Reviews for A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy

The average rating for A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-South Politics, and Climate Policy based on 2 reviews is 4 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2009-08-13 00:00:00 Nicholas Edlefsen I actually really like this book, but only to chapter 5 and the beginning of chapter 6; afterward, I'm completely lost (i think because there are too many political issues that i don't really interested in). This book is describing the injustice that happens in the area of climate change. I suddenly realize that this book is an eye opening, especially for me who only knew that the injustice happens, simply because there are developed countries, developing countries and least developed countries. But this book unfolds more facts than what I was saying above. I like the use of language too, though I finally gave up in chapter 7. But I think its language is quite simple that lots of people would understand. For me, this book is more than a non-fiction book, it is more like a diary of a politician that consists ideas, opinions and stuffs; it's really a nice one. That's why, I kind of liking it. But, to be honest, I'm not recommending this book to the beginners in climate change. But someone who has an intermediate level of climate change knowledge, this book is interesting indeed. ime'...

Review # 2 was written on 2019-12-01 00:00:00 Jimmy Bronson This was a lecture that Russell wrote during the first world war, and thus, contained vital tokens of his political thought along with romantic language he used to encourage. I chose to read this because I am endlessly interested in Russell's critique of BOTH ideologies of conservatism and socialism. In these pages, one can find Russell's explicit denunciation of capitalism and the wage system (as he calls for it to be abolished) as well as his complete disregard for any form social organization resembling anarchy. He makes sweeping phycological observations about human nature (narrowing our desires down as humans to either Possessive vs. Creative) as well as unsubstantiated sociological observations about human interactions. Russell also does not find time to punctuate which institutions he feels are necessary or which aren't which could contribute effectively to his argument. As a statist and a liberal, Russell does little to add to contemporary thought regarding social democracy or welfare state promotion and instead perpetuates thinking along the lines of John Locke and Wilhelm Von Humboldt. The only difference, and its the reason why I love to read anything Russell wrote, is that he uses such beautiful, hopeful language for his visions of a future society. In short but poignant sections, he always finds conclusive sentences to mark this eloquent departure: "There can be no final goal for human institutions; the best are those that most encourage progress toward others still better. Without effort and change, human life cannot remain good. It is not a finished Utopia that we ought to desire, but a world where imagination and hope are alive and active" (17).