Ian McEwan is brilliant on climate and Obama
Maxine Clarke
Wednesday, 19 November 2008 21:35 UTC
I am probably going over the top on this, but this piece by Ian McEwan in the Guardian is just the best article I have read for weeks, months, years, ever?
‘The world’s last chance. After years of living in fear of climate change, we are fast acquiring the weapons to defeat it. But the only one who can unite humanity for this life-or-death struggle is Barack Obama – and he must act now. By Ian McEwan.’
So why do I like this article on this well-worn topic? (Actually two well-worn topics, Obama and climate.)
*It offers a fresh, individual perspective.
*It has a point and a purpose, and at the same time, wide-ranging
*It is poetry but no woffle
*It is scientific
*It is confidently argued
*It is positive; sensible of the challenge, opinionated but resisting petty carping
*It is inspiring and thoughtful
Ian McEwan is my favourite living novelist. He’s written a brilliant piece on this occasion. I am blown away. How many other novelists could write so well about scientific concepts and topics, with such insight about a range of people, professions and issues?
Updated 19 November 2008 21:36 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Yes, quite brilliant! Clear and inspiring. Thanks, Maxine.
Given this energy summit comes early on in Barack Obama’s career maybe he will be less inclined to give into the politician’s worry of re-election and actually do something brave.
-
But the real reason for this enthusiasm is here:
“…look at his sturdy views on intelligent design in Nature magazine of September 25…”
No, just kidding, it was a good opinion piece. I liked the expression “these emanations of collective and collusive dreaming can have their positive side.” Could we be moving away from the allure of cynicism to the more homely appeal of optimism?
-
I liked this bit: ‘…the elevation of this slender, handsome man becomes the object of unreal expectation.’ Out of all the words in the piece it was that word ‘slender’ that struck me the most -the vulnerability of the planet symbolised by the vulnerability of the man.
-
Heather, naturally! But I did resist putting that in my list of “likes” ;-)
Clare, agreed, that adjective struck me, too. The piece is full of beautiful, economical turns of phrase and allusions. The waking/dreaming and the “lever” between thoughts and actions – a scientist would probably use the word “translate” there but the novelist’s perspective has come up with a slight shift in meaning which implies connection, translation and action, all in the one word.
I’m going to send it to my daughters’ school in the hope that they will read this piece for their critical thinking course.
-
Thanks for flagging that article Maxine – have printed for the commute home tonight.
-
As I noted at another spot on NN, as an energy professional I liked Mr. McEwan’s article very much. I was glad to see him mention the problems with carbon capture that often pass unnoticed.
I do have a quibble with one of his big science concepts, though (and my apologies to Maxine, who has already heard it.) He has made a mistake that’s not uncommon for someone who hasn’t tried to produce energy. (Unfortunately, that describes almost every commentator on the topic – in the US, at least.) This common mistake has a sizeable effect on public opinion and how they view solutions. But it won’t change whether the solutions will work or not.
Regarding our plentiful solar and wind energy: We may be able to get around the fact that it’s intermittent, but we can’t change how very, very diffuse it is. Think of a really big room warmed by a fireplace. It may take several hours to get the whole room heated up. Now, once that’s done, put out the fire – and then try to gather up and re-concentrate all the heat in the building back into the fireplace. That is a good parallel to what solar and wind power generation try to do. It’s a tough chore. Spreading energy out from a central source isn’t so hard – but gathering up energy that has been spread out is. And to do this for solar and wind in a magnitude anywhere close to what we generate now by traditional means is a truly mammoth task. (On the plus side, the energy itself is free and environmentally benign, and you can sweep up at least a little of it without too much trouble.)
The above is one reason why the cheapest and safest energy is that which we don’t use. Conservation should always be the top energy priority.
That being said, a beautifully written article and I’m glad Maxine is bringing it to reader’s attention.
-
Maxine, All I can say is, Wow. This ranks with the very best I have ever read. Many years ago I read a collection entitled Great Essays in Science, which I can unreservedly recommend to anyone who can find a copy.
I must, however, respectfully disagree with McEwan on why we are in a financial crisis. It is not because “we always thought we would” be. It is because of a blind adherence to a failed ‘ideology’ even in the face of recalcitrant evidence. We did make it so, but not for the reasons McEwan says.
There is a related problem linked to CO2 emission that is almost completely overlooked except by some paleontologists, trapped methane. It is currently kept in a semi-viscous state by pressure and temperature. If ocean temperatures rise sufficiently (‘tipping point’ unknown), this methane will seep into the oceans and, within 10 years after that, into the atmosphere. The accounts I have read imply that our current predicament will be a picnic in comparison. My understanding is that the oil companies are aware of this problem but have yet to do anything at all. I wonder if James has any views on this.
larry
-
Larry,
I’m afraid I can’t offer any further perspective on the methane issue – like you, I know what I read in the popular science articles. I recall reading of several different feedback loops if overall temperature increases sufficiently, from ocean methane to quicker jungle forest decomposition to releases from soggy permafrost.
Jim Aach
-
I wonder why we can’t tap into the permafrost reservoir of methane – is it too diffuse, like the wind and solar power?
-
Yes, that would be methane produced due to decay, which would be small amounts at any one time mixed thinly with air, and spread over an enormously huge area. They do extract methane from some landfills, where it is more densely produced – usually just enough to make it cost effective, and not enough to power much. Cattle burps and farts are also a major methane source (really). Of course, methane is a fossil fuel, so burning it releases CO2.
Results
-
