Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed -- and What It Means for Our Future

Jamieson points a critical eye toward where we find ourselves with respect to climate change, how we got here, and what we can do going forward. The basis of his thinking can be boiled down to this: human ethics, morality, and institutions were never designed to handle problems such as climate change where cause and effect are distributed across space, time, and actors. For example, it's really hard to think ethically when the impacts of decisions made today may be a thousand years in the future; it's really hard to feel morally culpable for turning up the thermostat even though collectively this may result in the suffering and/or death of uncountable people; and it sounds a bit off when our best economic models claim that European explorers got a raw deal when they bought Manhattan for $24. Human beings were built to react to cause and effect when and where they see it - so one of the key problems with climate change is that it's so hard to see the when and the where (let alone the who).As far as presentation goes, the bulk of his book reflects on how we got here. Jamieson takes us through the early days of climate science, the recognition of climate change as a problem, and the institution of climate diplomacy. He discusses how climate diplomacy failed due to the disconnects between politics and science, the disconnects between public good and corporate good, etc. He also discusses the limitations of economics when applied to climate change, especially when it comes to valuing present and future lives. The takeaway is that since diplomacy and economics have failed to solve the climate change problem in the past we shouldn't expect them to be the solution going forward.The next subjects he takes up are ethics and morality. As with diplomacy and economics, he discusses where human ethics and morality fall short when it comes to climate change. He surveys a variety of recent attempts at establishing a new ethics for climate change, but identifies a range of challenges that each must address before any of them can be considered coherent.The last part of the book looks forward. Unfortunately, this is the shortest (and in my opinion the weakest) part of the book. The chapter titled "Living with Climate Change" is by far the shortest chapter in the book. Jamieson's reflections on measuring meaning in terms of activity (vs. results) and cultivating a respect for nature seem less convincing than any of his earlier arguments (even for someone like me who would emphasize the same). The final chapter provides a Confucian-like "rectification of names", a discussion on how future policy discussions may play out in terms of those names, and also introduces Jamieson's seven principles for the way forward. Readers with an activist bent may find this chapter useful in that it points out how people in climate change discussions often talk past each other by using the same names to mean different things as well as how the conversation will likely turn toward emphasizing "adaptation" and "geoengineering" now when in fact "abatement" and "mitigation" remain critical elements of any solution. His seven principles for the way forward, however, are similar in brevity to his earlier discussions of meaning and respect for nature - so while my previous education allows me to agree with each of his principles, they're not quite the arguments you might use to sway a fence sitter (let alone a staunch denier).All in all, a great discussion on how we got to where we find ourselves with respect to climate change. The latter part of book that deals with the way forward, while a little weak, can itself be taken as outlining a way forward for further reading (as opposed to being a final word on the subject).

I must give 5 stars.One, This is an important essay with many footnotes and hyperlinks to relevant information. At this writing I know of no other place to find the quantity and quality of these sources of information.Two, the casual reader will find it difficult because it requires time and consideration. Short, compact sentences share a lot of deep thought requiring a background in environmental philosophy or a desire to hang with it and ponder their meaning. It's a learning exercise for guys like me and well worth the effort.Three, I'm pleased to have the audible, Kindle, and hardback of this book to study it in different formats. The hardback allows me to fall back on my margin notes and time to ponder questions and test my own knowledge and prejudices.Finally,I'm web master for climatedeception.net (for which I display real estate signs on the sides of my vehicles in very large letters with the following: What They Knew When They Knew) and bring my biases to any discussion of climate issues, especially climate deception. I had thought that Hitler gave humanity its last monster, and then Pol Pot showed up. Meanwhile, humanity's drive to conquer the planet cooked that atmosphere, land, and oceans with CO2. Then Exxon and other fossil fuel giants followed earth science for their own benefit and discovered their products were damaging worldwide habitat. Rather than alert us to these dangers, they began a disinformation, propaganda campaign to cast doubt. As a result a truly species destroying event loomed and grows more catastrophic each day. So when I find a text likes Reason in a Dart Time, I place it within the context of where we're at and where we are going. Jamieson's efforts help to shed light on these matters.

Reason in a Dark Time: Why the Struggle Against Climate Change Failed--and What It Means for Our Future addresses the world's options in the face of irreversible climate change. The author, Dale Jamieson, discusses the psychological, social, and political reasons why climate change is especially difficult for humans to address because the changes that will lead to the extinction of hundreds of species and the untimely deaths of millions of people are not obvious right now. We are, as individuals, mostly capable of responding to immediately perceivable threats, like lions or falling trees. Indeed, people commonly refuse to respond to unmistakable and ongoing catastrophes. They rebuild after floods in the floodplain. They rebuild after an earthquake on the fault. They rebuild on the beach after a hurricane. Yes, they may mitigate future damages by passing laws requiring sturdier buildings or putting in breakwaters, but mostly they go on as if the most recent catastrophe will never happen again. And they seem genuinely shocked when the next catastrophe happens. How then can we expect a timely, effective response to a catastrophe that is happening in slow motion and will culminate in the future? How can we expect a timely, effective response when the people who must change their behavior are not going to bear the brunt of the catastrophe?We could act now to mitigate some of the consequences of climate change, but that seems unlikely given the world-wide response that would be needed to be effective. So we are left with adapting locally. California is adapting to drought by rationing water, encouraging people to xeriscape instead of planting thirsty lawns, starting to recycle waste water, and looking into desalination. Unfortunately, these interventions are being presented as temporary, "until the drought is over". It is more likely that drought is now the usual and the occasional wet year the exception. Eventually, those who can will leave an increasingly hot and dry California for cooler places.Climate change is like being diagnosed with a chronic disease. By the time the diagnosis is made, it is far too late to address the causes of the disease. Doctors may mitigate the symptoms with medications or procedures, but they can't cure the disease. The patient is going to have to adapt--take the medication, change activities, food, what gives meaning to life.

All the rational arguments for taking climate change seriously - and why no one bothers with them! Depressing because the debate is currently mired in emotion and commerce. Down with growthism!