Parker's remedy, stronger government and a more committed public, is readily appealing, not least because of the problems posed, in both past and present, by the limited capacity of communal action. Yet, as Parker, an expert on military history, is well aware, the state is easily able to use its power and resources for other purposes. Moreover, a focus on the state as the remedy can lead to an underrating of the dynamic capacity of entrepreneurial capitalism. In the 17th century, there were relatively few improved crop strains. Today, multinationals are playing an active role in developing strains that both require less water and are more disease resistant. Moreover, there have been major improvements in the technology of irrigation systems.

These developments are necessary because a more immediate issue than that posed by climate change is created by the rapid and unprecedented rise in the world's population. The ability to feed these numbers is both helped and hindered by the consequences of higher temperatures. Again, the parallels with the 17th century are problematic as that was not a period of major population increase. There had been a significant rise in the population of Eurasia in the 16th century, but not at the rate or on the scale of modern developments.

These points raise the question of the applicability of historical episodes and arguments. Both Parker and his publisher understandably emphasise this point. The press release, a key document as it often guides reviewers who lack necessary knowledge and independence, stresses "lessons for our own time", notably the difficulty of taking appropriate and speedy action: "Are we adequately prepared — or even preparing — for the challenges the new global climate change will bring? How would we cope with a worldwide catastrophe like that of the 1640s?"

This is dramatic, but we could ask whether what might be presented today as symptoms and consequences of environmental crisis, for example arms races and conflict, do not more readily rest with autonomous aspects of political culture and public policy. Ideological or cultural commitments and drives, notably those linked to religious identity and conviction, are not adequately explained by environmental explanations.