From author Paul Gilding comes an unflinching look at the challenges we face as a global climate crisis approaches - and the unique opportunities this crisis presents for moving toward an ethic of sustainability.
©2011 Paul Gilding (P)2011 Tantor
"Though Gilding's prose is plain and his sustainability message is unapologetically advocative, he backs up his arguments with plenty of facts and avenues for [listeners] to pursue." (Library Journal)
Ok, done! Very convincing book. He's a really good writer. One of the things i thought he did really well is to use great metaphors to hammer home his points. For example, he is comparing The Great Disruption to WWII in that people in the US kept denying it was coming our way, but when it did finally come, we were able to mobilize in some unbelievably fast and powerful ways to win that war. He thinks we can do the same in this even bigger battle to save our planet. I hope he's right!
So far my prediction from below is WRONG. I guess I'm about 1/3 of the way through, and it is very well researched and pretty earth shattering, literally. Although it is repetitive and could be shorter, the author really does an excellent job of explaining his theory and supporting it in detail. This is not light weight social commentary! I'm not sure that it would have as much of an impact if it were written as bullet points. It is such a depressing theory that one really needs to be hit over the head with it repeatedly to jog one out of denial. Basically, we are in deep DOO DOO. He is trying to put a positive spin on it, but... well, I'm depressed by it :(
Prediction: I've read only the sample from Amazon so far. My guess is that the sample would have been enough and this is one of those books that should have been a pamphlet or an essay. Oh well; I need to at least check out the full version for my BOOK CLUB. It'll be like homework :( I'm not really looking forward to it.
Craig Vetter, Designer
Paul and I want the same things: More responsible use of our resources. But Paul seems to want us to be in compliance with standardized world laws. He never used the phrase New World Order, but it sure sounds like it to me.
I, on the other hand, would rather employ freedom and personal responsibility. After all, where would we go if we found standardized world laws oppressive?
It seemed that he said the same thing over and over. Maybe this is because I already understand the problems he is addressing. It could be cut way down, I think.
One last thing… The reader pronounces “nuclear” as “nuke - u - lar” which hurts credibility.
Report Inappropriate Content