Oil and Honey- Final Impressions

I know I'm in minority here but I didn't care for this book. The style of writing didn't do it for me. There was too much detail about things I didn't care about. I still feel like the connection between the oil and the honey was weak. I get that he was trying to show a lifestyle different from the typical capitalist lifestyle that most people live, and the growing need for small farmers, but this connection didn't permeate the whole story. Furthermore, the whole description of McKibben going on tour didn't interest me. I did not need all the details about life on the road and all the sellout venues he attended. Also I didn't understand the importance of talking about the local fair in Vermont, even though he did mention the failure of show crops/animals that year. I think these details detracted from the message of climate change.

Overall, I think this book was too much about Bill McKibben as a person and his journey as an advocate and less about the issue of climate change. Whereas the other books focused on an issue and included personal relationships to the issue, this book focused just on the personal relationship. I think this might be a contributing factor as to why I didn't enjoy the book as much.

I did like the shift in focus from the pipeline to fighting the fossil fuel industries. This seemed to be a much more important battle to overcoming climate change. Although fighting the Keystone pipeline is important, stopping one pipeline will not drastically alter the fate of the planet. Bringing the fight to the companies I think is a more effective use of time and resources. The fact that they are planning on burning 5 times the amount that the world has set as a limit is a problem and I think educating the public on this issue as McKibben has done in his lecture series. I like the idea of reframing the fossil fuel industries as radical and not having the best interests of the people. However, I do not think this message has reached all the people it needs to. This striking fact is something that can be used to sway people. Is this a risk people are willing to take, even if they do not understand all the science behind climate change?

I was also wondering what people thought about the ice sculpture that was pulled. I was having trouble seeing why it was offensive. I guess it was extravagant and the money could be used elsewhere, but it would have make a strong point. I did appreciate though that McKibben pulled the plug in order to not alienate any of his supporters, but I do agree that it might have been a missed opportunity. Is there anything like this that we could do that would make a point without being too extravagant?