Call number
363.738 DRA
Collection
Publication
Penguin Books (2017), 256 pages
Description
"In the face of widespread fear and apathy, an international coalition of researchers, professionals, and scientists have come together to offer a set of realistic and bold solutions to climate change. One hundred techniques and practices are described here--some are well known; some you may have never heard of. They range from clean energy to educating girls in lower-income countries to land use practices that pull carbon out of the air. The solutions exist, are economically viable, and communities throughout the world are currently enacting them with skill and determination. If deployed collectively on a global scale over the next thirty years, they represent a credible path forward, not just to slow the earth's warming but to reach drawdown, that point in time when greenhouse gases in the atmosphere peak and begin to decline. These measures promise cascading benefits to human health, security, prosperity, and well-being--giving us every reason to see this planetary crisis as an opportunity to create a just and livable world"--Page 4 of cover.… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member willszal
Maybe a decade ago now, I read “Blessed Unrest.” What I took away from this book was that humanity is responding to global warming on a massive scale in a decentralized and intuitive way. People all over the world are working in concert, without the need for centralized planning, or even an
Well, it seems like Hawken’s faith in humanity has waned over the intervening years. His new book, “Drawdown,” has its foundations not in cultural or spiritual realms, but instead is grounded in hard science, technology, and numbers. The book proclaims that it is “the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming,” and I don’t doubt it. Almost a hundred researches worked years to prepare this material, and each of the hundred solutions presented in the books is backed by a thirty-page technical white paper (available on their website), and cumulatively, their models cite tens of thousands of sources and millions of data points.
So, where does all of this get us? In the “plausible” scenario (conservatively optimistic), between 2020 and 2050 we “reduce” atmospheric CO2 emission equivalents by one teraton, and spend a net amount of $30 trillion. Supposedly this will stabilize atmospheric carbon, but not move us significantly into drawdown. In other words, if things go according to plan, we’ll still be stuck somewhere above 400ppm of carbon in the atmosphere at 2050, locking in catastrophic global warming (as the upper region of the “safe” limit is 350ppm).
For all the creative, amazing, and fascinating scenarios drawn up over the course of the book, I dearly wish that more weight was given to the social, political, and cultural aspects of this conversation. Ultimately, our technological “solutions” are nested within this context, and if anything, are more important than the solutions themselves.
So what kind of solutions are we talking about? As you guessed, green energy is part of the picture. But one of the biggest sectors under investigation was our relationship with land (primarily via agriculture and forestry). Other areas include Women and Girls, Buildings and Cities, Transport, Materials, and Coming Attractions (visionary but unproven concepts).
In some ways, this is a reactionary text. Fossil fuel companies knew what climate change was back in the ‘70s and ‘80s. By the ‘90s people understood it was a serious issue, and there were lots of good ideas about what we could do about it. And then the climate change deniers came along, and the whole backlash against preserving the future of humanity. And here we are well into the second decade of the 21st century—with our climate spiraling out of the range in which human habitation can occur, and, at least in the US, a political climate that will sooner implement Universal Basic Income and pay Reparations then address climate change in a substantive way.
In other words, well-meaning NorCal progressives like Hawken are freaking out—and for good reason! I too have found myself engaging in activities explicitly addressing climate change, even though I fundamentally believe that climate change is a surface-level issue that can only be solved by addressing more fundamental systems (such as culture). I don’t think we’re wasting our time to get all analytical on these issues. But I strongly recommend (for myself as much as others), that we don’t lose our felt sense of a connection with the words of mentors and organizations like Charles Eisenstein, Martin Prechtel, Timothy Morton, J. G. Bennett, and the Dark Mountain Project (as well as the younger and more idealistic version of Hawken) that remind us that climate change can only be addressed from a living-systems perspective that goes beyond solar panels, electric vehicles, and closed-loop recycling.
Drawdown is a page-turner for prescient geeks scrambling to hedge against the Anthropocene Extinction. I recommend you go out and get yourself a copy—you’ll be referencing it for years to come. But don’t stop there! Remember to commune with the more-than-human-world in which you’re immersed, make the space to grieve for the violence of these times, and ground into holistic work that lives into the now in a balanced and deeply human way.
Show More
awareness of each others work, due to something innate in us.Well, it seems like Hawken’s faith in humanity has waned over the intervening years. His new book, “Drawdown,” has its foundations not in cultural or spiritual realms, but instead is grounded in hard science, technology, and numbers. The book proclaims that it is “the most comprehensive plan ever proposed to reverse global warming,” and I don’t doubt it. Almost a hundred researches worked years to prepare this material, and each of the hundred solutions presented in the books is backed by a thirty-page technical white paper (available on their website), and cumulatively, their models cite tens of thousands of sources and millions of data points.
So, where does all of this get us? In the “plausible” scenario (conservatively optimistic), between 2020 and 2050 we “reduce” atmospheric CO2 emission equivalents by one teraton, and spend a net amount of $30 trillion. Supposedly this will stabilize atmospheric carbon, but not move us significantly into drawdown. In other words, if things go according to plan, we’ll still be stuck somewhere above 400ppm of carbon in the atmosphere at 2050, locking in catastrophic global warming (as the upper region of the “safe” limit is 350ppm).
For all the creative, amazing, and fascinating scenarios drawn up over the course of the book, I dearly wish that more weight was given to the social, political, and cultural aspects of this conversation. Ultimately, our technological “solutions” are nested within this context, and if anything, are more important than the solutions themselves.
So what kind of solutions are we talking about? As you guessed, green energy is part of the picture. But one of the biggest sectors under investigation was our relationship with land (primarily via agriculture and forestry). Other areas include Women and Girls, Buildings and Cities, Transport, Materials, and Coming Attractions (visionary but unproven concepts).
In some ways, this is a reactionary text. Fossil fuel companies knew what climate change was back in the ‘70s and ‘80s. By the ‘90s people understood it was a serious issue, and there were lots of good ideas about what we could do about it. And then the climate change deniers came along, and the whole backlash against preserving the future of humanity. And here we are well into the second decade of the 21st century—with our climate spiraling out of the range in which human habitation can occur, and, at least in the US, a political climate that will sooner implement Universal Basic Income and pay Reparations then address climate change in a substantive way.
In other words, well-meaning NorCal progressives like Hawken are freaking out—and for good reason! I too have found myself engaging in activities explicitly addressing climate change, even though I fundamentally believe that climate change is a surface-level issue that can only be solved by addressing more fundamental systems (such as culture). I don’t think we’re wasting our time to get all analytical on these issues. But I strongly recommend (for myself as much as others), that we don’t lose our felt sense of a connection with the words of mentors and organizations like Charles Eisenstein, Martin Prechtel, Timothy Morton, J. G. Bennett, and the Dark Mountain Project (as well as the younger and more idealistic version of Hawken) that remind us that climate change can only be addressed from a living-systems perspective that goes beyond solar panels, electric vehicles, and closed-loop recycling.
Drawdown is a page-turner for prescient geeks scrambling to hedge against the Anthropocene Extinction. I recommend you go out and get yourself a copy—you’ll be referencing it for years to come. But don’t stop there! Remember to commune with the more-than-human-world in which you’re immersed, make the space to grieve for the violence of these times, and ground into holistic work that lives into the now in a balanced and deeply human way.
Show Less
LibraryThing member lilibrarian
A collection of articles about of carbon-reducing activities that can be taken to reduce the risk of global warning, explaining in detail how each works, and what it's estimated efficacy would be.
LibraryThing member antao
Galileo was championing the old established order of thinking established by the Greeks for a millennium and a half. The Greeks theory of the movement of the heavens was overly complicated to make a theory fit the facts. To quote Luigi Pirandello "A fact is like a sack - it won't stand up if it's
Ptolemy and his geocentric model were held in reverence for such a long time but there is some understanding that Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) who first raised the suggestion of a heliocentric universe in the Renaissance-era may have found some Greek mathematical text which helped him develop his theory of and calculate a heliocentric universe.
Galileo (1564 – 8 January 1642) added the empirical evidence to Copernicus math.
The arguments of the old school and Galileo's contemporaries was that the stars were static in the sky and for that being the case they must be much larger than the Sun and too far away to support a heliocentric model. A model that showed Venus and Mercury circling the Sun.
What all of this shows was a refusal to accept the new thinking and theories that science was exploring and there are a set of circumstances similar to climate change that both Copernicus and Galileo faced, but their situation was more extreme with Copernicus refusing to publish his work while he lived and Galileo 's imprisonment.
Climate change is the new science here where all the facts and theories buzz with ideas but with the caveat that we still don't know everything, but it now has predictive powers. In opposition the climate deniers simply have no theories of what is happening only a set of questions challenging climate change questions which more often than not there are answers and evidence for.
The renaissance and enlightenment brought to us the acceptance and the discipline of science that theories scientific one can be superseded by newer theories that explains nature more fully and in greater detail than previous scientific theories. The way the world was understood before Galileo wasn't wrong it was simply better understood after the heliocentric model was accepted.
The same applies to climate change it brings us to a greater understanding of the natural sciences and what is happening to our world. There's no competing alternative to it if you think there is then post it here to explain the warming of our planet.
There simply isn't an alternative scientific theory to describe what is happening in climate change just scepticism of the current consensus. Copernicus and Galileo were offering a scientific alternative to the old order that's what climate scientist are doing.
Show More
empty.Ptolemy and his geocentric model were held in reverence for such a long time but there is some understanding that Copernicus (19 February 1473 – 24 May 1543) who first raised the suggestion of a heliocentric universe in the Renaissance-era may have found some Greek mathematical text which helped him develop his theory of and calculate a heliocentric universe.
Galileo (1564 – 8 January 1642) added the empirical evidence to Copernicus math.
The arguments of the old school and Galileo's contemporaries was that the stars were static in the sky and for that being the case they must be much larger than the Sun and too far away to support a heliocentric model. A model that showed Venus and Mercury circling the Sun.
What all of this shows was a refusal to accept the new thinking and theories that science was exploring and there are a set of circumstances similar to climate change that both Copernicus and Galileo faced, but their situation was more extreme with Copernicus refusing to publish his work while he lived and Galileo 's imprisonment.
Climate change is the new science here where all the facts and theories buzz with ideas but with the caveat that we still don't know everything, but it now has predictive powers. In opposition the climate deniers simply have no theories of what is happening only a set of questions challenging climate change questions which more often than not there are answers and evidence for.
The renaissance and enlightenment brought to us the acceptance and the discipline of science that theories scientific one can be superseded by newer theories that explains nature more fully and in greater detail than previous scientific theories. The way the world was understood before Galileo wasn't wrong it was simply better understood after the heliocentric model was accepted.
The same applies to climate change it brings us to a greater understanding of the natural sciences and what is happening to our world. There's no competing alternative to it if you think there is then post it here to explain the warming of our planet.
There simply isn't an alternative scientific theory to describe what is happening in climate change just scepticism of the current consensus. Copernicus and Galileo were offering a scientific alternative to the old order that's what climate scientist are doing.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Dilip-Kumar
An inventory of various approaches to reducing carbon emissions and mitigating global warning and climate change: brief introductions to some hundred technologies, adaptations, alternative energy sources, and so on, in many sectors: energy, engineering, construction, transportation, urbanization,
Show More
agriculture, reducing deforestation, and so on. Very useful, giving a glimpse of the whole vibrant field of positive responses. Show Less
LibraryThing member deblemrc
The book lists a number of ways we can reduce carbon emmissions and reverse global warming. Very muchnfocused on technical solutions, of which some are not really delivering (increased deforestation in Brazil under Bolsenaro; higher car mileage in cities where companies like Uber are popular). The
Show More
book also does not talk bout what needs to change in the way we consume (except eatling less meat) and in the current existing social relations. So an interesting list of solutions, but not a lot of depth or broader picture. Show Less
Pages
256
ISBN
0143130447 / 9780143130444
Similar in this library
An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It by Al Gore
Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America by Thomas L. Friedman
Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants by Robin Wall Kimmerer