The Politics of Climate Change

Giddens has written an important book about climate change. It informs rather than denounces, and it is filled with information and ideas that are not just valuable for policy makers but for any citizen interested in contributing to a better world (or any world at all, as I think of it). Don't look for snazzy prose. Giddens is not a bomb-throwing partisan. But he has convictions, and he combines those with thoughtful analysis.

Excellent Socio-Political Reading on Climate change

A well-written insight into what impacts climate change policies around the world. There were some surprises for me as well as clarity around some well-known truths about how people and nation states deal with the realities of a changing environment. I recommend it.

Very explanatory. very recommended.

In this book, Giddens firstly urges us to accept the overwhelming consensus of opinion amongst scientists that climate change is real and caused by the actions of humanity, and then goes on to consider what actions will be required if we are to overcome this global threat. Over the first few chapters, Giddens looks at where we are now. He starts by giving an overview of the scientific evidence and discusses the counter-arguments of sceptics and radicals, concluding that the science strongly supports the position that climate change is happening, is caused by human activity and is likely to have catastrophic consequences if action is not taken quickly. He looks at the availability of oil, gas and coal and how their production and use have shaped and changed international relationships and policy since the Second World War. He goes on to discuss the rise of 'green' politics and whether they offer any real solutions to the problems facing us. In the next few sections, Giddens lays out his stall for the approaches he thinks are required. He argues strongly for a lead to be taken by governments of nation states individually (rather than waiting for the outcome of lengthy international negotiations) to develop policies that will encourage reductions in emissions - particularly through the use of the tax system and the encouragement of technological innovation. He highlights that climate change questions have, to some degree, become seen to be a 'left-wing' concern and points out that it is essential to success that all-party support is given to measures if they are to be accepted by those who will be affected. He urges strongly the principle of 'polluter pays' and suggests this should be extended to look at the developed world's responsibility to ensure support for developing and undeveloped countries in combatting climate change and in adapting to its effects. Finally, Giddens looks at how international co-operation has developed to date and how he sees it progressing. He suggests that, as well as the various groupings of countries that are coming into being to tackle the issues regionally, the UN still has a vital role to play in monitoring and holding states to internationally agreed targets. The book is well written and aimed at a general audience. It is a succinct account of where we are now and provides food for thought on how we might progress. I would recommend it to anyone with an interest in the on-going climate change debate (and, as this book makes clear, it affects us all). I found it a clear and accessible summary of the main arguments. NB This book was provided for review by Amazon Vine UK.

A second, fully revised edition of The Politics of Climate Change after just two and a half years is good going. But then, Anthony Giddens is a co-founder of Polity, the book's publisher, and the first edition appears to have done well for them. And the book does indeed seem to have been revised throughout, referring not just superficially to 2010 data and to current events of the early months of 2011 such as the Wikileaks revelation of American diplomatic e-mail communications and the acquisition by China of Canadian shale-gas interests. Before turning to politics, the book provides an overview of the Climate Change situation, relating it closely to world energy sources and supplies. Giddens' view is that it would be a fundamental mistake to consider the politics of the two areas of interest separately. Energy supplies are integrally related to geopolitics. Peak oil, the point at which the flow of oil begins to decline, cannot be far off. If nations revert to burning coal, that will be seriously detrimental for the greenhouse gas, global warming and Climate Change situation. Worse yet if we seek to augment oil supplies from tar sands. Policy decisions on future energy supplies must be made in tandem with, must be part and parcel of, policy decisions relating to Climate Change. Giddens is wary of terms incorporating the words 'green' or 'sustainable development', and is downright scornful of 'saving the planet'. There is the possibility that in the longer term the earth may experience a runaway greenhouse situation (as per Venus), where water vapor from the oceans is permanently lost to space; and according to James Hansen, of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a prominent Climate Change activist, that scenario will become a "dead certainty" if we burn the tar sands. Nevertheless, Giddens insists, the earth itself will survive; our need is to preserve, and if possible enhance, a decent way of life for human beings. He is keen to move and keep that objective within the sphere of mainstream politics, and not allow it to become or remain the preserve of readily ignored special interest groups. Whilst promoting and further developing renewable forms of energy derived from sunlight, wind and water, and biomass energy that does not compete with food supplies, he sees no alternative in the short to medium term to reversing the present downward trend in energy derived from nuclear fission. And of course there is still much to be done in terms of reduction of consumption and wastage of energy. Certain countries have been particularly tardy in addressing Climate Change problems; the United States being one of them, Russia a perhaps even more recalcitrant case, and China essentially non-cooperative until quite recently, but now showing signs of change. The politics of the issue are especially relevant both to why these and other countries have been slow in their responses, and to the global movement - particularly through the United Nations' annual Climate Summits - to galvanize all into concerted and effective action. As the outcome of Summit after Summit is initially hailed as a serious disappointment (the latest being Durban, December 2011), it is heartening to note Giddens' summary of a progression of real achievement (even in Copenhagen in 2009), often apparent only after some months of quiet diplomatic follow-up. But, whilst progress is being made, for Giddens we are still doing too little, and in some respects already too late. He has coined this 'Paradox': "Since the dangers posed by global warming aren't tangible, immediate or visible in the course of day to day life, many will sit on their hands and do nothing of a concrete nature about them. Yet waiting until such dangers become visible and acute - in the shape of catastrophes - that are irrefutably the result of climate change before being stirred to serious action will be too late. For we know of no way of getting the greenhouse gases out again once they are there and most will be in the atmosphere for centuries."

Anthony Giddens book is fantastic. He presents a lot of credible evidence, to prove that human endured climate change is rapidly threatening the world and our species.

Adds little to what is already known. The writing is stiff and academic. But a reliable source of the information and ideas it covers.

Good value for money, quality of paper was excellent.

Ignoring the fact that it's a bit of a dry read, the primary critique of this book, I have found, is its espousal of the use of nuclear energy as a deterrent to climate change. Although anti-nuclear camps will argue that it is irresponsible of Giddens to suggest nuclear, it is important to keep in mind that he is dealing with the argument not in an attempt to save the planet - which will undoubtedly continue on without us - but in an attempt to ensure the survival of the human race. This seems grandiose in scale, and a little counter intuitive to some - nuclear is bad for us, we say. However, considering the fate of the humankind, to Giddens, is to burn up in global heating, a few patches of radiation is small potatoes. It is important to keep this in mind, whether you are pro or anti nuclear (or even a fence sitter).

This review first appeared on Oxfam's 'From Poverty to Power' blog on [...] This is definitely the right subject - enough of `if I ruled the world' policy solutions by environmental snake-oil salesmen, what are the politics of getting a breakthrough on climate change in time to stop the earth frying? Giddens' new book even gets in a dig at his fellow LSE peer Nicholas Stern, saying `"Extraordinarily, there is no mention of politics in Stern's discussion, no analysis of power. It is as if the `global deal' will be reached as soon as the nations of the world see reason." Although there is a lot of good stuff in here, sadly, Giddens fails to deliver on the title's promise - lots of policy wonkery and techno-whizzery, but the politics is actually rather thin. Very frustrating. Here are some of the main arguments: - he starts off with a sideswipe at the Greens, claiming that their origin as a reaction to industrialization and modernity and insistence on participatory approaches to everything `is now more of a problem rather than any help'. He is particularly critical of the `precautionary principle', aka `better safe than sorry', arguing that when it comes to climate change, its opposite `he who hesitates is lost' is more relevant - hare argues that we must be prepared to take at least some technological risks in battling climate change. - Similarly, he is critical of the hairshirtists: `most prescriptions are about saving, cutting back, retreating. Many are important, but no approach based mainly upon deprivation is going to work. We must create a positive model of a low carbon future. There is no such model at the moment.' - He reckons the shock tactics and `politics of fear' practiced by some climate change activists undermines the chance of building a broad coalition, pointing out that Martin Luther King didn't stir people to action by declaring `I have a nightmare.' - He's big on the state, bigger in fact than when he was when promoting the `Third Way' that so captivated Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. He believes `it will be national policy-making which will in the end determine how much progress really is made.' Climate change, he argues, requires an `ensuring state' not just an enabling one - there are now absolute carbon reduction targets that the state has to meet. However, he defaults to Blairite market-friendly approaches when he criticises the thinking behind the Green New Deal as being too much about governments picking winners. - He's been listening to yet another LSE peer, Richard Layard: `We can no longer equate progress with economic growth. Above a certain level of affluence, growth no longer correlates highly with wider criteria of welfare. Placing the notion of welfare at the forefront might mesh very closely with climate change goals. Economic growth elevates emissions: what is the point of making a fetish of growth if in some large part it diminishes rather than promotes welfare?' He calls it `over-development' - nice. - He insists on the need to reunite the debates on climate change and energy security. This is where he sees the real politics at work, (for good or ill) and this is where the solutions to climate change must lie. Overall, he's much clearer on what he thinks won't work, than what will: he's critical of carbon markets (he prefers carbon taxes, provided their impact on inequality is taken into account). He thinks the Kyoto negotiators are largely wasting their breath, arguing that the process is like the WTO - a few systemically significant `major emitters' being held back from reaching agreement by the need for cat-herding universalism. Instead he thinks progress on reducing emissions (mitigation) will come through the climate equivalent of regional trade agreements between the big emitters, while the UN system channels finance to the poor countries to help them cope with the impacts (adaptation). So what's missing? There are tantalising glimpses of history, but nowhere near enough substance - what have been the domestic and international conditions that allowed Sweden, Germany and others to get their emissions down in recent decades? Are they replicable or were they driven by specific events, national institutions, traditions etc? What magnitude of shock might shift governments sufficiently (The Great Depression? World War Two?), and where might it come from? What analogous international or national processes can be identified, like arms control, nuclear weapons reductions, bans on chemical warfare etc? At its heart this shares the same weaknesses as Stern's work - a technocrat's view of climate change, with little emphasis on power or how change actually happens. It's much more about policies, planning and wise governments busily seeking win wins, along with the `peacetime politics' of diplomacy, agenda setting and shaping public opinion. He calls for consensus and urges politicians not to make climate change a party political issue, but has few ideas (beyond standing committees) about how to achieve this. This is exhortation not politics. None of it approaches the kind of radical political and institutional step change that is required to keep emissions within the planet's atmospheric limits. `We have no politics of climate change' laments the introduction. After Lord Giddens' efforts, we still don't. And it's not as if the NGOs or anyone else really has a convincing answer, so the disappointment really matters. Anyone else want to give it a go?

This book offers to the climate change solution discussion the considerable informed experience of a renowned social scientist, political adviser and modern thinker. The short summary of this book is that national carbon taxes are the way to go, not carbon trading based on big international agreements like Kyoto. Climate action and agreement at the international level, like Kyoto, is unlikely to succeed or to produce significant results. Most fruitful is work at the national level, followed by the regional and bilateral level, where action can be based on self interest and targeted to specific needs and local conditions. New forms of collaboration may well be needed. International universal agreement, as the World Trade Organization has shown, is too hard to reach and too watered down to be meaningful. Going deeper, practical politics needs to be based on the key driving forces on the world scene: economics, energy and security. Projects that can combine two or more of these forces have greater potential, for example, the energy saving work in Germany and Sweden give both energy security and economic advantage. Finally, population control (reduction) and conflict resolution/stability can only be achieved in a convergent world, where poverty is eliminated and nations feel an equal responsibility. Until that time, the rich nations (and the rich segments of poorer nations?) must take the lead and solve their self-created problem. Corollary to this is that Kyoto CDM activities, in which rich nations get credit for carbon reduction projects that they finance in poor nations, are insignificant. What is needed is a complete restructuring of the existing developed nations' own economies to low carbon societies. The author speaks from the practical experience of top political circles. Politicians and business leaders, who are probably the main intended audience, are well advised to listen. For an environmentally concerned person like myself, the main message is probably: vote for well-thought-out carbon taxes and other measures in your own country and stop hoping for a miracle from Kyoto. Note: the author could have presented his main ideas in a more focused manner (there is a lot of extraneous material, particularly criticism of others, which detracts from his worthwhile contributions). Archie Duncanson, author of Ecology Begins at Home, [...].

The condition of the book is excellent. I even didn't except it. I think it's the best way to learn sociology.