For those of you who enjoyed "The Shock Doctrine," you are going to be 'shocked' by this book. Naomi Kline is right on board with the "global warming is causing greenhouse emissions that are ruining the planet" approach. Chapter One starts off with this quote: "Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on well-established evidence, about 97 percent of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening. This agreement is documented not just by a single study, but by a converging stream of evidence over the past two decades from surveys of scientists, content analyses of peer-reviewed studies, and public statements issued by virtually every membership organization of experts in this field."
Examples of other quotes in the book:
p. 41
...Then there is "Climategate," a manufactured scandel in which climate scientists' emails were hacked and their contents distorted by the Heartlanders and their allies, who claimed to find evidence of manipulated data (the scientists were repeatedly vindicated of wrongdoing).
p. 51
...Heartland's denier division did its best to cast so much doubt on the science that it helped to paralyze all serious attempts to regulate greenhouse emissions, while the insurance arm pushed policies that would allow corporations to stay profitable regardless of the real-world results of those emissions.
p.54
It's true that catastrophic climate change would inflate the role of government to levels that would likely disturb most thinking people, whether left or right. And there are legitimate fears too of what some call "green fascism"--an environmental crisis so severe that it becomes the pretext for authoritarian forces to seize control in the name of restoring some kind of climate order. But it's also the case that there is no way to get cuts in emissions steep or rapid enough to avoid those catastrophic scenarios without levels of government intervention that will never be acceptable to right-wing idealogues.
p. 88
Now, I realize that this can all sound apocalyptic--as if reducing emissions requires economic crises that result in mass suffering. But that seems so only because we have an economic system that fetishizes GDP growth above all else, regardless of the human or ecological consequences, while failing to place value on those things that most of us cherish above all--a decent standard of living, a measure of future security, and our relationships with one another. ...
p. 107
Over the course of the 1970's, there were 660 reported disasters around the world, including droughts, floods, extreme temperature events, wildfires, and storms. In the 2000's, there were 3,332--a fivefold boost. That is a staggering increase in just over thirty years, and clearly global warming cannot be said to have "caused" all of it. But the climate signal is also clear. "There's no question that climate change has increased the frequency of certain types of extreme weather events," climate scientist Michael Mann told me in an interview, "including drought, intense hurricanes, and super typhoons, the frequency and intensity and duration of heat waves, and potentially other types of extreme weather though the details are still being debated within the scientific community."
So, if you can bear in mind her point of view, then it's worth reading. More for the quagmire and muck trying to accomplish anything worthwhile for humanity from the political, corporate, legal, and social aspects of society. At this point, I'm through the first four chapters and not one word of political ponerology. Naomi is in desparate need of Pierre's book!
Examples of other quotes in the book:
p. 41
...Then there is "Climategate," a manufactured scandel in which climate scientists' emails were hacked and their contents distorted by the Heartlanders and their allies, who claimed to find evidence of manipulated data (the scientists were repeatedly vindicated of wrongdoing).
p. 51
...Heartland's denier division did its best to cast so much doubt on the science that it helped to paralyze all serious attempts to regulate greenhouse emissions, while the insurance arm pushed policies that would allow corporations to stay profitable regardless of the real-world results of those emissions.
p.54
It's true that catastrophic climate change would inflate the role of government to levels that would likely disturb most thinking people, whether left or right. And there are legitimate fears too of what some call "green fascism"--an environmental crisis so severe that it becomes the pretext for authoritarian forces to seize control in the name of restoring some kind of climate order. But it's also the case that there is no way to get cuts in emissions steep or rapid enough to avoid those catastrophic scenarios without levels of government intervention that will never be acceptable to right-wing idealogues.
p. 88
Now, I realize that this can all sound apocalyptic--as if reducing emissions requires economic crises that result in mass suffering. But that seems so only because we have an economic system that fetishizes GDP growth above all else, regardless of the human or ecological consequences, while failing to place value on those things that most of us cherish above all--a decent standard of living, a measure of future security, and our relationships with one another. ...
p. 107
Over the course of the 1970's, there were 660 reported disasters around the world, including droughts, floods, extreme temperature events, wildfires, and storms. In the 2000's, there were 3,332--a fivefold boost. That is a staggering increase in just over thirty years, and clearly global warming cannot be said to have "caused" all of it. But the climate signal is also clear. "There's no question that climate change has increased the frequency of certain types of extreme weather events," climate scientist Michael Mann told me in an interview, "including drought, intense hurricanes, and super typhoons, the frequency and intensity and duration of heat waves, and potentially other types of extreme weather though the details are still being debated within the scientific community."
So, if you can bear in mind her point of view, then it's worth reading. More for the quagmire and muck trying to accomplish anything worthwhile for humanity from the political, corporate, legal, and social aspects of society. At this point, I'm through the first four chapters and not one word of political ponerology. Naomi is in desparate need of Pierre's book!
