loops will kick in and send our climate drastically out of control. Think about this: The collective greed and willful ignorance of many of us who are relatively well off – being the ones who are primarily driving atmosphere change – may have already doomed us to severe worldwide disruption, perhaps extinction!
            Monbiot chooses to believe that there is still time to turn things around. The scientific analysis says this is, in fact, still likely. But it won’t remain likely for much longer without a response commensurate with the threat. And given the uncertainties, the response should include a large drop in emissions sooner rather than later.
            He writes, “Whether or not it is too late to hold temperatures below the critical threshold, it is clear that the greater the cuts we make, the lesser the eventual impact will be.” At the risk of being seen as picky, that is not necessarily so. As he acknowledges, there may be a “tipping point”, beyond which atmosphere change accelerates out of control. If we pass that point it may not matter whether it comes sooner or later. Think of being near the edge of a whirlpool. You may not be sure how close you can get without being sucked in, but whatever that point is, you will get sucked to the bottom just as deeply if you cross it. He should have noted that the greater and sooner our cuts, the better our chances of avoiding any tipping point that exists.
            The second chapter focuses on the “denial industry”. If you are not already familiar with this, it should help to bring out your fighting spirit. And note that while the deniers have been routed on the scientific front, this industry is still very much alive and active; the p. r. war is far from over.
            Monbiot’s third chapter, perhaps his weakest, explores a few ways of limiting carbon emissions, and decides a rationing scheme holds most promise. This leads to what is essentially a new kind of money, based on carbon use. He shows how this would generally enhance our freedom. But he assumes we can distribute carbon emissions fairly, which is unrealistic.
            The attempt to distribute resources fairly is a large part of the history of humanity. Had that attempt been successful, not only would atmosphere change probably not be a serious issue, but the same for poverty, crime, war, resource depletion, and most of our other social and environmental ills.
            That is not to say fair distribution of carbon emissions is not important; it is extremely important. But it needs a strong argument in its defense; that is, how we can reasonably get there. Assuming that fair distribution is needed does not make it, any more than if Monbiot had simply assumed a major reduction in carbon emissions is needed and not bothered to write most of the rest of his book.
            The analogy he makes to World War 2, and the rapid changes made for that war, is a good one and could serve as a starting point. Atmosphere change is a similar emergency, but perhaps even more so because it is global and threatens all life. How to obtain governmental action acknowledging this fact would be one way of starting to address the fairness issue.

            He rejects energy taxes, claiming they would disproportionately affect the poor and be too difficult to administer and explain.
            I differ with him here. Such taxes can be applied fairly easily at the point of production or import, and it is not necessary for everyone to understand the details of how the taxes are figured or administered. It is sufficient to understand the basic concept, which is easy enough: use of products that harm the atmosphere – or generally harm our society in any other way – should be taxed such that the full costs are included in the price we pay. This allows the market to do the work it does best.
             The poor can be rationed a certain amount of energy, as is already done to a limited degree. Or better, we can provide everyone with a basic income guarantee, thereby eliminating the rationing, and all the associated bureaucracy and other costs.
            But you can ignore this sweets and meats section and still get a full, healthful plate of information in the main part of the book, chapters 4-10.
            Those chapters, comprising the vegetables, fruits, and grains section of the book, deal respectively with housing, large-scale electricity generation, renewable energy, “micro” energy production, surface transport, air transport, and shopping – with some other areas of concern thrown in somewhat helter-skelter. He wrote particularly for the U.K., but much of the information is applicable to the USA.
            He starts out the housing chapter by noting that energy efficiency is not necessarily even part of the solution. If our heaters become more efficient, for example, we tend to turn up the heat. More efficient cars means more driving. He may overstate the effects of this, but he does this consciously, knowing it is better to proceed with the more “conservative” – that is, pessimistic – assumptions, so as not to be caught with an inadequate response if those assumptions prove warranted.
            Most new residences can now be built using little or even no supplementary heat or cooling. A key element is tightness, along with an adequate air exchange system. The saving in appliances can largely offset the greater building costs, and adding in the subsequent savings in energy use can actually make such building economically attractive compared to standard practices.
            Retrofitting existing housing is more difficult. Much can be done, but it will take time...perhaps too much time.
            He “reluctantly” came to the position that stricter housing codes and code enforcement are necessary; that they will, in fact, enhance our freedom to live in the kind of housing we would like.
            He proposes that landlords be required to put in energy improvements, just as they are now required to put in various household safety features. Considering the global effects of climate change alone, this would really be another safety feature, protecting our planet’s safety.
            An example cited at the consumer level is compact fluorescent light bulbs, which can save a great deal over incandescents. LED bulbs – when they become sufficiently cost-effective – can save considerably more yet.
            I had not known about refrigerators and freezers in existence now that use “vacuum insulated panels” that result in energy use just 12% of the average of those presently used. But they are hard to come by (and no doubt expensive). I have to wonder, what’s the hold-up in mass producing and marketing such appliances?
            Perhaps the following info, mentioned in the book, gives an idea: Many European appliances must have labels showing their electricity use. Knowledge of electricity use is known to result in less electricity being used. But that system is under attack by the USA and some other countries through the World Trade Organization as a “barrier to free trade”.
            A chapter that focuses on electricity generation, transmission, and storage indicates more potential savings, though still not enough to meet Monbiot’s 90% target.
            He sees some potential here in nuclear power, but on the whole rejects it due to the industry’s terrible record, the connections with nuclear weapons, and persistent unresolved questions about disposal or storage. Natural gas is likely to be the best means of generating electricity in the near term (at least through 2030).
            Looking at renewable energy, Monbiot indicates that wind power, wave and tidal power, and solar energy all have their place, depending on location. And DC networks have the potential to carry electricity over long distances more efficiently than the present AC networks.
            There is an interesting discussion of the extra capacity needed to assure consistency, and various ways to harness that capacity so as to avoid building or relying upon yet more electricity generation plants.
            Micro power generation, and how to hook it with the grid, gets a chapter largely to itself. It is not the panacea some claim, but it has certain efficiencies that, if tapped, can contribute to the 90% goal.
            Much of that chapter is devoted to hydrogen’s potential as a fuel. Fuel cells might power homes with hydrogen through the grid, while extra energy can be fed back into the grid. But the obstacles to their efficient and widespread use are not likely to be overcome by 2030.
            The chapter on surface transport, unsurprisingly, suggests more trains and buses, as well as better fuel economy for cars and trucks. Monbiot makes a clear case against the biofuels now being developed in a major way, at the further expense of many on our planet who are already hungry.
            One interesting proposal is to put bus hubs at the junctures of freeways, and provide dedicated lanes for the buses. This could allow buses to get to most destinations around a metro area as quickly as, if not more quickly than, cars. That and some other reforms could make buses the mode of choice for most urban travel.
            He does not mention the possibilities of very light rail, which might be almost as flexible as cars but much more efficient.
            Flying is the one area he covers in which efficiency improvements, new technologies, more effective regulation, etc. just don’t make it. Some minor improvements are achievable, but not much, and even some of those may be overstated. For instance, citing Paul Hawken (one of many globe-circling “environmentalists” who defend flying), he says smaller planes making more direct trips can save fuel. As smaller planes are less efficient, both he and Hawken probably overstate the total fuel saving.
            He effectively debunks the notion promulgated by some airlines, and some environmental groups, that the environmental effects of flying can be offset by such things as planting trees in Africa – or paying to have someone else implement such “carbon offsets”. Some companies actually advertise such tradeoffs. But they, in fact, come nowhere near to actually offsetting the negative effects of flying.
            Monbiot knows it will be politically difficult to cut flying by 90% or more (more may be necessary due to the effects of high-altitude vapors emitted by jets), but finds no way around it.  The difficulty lies in the fact that those who fly are the world’s economic elite, including those most powerful.
            His conclusion: “If you fly, you destroy other people’s lives.” That’s a great conclusion, and i’m glad to see somebody else put it so plainly. Still, i’m not sure why he said it like that, as the effects are clearly broader: If you fly, you threaten ALL life!
            Going back to the discussion about fairness, Monbiot fails to draw the obvious further conclusion from this. A 90% reduction in each area of concern is hardly fair, when some areas are the luxury perks of the elite while other areas, such as housing, are survival issues for everyone. The fair solution here, then, would be a 100% reduction in flying, which might then allow an 80% rather than 90% energy improvement in housing or whatever else emits the same amount of carbon equivalent gases but is more essential to most people’s lives.
            None of this necessarily applies to all possible ways of flying. Lighter-than-air travel, using hydrogen, holds some possibility, but not at anywhere near the speeds people are accustomed to. It is, in fact, more the speeds that the world’s economic elite (again, most of us) are accustomed to that are the problem. High speed trains, as well as high speed shipping, are very inefficient also.
            Information such as Monbiot’s helps to change the political landscape. In the area of air travel, for instance, ten years or so ago i asked the director of West Michigan Environmental Action Council if they would do anything to reduce air travel. He said there was no way, and even denied that it was a serious environmental issue, citing the “eco-tourism” being promoted at the time. But when i recently asked a similar question of Rachel Hood, who became the new WMEAC director early this year, she said they are working on trying to help individuals and businesses reduce their ecological footprints, and that reduction of air travel is one part of that. That’s a positive and important change.
            On shopping, Monbiot notes that we generally do not even think about the gross inefficiencies of being in comfortably warm places to select frozen foods from spaces adjacent and open to those warm spaces. He advocates an old remedy: delivery.
            He throws in an analysis of cement in the shopping chapter, in a self-denigrating way. I don’t know why, because i found it quite interesting. Though i knew cement making is highly polluting and uses considerable energy, i had no idea it alone is responsible for 5-10% of greenhouse gas emissions! Nor had i ever heard of “geopolymeric cements”, recently developed based on old usages, that have potential to solve the cement problem.
            “Heat” does not and cannot cover everything that needs to be covered in dealing with climate-related atmosphere change. Monbiot is well aware of this. He notes: “Perhaps my gravest omission is the military…. The supersonic jet, for example, is possibly the most environmentally damaging technology ever developed. There will never be an eco-friendly F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. If planes like this continue to be deployed, they will destroy the climate as effectively as they destroy their targets.”
            His solution is too moderate in my opinion, but at least very much in the right direction: “…our armed forces should be greatly reduced. The majority of them have no defensive purpose in the true sense of that term. Lacking convincing enemies – in the form of well-armed and aggressive neighbouring states – I believe that countries like the United Kingdom should confine their military operations overseas to peacekeeping; as much for the sake of the environment as for the sake of public finance and world peace.”
            He fails at all to address indirect effects of the military on atmosphere change. For instance, besides vacuum-insulated freezers and geopolymeric cements, there are no doubt other potential means of saving that can be developed if we can collectively reclaim the bulk of research and development resources from the military. And the military is the chief means globally for maintaining inequality, which assures that atmospheric and other forms of pollution will continue to be inadequately addressed.
            Notwithstanding the criticisms, Monbiot has taken a great deal of information and put it all together well. On the extent of the problem and what we ought to be doing about it, this is the best book currently available. Anyone seriously concerned about atmosphere change should read it. Or at least check out the section of his website (www.monbiot.com) that deals with climate change. Then let’s get together and work on how we can change a 94% cut in carbon emissions by 2030 in the USA from a pipe dream to something that will actually happen.