Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis [Paperback]

First, do not be confused, this is not a book dealing with the science or the GW controversy like the An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It (AIT), of which back then I wrote a critical book review here at Amazon because of Gore's exaggerations and some flagrant inaccuracies. Our Choice is a well-research and comprehensive treatise written for the general public (there is even a children version - Our Choice: How We Can Solve the Climate Crisis (Young Reader Edition)) This time Gore did his homework very thoroughly, and all possible options regarding low-carbon fuels and energy are examined, to a level of detail only found in more technical books. Also, and for the benefit of the layman, for each of the options he briefly explains how energy production works. The chapters on natural resources, deforestation, and population are quite good.

What most impressed me is the fact that Gore does not pick any winners beforehand, as many environmentalist groups love to do; instead he presents the whole menu of options, even the potential of nuclear energy is discussed, and surprisingly, also bioethanol, as both of these options are rejected by many environmentalist advocates. He even goes into the details explaining why Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is sustainable and a low-carbon fuel as compared to American corn ethanol, though his favorites are second and third generation biofuels. He also presents quite a fair discussion of the food vs fuel debate. Gore recognizes the importance of clean low-carbon fuels and electricity in order for the new electric and hybrid plug-in vehicles to actually contribute in reducing greenhouse gases. It also called my attention that right from the beginning Gore now relates the urgent need for low-carbon energy not only to climate change but also for national security and energy independence reasons.

Despite a more technical and moderate approach, every time Gore talks about climate change he insists on remind us about the "scientific consensus" and the "fact" that the debate is over. I find this repeatedly preaching really annoying because it feels like scientism, in the omnipotence sense. In the first place, avoiding such unnecessary repetition could have helped the book to be attractive also to the "non believers" but concerned with energy independence and national security. Moreover, he seems to be trying to convince the reader that these assertions are an absolute truth not to be questioned, reflecting his blind faith on scientists, particularly climate scientists. However, free inquiry and lack of dogmatism are among the key features of any scientific enterprise, so his implicit assumption that scientists are infallible is completely out of place. And please, climate science has not the predictive accuracy of Newtonian physics, and particularly climate simulation models are not as precise nor reliable as he thinks, e.g. see the recently published SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance which has a controversial and politically incorrect chapter discussing the limitations of climate change predictions and proposes a more cost-effective solution. For a more in-depth analysis read Simulating Nature: A Philosophical Study of Computer-Simulation Uncertainties and Their Role in Climate Science and. For a concise take on this issue see The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, Chapter 8 presents criticism by renowned physicists Freeman Dyson and Antonino Zichichi, questioning the confidence and validity of climate simulation forecasts, particularly regarding the use of parametrization or "fudge factors". Also look for Hendrik Tennekes arguments regarding the lack of falsifiability from Popper's philosophical point of view.

Furthermore, though the financial and economic feasibility of the low-carbon energy options are discussed, and Gore's recognizes that particularly solar and wind have some way to go before becoming competitive, his view tends to be more romantic rather than strictly economical, as implementation of most of these technologies in the short term will require government subsidies and energy prices charge to consumers unavoidably will be higher, both in the developed and developing countries. He seems to downplay this fact and instead he just highlights the green jobs that will be created, and what about the ones lost from dirty industries? The cost/jobs issue is not that simple.

Though this time the book avoids the sentimental touch (as he did in AIT), he couldn't help it, as the book closes with a romantic view of the problem, describing Gore's wishful thinking and dreamed solutions being implemented, beginning with the Obama administration change of policies regarding climate change, and closing with several warm religious thoughts. Finally, though exaggeration was also avoided in this book, I could not avoid noticing the lack of realism of the Earth images in the front cover, showing a green Earth as it is today compared to a devastated Earth where climate change wrecked havoc. This artist's rendering includes four or more hurricanes twisting around North America, and a good part of the southern tip of Central America submerged. Never mind that several of the submerged Central American countries have mountain ranges with heights between 1000 to 3000 meters!

PS: For those who think I was harsh regarding Gore insistence on scientific truths and scientific consensus, please take the time to read Judy Curry's comment posted on the website Climate Audit regarding the hacked e-mails from Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. This a short and brilliant piece on how the mainstream climate science should be conducted, with transparency! Read also the two pieces in the Dec 4th edition of The Economist: politics and science make uncomfortable bedfellows!

Reading this on the Ipad is a treat. The movies and images pop out, the text is easy to digest, even for children 7+, and it lays out the global warming problem and how we can fix it. The technology of the Ipad version is amazing, and it reminds me of what happened to Sony's fortunes when certain programmers in Korea and California starting exploiting the hidden power of the PlayStation 2. The book is a game changer. No trees need to be cut down for an electronic book, so in a way the product itself is a window into the future. All kinds of movies and graphic novels could be presented in this way.

Although the mainstream media does not seem to see the issue, and politicians are stuck in the past, global warming is real and we have to act now. Al Gore shows us how we might at least begin. In the internet world, anyone who follows podcasts or TED talks knows that global warming is a key issue for thousands of businesses and scientists all over the world. I feel better about switching lights off and recycling now that I know that the effort is truly global, even though it remains under the mainstream radar, which obsesses about celebrity, royals and political remarks.

One can only take one's hat off to Mr Gore, who has campaigned tirelessly to change people's minds. What is key here is that humans can't compute the fact that what we do from good motives - mine for oil, heat our homes, feed ourselves and pick the kids up from school in a car - is leading us to a global disaster. Nevertheless, it is. Let's hope this fabulous book influences people as individuals to reduce their energy use, and think more clearly about the issue before humanity.

For all the controversy about climate change or energy independence, this book makes me wonder how much progress could be made if we stopped debating the problem and used the same time and effort solving it. Even if you think these are "small" problems, this book shows just how many options we have, right now, with small or large costs. Small costs could be as simple as fixing some leaky windows or conserving a bit of energy, which will save any household money. The book also describes larger and more expensive efforts, such as wind turbines, solar, and other technologies that already exist. But, Gore makes a convincing case that cheaper energy resources now could be more expensive in the future. For example, if we use more cheap coal and populated coastlines face higher sea-levels, then today's cheap energy becomes tomorrow's expensive problem. Gore does clarify that the entire process of addressing global warming will be challenging, but like any changes in life, we can start with the easy stuff and take on more challenging items next.

The analogy to cigarette smoking makes a lot of sense. It took decades for people to believe that smoking kills, largely because many scientists said smoking didn't affect health. Many people criticized advocates of anti-smoking campaigns, just like many criticize Gore now. It's worth mentioning that many people still smoke, still ignore the overwhelming body of research showing that smoking kills. Gore summarizes the overwhelming body of research (with specific citations) showing the existence of human-made global warming. He also makes a convincing case for starting to solve the problem with existing, low-cost options, and moving on to more ambitious options. It's refreshing to see the problem of global warming or energy independence described so clearly along with many possible solutions.