Rating: 
Summary: Hardly green
Review: I have read a number of books of the enviro-bashing kind, and I must say this is the most depressing of all. Not only does Huber cleberate not doing very much (the market will save us from ourselves), he also promotes not knowing very much. In addition to the lack of documentation, the only "Hard Green" he can come up with is Theodore Rosevelt, a progressive (not a conservative) who can no longer protest.It is also, sad to say, not very funny (in spite of the remarks of some reviewers). Real satire requires an intimate knowledge of the subject matter, and Huber seems to be making stuff up as he goes along.
Rating: 
Summary: Possibly the funniest book ever written
Review: He is arguably the dryest of the dry. You can't possibly take this book seriously. If you have a few extra bucks to waste, go buy a tank of gas, but don't bother with this book. Better yet borrow it from a friend, but don't give it to anyone else. This is the only Hard cover book I ever expected to throw away in the trash. It would be criminal for me to tell you what is in the book. What a wonderful author no less. My hats off to you Pete for getting something like this published ! P.S. Your obsession with Gore could come back to haunt you when he gets elected. In fact, what you put in your book will probably be the reason he gets elected. Can I have my 50 bucks back ? (sorry Pete, inflation)
Rating: 
Summary: Why We Disagree About Hard Green
Review: I'm not surprised that the reviewers appearing in Amazon.com disagree profoundly on the whether this is a "good" book. I've read "Hard Green" closely several times, discussed my likes and dislikes with its author, and have written three published reviews, and I'm still torn over whether I like or dislike this book. Huber is simply magnificent at debunking the myths of radical environmentalism. If you are a "true believer" or a fan of Brown, Carson, Capra, Colburn, etc. etc. this book is a must read. It will challenge you to go beyond the fundraising letters and newsletters that often constitute "research" for most environmentalists. Huber's achievement, though, is compromised by two things. The first is noted by several other reviewers: a writing style that is often "flippant" and "strident," and the absence of source citations or other evidence of careful research and fact checking. Most of us would have preferred more footnotes and a more nuanced writing style. The second shortcoming, not mentioned yet by other reviewers, is Huber's unexplained dismissal of free-market environmentalism (FME), an important new movement inside the environmental movement that calls for greater attention to sound science and market-based, rather than government-based, solutions to environmental problems. Huber doesn't mention a single scholar who has been active in this field -- Terry Anderson, Richard Stroup, Jane Shaw, Fred Smith, Bruce Yandle, etc. Worse, he makes sweeping concessions to anti-market environmentalists on issues such as public goods that reflect little awareness of the current state of the debate. And while he is careful to avoid explicitly advocating public ownership of open space and wilderness areas on a massive scale, many readers will come away from this book believing that is part of his agenda. For advocates of a new kind of environmentalism based on sound science and private, voluntary action, Huber's book is both a blessing and a curse. Recognizing its limits, I still urge everyone to read it and make up their own minds.
Rating: 
Summary: Non-consequentialists can enjoy this book too
Review: While Hubeer approaches environmentalism from the consequentialist, "economic man," viewpoint, his criticisms work also for those who consider it morally wrong, not just counter-productive, to entrust environmental policy to government. The tragedy of the commons is what afflicts the environmentalists' way of trying to manage the wilds. This just runs the very high risk of creating a Hobbesian war of all against all in securing government favors for any cause, including the cause of being prudent with natural resources. And Huber shows how incredibly imprudent government policy can be and often is, favoring in recent years those citizens who have a special interest in outdoor health clubs but are unwilling to bear the full cost of realizing their goals. Instead they dump the cost of maintaining their spheres of activity on others who may have other objectives they would wish their life and labors to support. Ergo, just as the tragedy of the commons thesis would allow us to expect, costs are running wild but are born by all, not those whose wish is being fulfilled (for the time being). Huber is right that only if individuals have specific realms of jurisdiction -- defined as private property rights -- will they take rational care of resources, including the wilds.
Rating:
Summary: A Modest Proposal
Review: This book is the most hilarious satire of the conservative groupthink that I have ever read. Huber subtly lampoons the far right and their loony, laughable ideas about the value of the environment to the human race. He slowly and with genius brings various strands of the Republican standard line together to their laughable conclusion. Brilliant, funny!
Rating:
Summary: Hard Green lacking hard science
Review: Peter Huber treats the environment like some sort of political beachball to be tossed around on a whim. His "conservative manifesto" is an ignorant and (very)un-scientific approach to the environment, to the point of sheer flippancy. I think he may be playing a sick joke on us, actually. Believe it or not, there are things in life more important than economics and politics, but you won't find them in this book. You won't find any real science, either. If you want one-sided, myopic opinion then Huber's your man. If you want the truth as to what's really going on in the world, look elsewhere. 'nuff said.
Rating: 
Summary: This is what - Sci-Fi, right?
Review: Hard Green is decent as a sci-fi, but the plot just doesn't come together. As a political manifesto it does a little better (no plot needed), but as a lawyer-engineer's attempt to wrestle with the issues facing long-term environmental and human health (that'd be our great-grandkids) it's a fair bit of quackery. The book tends to dissect and analyze various aspects of the earth and how we should use it individually, rather than looking at the earth, and life (including us), as a system. By doing this Peter can develop a case for, say, fossil fuels as the most energy/cost efficient without looking at cost in other aspects of the earth, like the costs of human lung cancer or the costs of acid rain (which are related, by the way). The book also tends to be a little patchy in the evidence section. Huber presents evidence to support his case but shys away from the other side of the coin. Hence, the lawyer fails to be scientific and unbiased. As far as the engineer side, Peter seems infatuated with technology to the point of it being a "holy grail" for humanity. A major flaw here is that as we learn more about the earth and life and how it all works, we're finding out some pretty amazing things, including new and better ways of doing things, all we have to do is notice. Heard of velcro? Invented by a guy who looked at the burrs in his socks under a microscope. That's just one example. So why waste energy on developng uber-technology when it's already been developed? Agriculture is a prime example. Hard Green favors intensive industrial agriculture which relies on huge (I mean HUGE) amounts of petrochemical fertilizers and poisons, only a fraction of which reach their intended targets. The rest is carried off by irrigation or blown in to the air. I'm about 70% water and am addicted to air myself, how 'bout you? Children have dropped dead from direct contact with some of these chemicals. On top of that, those poisons work on the pests for a little while until a few who are resistant produce offspring (bugs can do this pretty quickly), and a new, stronger poison needs to be used. The same thing is happening with antibiotics. We're not killing the pests - we're giving them strength training. We are breeding invincible pests. Thanks, O holy grail of technology. I don't recall Hard Green reckoning with those costs. There are less technological ways which only require taking a good look at what already works or doesn't work in the natural world and mimicking it (read Biomimicry by Janine Benyus - fascinating). Overall, Hard Green presents a poor scientific case and falls short of some topics ripe for confrontation. The individual arguements may appear to have some merit in isolation, but when applied to big picture produce a rather patchy net for saving the world. Ha! Mr. Huber claims to be saving the environment from the environmentalists - who'se gonna save it from the lawyer? If you want more info, check out the Manhattan Institute website for some articles written by Mr. Huber and some info about him.
Rating:
Summary: Not Correct
Review: Mr. Huber has many flaws in this book, the first one is about his so called hero Teddy. He was not a conservative Republican, he was a populist progressive. He believed in helping the simple man, that is why him and Taft were know as trust-busters. Also, conservation for American forest were conserved not just to keep them in the same state for other generations, but Teddy followed a philosophy of utilitarian environmentalism. This is where he believed that forest and wilderness should be conserved for future use. He believed that the future should have a chance to exploit the resources he left behind. This is why you have the Parks and Wildlife Department working hand in hand with timber companies, not against.
Rating:
Summary: give me a break
Review: Look, this is a smart guy, and he has caught environmentalists in some terrific contradictions. But he's also a teensy bit facile in jumping to his conclusions. He glibly dismisses the idea that storing radioactive waste is a problem-- it clearly is, and there is a connection to be made between a need for nuclear power and the appetite for huge SUV's. Why can't efficiency, and husbanding of resources, be counted? He doesn't really provide much comfort to conservatives-- he wants to protect old-growth forests, he feels the majesty of the rain forest, he loves wetlands, and he wants the oceans kept clean. Really, at the end of the day, Huber's got no real constituency left-- he's alienated the whole spectrum. I hope he fools a lot of conservatives into spending their money on this book, because they could definitely learn something.
Rating:
Summary: CONCERNED FOR THE ENVIRONMENT? HARD GREEN IS A MUST READ!
Review: PETER HUBER'S HARD GREEN DESTROYS THE MYTHS THAT TENUOUSLY SUPPORT GOVERNMENTS'PAST AND PRESENT MISDIRECTED EFFORTS TO "SAVE" THE ENVIRONMENT. AS HE DESTROYS EACH MYTH HE PROVIDES LOGICALLY POWERFUL AND CLEARLY WORKABLE ALTERNATIVES THAT RELY UPON MARKET FORCES RATHER THAN CENTRAL PLANNING. A READ OF HARD GREEN LEAVES YOU WITH GENIUNE HOPE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND MANKIND. THANK YOU PETER HUBER!
|
