The Future We Choose: 'Everyone should read this book' MATT HAIG

Product Information

A recource indicates both options fit the situation. But why? It seems either prediction on the basis of experience Or simply an instant decision. So why to use be going to? The authors recommend three mindsets to propel us to what we need to do to transform the planet: stubborn optimism, endless abundance, and radical regeneration. One thing that bothers me about many climate change proponents is their rosy, optimistic views about how easy this is all going to be. The oil, gas, and coal economy is what got us where we are, and the thought that they will just roll over while everything changes is hard to believe. There are so many moving parts to this problem, it's hard to see how we get it all done in just 30 years. But the authors insist on optimism and a mindset that avoids zero-sum games where the loss of oil money isn't replaced by something better. I have some confusion over the use of the term 'later' to talk about the future. For example, can I say "I will take the exam 6 months later" to refer to the future? Does it instead refer to the past?

The Future We Choose a guidebook for climate activism and active participation. It also functions, in a way, as a kind of climate self-help book for the many who feel crushed under the ‘fatal knowledge’ of everything to come. In this way, their book fills a large but closing gap in the climate narrative, where hopelessness and incapacitating nihilism have the monopoly. Yet it is to the authors’ credit that the story of optimism and hope that they tell is not a whitewashed or reductive one. The book does not turn a blind eye to the true, horrifying depths of the crisis. They instead show that a gritty, grounded optimism is always available to us, even as we look at the crisis dead-on. This could be the most important wake-up call of our times.”—Professor Klaus Schwab, CEO World Economic Forum The Paris Agreement was a landmark for humankind. In this timely and important book, two of the principal creators of that agreement show us why and how we can now realize its promise. I hope it is widely read and acted on.”—Jane Goodall, author of In the Shadow of Man It is 2050. Beyond the emissions reductions registered in 2015, no further efforts were made to control emissions. We are heading for a world that will be more than 3C warmer by 2100 ok I'm in a weird headspace for this one because I read the first half weeks ago when I was feeling all-too-sanguine coronavirus and then finished it this week when I am feeling MUCH LESS SO but I'm gonna go with a resounding ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhThe world population has grown significantly and our economies have become more industrialized over the past few hundred years. As a result, many more people have moved into cities. This process is known as urbanization. Even after cities emerged, however, a large majority of people lived and worked in rural areas. It was not until large-scale industrialization began in the eighteenth century that cities really began to boom. Nearly half of all people now live in urban areas. They are attracted by jobs in manufacturing and the professions, as well as by increased opportunities for education and entertainment. We're happy to help you understand these different verb forms, but could you please first tell us what you think the correct answers are and why? Or if you're not sure, tell us why you think both forms could work. We'll be able to help you better if we can see what you think.

The chapters on the alternative futures are short, even shorter than in Dave Goulson’s “silent earth”. Most of this book is on how the Paris agreement came about and what you can do to perpetuate change. Even this is reminiscent of Goulson. Could you please help me with my confusion concerning "will" and "going to". It is quite understandable that will refers to spontaneous ideas and going to is used for planned actions. I've been a bit confused since I read that Cambridge Dictionary says: "One of the main uses of will is to refer to things in the future that we think are certain". Engage in politics. Vote, protest, speak up. Especially the young folks. Politicians look to the big money donors until they start to get scared when public opinion turns against them. Even corporations are starting to get worried about climate change, and they will listen if their customers vote with their money. Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac are cohosts of the leading climate change podcast, Outrage + Optimism, and are cofounders of Global Optimism, an organization dedicated to changing narratives and beliefs and inspiring governments, companies, and citizens to protect what they love from the damages of the climate crisis. Figueres is the former executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where Rivett-Carnac served as her political strategist. They are known for a unique form of collaborative diplomacy, which led to the unanimous signing of the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change by 195 countries.The authors did a an amazing job outlining the two worlds we would end up with if we don't take drastic actions to achieve net zero emission by 2050: one with frequent/intense natural disasters with hot and polluted air (think Beijing air) or one with plenty of green space, shared vehicles, rapid trains for traveling to substain the projected population growth to 10ish billions. It is not tough to decide which world we or future generations want to live in. The vivid descriptions of these worlds with real life examples is emotionally powerful to convince readers to remove their heads out of the sand and face our existential threat head on. It is not all gloom and doom and we, collectively, can still turn the trajectory of human survival from an ultimate doom to a regenerative world.

Let me put it this way, David Attenborough inspired me to be better, this book reinforced this wish and gave me some additional tools. In fact, the authors conclude it with an actual Action Plan. If you do nothing, you will be auto-enrolled in our premium digital monthly subscription plan and retain complete access for 65 € per month. There is often a choice of future forms which the speaker could use and that is the case here. You could see the situation as a future fact ('will be'), a prediction (also 'will be'), an intention or plan ('am going to be') or an arrangement ('am'). All of these are possible and reflect less an objective fact than how the speaker conceives the situation.These same things can also be described as intentions ("I'm going to see the doctor tomorrow"; "I'm going to go to New York"), so there's nothing wrong with using "going to". However, an intention does not necessarily involve making an arrangement. Intentions also include things that the person simply desires to do ("I'm going to drive to work today").