The best books on climate change and powering the planet in the 21st century

The numbers in physics have always fascinated me. Many think of physics as full of impenetrable equations. Some, like E=mc squared and F=ma, are associated with famous names, Einstein and Newton. But on their own, equations don’t tell us what’s happening. Numbers breathe life into equations, giving meaning to the symbols. In Rees’s beautiful book, he identifies six numbers that have led to the universe around us and to the extraordinary complexity of the world we live in. 

And they are just numbers, like 3 or 0.007. Only six numbers? So few seem astonishing. Modern physics and cosmology do identify others. But in all cases, the conclusion is that you can’t change them, not even a little, and still end up with a universe and world like ours. 

Numbers really matter if you are trying to understand how complex societies organize themselves. We would think very differently (or not at all!) if the planet's population was seven million, not seven billion. 

I really appreciate how Smil takes the big picture and then breaks it down into manageable bites with all-important numbers: where do we get our energy, where do we get our food, and what are the critical materials we need? That last topic may surprise you. He comes up with four: ammonia, cement, steel, and plastics. And ammonia tops the list for its impact on food production. Nobody loves the other three, especially not plastics. But if you want to promote an alternative lifestyle for everyone on the planet, put in the numbers. Can it work at the scale needed?  

Putting in the numbers is what Gates does in his book. Climate change is real, no question. How to address it is where the controversy comes in. I really like that from the outset, Gates proposes five questions to consider whenever climate change is discussed: what fraction of the annual carbon dioxide emission are you removing? What’s your plan for cement? How much electrical power will be needed, what’s the cost, and how much space will it take up? 

But he’s optimistic that zero emissions can be reached. He argues there are many options to explore, including nuclear, and says, contrary to much of the news reporting, don’t focus on 2030; focus instead on 2050 to give the best solutions time to emerge.

I can’t say I love this book since I don’t agree with his premise: wind, water, and solar can do it all. But to be fair, he’s right that cleaning up the air by removing coal plants would be a boon to global health everywhere. 

He makes an appealing case. But his vision of the future founders for me on the intermittency issue of his power sources, particularly wind and solar. How will they scale to match the needs? Where is the battery technology to support the downtime? What are the environmental impacts? How will the power get from producer to user? He is opposed to nuclear power and yet it is the closest thing to a plug-to-plug replacement for the coal fired plants we all agree should be phased out.

This book, written for lay readers, was originally published in France, which generates 40% of its electricity from nuclear power. It is a deep dive into electricity generation (megawatts) and nuclear weapons (megatons). The book my colleague and I wrote is, in a sense, an update emphasizing the developments of the last decade in fail-safe reactors.  In these so-called small modular reactors, safety is controlled by laws of physics (gravity drives convection, driving cooling that never turns off), and construction techniques go beyond expensive one-of-a-kind reactors to the cost-controlled modular construction technologies pioneered in aerospace industries and the like. 

Megawatts and Megatons are tough and, at times, uncomfortable topics to consider. However, democratic societies need informed citizens to function effectively. We should make up our own minds about issues. We cannot leave it to a few specialists or loud voices to tell us what to think.