Do we need a Ministry for the Future?

No political body represents the interests of the unborn against the damage done in the here and now. What id there was? Ministry for the future is the name of the book I'm reading by KIm Stanly Robinson, set in a near future in which the climate crisis is taken seriously.

[b][i]It was getting hotter...[/i][/b]

The novel starts with a genocidal heatwave that kills tens of millions. This is scarily prescient given the flood crisis in neighbouring Pakistan. The reader doesn't just get statistics, but excruciating detail about burning skin and bodies floating in lakes. After this event, the world leaders are morally forced to form the Ministry to tackle climate change, funding it lavishly (though never lavishly enough because the resources lost by the climate crisis dwarf anything else)

The book goes heavily into the science of climate change and also solutions, such as crazy plans to thicken the polar ice caps, putting sulphur in the sky to temporarily cool the planet etc. At least a third of the book is non-fiction but this is necessary. It also deals with politics, in that having our economies based on permanent growth in a world with finite resources is self-destructive. Those on the side of the climate have to fight against corporate sabotage. Eco-terrorism is rife, with CEOs of energy companies on the hit list.

I won't spoil it but my favourite scene so far features a fractious debate between a terrorist and a well-meaning politician. When the crazed terrorist claims that working within the law will lead to species destruction, the minister cannot come up with a convincing answer to refute him.

I'm still reading it but it's highly recommended.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Philth · 46-50, M

Interesting. In my locality a new bridge is being built over a river. The road to the existing bridge which is Listed, becomes submerged under flood water a couple of times a year. So the new bridge includes a new bit of road, built on piers across the floodplain. There's a VAST amount of concrete and steel involved, as well as that heavy construction machinery has been burning through vast amounts of fuel every day for the last 18months.

Firstly, I ask, how much hassle is it that that road is shut for a couple of days each year? There are ways around. Does the huge cost of natural resources justify the win?

But secondly, the same outcome (reduced travel disruption) could be achieved with much lower drain on resources simply by widening / replacing the existing bridge whilst building up in height it's access road, with suitable culverts beneath. Of course, that bridge is listed which is why that's a no. However the alternative is vastly more expensive and has a much greater impact upon dwindling resources, also consider carbon cost of new steel, concrete, etc. So my question is, at what point do we bring into question, the current policy of protecting our built heritage, over and above the importance of protecting our natural resources?

Because right now the new bridge, which is a solution to a problem that's in itself caused by climate change and all the issues of land management which contribute to flash floods, is in turn, creating MORE climate change.