Monbiot, the author of the detailed and alarming yet somehow hopeful "Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning," says mankind can find a way to prevent the most deleterious impacts of global warming. Finding the will could be a different matter.
"Ours are the most fortunate generations that have ever lived," he writes in his introduction. "We inhabit the brief historical interlude between ecological constraint and ecological catastrophe."
Monbiot agrees with climatologists who have concluded that major ecosystems will collapse unless we keep the world's temperature from rising about 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030.
A global temperature rise that great is inevitable if we don't drastically reduce the carbon emissions we're spewing into the atmosphere. Monbiot isn't talking about some namby-pamby cuts and adjustments that will barely be felt by the average person. The Kyoto Protocol called for a 5.2% reduction in global emissions by 2012. Monbiot calculates rich countries need a 90% reduction, or we can pretty much kiss the planet as we know it goodbye.
Monbiot, a British columnist and author who was given a United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement in 1995, takes a similar approach as a trio of authors in the recently released "The Suicidal Planet: How to Prevent Global Climate Catastrophe" (Thomas Dunne Books, $24). He insists a 90% reduction is doable, and he lays out a plan that involves both cutting energy use and reducing that energy production's carbon content.
It will take a 1941-like global focus and determination, he believes. That and totally rethinking how and where our energy is produced and consumed, a worldwide carbon rationing system, a drastic reduction of air travel and an end to our nagging tendency to think that progress means greater opportunity for all. Piece of cake, right?
His message will be a particularly tough sell with the "I want my low mpg" crowd, who either don't want to or refuse to make a connection between actions and impacts.
He argues we're entering an era, if we're not in it already, when having more, consuming more and traveling more is not only bad for the planet, it may be contributing to the eventual deaths of people in places like Ethiopia and Bangladesh. Global-warming-induced droughts, famines and sea-level rises will annihilate those populations, which lack resources to deal with them.
Yet Monbiot isn't calling for the haves to give up 90% of everything for the have-nots. He's realistic enough to know that will never happen, and he also thinks a combination of solutions can get us to that 90% carbon reduction without unbearable pain. He doesn't advocate a return to caves and wooden wheels.
He's calculated the potential savings from alternative systems, and he's no Pollyanna. He doesn't turn a blind eye to flaws and shortcomings of proposed solutions.
Making appliances more efficient won't help cut energy use unless a rationing system is in place, he says. Just as labor-saving devices don't save us from labor if we simply use the time saved to do other labor, energy-efficient products don't save energy if we use the savings to buy more products. A rationing system would provide incentive to cut back and find the least-carbon-producing answers. (By the way, a plasma TV uses five times as much energy as a TV with the old cathode ray tube.)
Solar power has a huge limitation that is often overlooked, he says. Solar photovoltaic cells pay for themselves in 25 to 30 years, which is also their life expectancy.
Nuclear power could greatly reduce the world's carbon output, he admits, but he puts it at the bottom of possible solutions. Even if we found a good way to solve the waste-disposal problem, it would be 20 years before we could make a major, worldwide conversion to nuclear, and some question that the supply of uranium will hold up for long if we do.
Corn- or sugar-based fuel crops are not the answer, he says, because they will divert cropland needed to feed the world.
Buying carbon offsets for excessive energy use is like paying priests to absolve one of sins in the Middle Ages, he says. It might help one's conscience, but it does nothing to alleviate the problem.
Monbiot does see hope in a couple of technological fixes: underground coal gasification, where holes are drilled in a coal seam and air and steam are pumped into it to create gases that can be burned in power stations; and carbon capture and storage, where carbon created in energy production is buried underground.
Wave and offshore wind power, especially in places like Great Britain, are feasible and could eliminate a big chunk of the carbon emissions we're currently sending into the atmosphere, he says.
Monbiot also believes the technologies needed to make the required slash in worldwide carbon emissions from ground transportation already exist.
Far from costing money, they'd save billions.
The problem is political and psychological. We've grown convinced that the automobile is a symbol of freedom, and bigger, faster cars are sold as part of the package. But unless cars are made to operate far more efficiently (the Model T Ford in 1908 got better mileage than the car and light-truck fleet today) and mass transit can be made into an appealing option, we'll need to give up that sense of freedom.
According to Monbiot, the electric car can provide a partial solution - and the major drawback of limited range can be easily overcome. He backs an energy expert's suggestion that service stations simply exchange charged batteries for depleted ones, and send drivers quickly on their way. For a fee, of course.
Forget about flying, he says. Most people are in denial about its impacts.
One trans-Atlantic flight emits about as much carbon per passenger as his rationing system would permit for a person for an entire year. And a flight's contribution to global warming is even greater because of the interaction of the jet's exhausts with the atmosphere. Monbiot says there are no viable options for reducing those emissions, other than cutting way back on flights. He considers air travel a luxury we can no longer afford.
Fighting climate change will take more than facing off against oil companies, airlines and governments, Monbiot claims. It will mean fighting ourselves. We've grown too comfortable and have too much to lose. We've run out of time to think someone or something will save us from having to make tough choices and sacrifices.
- Robert Krier
