Climate scientists Michael Mann and Lee Kump published the book Dire Predictions to make the IPCC's crucially important findings accessible to the layperson. For the most part, they succeed admirably. Mann and Kump did a remarkable job of simplifying complex ideas. But it still gets a little dense in places.

Despite a few bumps, in general I found the book to be an engaging read. The colorful graphics on nearly every page bring abstract concepts to life. The book also benefits from creative and catchy writing, on display in subsection titles such as "Earth, wind and fire" and "Is it time to sell that beach house?".

A Slow Start

If you're unfamiliar with the basics of climate change, the introduction can bring you up to speed. But if you're already familiar with the global warming "debate" and you know what causes the seasons to change, you may want to skim the intro and the beginning of Part 1 and dig in at around page 30.

The first 30 pages are dense in places, as well as less engaging. This section abbreviates some information that is presented more understandably later. For example, the graph on page 20 showing climate uncertainties lacks explanation, but there's a full explanation of the graph where it reappears in Part 2. Another example: the term "longwave radiation" is used on page 19 without prior definition. The glossary in the back of the book can help with unfamiliar terms.

Compelling and Balanced

Throughout the book, the authors' great wealth of knowledge and mastery of the subject clearly shine through. Dr. Mann was a lead author for a chapter of the IPCC's Third Assessment Report, and a reviewer of the most recent Fourth Assessment Report. He's also a co-founder of the highly respected climate blog RealClimate.org. Dr. Kump is the lead author of the preeminent textbook, The Earth System.

One of the strengths of Dire Predictions is its strong, to-the-point rebuttals of common misconceptions fueled by global warming skeptics. The authors expertly explain why the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO₂ is not natural, how today's warming is greater than and fundamentally different from that during the "Medieval Warm Period", why higher CO₂ levels are not beneficial for ecosystems, and why the excuses for inaction on global warming are wrong.

The book gives a balanced presentation of the issues, citing the pros and cons of global warming, and at times posing ethical questions for the reader to decide. In fact, sometimes I felt that the authors were a bit too cautious in drawing conclusions – for example, regarding scientists’ ability to predict climate change. Most assertions are backed up with evidence and explanations, and yet the writing remains concise and engaging.

I liked the sections on what individuals can do to stop global warming and how to calculate your carbon footprint. They make the issue more personal.

A Few Rough Edges

I noticed rough edges here and there. The discussion of energy in Part 5, for example, may be confusing to lay readers. The authors use the term "energy supply" to refer only to a particular kind of energy – electricity and heating – and not fuels used in industry and transport. Then they introduce another category of energy, "buildings", which I did not think was clearly distinguished from "energy supply". To confound things further, they categorize fuel cells in vehicles as "energy supply" rather than "transport".

And then there are some errors. The graph of emissions from different economic sectors on the bottom of page 159 is missing the N₂O emissions from agriculture for 2004. On pages 56-57, the authors initially define hurricanes as tropical cyclones that occur only in the Atlantic Ocean basin, but later mention "all of the major hurricane basins." The authors tell me that at least some of these errors will be corrected in the second printing.

But these problems are minor. Overall, Mann and Kump managed to pack a lot of information on the huge topic of climate change into a small amount of space, with engaging prose and illustrations throughout. If you'd like an understandable summary of the IPCC's findings, you'll appreciate Dire Predictions.

This post is by James Wang, Ph.D., a climate scientist at Environmental Defense Fund.

Hot, Flat, and Crowded, Friedman's latest book, explains how and why we must stop relying on "fuels from hell" (coal, oil, and gas) as our primary source of energy, and instead switch to "fuels from heaven" (wind, water, and solar). Without this shift, he argues, not only will we cook the planet, but wreck the economy and destroy our way of life. It is tough to quibble with Friedman's assessments.

Friedman weaves a multitude of fascinating stories and personal anecdotes from all over the world into one master narrative. The book is packed with apt and memorable analogies, similes, and metaphors. For example, he refers to population growth as "our carbon copies", loss of biodiversity as "the Age of Noah", and global warming as "global weirding".

I have long struggled with trying to explain the concept of "environmental externalities" in a way everyone can understand. Friedman explains these hidden costs by likening our energy use to a too-cheap-to-be-true, all-you-can-eat buffet:

A few people – like Al Gore – started to wander around out back into the kitchen, and what they saw there was not pretty. And then they came back to the front of the buffet line and told the rest of us: "Do you know what is going on out back? Do you know why this all-you-can-eat electron buffet costs only $5? It's because there are all sorts of costs being incurred that are not being passed on to us customers. They are being paid by someone else."

These costs were being paid by society at large or charged to our children's credit cards.

The storyline is clear: We're using 19^th century fuels to power a 20^th century economy. To survive, we must transform into a 21^st century economy powered by 21^st century fuels. We need to undergo an ET (Energy Technology) revolution akin to the IT revolution of the 1990s, but there are important differences. We need a Green New Deal to push the ET revolution forward.

The ET (vs. IT) Revolution

Friedman is absolutely right that the ET revolution will not happen the same way the IT revolution did. The internet grew into a void. Consumers paid $1000 for the first mobile phones because they were new and filled a need not met by phones bolted to the wall.

That isn't the case with new energy technologies. Americans – and the additional billion who live like Americans – already enjoy cheap power. Clean energy that costs more than energy from dirty coal cannot make a profit – thus Google.org's goal of "RE < C" (electricity produced from Renewable Energy cheaper than that from Coal).

Actually, Friedman says that what we need is "REEFIGDCPEERPC < TTCOBCOG" (a renewable energy ecosystem for innovating, generating, and deploying clean power, energy efficiency, resource productivity, and conservation cheaper than the true cost of burning coal, oil and gas). I said Friedman was a great storyteller, not a great abbreviator. But the acronym soup makes an important point: the solution won't be easy.

The ET revolution will require a regulatory framework that reflects the true cost of burning dirty fuels. It's on this point that the book is weakest. Friedman says that "at a minimum … we need … a price signal – a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade regime, or a national renewable energy mandate." We do need a price signal, but there are profound differences between these three approaches. EDF backs a nationwide cap-and-trade bill for good reason.

Despite this small lapse, Hot, Flat, and Crowded is worth reading for anyone interested in why "Al Gore owes us an apology," how China is like the bus maneuvered by Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock in Speed, what it will take for Iran's president to call for a "dialogue of civilizations," or why the Pulitzer Prize committee should award Friedman his fourth award.

This post is by Gernot Wagner, an economist in the Climate and Air program at Environmental Defense Fund.