Doable, Win-Win Plan, 09 Sep 2008

In Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America, Thomas Friedman presents an irresistible opportunity for Americans--one that can save the planet and increase our wealth.

The world is flat because of globalization--which is good, as ideas and practices can spread effectively. What is not so good is that our world population is exploding and countries like India and China are seeing an increase in wealth, which puts more strain on the world's resources and increases global warming.

Friedman begins the book with a discussion of how America has changed post 9/11. He uses the example of the US consulate built in 1882 in Istanbul. The consulate was built in the heart of the city: "it was an easy place for Turks to get a VISA, to peruse the library or to engage with an American diplomat."

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the building was closed and a nearly impenetrable consulate was built. This all but stopped visitors from visiting. Although the new building does protect against attacks, it isolates Americans and impacts on how we are viewed and how we see ourselves.

Friedman writes that he wrote the book because: "An American living in a defensive crouch cannot fully tap the vast rivers of idealism, innovation, volunteerism, and philanthropy that still flow through our nation. And it cannot play the vital role it has long played for the rest of the world--as a beacon of hope and the country that we can always be counted on to lead the world in response to whatever is the most important challenge of the day."

That challenge is global warming. He proposes we begin a massive project called "code green."

Friedman identifies three broad trends in our society:
1. The post 9/11 building of walls around us to protect Americans from foreigners.
2. Since the 1980's, politicians acting "dumb as we wanna be," meaning we will get to fixing the roads, global warming and other issues when we get around to it. This includes politicians like Bush "protecting us" from gas taxes and other unpleasantries to keep our standard of living, or the fact that we are in war and don't have to make any sacrifices (save the soldier's lives.)
3. Nation building at home. This is the one good trend Friedman sees and he writes about the plethora of innovative, imaginative souls who devote their energy to finding green solutions.

Friedman considers what is now called the green movement to be more like a green party. He cites several "green" books that include the words "easy" or "lazy" in the titles. The authors write books where: "everyone is a winner, nobody gets hurt and nobody has to do anything hard." I have read several of these books and agree--much of the advice is fluff. However, I do see the recent deluge of books and articles on sustainability as changing the consciousness and buying habits of the country. Many people who begin by making "painless changes" get serious about the environment and one or two of them may be the next inventor of the solar-run car. I also believe that when millions cut down on the use of plastic and other nonrenewable resources, that it does make an environmental difference.

The increase in population and wealth and buying power all tax our already limited supply of petroleum, coal and gas--all substances that cause global warming and pollute our planet. Even if you didn't "believe" in global warming, it is a fact that petroleum--now needed in unprecedented amounts--is rapidly becoming an increasingly difficult product to procure. If you think spending $5.00 a gallon for gas for your car is a hardship, that price will be considered nothing in a few years. Folks, we are running out of time and oil.

Friedman gets that Americans can use the diminishing supply in nonrenewable resources as a means for an economic boom, for bridging the widening gap between Americans and the rest of the world and for drawing us together as a nation. Americans are an innovative and smart bunch of people and we need to get working on devising clean alternatives to fossil fuels. This will create more jobs, strong economic times and raised spirits.

Friedman presents a doable, win-win plan to raise wealth and to save the planet. A must-read.

By the author of the award winning book, HARMONIOUS ENVIRONMENT: BEAUTIFY, DETOXIFY & ENEGIZE YOUR LIFE, YOUR HOME & YOUR PLANET.

Doable, Win-Win Plan, 09 Sep 2008

In Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America, Thomas Friedman presents an irresistible opportunity for Americans--one that can save the planet and increase our wealth.

The world is flat because of globalization--which is good, as ideas and practices can spread effectively. What is not so good is that our world population is exploding and countries like India and China are seeing an increase in wealth, which puts more strain on the world's resources and increases global warming.

Friedman begins the book with a discussion of how America has changed post 9/11. He uses the example of the US consulate built in 1882 in Istanbul. The consulate was built in the heart of the city: "it was an easy place for Turks to get a VISA, to peruse the library or to engage with an American diplomat."

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the building was closed and a nearly impenetrable consulate was built. This all but stopped visitors from visiting. Although the new building does protect against attacks, it isolates Americans and impacts on how we are viewed and how we see ourselves.

Friedman writes that he wrote the book because: "An American living in a defensive crouch cannot fully tap the vast rivers of idealism, innovation, volunteerism, and philanthropy that still flow through our nation. And it cannot play the vital role it has long played for the rest of the world--as a beacon of hope and the country that we can always be counted on to lead the world in response to whatever is the most important challenge of the day."

That challenge is global warming. He proposes we begin a massive project called "code green."

Friedman identifies three broad trends in our society:
1. The post 9/11 building of walls around us to protect Americans from foreigners.
2. Since the 1980's, politicians acting "dumb as we wanna be," meaning we will get to fixing the roads, global warming and other issues when we get around to it. This includes politicians like Bush "protecting us" from gas taxes and other unpleasantries to keep our standard of living, or the fact that we are in war and don't have to make any sacrifices (save the soldier's lives.)
3. Nation building at home. This is the one good trend Friedman sees and he writes about the plethora of innovative, imaginative souls who devote their energy to finding green solutions.

Friedman considers what is now called the green movement to be more like a green party. He cites several "green" books that include the words "easy" or "lazy" in the titles. The authors write books where: "everyone is a winner, nobody gets hurt and nobody has to do anything hard." I have read several of these books and agree--much of the advice is fluff. However, I do see the recent deluge of books and articles on sustainability as changing the consciousness and buying habits of the country. Many people who begin by making "painless changes" get serious about the environment and one or two of them may be the next inventor of the solar-run car. I also believe that when millions cut down on the use of plastic and other nonrenewable resources, that it does make an environmental difference.

The increase in population and wealth and buying power all tax our already limited supply of petroleum, coal and gas--all substances that cause global warming and pollute our planet. Even if you didn't "believe" in global warming, it is a fact that petroleum--now needed in unprecedented amounts--is rapidly becoming an increasingly difficult product to procure. If you think spending $5.00 a gallon for gas for your car is a hardship, that price will be considered nothing in a few years. Folks, we are running out of time and oil.

Friedman gets that Americans can use the diminishing supply in nonrenewable resources as a means for an economic boom, for bridging the widening gap between Americans and the rest of the world and for drawing us together as a nation. Americans are an innovative and smart bunch of people and we need to get working on devising clean alternatives to fossil fuels. This will create more jobs, strong economic times and raised spirits.

Friedman presents a doable, win-win plan to raise wealth and to save the planet. A must-read.

By the author of the award winning book, HARMONIOUS ENVIRONMENT: BEAUTIFY, DETOXIFY & ENEGIZE YOUR LIFE, YOUR HOME & YOUR PLANET.

Just what it says on the tin, 16 Sep 2008
This is a wonderful book. As the title suggests, it is cool, reasonable, and patient, looking carefully at all the evidence and coming to conclusions which it is hard to disagree with.

Like other reviewers, I find it hard to take excerpts from the book because I would have to quote the whole thing! However, perhaps I may try to help anyone who is wondering whether to read it. One way to look at the global warming/climate change debate is to ask oneself three questions.

First, is the world getting warmer?
Second, is human activity, and specifically CO2, a major cause?
And third, does it matter? Will there be harmful consequences? And if so, what should we do about them?

Much of the angry debate between believers and sceptics rages round the first two points. Lawson surveys the evidence on both, and comes to a conclusion. But what makes this book so powerful is its focus on the third question: whether a warmer world is one that will harm people, animals, plants, and our descendants. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) argues that it will. Lawson disagrees. He takes us through the IPCC scenarios, and their range of predictions relating to five potential impacts of a warmer world: on water, ecosystems, food, coasts, and health. In each case he demonstrates, with evidence, that a warmer world will either be neutral or even beneficial. What makes this evidence particularly persuasive is that much of it is drawn from the IPCC's own 4th report (2007)!.

It would be wrong to think of this book as complacent, a kind of 'I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder'. As Lawson points out, the single major cause of ill-health and death in the world is poverty, and if we take the standpoint of human welfare, the surest way to benefit humans is to lift them out of poverty. Lawson sees many serious problems facing the world, and many things that urgently need putting right. The view of this compelling and convincing book is that global warming isn't one of them.


A call for solid science to replace the hype and hysteria, 14 Sep 2008
A well written and thought provoking book that attempts to speak above the hysterical din that dominates the subject.

The author calls for a considered approach and appeals to organisations to address the issues we face in a sensible and practical way.



Lawson knows best apparently, 23 Aug 2008
The combined wisdom of the world's leading climate change scientists is clearly no match for Nigel Lawson. He alone is clear sighted enough to see these clever people are all wrong. Stop worrying you people on coastlands and islands as you watch the tide rising. Stop fussing about those droughts Africa and Australia! Trust Nigel, everything will be well because...er because he says so.

Thought-provoking contribution, 19 Aug 2008
In this thought-provoking book, Nigel Lawson asks key questions about global warming. Is the world warming and if so, why? How much warmer will it get? What will be the consequences? What can and should we do about it? What is the most cost-effective way to tackle it?

He looks at the temperature record. Surprisingly, temperatures have not risen since 2001, even though global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever. There was a 0.7oC rise over the last century while the CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 30%, largely caused by industrialisation driven by the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based energy consumption (burning coal, oil and gas). Some, possibly most, of the warming is due to this growth of CO2 emissions and so of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres by 2100. (Its 1990 report predicted a 3.67 metre rise.) The IPCC predicted a 1.8o-4oC temperature rise by 2100, a mean of less than 3oC. (At 3oC, it says, "Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase.") 3oC is 0.03oC a year, compared to 1975-2000's 0.02oC a year.

The IPCC says the one `virtually certain' impact of global warming is `reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure'. A 2003 Department of Health study confirmed this, predicting a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 and an increase in heat-related mortality of 2,000 by the 2050s.

On the IPCC's worst case scenario, of 1% growth a year in the developed countries and 2.3% in the developing countries, global warming could cost us 5% of world GDP by 2100. This would make developed countries' GDP 2.6 times today's rather than 2.7 and developing countries' GDP 8.5 times today's rather than 9.5.

Lawson argues that we should drop the precautionary principle because it is wrong to take decisions on the basis of worst-case possibilities: probabilities, not possibilities, should be our guide.

He looks at the prospects of some specific disasters. He notes that Antarctic ice-sheets are growing, that the IPCC's 2007 report said that an `abrupt transition' of the Gulf Stream is `very unlikely' and that the World Meteorological Organization said of climate change's effects on hurricanes, "no firm conclusion can be made on this point."

The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme has increased profits for selected emitters and not cut emissions. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism has done no better. The EU promotes growing biofuels, yet the Chinese government has suspended the production of the biofuel ethanol because it has raised food prices.

The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said that meeting the EU's agreed target of 20% of energy from renewables by 2020 would raise our electricity costs by £18-22 billion a year.

In June 2007 Merkel and Blair tried to get the G8 to agree to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. The rest rejected the idea. Six months later, Britain and Germany lost again when they proposed a mandatory global emissions cut of 25-40% by 2020.

We could control the world's temperature by severely limiting carbon dioxide emissions through raising prices of carbon-based energy, to make non-carbon-based energy more competitive. But this would force our energy-intensive industries out to China and other countries. (Although China's, and India's, emissions per head are still far less than the West's.) 1990s Russia showed that the only way to meet the Kyoto targets is to destroy your industries.

Lawson argues for an across-the-board carbon tax, even if it forces our remaining energy-intensive industries abroad, and for ending subsidies to all carbon-based energy. Instead, we need to keep our industries, se we need new carbon-based power stations and new gas storage facilities, which the market has not provided and will not provide.




Deluded amateur challenges the science, 12 Aug 2008
Lawson flies in the face of scientific consensus with no solid basis for his position. An unhelpful book.

Doable, Win-Win Plan, 09 Sep 2008

In Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America, Thomas Friedman presents an irresistible opportunity for Americans--one that can save the planet and increase our wealth.

The world is flat because of globalization--which is good, as ideas and practices can spread effectively. What is not so good is that our world population is exploding and countries like India and China are seeing an increase in wealth, which puts more strain on the world's resources and increases global warming.

Friedman begins the book with a discussion of how America has changed post 9/11. He uses the example of the US consulate built in 1882 in Istanbul. The consulate was built in the heart of the city: "it was an easy place for Turks to get a VISA, to peruse the library or to engage with an American diplomat."

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the building was closed and a nearly impenetrable consulate was built. This all but stopped visitors from visiting. Although the new building does protect against attacks, it isolates Americans and impacts on how we are viewed and how we see ourselves.

Friedman writes that he wrote the book because: "An American living in a defensive crouch cannot fully tap the vast rivers of idealism, innovation, volunteerism, and philanthropy that still flow through our nation. And it cannot play the vital role it has long played for the rest of the world--as a beacon of hope and the country that we can always be counted on to lead the world in response to whatever is the most important challenge of the day."

That challenge is global warming. He proposes we begin a massive project called "code green."

Friedman identifies three broad trends in our society:
1. The post 9/11 building of walls around us to protect Americans from foreigners.
2. Since the 1980's, politicians acting "dumb as we wanna be," meaning we will get to fixing the roads, global warming and other issues when we get around to it. This includes politicians like Bush "protecting us" from gas taxes and other unpleasantries to keep our standard of living, or the fact that we are in war and don't have to make any sacrifices (save the soldier's lives.)
3. Nation building at home. This is the one good trend Friedman sees and he writes about the plethora of innovative, imaginative souls who devote their energy to finding green solutions.

Friedman considers what is now called the green movement to be more like a green party. He cites several "green" books that include the words "easy" or "lazy" in the titles. The authors write books where: "everyone is a winner, nobody gets hurt and nobody has to do anything hard." I have read several of these books and agree--much of the advice is fluff. However, I do see the recent deluge of books and articles on sustainability as changing the consciousness and buying habits of the country. Many people who begin by making "painless changes" get serious about the environment and one or two of them may be the next inventor of the solar-run car. I also believe that when millions cut down on the use of plastic and other nonrenewable resources, that it does make an environmental difference.

The increase in population and wealth and buying power all tax our already limited supply of petroleum, coal and gas--all substances that cause global warming and pollute our planet. Even if you didn't "believe" in global warming, it is a fact that petroleum--now needed in unprecedented amounts--is rapidly becoming an increasingly difficult product to procure. If you think spending $5.00 a gallon for gas for your car is a hardship, that price will be considered nothing in a few years. Folks, we are running out of time and oil.

Friedman gets that Americans can use the diminishing supply in nonrenewable resources as a means for an economic boom, for bridging the widening gap between Americans and the rest of the world and for drawing us together as a nation. Americans are an innovative and smart bunch of people and we need to get working on devising clean alternatives to fossil fuels. This will create more jobs, strong economic times and raised spirits.

Friedman presents a doable, win-win plan to raise wealth and to save the planet. A must-read.

By the author of the award winning book, HARMONIOUS ENVIRONMENT: BEAUTIFY, DETOXIFY & ENEGIZE YOUR LIFE, YOUR HOME & YOUR PLANET.

Just what it says on the tin, 16 Sep 2008
This is a wonderful book. As the title suggests, it is cool, reasonable, and patient, looking carefully at all the evidence and coming to conclusions which it is hard to disagree with.

Like other reviewers, I find it hard to take excerpts from the book because I would have to quote the whole thing! However, perhaps I may try to help anyone who is wondering whether to read it. One way to look at the global warming/climate change debate is to ask oneself three questions.

First, is the world getting warmer?
Second, is human activity, and specifically CO2, a major cause?
And third, does it matter? Will there be harmful consequences? And if so, what should we do about them?

Much of the angry debate between believers and sceptics rages round the first two points. Lawson surveys the evidence on both, and comes to a conclusion. But what makes this book so powerful is its focus on the third question: whether a warmer world is one that will harm people, animals, plants, and our descendants. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) argues that it will. Lawson disagrees. He takes us through the IPCC scenarios, and their range of predictions relating to five potential impacts of a warmer world: on water, ecosystems, food, coasts, and health. In each case he demonstrates, with evidence, that a warmer world will either be neutral or even beneficial. What makes this evidence particularly persuasive is that much of it is drawn from the IPCC's own 4th report (2007)!.

It would be wrong to think of this book as complacent, a kind of 'I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder'. As Lawson points out, the single major cause of ill-health and death in the world is poverty, and if we take the standpoint of human welfare, the surest way to benefit humans is to lift them out of poverty. Lawson sees many serious problems facing the world, and many things that urgently need putting right. The view of this compelling and convincing book is that global warming isn't one of them.


A call for solid science to replace the hype and hysteria, 14 Sep 2008
A well written and thought provoking book that attempts to speak above the hysterical din that dominates the subject.

The author calls for a considered approach and appeals to organisations to address the issues we face in a sensible and practical way.



Lawson knows best apparently, 23 Aug 2008
The combined wisdom of the world's leading climate change scientists is clearly no match for Nigel Lawson. He alone is clear sighted enough to see these clever people are all wrong. Stop worrying you people on coastlands and islands as you watch the tide rising. Stop fussing about those droughts Africa and Australia! Trust Nigel, everything will be well because...er because he says so.

Thought-provoking contribution, 19 Aug 2008
In this thought-provoking book, Nigel Lawson asks key questions about global warming. Is the world warming and if so, why? How much warmer will it get? What will be the consequences? What can and should we do about it? What is the most cost-effective way to tackle it?

He looks at the temperature record. Surprisingly, temperatures have not risen since 2001, even though global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever. There was a 0.7oC rise over the last century while the CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 30%, largely caused by industrialisation driven by the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based energy consumption (burning coal, oil and gas). Some, possibly most, of the warming is due to this growth of CO2 emissions and so of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres by 2100. (Its 1990 report predicted a 3.67 metre rise.) The IPCC predicted a 1.8o-4oC temperature rise by 2100, a mean of less than 3oC. (At 3oC, it says, "Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase.") 3oC is 0.03oC a year, compared to 1975-2000's 0.02oC a year.

The IPCC says the one `virtually certain' impact of global warming is `reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure'. A 2003 Department of Health study confirmed this, predicting a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 and an increase in heat-related mortality of 2,000 by the 2050s.

On the IPCC's worst case scenario, of 1% growth a year in the developed countries and 2.3% in the developing countries, global warming could cost us 5% of world GDP by 2100. This would make developed countries' GDP 2.6 times today's rather than 2.7 and developing countries' GDP 8.5 times today's rather than 9.5.

Lawson argues that we should drop the precautionary principle because it is wrong to take decisions on the basis of worst-case possibilities: probabilities, not possibilities, should be our guide.

He looks at the prospects of some specific disasters. He notes that Antarctic ice-sheets are growing, that the IPCC's 2007 report said that an `abrupt transition' of the Gulf Stream is `very unlikely' and that the World Meteorological Organization said of climate change's effects on hurricanes, "no firm conclusion can be made on this point."

The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme has increased profits for selected emitters and not cut emissions. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism has done no better. The EU promotes growing biofuels, yet the Chinese government has suspended the production of the biofuel ethanol because it has raised food prices.

The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said that meeting the EU's agreed target of 20% of energy from renewables by 2020 would raise our electricity costs by £18-22 billion a year.

In June 2007 Merkel and Blair tried to get the G8 to agree to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. The rest rejected the idea. Six months later, Britain and Germany lost again when they proposed a mandatory global emissions cut of 25-40% by 2020.

We could control the world's temperature by severely limiting carbon dioxide emissions through raising prices of carbon-based energy, to make non-carbon-based energy more competitive. But this would force our energy-intensive industries out to China and other countries. (Although China's, and India's, emissions per head are still far less than the West's.) 1990s Russia showed that the only way to meet the Kyoto targets is to destroy your industries.

Lawson argues for an across-the-board carbon tax, even if it forces our remaining energy-intensive industries abroad, and for ending subsidies to all carbon-based energy. Instead, we need to keep our industries, se we need new carbon-based power stations and new gas storage facilities, which the market has not provided and will not provide.




Deluded amateur challenges the science, 12 Aug 2008
Lawson flies in the face of scientific consensus with no solid basis for his position. An unhelpful book.

A real gem, 25 Apr 2008
This book is fascinating for any tree enthusiast.
It is the perfect tool you can use to identify different tree types.
The writing style is concise and in-depth.
A sheer masterpiece.
Picture quality is high definition. Images are portrayed in vivid detail.
This book is fantastic.
If you are even slightly interested in trees or want to expand your knowledge of trees buy this book.



A dream publication - Sheer quality, 10 Apr 2008
This publication just oozes quality from the high definition colour photography to the research and layout. I have several reference books relating to British trees and this one stands tall above all the others. The number of quality colour photographs is staggering.

If you are seeking a complete reference this book does exactly what it says on the cover, if I could have given it six stars I would have.

Doable, Win-Win Plan, 09 Sep 2008

In Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America, Thomas Friedman presents an irresistible opportunity for Americans--one that can save the planet and increase our wealth.

The world is flat because of globalization--which is good, as ideas and practices can spread effectively. What is not so good is that our world population is exploding and countries like India and China are seeing an increase in wealth, which puts more strain on the world's resources and increases global warming.

Friedman begins the book with a discussion of how America has changed post 9/11. He uses the example of the US consulate built in 1882 in Istanbul. The consulate was built in the heart of the city: "it was an easy place for Turks to get a VISA, to peruse the library or to engage with an American diplomat."

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the building was closed and a nearly impenetrable consulate was built. This all but stopped visitors from visiting. Although the new building does protect against attacks, it isolates Americans and impacts on how we are viewed and how we see ourselves.

Friedman writes that he wrote the book because: "An American living in a defensive crouch cannot fully tap the vast rivers of idealism, innovation, volunteerism, and philanthropy that still flow through our nation. And it cannot play the vital role it has long played for the rest of the world--as a beacon of hope and the country that we can always be counted on to lead the world in response to whatever is the most important challenge of the day."

That challenge is global warming. He proposes we begin a massive project called "code green."

Friedman identifies three broad trends in our society:
1. The post 9/11 building of walls around us to protect Americans from foreigners.
2. Since the 1980's, politicians acting "dumb as we wanna be," meaning we will get to fixing the roads, global warming and other issues when we get around to it. This includes politicians like Bush "protecting us" from gas taxes and other unpleasantries to keep our standard of living, or the fact that we are in war and don't have to make any sacrifices (save the soldier's lives.)
3. Nation building at home. This is the one good trend Friedman sees and he writes about the plethora of innovative, imaginative souls who devote their energy to finding green solutions.

Friedman considers what is now called the green movement to be more like a green party. He cites several "green" books that include the words "easy" or "lazy" in the titles. The authors write books where: "everyone is a winner, nobody gets hurt and nobody has to do anything hard." I have read several of these books and agree--much of the advice is fluff. However, I do see the recent deluge of books and articles on sustainability as changing the consciousness and buying habits of the country. Many people who begin by making "painless changes" get serious about the environment and one or two of them may be the next inventor of the solar-run car. I also believe that when millions cut down on the use of plastic and other nonrenewable resources, that it does make an environmental difference.

The increase in population and wealth and buying power all tax our already limited supply of petroleum, coal and gas--all substances that cause global warming and pollute our planet. Even if you didn't "believe" in global warming, it is a fact that petroleum--now needed in unprecedented amounts--is rapidly becoming an increasingly difficult product to procure. If you think spending $5.00 a gallon for gas for your car is a hardship, that price will be considered nothing in a few years. Folks, we are running out of time and oil.

Friedman gets that Americans can use the diminishing supply in nonrenewable resources as a means for an economic boom, for bridging the widening gap between Americans and the rest of the world and for drawing us together as a nation. Americans are an innovative and smart bunch of people and we need to get working on devising clean alternatives to fossil fuels. This will create more jobs, strong economic times and raised spirits.

Friedman presents a doable, win-win plan to raise wealth and to save the planet. A must-read.

By the author of the award winning book, HARMONIOUS ENVIRONMENT: BEAUTIFY, DETOXIFY & ENEGIZE YOUR LIFE, YOUR HOME & YOUR PLANET.

Just what it says on the tin, 16 Sep 2008
This is a wonderful book. As the title suggests, it is cool, reasonable, and patient, looking carefully at all the evidence and coming to conclusions which it is hard to disagree with.

Like other reviewers, I find it hard to take excerpts from the book because I would have to quote the whole thing! However, perhaps I may try to help anyone who is wondering whether to read it. One way to look at the global warming/climate change debate is to ask oneself three questions.

First, is the world getting warmer?
Second, is human activity, and specifically CO2, a major cause?
And third, does it matter? Will there be harmful consequences? And if so, what should we do about them?

Much of the angry debate between believers and sceptics rages round the first two points. Lawson surveys the evidence on both, and comes to a conclusion. But what makes this book so powerful is its focus on the third question: whether a warmer world is one that will harm people, animals, plants, and our descendants. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) argues that it will. Lawson disagrees. He takes us through the IPCC scenarios, and their range of predictions relating to five potential impacts of a warmer world: on water, ecosystems, food, coasts, and health. In each case he demonstrates, with evidence, that a warmer world will either be neutral or even beneficial. What makes this evidence particularly persuasive is that much of it is drawn from the IPCC's own 4th report (2007)!.

It would be wrong to think of this book as complacent, a kind of 'I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder'. As Lawson points out, the single major cause of ill-health and death in the world is poverty, and if we take the standpoint of human welfare, the surest way to benefit humans is to lift them out of poverty. Lawson sees many serious problems facing the world, and many things that urgently need putting right. The view of this compelling and convincing book is that global warming isn't one of them.


A call for solid science to replace the hype and hysteria, 14 Sep 2008
A well written and thought provoking book that attempts to speak above the hysterical din that dominates the subject.

The author calls for a considered approach and appeals to organisations to address the issues we face in a sensible and practical way.



Lawson knows best apparently, 23 Aug 2008
The combined wisdom of the world's leading climate change scientists is clearly no match for Nigel Lawson. He alone is clear sighted enough to see these clever people are all wrong. Stop worrying you people on coastlands and islands as you watch the tide rising. Stop fussing about those droughts Africa and Australia! Trust Nigel, everything will be well because...er because he says so.

Thought-provoking contribution, 19 Aug 2008
In this thought-provoking book, Nigel Lawson asks key questions about global warming. Is the world warming and if so, why? How much warmer will it get? What will be the consequences? What can and should we do about it? What is the most cost-effective way to tackle it?

He looks at the temperature record. Surprisingly, temperatures have not risen since 2001, even though global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever. There was a 0.7oC rise over the last century while the CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 30%, largely caused by industrialisation driven by the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based energy consumption (burning coal, oil and gas). Some, possibly most, of the warming is due to this growth of CO2 emissions and so of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres by 2100. (Its 1990 report predicted a 3.67 metre rise.) The IPCC predicted a 1.8o-4oC temperature rise by 2100, a mean of less than 3oC. (At 3oC, it says, "Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase.") 3oC is 0.03oC a year, compared to 1975-2000's 0.02oC a year.

The IPCC says the one `virtually certain' impact of global warming is `reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure'. A 2003 Department of Health study confirmed this, predicting a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 and an increase in heat-related mortality of 2,000 by the 2050s.

On the IPCC's worst case scenario, of 1% growth a year in the developed countries and 2.3% in the developing countries, global warming could cost us 5% of world GDP by 2100. This would make developed countries' GDP 2.6 times today's rather than 2.7 and developing countries' GDP 8.5 times today's rather than 9.5.

Lawson argues that we should drop the precautionary principle because it is wrong to take decisions on the basis of worst-case possibilities: probabilities, not possibilities, should be our guide.

He looks at the prospects of some specific disasters. He notes that Antarctic ice-sheets are growing, that the IPCC's 2007 report said that an `abrupt transition' of the Gulf Stream is `very unlikely' and that the World Meteorological Organization said of climate change's effects on hurricanes, "no firm conclusion can be made on this point."

The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme has increased profits for selected emitters and not cut emissions. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism has done no better. The EU promotes growing biofuels, yet the Chinese government has suspended the production of the biofuel ethanol because it has raised food prices.

The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said that meeting the EU's agreed target of 20% of energy from renewables by 2020 would raise our electricity costs by £18-22 billion a year.

In June 2007 Merkel and Blair tried to get the G8 to agree to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. The rest rejected the idea. Six months later, Britain and Germany lost again when they proposed a mandatory global emissions cut of 25-40% by 2020.

We could control the world's temperature by severely limiting carbon dioxide emissions through raising prices of carbon-based energy, to make non-carbon-based energy more competitive. But this would force our energy-intensive industries out to China and other countries. (Although China's, and India's, emissions per head are still far less than the West's.) 1990s Russia showed that the only way to meet the Kyoto targets is to destroy your industries.

Lawson argues for an across-the-board carbon tax, even if it forces our remaining energy-intensive industries abroad, and for ending subsidies to all carbon-based energy. Instead, we need to keep our industries, se we need new carbon-based power stations and new gas storage facilities, which the market has not provided and will not provide.




Deluded amateur challenges the science, 12 Aug 2008
Lawson flies in the face of scientific consensus with no solid basis for his position. An unhelpful book.

A real gem, 25 Apr 2008
This book is fascinating for any tree enthusiast.
It is the perfect tool you can use to identify different tree types.
The writing style is concise and in-depth.
A sheer masterpiece.
Picture quality is high definition. Images are portrayed in vivid detail.
This book is fantastic.
If you are even slightly interested in trees or want to expand your knowledge of trees buy this book.



A dream publication - Sheer quality, 10 Apr 2008
This publication just oozes quality from the high definition colour photography to the research and layout. I have several reference books relating to British trees and this one stands tall above all the others. The number of quality colour photographs is staggering.

If you are seeking a complete reference this book does exactly what it says on the cover, if I could have given it six stars I would have.

To bee or not to bee, is that really the question? , 24 Aug 2008
Alison Benjamin and Brian McCallum are two British reporters and amateur bee-keepers. Benjamin works for the British daily paper The Guardian. Their book "A world without bees" was published earlier this year, and deals with the mysterious mass deaths of honeybees all around the world, the so-called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). While some people belive that CCD doesn't really exist, for instance the current Wikipedia writer on the subject, others consider it a serious, global threat to bee-keeping. Benjamin and McCallum certainly belong to the latter camp, claiming that one third of US beehives and two-thirds of those in France have been wiped out by this mysterious condition. Most scientists seem to agree that CCD does exist, but so far no good explanation have been offered, at least none everyone agrees with. The two authors have interviewed researchers who blame pesticides, fungicides, the varroa mite, climate change, new viruses, or even mobile phones (that's a fringe position). Indeed, CCD could be a combination of several different factors. Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV for short) is a prime suspect, but correlation is not necessarily the same thing as causation. Perhaps something in the environment is causing bees to loose their resistance to killer viruses?

The authors own position isn't entirely clear-cut, but their favorite hypothesis seem to be loss of genetic diversity. Most honeybees around the world apparently belong to the same group of Mediterranean subspecies, and the same goes for feral honeybees. These have interbred with wild honeybees, creating a situation in which the honeybee gene pool is virtually the same the world over. When the varroa mite struck, and developed resistance to pesticides, millions of honeybees quickly succumbed - their gene pool was too narrow to develop defenses against the parasite. Benjamin and McCallum therefore strongly supports conservation efforts aimed at preserving local subspecies of wild honeybees. They mention a particular attempt in Denmark, and describe the conflicts this has created between different factions of bee-keepers (the local bees are less productive than the Mediterranean breeds).

The bee-keeping industry seems to take the opposite position from that of the authors: the industry wants to genetically engineer a resilient, resistant and high-productive superbee. The authors fear that this will narrow the gene pool even more. What happens if (or when) the superbee is challenged by an equally resilient superbug?

The book then describes the chilling effects of a world without honeybees. If you think only the honey would disappear, think again! Many important crops are dependent on honeybees for pollination, including alfalfa, apples, almonds, cotton, citrus, soya beans, onions, broccoli, carrots, sunflowers, melons, blueberries, cherries and pumpkins. A world without bees would be a world without fruit, vegetables, juice, health food (the soya) or clothes (the cotton). Alfalfa is used as cattle feed, so a world without bees would also be a world without meat! To drive home the point, the two authors have visited California, where the highly profitable almond orchards are pollinated by honeybees from all over the United States, driven there on enormous trucks. If the honeybees would be wiped out by CCD, an entire industry would be gone. Already today, food prices are going up, due to ethanol production and other factors. CCD doesn't exactly help...

One solution to the crisis mentioned in the book is to use other insects as pollinators, including solitary bees and bumblebees. There are several research projects to that effect in the US. Meanwhile, habitat change have driven bumblebees to near-extinction in some areas, and other insects live too far away from agricultural land to be of much use. Once again, the authors feel that a more environmental-friendly policy is the bottom line.

Is the author's alarmist perspective true? No idea. Until I picked up this book, mostly by chance, I never even heard of CCD. (Of course, I have heard of the varroa mite.) However, Alison Benjamin and Brian McCallum have written an easy-to-read introduction to the issue, after talking to both scientists, migratory bee-keepers, almond growers, and even conspiracy theorists. I recommend the book, and call on everyone to continue researching the topic.

Timely, persuasive and necessary, 25 Jul 2008
If climate change doesn't get you, the disappearance of the honeybee will - this is the rather gloomy message of Alison Benjamin and Brian McCallum's well researched and engagingly written new book on Colony Collapse Disorder - a honeybee `plague' which has already killed millions of bees worldwide. Some 90 commercial crops owe their continued existence to the pollination services provided free of charge by the honeybee so its fair to say that A World Without Bees is an important book. For it to succeed in its mission it has to put the fear of God into us without losing us to jargon. It does so admirably, taking us through the rather complicated but interesting world of honeybee health, politics and economics and delivering us to a conclusion which lays the blame firmly on our own shoulders. Time to start talking about bee rights? Could be.

Unique, valuable, objective; a fantastically GOOD book, 24 Jun 2008
I read this wonderful book in one very long sitting; I really could not stop once I started. Having grown up surrounded, in my immediate family, by the 1950's acute nature-awareness of the early Soil Association days of Bob Waller and Harold Horne et al, it was like deja vu to me.
The authors have been very disciplined in producing a really worthwhile book; it is almost perfectly objective, and therefore above cheap criticism. They have worked immensely hard to source a huge amount of sound material, and they have taken the trouble to understand it thoroughly before using it in their book. And the mystery at issue is no less than how terrifyingly detached from truth we are becoming, and how little we now understand our own misery and poverty of life in the midst of all our illusion of ease; how deprived of reality we have already become.
Read it! In the morning, the evening, on the train, in the bath, but read it. It is more real than most other stuff you will find on printed paper or glowing on a monitor any day of the year.

Doable, Win-Win Plan, 09 Sep 2008

In Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America, Thomas Friedman presents an irresistible opportunity for Americans--one that can save the planet and increase our wealth.

The world is flat because of globalization--which is good, as ideas and practices can spread effectively. What is not so good is that our world population is exploding and countries like India and China are seeing an increase in wealth, which puts more strain on the world's resources and increases global warming.

Friedman begins the book with a discussion of how America has changed post 9/11. He uses the example of the US consulate built in 1882 in Istanbul. The consulate was built in the heart of the city: "it was an easy place for Turks to get a VISA, to peruse the library or to engage with an American diplomat."

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the building was closed and a nearly impenetrable consulate was built. This all but stopped visitors from visiting. Although the new building does protect against attacks, it isolates Americans and impacts on how we are viewed and how we see ourselves.

Friedman writes that he wrote the book because: "An American living in a defensive crouch cannot fully tap the vast rivers of idealism, innovation, volunteerism, and philanthropy that still flow through our nation. And it cannot play the vital role it has long played for the rest of the world--as a beacon of hope and the country that we can always be counted on to lead the world in response to whatever is the most important challenge of the day."

That challenge is global warming. He proposes we begin a massive project called "code green."

Friedman identifies three broad trends in our society:
1. The post 9/11 building of walls around us to protect Americans from foreigners.
2. Since the 1980's, politicians acting "dumb as we wanna be," meaning we will get to fixing the roads, global warming and other issues when we get around to it. This includes politicians like Bush "protecting us" from gas taxes and other unpleasantries to keep our standard of living, or the fact that we are in war and don't have to make any sacrifices (save the soldier's lives.)
3. Nation building at home. This is the one good trend Friedman sees and he writes about the plethora of innovative, imaginative souls who devote their energy to finding green solutions.

Friedman considers what is now called the green movement to be more like a green party. He cites several "green" books that include the words "easy" or "lazy" in the titles. The authors write books where: "everyone is a winner, nobody gets hurt and nobody has to do anything hard." I have read several of these books and agree--much of the advice is fluff. However, I do see the recent deluge of books and articles on sustainability as changing the consciousness and buying habits of the country. Many people who begin by making "painless changes" get serious about the environment and one or two of them may be the next inventor of the solar-run car. I also believe that when millions cut down on the use of plastic and other nonrenewable resources, that it does make an environmental difference.

The increase in population and wealth and buying power all tax our already limited supply of petroleum, coal and gas--all substances that cause global warming and pollute our planet. Even if you didn't "believe" in global warming, it is a fact that petroleum--now needed in unprecedented amounts--is rapidly becoming an increasingly difficult product to procure. If you think spending $5.00 a gallon for gas for your car is a hardship, that price will be considered nothing in a few years. Folks, we are running out of time and oil.

Friedman gets that Americans can use the diminishing supply in nonrenewable resources as a means for an economic boom, for bridging the widening gap between Americans and the rest of the world and for drawing us together as a nation. Americans are an innovative and smart bunch of people and we need to get working on devising clean alternatives to fossil fuels. This will create more jobs, strong economic times and raised spirits.

Friedman presents a doable, win-win plan to raise wealth and to save the planet. A must-read.

By the author of the award winning book, HARMONIOUS ENVIRONMENT: BEAUTIFY, DETOXIFY & ENEGIZE YOUR LIFE, YOUR HOME & YOUR PLANET.

Just what it says on the tin, 16 Sep 2008
This is a wonderful book. As the title suggests, it is cool, reasonable, and patient, looking carefully at all the evidence and coming to conclusions which it is hard to disagree with.

Like other reviewers, I find it hard to take excerpts from the book because I would have to quote the whole thing! However, perhaps I may try to help anyone who is wondering whether to read it. One way to look at the global warming/climate change debate is to ask oneself three questions.

First, is the world getting warmer?
Second, is human activity, and specifically CO2, a major cause?
And third, does it matter? Will there be harmful consequences? And if so, what should we do about them?

Much of the angry debate between believers and sceptics rages round the first two points. Lawson surveys the evidence on both, and comes to a conclusion. But what makes this book so powerful is its focus on the third question: whether a warmer world is one that will harm people, animals, plants, and our descendants. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) argues that it will. Lawson disagrees. He takes us through the IPCC scenarios, and their range of predictions relating to five potential impacts of a warmer world: on water, ecosystems, food, coasts, and health. In each case he demonstrates, with evidence, that a warmer world will either be neutral or even beneficial. What makes this evidence particularly persuasive is that much of it is drawn from the IPCC's own 4th report (2007)!.

It would be wrong to think of this book as complacent, a kind of 'I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder'. As Lawson points out, the single major cause of ill-health and death in the world is poverty, and if we take the standpoint of human welfare, the surest way to benefit humans is to lift them out of poverty. Lawson sees many serious problems facing the world, and many things that urgently need putting right. The view of this compelling and convincing book is that global warming isn't one of them.


A call for solid science to replace the hype and hysteria, 14 Sep 2008
A well written and thought provoking book that attempts to speak above the hysterical din that dominates the subject.

The author calls for a considered approach and appeals to organisations to address the issues we face in a sensible and practical way.



Lawson knows best apparently, 23 Aug 2008
The combined wisdom of the world's leading climate change scientists is clearly no match for Nigel Lawson. He alone is clear sighted enough to see these clever people are all wrong. Stop worrying you people on coastlands and islands as you watch the tide rising. Stop fussing about those droughts Africa and Australia! Trust Nigel, everything will be well because...er because he says so.

Thought-provoking contribution, 19 Aug 2008
In this thought-provoking book, Nigel Lawson asks key questions about global warming. Is the world warming and if so, why? How much warmer will it get? What will be the consequences? What can and should we do about it? What is the most cost-effective way to tackle it?

He looks at the temperature record. Surprisingly, temperatures have not risen since 2001, even though global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever. There was a 0.7oC rise over the last century while the CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 30%, largely caused by industrialisation driven by the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based energy consumption (burning coal, oil and gas). Some, possibly most, of the warming is due to this growth of CO2 emissions and so of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres by 2100. (Its 1990 report predicted a 3.67 metre rise.) The IPCC predicted a 1.8o-4oC temperature rise by 2100, a mean of less than 3oC. (At 3oC, it says, "Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase.") 3oC is 0.03oC a year, compared to 1975-2000's 0.02oC a year.

The IPCC says the one `virtually certain' impact of global warming is `reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure'. A 2003 Department of Health study confirmed this, predicting a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 and an increase in heat-related mortality of 2,000 by the 2050s.

On the IPCC's worst case scenario, of 1% growth a year in the developed countries and 2.3% in the developing countries, global warming could cost us 5% of world GDP by 2100. This would make developed countries' GDP 2.6 times today's rather than 2.7 and developing countries' GDP 8.5 times today's rather than 9.5.

Lawson argues that we should drop the precautionary principle because it is wrong to take decisions on the basis of worst-case possibilities: probabilities, not possibilities, should be our guide.

He looks at the prospects of some specific disasters. He notes that Antarctic ice-sheets are growing, that the IPCC's 2007 report said that an `abrupt transition' of the Gulf Stream is `very unlikely' and that the World Meteorological Organization said of climate change's effects on hurricanes, "no firm conclusion can be made on this point."

The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme has increased profits for selected emitters and not cut emissions. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism has done no better. The EU promotes growing biofuels, yet the Chinese government has suspended the production of the biofuel ethanol because it has raised food prices.

The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said that meeting the EU's agreed target of 20% of energy from renewables by 2020 would raise our electricity costs by £18-22 billion a year.

In June 2007 Merkel and Blair tried to get the G8 to agree to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. The rest rejected the idea. Six months later, Britain and Germany lost again when they proposed a mandatory global emissions cut of 25-40% by 2020.

We could control the world's temperature by severely limiting carbon dioxide emissions through raising prices of carbon-based energy, to make non-carbon-based energy more competitive. But this would force our energy-intensive industries out to China and other countries. (Although China's, and India's, emissions per head are still far less than the West's.) 1990s Russia showed that the only way to meet the Kyoto targets is to destroy your industries.

Lawson argues for an across-the-board carbon tax, even if it forces our remaining energy-intensive industries abroad, and for ending subsidies to all carbon-based energy. Instead, we need to keep our industries, se we need new carbon-based power stations and new gas storage facilities, which the market has not provided and will not provide.




Deluded amateur challenges the science, 12 Aug 2008
Lawson flies in the face of scientific consensus with no solid basis for his position. An unhelpful book.

A real gem, 25 Apr 2008
This book is fascinating for any tree enthusiast.
It is the perfect tool you can use to identify different tree types.
The writing style is concise and in-depth.
A sheer masterpiece.
Picture quality is high definition. Images are portrayed in vivid detail.
This book is fantastic.
If you are even slightly interested in trees or want to expand your knowledge of trees buy this book.



A dream publication - Sheer quality, 10 Apr 2008
This publication just oozes quality from the high definition colour photography to the research and layout. I have several reference books relating to British trees and this one stands tall above all the others. The number of quality colour photographs is staggering.

If you are seeking a complete reference this book does exactly what it says on the cover, if I could have given it six stars I would have.

To bee or not to bee, is that really the question? , 24 Aug 2008
Alison Benjamin and Brian McCallum are two British reporters and amateur bee-keepers. Benjamin works for the British daily paper The Guardian. Their book "A world without bees" was published earlier this year, and deals with the mysterious mass deaths of honeybees all around the world, the so-called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). While some people belive that CCD doesn't really exist, for instance the current Wikipedia writer on the subject, others consider it a serious, global threat to bee-keeping. Benjamin and McCallum certainly belong to the latter camp, claiming that one third of US beehives and two-thirds of those in France have been wiped out by this mysterious condition. Most scientists seem to agree that CCD does exist, but so far no good explanation have been offered, at least none everyone agrees with. The two authors have interviewed researchers who blame pesticides, fungicides, the varroa mite, climate change, new viruses, or even mobile phones (that's a fringe position). Indeed, CCD could be a combination of several different factors. Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV for short) is a prime suspect, but correlation is not necessarily the same thing as causation. Perhaps something in the environment is causing bees to loose their resistance to killer viruses?

The authors own position isn't entirely clear-cut, but their favorite hypothesis seem to be loss of genetic diversity. Most honeybees around the world apparently belong to the same group of Mediterranean subspecies, and the same goes for feral honeybees. These have interbred with wild honeybees, creating a situation in which the honeybee gene pool is virtually the same the world over. When the varroa mite struck, and developed resistance to pesticides, millions of honeybees quickly succumbed - their gene pool was too narrow to develop defenses against the parasite. Benjamin and McCallum therefore strongly supports conservation efforts aimed at preserving local subspecies of wild honeybees. They mention a particular attempt in Denmark, and describe the conflicts this has created between different factions of bee-keepers (the local bees are less productive than the Mediterranean breeds).

The bee-keeping industry seems to take the opposite position from that of the authors: the industry wants to genetically engineer a resilient, resistant and high-productive superbee. The authors fear that this will narrow the gene pool even more. What happens if (or when) the superbee is challenged by an equally resilient superbug?

The book then describes the chilling effects of a world without honeybees. If you think only the honey would disappear, think again! Many important crops are dependent on honeybees for pollination, including alfalfa, apples, almonds, cotton, citrus, soya beans, onions, broccoli, carrots, sunflowers, melons, blueberries, cherries and pumpkins. A world without bees would be a world without fruit, vegetables, juice, health food (the soya) or clothes (the cotton). Alfalfa is used as cattle feed, so a world without bees would also be a world without meat! To drive home the point, the two authors have visited California, where the highly profitable almond orchards are pollinated by honeybees from all over the United States, driven there on enormous trucks. If the honeybees would be wiped out by CCD, an entire industry would be gone. Already today, food prices are going up, due to ethanol production and other factors. CCD doesn't exactly help...

One solution to the crisis mentioned in the book is to use other insects as pollinators, including solitary bees and bumblebees. There are several research projects to that effect in the US. Meanwhile, habitat change have driven bumblebees to near-extinction in some areas, and other insects live too far away from agricultural land to be of much use. Once again, the authors feel that a more environmental-friendly policy is the bottom line.

Is the author's alarmist perspective true? No idea. Until I picked up this book, mostly by chance, I never even heard of CCD. (Of course, I have heard of the varroa mite.) However, Alison Benjamin and Brian McCallum have written an easy-to-read introduction to the issue, after talking to both scientists, migratory bee-keepers, almond growers, and even conspiracy theorists. I recommend the book, and call on everyone to continue researching the topic.

Timely, persuasive and necessary, 25 Jul 2008
If climate change doesn't get you, the disappearance of the honeybee will - this is the rather gloomy message of Alison Benjamin and Brian McCallum's well researched and engagingly written new book on Colony Collapse Disorder - a honeybee `plague' which has already killed millions of bees worldwide. Some 90 commercial crops owe their continued existence to the pollination services provided free of charge by the honeybee so its fair to say that A World Without Bees is an important book. For it to succeed in its mission it has to put the fear of God into us without losing us to jargon. It does so admirably, taking us through the rather complicated but interesting world of honeybee health, politics and economics and delivering us to a conclusion which lays the blame firmly on our own shoulders. Time to start talking about bee rights? Could be.

Unique, valuable, objective; a fantastically GOOD book, 24 Jun 2008
I read this wonderful book in one very long sitting; I really could not stop once I started. Having grown up surrounded, in my immediate family, by the 1950's acute nature-awareness of the early Soil Association days of Bob Waller and Harold Horne et al, it was like deja vu to me.
The authors have been very disciplined in producing a really worthwhile book; it is almost perfectly objective, and therefore above cheap criticism. They have worked immensely hard to source a huge amount of sound material, and they have taken the trouble to understand it thoroughly before using it in their book. And the mystery at issue is no less than how terrifyingly detached from truth we are becoming, and how little we now understand our own misery and poverty of life in the midst of all our illusion of ease; how deprived of reality we have already become.
Read it! In the morning, the evening, on the train, in the bath, but read it. It is more real than most other stuff you will find on printed paper or glowing on a monitor any day of the year.

Transition Handbook, 08 Oct 2008
This book is way overdue. I have been eagerly searching for books addressing the preparation for post peak oil for many many years. Books like this should have been written years ago so I was delighted to see that at last practical guides are starting to appear on the book shelves.

I really enjoyed the first couple of chapters dealing with peak oil and its implications for society. Subsequent chapters I did not enjoy as much particularly when the Kinsale Energy Decent Action Plan is promoted as a role model for sustainable community development.

There is a huge wealth of expertise in the development community, particularly which which was developed from overseas aid agencies. They have developed approaches, standards, principles and a multitude of methodologies for developing communities, with limited or almost non existent resources, and where success or failure costs lives. This expertise has been ignored and attempts made to reinvent the wheel.

I think the focus of the book should have built on the expertise of organisations such as Oxfam, VSO, Save the Children, and Overseas Development Administration and focused on the structures, processes and outcomes, which would help develop community resilience and sustainability, with limited resources.

I have a worry that communities who attempt to use this handbook as the basis for their transition will make fantastic progress initially through the generation of enthusiasm but due to improper planning, a lack of monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness and imprecise goals and objectives, people will become disillusioned and drop out. There is also the danger that communities who adapt this approach will not be able to communicate effectively with traditional disciplines, local authorities, health services, energy engineers or others. Who should change first? The current decision makers and service providers or the community development
organisations?

This process of conflict between service providers and community organisations has happened time and time again, without learning the lessons of what actually is sustainable in the long term. It usually results in the community organisation being unable to access state funding resulting in decline and or death. How can a community organisation sustain itself unless it becomes a business, with formal structures, job descriptions, terms of reference, fundamental guiding principles, training, development, salaries, income generation, sales etc. How can that fit with the "loose" concepts proposed?

Lets hope this is just the first of a huge range of increasingly sophisticated publications yet to come that will address these issues using the best expertise available in the fields of business, development management, community organisation, sustainability, public health, and many more, combined into a consensus best practice manual for transition. I hope these comments help to stimulate a critical approach to sustainable community development.


A smart, accessible guide to a resilient, low-carbon future, 11 Sep 2008
There is a powerful current in our contemporary, post-industrial culture that is arguing for a simpler, more sustainable alternative to our wasteful, environmentally damaging way of life. Proselytisers rely on a varying mix of three sets of arguments: the environmental challenge posed by climate change, the energy supply challenge posed by peak oil and, finally, the spiritual challenge emerging from the newest science on personal wellbeing (in a nutshell: beyond a certain point more money and stuff doesn't make us happier.)

Rob Hopkins' Transition Movement is pragmatic attempt to come to terms with the disruptions that are heralded by climate change and peak oil. Thoughtlessly addicted as we are to fossil fuels, our societies are ill equipped to deal with the adverse implications of energy scarcity and a hotter, less predictable climate. According to Hopkins, what we need to develop is resilience: the ability to deal creatively and locally with energy supply and environmental shocks.

The Transition Handbook is a hands-on guide to help communities make that transition towards a resilient, low-carbon future. It is useful to distinguish three layers in the book.

The first layer encapsulates the three main parts of Hopkins' argument, focused on the head (the facts about climate change and peak oil you need to know), the heart (the need for positive vision and commitment) and the hands (practical guidelines for enabling resilient communities).

The second layer consists of a range of design principles that can be relied on to shape resilient communities. For example, in preparing for an energy-scarce future we need to know that resilience relies on a small scale, modular and decentralised infrastructure. We also need to invest in high-quality productive relationships, integrate rather than segregate and use the creative edges of systems to make the most of their potential. There are many more of these principles that have been lifted from an eclectic mix of disciplines, including systems science, ecology and the psychology of change. Hopkins himself was deeply influenced by the permaculture movement, a radical design approach to constructing "sustainable human settlements".

The third layer features a range of practical solutions that comply with these design principles. These solutions are meant to be the cornerstones of any resilient community and include a template for working towards a more energy-thrifty ("energy descent planning"), decentralised energy generation, local food sourcing, re-skilling of consumers into creative citizens and local currencies.

Transition thinking is not only a theory but it is also a social movement and the book features a number of UK examples of communities that have started going down the path towards resilience. Hopkins is acutely aware that the governance of the Transition movement needs to mirror the design principles underlying resilience. It would hardly be credible and effective to embody a Transition movement by a tightly-managed, centralised bureaucracy. So, Hopkins is only willing to give pointers to help people in facilitating bottom-up, small-scale, self-steering initiatives. Lots is left to emergence and action learning ("... where it all goes remains to be seen ..." is an often used phrase in the book).

The Transition Handbook is an accessible, smart guide to helping us deal with the challenges we may face as a result of climate change and peak oil. In itself the book doesn't offer anything new, but it rearranges familiar pieces of a puzzle into a compelling and coherent approach towards learning again to help ourselves and to do more with less.

Enabling, 01 Jul 2008
Hooray. Despite some people's misgivings about the psychology section, which seem largely dependent on a definition of 'success', this is an outstanding book. It's primary achievement is to show the reader how societal change can take place in the absence of the usual too little too late response of governments, whose priorities lie with business, rather than people or environmental sustainability. The future security of Britain, and elsewhere, lies in groups of people with the will and power to make communities sustainable. It might seem unbelievable, but we have the power to transform our society, and are not at the whim of government. They will follow. If you admire Kohr, Schumacher, Papworth and Sale, you will respond positively to this book.

Brilliant in parts, dangerously foolish in others, 28 Jun 2008
I've the greatest sympathy with this book's concept in many respects. Rob correctly identifies the overriding need to reduce energy dependence, and that we must not wait for "them" to do anything about it, or even help us. Correctly he sees that we need a "how-to" manual for how to make communities (rather than just the reader) self-sufficient in food and so on. But the devil is in the practical details, or more precisely the practical unknowns which are all too easily glossed over.

The book gets hideously, dangerously misguided in its important section on psychology, with its notion of the importance of a "positive vision". History is bursting full of "positive visions" which ended in huge disasters. Instead, what is needed is a judiciously realistic vision. It is vitally important to recognise that criticism and doubt are just as important as hope and "constructive" "enthusiastic" thinking. Otherwise huge energy and effort is almost certain to be lost in enthusing down disastrous dead-ends.

In a traumatised society, many people become lost to despair, depression, negativity. But there is the equal problem that too many people desperately pin their hopes on "positive" but false solutions which ultimately fail them.

Someone said that the transition concept has been "phenomenally successful". That is seriously unhinged fantasy. There hasn't yet been a transition to test out how or even whether the ideas work out in practice.
You need to be very careful to avoid assuming that action is the same as achievement of solutions, or that international fame and crowds of enthusiastic followers is the same as success in solving the problem.

I would strongly urge the author to revise the psychology section of his book to take account of these comments. The importance of a realistic vision.

essential reading, 30 Apr 2008
I'm two thirds way through this book and overall find it an inspiring read. The first section in particular summarises some of the issues in a very easy to understand style. I liked the section on psychology particularly - I think both grieving, shock and addiction models are useful to understanding the apparently irrational responses of people to climate change and peak oil.

The rest of the book is harder to read - a lot of detail about how one should go about starting a transition initiative. Some of this stuff makes very important points about embedding the initiative into the community and I appreciate that it is derived from experience. At the same time I found it somewhat prescriptive, especially the directions for conducting meetings/workshops etc. This is a bit of a turn off - there are of course lots of ways of doing these things and I feel it would have been better just to refer to some resources or put these in appendices.

We have to act on climate change and peak oil and I buy the resilient local economy model. There is lots of useful stuff in this book, maybe some of it just more detailed than necessary.

Doable, Win-Win Plan, 09 Sep 2008

In Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America, Thomas Friedman presents an irresistible opportunity for Americans--one that can save the planet and increase our wealth.

The world is flat because of globalization--which is good, as ideas and practices can spread effectively. What is not so good is that our world population is exploding and countries like India and China are seeing an increase in wealth, which puts more strain on the world's resources and increases global warming.

Friedman begins the book with a discussion of how America has changed post 9/11. He uses the example of the US consulate built in 1882 in Istanbul. The consulate was built in the heart of the city: "it was an easy place for Turks to get a VISA, to peruse the library or to engage with an American diplomat."

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the building was closed and a nearly impenetrable consulate was built. This all but stopped visitors from visiting. Although the new building does protect against attacks, it isolates Americans and impacts on how we are viewed and how we see ourselves.

Friedman writes that he wrote the book because: "An American living in a defensive crouch cannot fully tap the vast rivers of idealism, innovation, volunteerism, and philanthropy that still flow through our nation. And it cannot play the vital role it has long played for the rest of the world--as a beacon of hope and the country that we can always be counted on to lead the world in response to whatever is the most important challenge of the day."

That challenge is global warming. He proposes we begin a massive project called "code green."

Friedman identifies three broad trends in our society:
1. The post 9/11 building of walls around us to protect Americans from foreigners.
2. Since the 1980's, politicians acting "dumb as we wanna be," meaning we will get to fixing the roads, global warming and other issues when we get around to it. This includes politicians like Bush "protecting us" from gas taxes and other unpleasantries to keep our standard of living, or the fact that we are in war and don't have to make any sacrifices (save the soldier's lives.)
3. Nation building at home. This is the one good trend Friedman sees and he writes about the plethora of innovative, imaginative souls who devote their energy to finding green solutions.

Friedman considers what is now called the green movement to be more like a green party. He cites several "green" books that include the words "easy" or "lazy" in the titles. The authors write books where: "everyone is a winner, nobody gets hurt and nobody has to do anything hard." I have read several of these books and agree--much of the advice is fluff. However, I do see the recent deluge of books and articles on sustainability as changing the consciousness and buying habits of the country. Many people who begin by making "painless changes" get serious about the environment and one or two of them may be the next inventor of the solar-run car. I also believe that when millions cut down on the use of plastic and other nonrenewable resources, that it does make an environmental difference.

The increase in population and wealth and buying power all tax our already limited supply of petroleum, coal and gas--all substances that cause global warming and pollute our planet. Even if you didn't "believe" in global warming, it is a fact that petroleum--now needed in unprecedented amounts--is rapidly becoming an increasingly difficult product to procure. If you think spending $5.00 a gallon for gas for your car is a hardship, that price will be considered nothing in a few years. Folks, we are running out of time and oil.

Friedman gets that Americans can use the diminishing supply in nonrenewable resources as a means for an economic boom, for bridging the widening gap between Americans and the rest of the world and for drawing us together as a nation. Americans are an innovative and smart bunch of people and we need to get working on devising clean alternatives to fossil fuels. This will create more jobs, strong economic times and raised spirits.

Friedman presents a doable, win-win plan to raise wealth and to save the planet. A must-read.

By the author of the award winning book, HARMONIOUS ENVIRONMENT: BEAUTIFY, DETOXIFY & ENEGIZE YOUR LIFE, YOUR HOME & YOUR PLANET.

Just what it says on the tin, 16 Sep 2008
This is a wonderful book. As the title suggests, it is cool, reasonable, and patient, looking carefully at all the evidence and coming to conclusions which it is hard to disagree with.

Like other reviewers, I find it hard to take excerpts from the book because I would have to quote the whole thing! However, perhaps I may try to help anyone who is wondering whether to read it. One way to look at the global warming/climate change debate is to ask oneself three questions.

First, is the world getting warmer?
Second, is human activity, and specifically CO2, a major cause?
And third, does it matter? Will there be harmful consequences? And if so, what should we do about them?

Much of the angry debate between believers and sceptics rages round the first two points. Lawson surveys the evidence on both, and comes to a conclusion. But what makes this book so powerful is its focus on the third question: whether a warmer world is one that will harm people, animals, plants, and our descendants. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) argues that it will. Lawson disagrees. He takes us through the IPCC scenarios, and their range of predictions relating to five potential impacts of a warmer world: on water, ecosystems, food, coasts, and health. In each case he demonstrates, with evidence, that a warmer world will either be neutral or even beneficial. What makes this evidence particularly persuasive is that much of it is drawn from the IPCC's own 4th report (2007)!.

It would be wrong to think of this book as complacent, a kind of 'I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder'. As Lawson points out, the single major cause of ill-health and death in the world is poverty, and if we take the standpoint of human welfare, the surest way to benefit humans is to lift them out of poverty. Lawson sees many serious problems facing the world, and many things that urgently need putting right. The view of this compelling and convincing book is that global warming isn't one of them.


A call for solid science to replace the hype and hysteria, 14 Sep 2008
A well written and thought provoking book that attempts to speak above the hysterical din that dominates the subject.

The author calls for a considered approach and appeals to organisations to address the issues we face in a sensible and practical way.



Lawson knows best apparently, 23 Aug 2008
The combined wisdom of the world's leading climate change scientists is clearly no match for Nigel Lawson. He alone is clear sighted enough to see these clever people are all wrong. Stop worrying you people on coastlands and islands as you watch the tide rising. Stop fussing about those droughts Africa and Australia! Trust Nigel, everything will be well because...er because he says so.

Thought-provoking contribution, 19 Aug 2008
In this thought-provoking book, Nigel Lawson asks key questions about global warming. Is the world warming and if so, why? How much warmer will it get? What will be the consequences? What can and should we do about it? What is the most cost-effective way to tackle it?

He looks at the temperature record. Surprisingly, temperatures have not risen since 2001, even though global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever. There was a 0.7oC rise over the last century while the CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 30%, largely caused by industrialisation driven by the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based energy consumption (burning coal, oil and gas). Some, possibly most, of the warming is due to this growth of CO2 emissions and so of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres by 2100. (Its 1990 report predicted a 3.67 metre rise.) The IPCC predicted a 1.8o-4oC temperature rise by 2100, a mean of less than 3oC. (At 3oC, it says, "Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase.") 3oC is 0.03oC a year, compared to 1975-2000's 0.02oC a year.

The IPCC says the one `virtually certain' impact of global warming is `reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure'. A 2003 Department of Health study confirmed this, predicting a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 and an increase in heat-related mortality of 2,000 by the 2050s.

On the IPCC's worst case scenario, of 1% growth a year in the developed countries and 2.3% in the developing countries, global warming could cost us 5% of world GDP by 2100. This would make developed countries' GDP 2.6 times today's rather than 2.7 and developing countries' GDP 8.5 times today's rather than 9.5.

Lawson argues that we should drop the precautionary principle because it is wrong to take decisions on the basis of worst-case possibilities: probabilities, not possibilities, should be our guide.

He looks at the prospects of some specific disasters. He notes that Antarctic ice-sheets are growing, that the IPCC's 2007 report said that an `abrupt transition' of the Gulf Stream is `very unlikely' and that the World Meteorological Organization said of climate change's effects on hurricanes, "no firm conclusion can be made on this point."

The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme has increased profits for selected emitters and not cut emissions. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism has done no better. The EU promotes growing biofuels, yet the Chinese government has suspended the production of the biofuel ethanol because it has raised food prices.

The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said that meeting the EU's agreed target of 20% of energy from renewables by 2020 would raise our electricity costs by £18-22 billion a year.

In June 2007 Merkel and Blair tried to get the G8 to agree to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. The rest rejected the idea. Six months later, Britain and Germany lost again when they proposed a mandatory global emissions cut of 25-40% by 2020.

We could control the world's temperature by severely limiting carbon dioxide emissions through raising prices of carbon-based energy, to make non-carbon-based energy more competitive. But this would force our energy-intensive industries out to China and other countries. (Although China's, and India's, emissions per head are still far less than the West's.) 1990s Russia showed that the only way to meet the Kyoto targets is to destroy your industries.

Lawson argues for an across-the-board carbon tax, even if it forces our remaining energy-intensive industries abroad, and for ending subsidies to all carbon-based energy. Instead, we need to keep our industries, se we need new carbon-based power stations and new gas storage facilities, which the market has not provided and will not provide.




Deluded amateur challenges the science, 12 Aug 2008
Lawson flies in the face of scientific consensus with no solid basis for his position. An unhelpful book.

A real gem, 25 Apr 2008
This book is fascinating for any tree enthusiast.
It is the perfect tool you can use to identify different tree types.
The writing style is concise and in-depth.
A sheer masterpiece.
Picture quality is high definition. Images are portrayed in vivid detail.
This book is fantastic.
If you are even slightly interested in trees or want to expand your knowledge of trees buy this book.



A dream publication - Sheer quality, 10 Apr 2008
This publication just oozes quality from the high definition colour photography to the research and layout. I have several reference books relating to British trees and this one stands tall above all the others. The number of quality colour photographs is staggering.

If you are seeking a complete reference this book does exactly what it says on the cover, if I could have given it six stars I would have.

To bee or not to bee, is that really the question? , 24 Aug 2008
Alison Benjamin and Brian McCallum are two British reporters and amateur bee-keepers. Benjamin works for the British daily paper The Guardian. Their book "A world without bees" was published earlier this year, and deals with the mysterious mass deaths of honeybees all around the world, the so-called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). While some people belive that CCD doesn't really exist, for instance the current Wikipedia writer on the subject, others consider it a serious, global threat to bee-keeping. Benjamin and McCallum certainly belong to the latter camp, claiming that one third of US beehives and two-thirds of those in France have been wiped out by this mysterious condition. Most scientists seem to agree that CCD does exist, but so far no good explanation have been offered, at least none everyone agrees with. The two authors have interviewed researchers who blame pesticides, fungicides, the varroa mite, climate change, new viruses, or even mobile phones (that's a fringe position). Indeed, CCD could be a combination of several different factors. Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV for short) is a prime suspect, but correlation is not necessarily the same thing as causation. Perhaps something in the environment is causing bees to loose their resistance to killer viruses?

The authors own position isn't entirely clear-cut, but their favorite hypothesis seem to be loss of genetic diversity. Most honeybees around the world apparently belong to the same group of Mediterranean subspecies, and the same goes for feral honeybees. These have interbred with wild honeybees, creating a situation in which the honeybee gene pool is virtually the same the world over. When the varroa mite struck, and developed resistance to pesticides, millions of honeybees quickly succumbed - their gene pool was too narrow to develop defenses against the parasite. Benjamin and McCallum therefore strongly supports conservation efforts aimed at preserving local subspecies of wild honeybees. They mention a particular attempt in Denmark, and describe the conflicts this has created between different factions of bee-keepers (the local bees are less productive than the Mediterranean breeds).

The bee-keeping industry seems to take the opposite position from that of the authors: the industry wants to genetically engineer a resilient, resistant and high-productive superbee. The authors fear that this will narrow the gene pool even more. What happens if (or when) the superbee is challenged by an equally resilient superbug?

The book then describes the chilling effects of a world without honeybees. If you think only the honey would disappear, think again! Many important crops are dependent on honeybees for pollination, including alfalfa, apples, almonds, cotton, citrus, soya beans, onions, broccoli, carrots, sunflowers, melons, blueberries, cherries and pumpkins. A world without bees would be a world without fruit, vegetables, juice, health food (the soya) or clothes (the cotton). Alfalfa is used as cattle feed, so a world without bees would also be a world without meat! To drive home the point, the two authors have visited California, where the highly profitable almond orchards are pollinated by honeybees from all over the United States, driven there on enormous trucks. If the honeybees would be wiped out by CCD, an entire industry would be gone. Already today, food prices are going up, due to ethanol production and other factors. CCD doesn't exactly help...

One solution to the crisis mentioned in the book is to use other insects as pollinators, including solitary bees and bumblebees. There are several research projects to that effect in the US. Meanwhile, habitat change have driven bumblebees to near-extinction in some areas, and other insects live too far away from agricultural land to be of much use. Once again, the authors feel that a more environmental-friendly policy is the bottom line.

Is the author's alarmist perspective true? No idea. Until I picked up this book, mostly by chance, I never even heard of CCD. (Of course, I have heard of the varroa mite.) However, Alison Benjamin and Brian McCallum have written an easy-to-read introduction to the issue, after talking to both scientists, migratory bee-keepers, almond growers, and even conspiracy theorists. I recommend the book, and call on everyone to continue researching the topic.

Timely, persuasive and necessary, 25 Jul 2008
If climate change doesn't get you, the disappearance of the honeybee will - this is the rather gloomy message of Alison Benjamin and Brian McCallum's well researched and engagingly written new book on Colony Collapse Disorder - a honeybee `plague' which has already killed millions of bees worldwide. Some 90 commercial crops owe their continued existence to the pollination services provided free of charge by the honeybee so its fair to say that A World Without Bees is an important book. For it to succeed in its mission it has to put the fear of God into us without losing us to jargon. It does so admirably, taking us through the rather complicated but interesting world of honeybee health, politics and economics and delivering us to a conclusion which lays the blame firmly on our own shoulders. Time to start talking about bee rights? Could be.

Unique, valuable, objective; a fantastically GOOD book, 24 Jun 2008
I read this wonderful book in one very long sitting; I really could not stop once I started. Having grown up surrounded, in my immediate family, by the 1950's acute nature-awareness of the early Soil Association days of Bob Waller and Harold Horne et al, it was like deja vu to me.
The authors have been very disciplined in producing a really worthwhile book; it is almost perfectly objective, and therefore above cheap criticism. They have worked immensely hard to source a huge amount of sound material, and they have taken the trouble to understand it thoroughly before using it in their book. And the mystery at issue is no less than how terrifyingly detached from truth we are becoming, and how little we now understand our own misery and poverty of life in the midst of all our illusion of ease; how deprived of reality we have already become.
Read it! In the morning, the evening, on the train, in the bath, but read it. It is more real than most other stuff you will find on printed paper or glowing on a monitor any day of the year.

Transition Handbook, 08 Oct 2008
This book is way overdue. I have been eagerly searching for books addressing the preparation for post peak oil for many many years. Books like this should have been written years ago so I was delighted to see that at last practical guides are starting to appear on the book shelves.

I really enjoyed the first couple of chapters dealing with peak oil and its implications for society. Subsequent chapters I did not enjoy as much particularly when the Kinsale Energy Decent Action Plan is promoted as a role model for sustainable community development.

There is a huge wealth of expertise in the development community, particularly which which was developed from overseas aid agencies. They have developed approaches, standards, principles and a multitude of methodologies for developing communities, with limited or almost non existent resources, and where success or failure costs lives. This expertise has been ignored and attempts made to reinvent the wheel.

I think the focus of the book should have built on the expertise of organisations such as Oxfam, VSO, Save the Children, and Overseas Development Administration and focused on the structures, processes and outcomes, which would help develop community resilience and sustainability, with limited resources.

I have a worry that communities who attempt to use this handbook as the basis for their transition will make fantastic progress initially through the generation of enthusiasm but due to improper planning, a lack of monitoring and evaluation of effectiveness and imprecise goals and objectives, people will become disillusioned and drop out. There is a