Clear. Consistent with evidence. Practical. ( )

**93rd Climate Book**

Disclosure: I read and summarized this book for a local climate event I helped to coordinate, as Dr. Jaccard was kind enough to come as our keynote speaker. So this review is unavoidably informed by that presentation as well as the conversations he had with attendees. (If you'd like to see a livestream of the talk and Q&A, I've put a link to it at the bottom of the review.)

Overall it's very helpful, in finding a clear and actionable path forward on a good chunk of a jurisdiction's carbon emissions: Do the emissions inventory and identify sectors with high emissions and low potential for relocation (in most countries, this will be the electrical grid and transportation); make compulsory policies for reductions in carbon emissions for those sectors through either carbon pricing and/or regulations; and impose tariffs on countries with no plans for emissions reductions to avoid penalizing local industries. He suggests largely giving up on the UN negotiation process (fair enough), and recommends each country use the tools it has complete control over to drive its own emissions down ASAP and encourage other countries to do likewise.

For regular citizens without the power to unilaterally impose mandatory regulations on either transportation systems or electrical grids, he says to determine which politicians are "climate sincere," do everything you can to help them get and stay elected, hold them accountable to the promises they make, and when this doesn't work out (either because the insincere ones get in or the sincere ones don't act), protest and/or engage in civil disobedience. Handy flow chart:



Produced by one of his students, not by me.

It's a very encouraging approach, as it lays out a simple path for most citizens to get engaged on a critical issue without having to become a technical expert in a dozen fields, and he spends a lot of his book laying out common myths that prevent or obscure this simplicity, and then taking them apart one by one. His technical credentials are impeccable and his arguments are concise and persuasive, and I was largely persuaded.

There are two where I wasn't; on one I'm reserving judgement, and on the other I think Jaccard is partially mistaken:

1. The electrical grid: Jaccard's argument is that we can switch fuels rather simply and eliminate emissions that way; however, I've seen arguments that this isn't possible on its own and requires substantial reduction of load to accomplish, which makes retrofitting buildings and other infrastructure projects a key part of the fuel switch. I am not a technical expert in either field, so I can't decisively say one way or the other; but I can say that as lower levels of government usually find buildings are within their control and electricity generation is not, a focus on load reduction from buildings seems very productive in the absence of regional/provincial/state/national policy, depending on who's in power.

Three recent examples much shared in my own circles last year: https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/11/11/Climate-Change-Realist-Face-Facts/
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/11/19/Renewables-Alone-Will-Not-End-Climate-Cri...
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/11/25/OK-Doomer-Climate-Challenge-Response/

2. The chapter on Naomi Klein.

Which isn't becuase I disagree with him on [b:This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate|21913812|This Changes Everything Capitalism vs. The Climate|Naomi Klein|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1418103804l/21913812._SY75_.jpg|41247321]; I panned it, and for largely the same reasons. But I think Jaccard overlooks what makes Klein's arguments so appealing, and the role that appealing arguments have played in building the size of the movement. I'd be surprised if most of Klein's readers actually want to destroy capitalism, or even have a very clear or concrete idea what "overthrowing capitalism" means. What they do understand is that "overthrowing capitalism" is a kind of shorthand for reducing inequality in a way that will materially improve the conditions of their own lives; it means not feeling broke all the time. And Klein's genius has been in connecting a mass interest in not feeling/being broke all the time to climate action, which has built a very large constituency pushing for climate action.

In the same way that activists connecting climate change to racism and sexism (justifiably! The links are there and well-documented) has created a large "climate justice" movement that is also demanding political action. And the "generational inequity" arguments of the youth strikers have built large climate action movements with huge impact.

Jaccard argues that we don't have time to overthrow capitalism while pursuing decarbonization, and he's right. But he also argues against "agenda-hitching" broadly, or the connection of climate action to other social goals such as equity, and here I think he's wrong; it's agenda-hitching that has pushed climate action to the top of the political agenda for the first time in decades. Without agenda-hitching, we will not be able to sustain a big enough movement to successfully oppose fossil fuel companies' very deep pockets and entrenched political power. Frankly, without some agenda-hitching, I doubt we'd be able to implement many climate policies in my own jurisdiction.

We are never going to have a climate protest of millions of people demanding flex-regs on clean energy standards, much as that might simplify things. That is for the policy wonks and the politicians. Mass movements are built on a need for justice.

I highly recommend the book for readers very concerned about climate change and looking for something to help cut through a lot of the noise. It's readable and engaging, in parts very funny, and anything that usefully and accurately simplifies climate action is much needed today.

Livestream link: https://www.mohawkcollege.ca/centre-for-climate-change-management-at-mohawk-coll... ( )