Where to begin with this compact, neat little trilogy? These three books are strange because I both liked and disliked them all the same time, which isn't unusual for me, but in this case it can be put down to a simple divide: I like Kim Stanley Robinson's writing, science and technology. In this particular trilogy however, I don't like his politics. We can go round and round on what's wrong with me and when did I become such a good little capitalist Brownshirt for ages, but the fact of the matter is that this reads like 'An Inconvinient Truth' cast in fiction and makes no bones about discussing that most irritating of issues, global warming- or as the new memo says it's to now be called: global climate disruption.
What's even more problematic about this curious divide is that one of the underlying themes Robinson plays with over the course of the trilogy is the relationship between science and politics itself- so where do we begin? I would say I have to unpack the whole global warming issue myself, but that could take too long- instead, let's talk about Kim Stanley Robinson, because despite having more than a few issues with his politics in this trilogy, his writing still rocks my face clean off. Robinson is one of those incredibly talented science fiction writers that we need more of, matching- to me anyway, only Ken Macleod and probably Neil Stephenson for the sheer audacity and complexity of some of the ideas he has played with, both in this trilogy and his masterpiece of masterpieces- the Mars Trilogy, (Red, Green and Blue Mars respectively- appointment reading for anyone and everyone who wants to colonize Mars or is just a space nut in general.) Robinson plays more with hard science than technology than speculative fiction or technology which is what makes a lot of his books so damn good. The technology and the future he describes is fundamentally believable and you can see it in your mind's eye with ease. There's no aliens or robots or weird quantam transportation. Robinson is extremely good and extrapolating where technology might go and weaving it into his narratives.
This trilogy is no exception to that rule: whether the characters (stalwart champions of science who work at the National Science Foundation) are re-salinizing the stalled out Gulf Stream to get it re-started again or discussing possibly shifting salt water to the dry basins of the world to ameliorate the effects of sea level rise- or even, more fascinatingly talking about a rapid transformation of China's economy and energy industry (courtesy of the US Navy, who deploys en masse to China, plugs into their grid and runs the country's power off of their extremely efficient and safe nuclear reactors. I really hope Robinson wasn't speculating when he mentioned that the US Navy has the ability to do this in real life, because if so: very cool.) All these technological challenges that are thrown in the face of global warming I found to be fundamentally believable and could actually be deployed in the event of a climate crisis. (As a bonus: when it comes to developing energy alternatives, in these books Robinson rightfully pegs nuclear as a holdover to develop better solar energy. No wind, no ethanol, no pie-in-the-sky fusion generators, nope, nope, nope- Robinson says solar all the way.)
As for the story itself: well, it follows some hardy scientists who work at the National Science Foundation in D.C.-- one of them is married to a high-flying stay-at-home Dad/Senatorial Advisor, so we see an obvious connection between science and politics and what they do when faced with a sudden and genuine climate crisis. (Washington D.C. gets flooded, everything freezes- the Gulf Stream almost stalls out which would be very, very bad indeed.) Floating in and out of the story are some Buddhist monks from the made-up microstate of Khembalung, which actually drowns due to sea level rise at the end of the second book, I believe. (A fascination with Buddhism seems to float in and out of a lot of Robinson's writing, and the Buddhist monks play an important role in these novels by underlying the spiritual (and obvious) connection humanity has with the world around it- further underlined by one of the character's increasing fascinating with 19th Century American thinkers Emerson and Thoreau. To make a long summary short: there's nefarious deeds afoot, there's a climate crisis afoot and the high-flying state-at-home Dad/Senatorial Advisor's Senator decides to run for President and wins, thus setting out to save the world from itself and fix the climate crisis.
In the end, of course, everyone- including dear old Mother Earth lives happily ever after, more or less. But the technology and the strategy for fighting this fictional climate crisis aside, it's Robinson's 'wouldn't it be nice' politics that bothered me the most. Some kind of pro-environmental New Deal with an amazing First Hundred Days a la FDR from the Fictional Wonder Senator Turned President would not save the day, because they probably would get laughed out of the room, if we're being honest. The real trick, at least for the current American political system is going to be to make green energy profitable and more importantly, lucrative for business. If there's a President who can do that, then we would be cooking with gas, because at that point, the general greed (which yes, ignores that collective responsibility we all share for the planet) of the corporate world will take over and go bananas for you To me, the government creating the right conditions for business to make a massive investment in green energy and technology would pay off more than the wrangling that would be sure to occur if the government starts trying to lead from the front on this issue. People would lose their damn minds. OK, so back in the day, the government lead from the front and, thanks to World War II managed to solve the Depression. But that was then and we're all a lot more cynical and jaded now. A New New Deal, even a kind of green one? Never going to happen. Not in a million years.
I'm not even going to waste my breath arguing about whether or not global warming is real. I've been waiting for science to give me a straight answer on that for years now and it still hasn't and it never will. There's no such thing as a straight answer in science and if there was one on this issue, it'd be fundamentally unscientific in many ways- at least from my limited understanding of the scientific method and the like. Whether you believe in global warming, cooling or that it's some kind of socialist conspiracy, we can all get behind the following facts, I hope: first- fossil fuels are finite. They will run out someday. What are we going to do then? Second and perhaps most importantly of all, the basic idea that we have one planet (so far) and we should take care of it should be another idea we can all get behind. You can't make a buck if there's nothing left of the planet but a ravaged. scarred up lump of rock. If saving the planet for everyone isn't something you can get behind, then surely saving the planet for the forces of capitalism is.
But overall: this is Kim Stanley Robinson! The writing kicks ass, the story is fascinating and if Robinson wants to make people think about something, he certainly succeeds with that. I think I'll always like the Mars Trilogy more than this one, but I have to give mad-props to a writer who is as consistently thought-provoking as Mr. Robinson is. Good stuff and well worth a read. (If global warming is your thing- also try 'Earth' by David Brin.)
No comments:
Post a Comment