The goal of this blog is to create a list of what I call super facts. Important facts that we know to be true and yet they are surprising, shocking or disputed among non-experts. Super facts are important facts that people get wrong. However, I also create posts that are not super facts but other interesting information, such as this book review and book recommendation.
Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World
Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World by Katharine Hayhoe is a book about human caused Climate Change, how bad it is, and what we can do about it. The good news is that we are not all going to destroy ourselves. It is still bad, but we can do a lot to avoid making it really bad. However, there are a lot misunderstandings regarding what really makes a difference. This book examines these issues with a good dose of realistic optimism and science. I read the hardback version (and my review on Amazon is currently the top review).
- Hardcover – Publisher : Atria/One Signal Publishers (September 21, 2021), ISBN-10 : 1982143835, ISBN-13 : 978-1982143831, 320 pages, item weight : 1.05 pounds, dimensions : 6 x 1 x 9 inches, it costs $19.14 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
- Paperback – Publisher : Atria/One Signal Publishers (September 20, 2022), ISBN-10 : 1982143843, ISBN-13 : 978-1982143848, 320 pages, item weight : 8.8 ounces, dimensions : 5.5 x 0.7 x 8.38 inches, it costs $17.22 on Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
- Kindle – Published : Atria/One Signal Publishers (September 21, 2021), ASIN : B08BZW2BQG, 318 pages, it costs $14.99 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
- Audiobook – Published : September 21, 2021, ASIN : B08D4RGYM8, Listening Length : 8 hours and 7 minutes, it costs $16.40 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Amazon’s description of the book
“An optimistic view on why collective action is still possible—and how it can be realized.” —The New York Times
“As far as heroic characters go, I’m not sure you could do better than Katharine Hayhoe.” —Scientific American
“It’s not an exaggeration to say that Saving Us is one of the more important books about climate change to have been written.” —The Guardian
United Nations Champion of the Earth, climate scientist, and evangelical Christian Katharine Hayhoe changes the debate on how we can save our future.
Called “one of the nation’s most effective communicators on climate change” by The New York Times, Katharine Hayhoe knows how to navigate all sides of the conversation on our changing planet. A Canadian climate scientist living in Texas, she negotiates distrust of data, indifference to imminent threats, and resistance to proposed solutions with ease. Over the past fifteen years Hayhoe has found that the most important thing we can do to address climate change is talk about it—and she wants to teach you how.
In Saving Us, Hayhoe argues that when it comes to changing hearts and minds, facts are only one part of the equation. We need to find shared values in order to connect our unique identities to collective action. This is not another doomsday narrative about a planet on fire. It is a multilayered look at science, faith, and human psychology, from an icon in her field—recently named chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy.
Drawing on interdisciplinary research and personal stories, Hayhoe shows that small conversations can have astonishing results. Saving Us leaves us with the tools to open a dialogue with your loved ones about how we all can play a role in pushing forward for change.
This is my five-star review for Saving Us
Climate Change; what can we do? Talk about it!
This is an extremely well written, informative, and hopeful book on climate communication. A decade ago I was doubtful that human caused climate change was anything to worry about even though it physically made sense that it was happening. I thought environmentalists were exaggerating and distorting the facts. In general I did not trust or respect environmentalists whom I thought were driven by leftist agendas.
I studied the topic on my own by reading books and scientific articles on the topic, and I learned what climate scientists, not opinionated bloggers, said about the topic. I was especially impressed by a book by James Hansen.
I came to realize that human caused global warming definitely was real and a serious problem. I think I was able to change my mind so easily because I never had a strong affiliation with a political tribe, I respected scientific expertise and my encounter with science deniers in other fields had inoculated me against their kind of rhetoric (it’s fairly universal). I’m an abstract thinker who loves pro-con-lists, and I prefer going in deep and I am not afraid of math, but I don’t think that’s typical.
The backside of that is that it made me a pretty crappy and easily frustrated climate change communicator once I came around. I felt I needed to take action so I joined Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL), a bipartisan volunteer organization with good solutions and good practices. From CCL I learned how to communicate better. In this book Katherine Hayhoe praises CCL and use it as a model for how to approach climate change with respect to solutions and communication.
In addition to climate change communication she gives a high level overview of why we know that global warming is happening (there are 26,500 lines of independent evidence for climate change), how fast it is happening (10 times faster than the last ice age warming), and how we know it isn’t natural. It’s a simple overview, not a deep dive. I thought her analogy about driving while looking in the rearview mirror as you hit a curve to be genius.
She also discusses our cognitive biases, and why not to engage with the 7% who are dismissives, the abuse she’s been a victim of, and so called zombie arguments. Zombie arguments are dismissive arguments that have been thoroughly debunked over and over but won’t die because they fulfill an emotional need for those who are dismissive of climate change. She discusses the political divided in the US, the “blame and shame the consumer” tactic and the misguided “population control solution” and solutions aversion in general.
She describes our situation lucidly. That there is no particular known limit that will doom us all. It is like smoking; you don’t get lung cancer after a certain amount of cigarettes, it’s just better to stop as soon as you can. She discusses solutions and the economy, including cap and trade and a price on carbon, and she states we don’t have to harm the economy to solve climate change, and a lot is already being done the world over. It is a mostly hopeful view.
I was surprised to learn that if you take into account, production subsidies, tax breaks, land leases on public lands below market rates, and the cost of pollution, the IMF estimates that fossil fuel subsidies in the US top $600 billion per year, twenty times clean energy subsidies. That’s about $2,000.00 per person and year, or $8,000.00 per family per year. That’s a lot of money.
Because of my experience with CCL I recognized a lot of what Katherine Hayhoe was saying in this book, but I still had a lot to learn, and besides the book is hopeful, and intelligently written and therefore a pleasure to read. She stresses that the most important thing we can do to solve climate change is to talk about it. I love this book and I highly recommend this book.
To see the Super Facts click here
Newstrade
There is so much confusion on this topic. It sounds like a good book.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are right, there is a lot of confusion, left and right, and this is a good book.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This does sound like a good book. I’m not hopeful that the U.S. is going to do anything productive in this arena in the next four years, but we’ll see …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I think it is a very good book. She is a great communicator, and she avoids exaggerations. We are probably going to exit the Paris agreement, and the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) will be overturned. However, it appears that a lot of Republicans are interested in preserving many of the climate/environment provisions in the IRA and there are other resolutions that benefit renewables/climate/environment, such as the energy permitting reform act, that are getting bipartisan support. So, it may not be as bad as one might expect. When it comes down to it, it is mostly congress and not Trump who decides laws.
LikeLike
Here’s my two cents worth, based on my observations, reading, science and technology classes, and common sense: Everybody blames the U.S., but China and India are huge polluters that nobody holds accountable. In fact, U.S. oil companies have developed remarkable technology to create biofuels, products that break down petroleum and plastics, and also use alternative energy themselves. They’re not stupid. They know that oil reserves will eventually run out. But, unless ALL countries comply, there’s no point. The whole climate change scenario has been abused by politicians and activists to the point where people just tune it out. The average person cannot take on the problems of the whole world. Some countries have set unrealistic goals. And forcing people to embrace electric cars before the technology is fully developed, as happened in the USA, just backfires. [And backfired.] Americans will be more reluctant to jump on the bandwagon now. Americans and Europeans are paying higher utility bills. Electric/Electronic technology creates a lot of toxic waste that nobody wants to talk about. Computers, electric batteries, etc., create waste that does not break down any time soon, if at all, and use rare earth minerals that will be in short supply in the future. But nobody wants to talk about it. And no, green technology will not go away because it’s a viable and lucrative investment. Plus, the human population continues to grow, which creates more demand for resources. Whichever way we go, earth will survive because it’s adaptable, but the human race may not. That’s just a reality of life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for this interesting information, Dawn. I agree with many things you say but I would like to point out a few things. It is a complex story. About China and India. It is true that China emits more greenhouse gases than the US in total, but they have 1.4 billion people so per capita it is less, about half. India emits in total considerably less than the US, and much less per capita. As far as accumulated CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) the US is the country that has emitted most of any (accumulated meaning in total over history). Britain is the country that has emitted the most per capita, over history. China and India have much bigger problems than the US with pollution that is not greenhouse gases, such as particulates and sulfur dioxide but that is mostly a local problem that does not travel to us. On the other hand, China produces less products per capita than we do and with respect to production they are much worse than the US. A ton of Chinese steel caused four times as much greenhouse gases from its production as a ton of US steel. That is because the US steel industry has taken a lot of steps to reduce their emissions, as you point out. This is not accounted for when we import Chinese steel, and it should. The same is true for most other high energy products, aluminum, chemical and fossil fuel products.
I think the most important thing to realize though is that the blame game is pointless. Everyone has their special circumstances. The important thing is that we are reducing the emissions, and surprisingly enough, all developed/rich countries have reduced their emissions, and it appears that China has peaked, meaning they are about to soon reducing their emissions from the peak (which is right now).
Like you say, mineral mining for batteries is a problem that may not be talked about enough. On the other hand, when it is talked about it is often exaggerated. Mining related to fossil fuels, coal mines, drilling, etc., are bigger environmental problems per energy unit. Also, a lot of progress has been made lately in this area. EVs may not be entirely ready for the US yet, but in countries like Sweden and Norway, which has a good infrastructure for EVs as well as nearly 100% clean grid, EVs is a good alternative, and the majority of new cars sold there are EVs. I was there a few months ago and you can’t get a taxi, that is not an EV. It is coming, eventually.
Don’t worry, we will most likely survive, hopefully with not too much damage to our civililzation and to nature.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Java Bean: “Ayyy, so you are saying Obi-Wan Kenobi is not our only hope? This is good to hear!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t worry Java Bean Dada will save you. I am sure Obi-Wan Kenobi can help too.
LikeLike
Sounds like a book that should be read by everyone. Thanks Thomas. Happy holidays to you. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes it is a very good book and she is amazing and smart woman
LikeLiked by 1 person
This sounds like a very good book. I’m glad to hear the book is hopeful. It is definitely important to keep the dialog going.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes I certainly agree with that. Thank you so much David.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Someone needs to invent artificial photosynthesis. We need to build photosynthesizing machines that use solar power to convert carbon dioxide and water vapor into oxygen and hydrocarbons. Would that be sustainable?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes that would be really nice. I mnetioned in another comment you posted that scientists are already working on it. As I said in the previous comment, there already exist processes by which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and they are already used to some degree. These carbon sequestration systems are not extensively used yet because they are expensive.
LikeLike
Overpopulation is to blame for global warming, isn’t it? Just like overpopulation is to blame for extinction of animals and deforestation.
Are you in support of or opposition to population control? Controlling the human population?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is primarily our life style choices and how we generate energy that is to blame. The average American has a four times larger foot print than the average Swede (my native country) because the Swedish electric grid is nearly fossil fuel free and people use public transportation more. But both countries could do better. Someone who eats a lot of red meat and drives an SUV could make a huge difference by changing that. It is true that more people means more greenhouse gases. It is a factor. However, again it is primarily our behavior that’s the cause and we can change that. How can we change the size of the population? That is very difficult and the population growth is flattening out anyway. In addition we need young people and their ideas and their labor etc. So in short I am not for controlling the human population, but that is just my opinion. Thank you for your question World Questioner.
LikeLike