Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming [Hardcover]

Bjørn Lomborg (Author)

Book Description

Release date: September 4, 2007

A groundbreaking book that transforms the debate about global warming by offering a fresh perspective based on human needs as well as environmental concerns.

Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world’s temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply—which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.

Lomborg presents us with a second generation of thinking on global warming that believes panic is neither warranted nor a constructive place from which to deal with any of humanity’s problems, not just global warming. Cool It promises to be one of the most talked about and influential books of our time.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

Amazon.com Guest Reviewer: Michael Crichton
In his many science-themed bestsellers--including The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, Prey, and most recently, Next--Michael Crichton has covered everything from genetically engineered dinosaurs to time travel to nantechnology run amok. Having cast his own views on the dangers and hysteria surrounding global warming with State of Fear, he turns his pen toward the often controversial Bjørn Lomborg and his latest book, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming.

---

Bjørn Lomborg is the best-informed and most humane advocate for environmental change in the world today. In contrast to other figures that promote a single issue while ignoring others, Lomborg views the globe as a whole, studies all the problems we face, ranks them, and determines how best, and in what order, we should address them. His first book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, established the importance of a fact-based approach. With later books, Global Crises, Global Solutions and How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place, this mild-mannered Danish statistician has steadily gained new converts. Not surprisingly, Time Magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming will further enhance Lomborg’s reputation for global analysis and thoughtful response. For anyone who wants an overview of the global warming debate from an objective source, this brief text is a perfect place to start. Lomborg is only interested in real problems, and he has no patience with media fear-mongering; he begins by dispatching the myth of the endangered polar bears, showing that this Disneyesque cartoon has no relevance to the real world where polar bear populations are in fact increasing. Lomborg considers the issue in detail, citing sources from Al Gore to the World Wildlife Fund, then demonstrating that polar bear populations have actually increased five fold since the 1960s.

Lomborg then works his way through the concerns we hear so much about: higher temperatures, heat deaths, species extinctions, the cost of cutting carbon, the technology to do it. Lomborg believes firmly in climate change--despite his critics, he's no denier--but his fact-based approach, grounded in economic analyses, leads him again and again to a different view. He reviews published estimates of the cost of climate change, and the cost of addressing it, and concludes that "we actually end up paying more for a partial solution than the cost of the entire problem. That is a bad deal."

In some of the most disturbing chapters, Lomborg recounts what leading climate figures have said about anyone who questions the orthodoxy, thus demonstrating the illiberal, antidemocratic tone of the current debate. Lomborg himself takes the larger view, explaining in detail why the tone of hysteria is inappropriate to addressing the problems we face.

In the end, Lomborg’s concerns embrace the planet. He contrasts our concern for climate with other concerns such as HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, and providing clean water to the world. In the end, his ability to put climate in a global perspective is perhaps the book’s greatest value. Lomborg and Cool It are our best guides to our shared environmental future.

--Michael Crichton

(photo credit: Jonathan Exley)

---

From Publishers Weekly

Lomborg, a political scientist and economist with a conservative approach to environmentalism, presents a work that's likely to garner as much acclaim and disdain as his first book, 2001's The Skeptical Environmentalist. This "Guide to Global Warming," while thoroughly referenced and convincingly argued, ignores many climate studies and assumes that climate change will continue at a steady rate (not necessarily the case). From this vantage, Lomborg suggests workable solutions beyond "hysteria and headlong spending," proposing a tax on CO2 "at the economically correct level of about two dollars per ton, or maximally fourteen dollars per ton" and that "all nations should commit themselves to spending 0.05 percent of GDP in R&D of noncarbon-emitting energy technologies." Gross simplification, however, leads to misleading generalizations and questionable arguments, such as Lomborg's claim that a reduction in global cold weather-related deaths that outweighs the rising number of heat-related deaths means global warming is good for humanity. Though he argues passionately, Lomborg's efforts seem more about pushing his opponents' buttons than facing honestly the complexities of global climate change.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 272 pages
• Publisher: Knopf; 1 edition (September 4, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0307266923
• ISBN-13: 978-0307266927
• Product Dimensions: 5.1 x 1.5 x 7.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (148 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #178,053 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #63 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Earth Sciences > Climatology

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

113 of 117 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars Clever Title October 29, 2007

By Glenn Yates

Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase

What you are getting from this review is a non-scientific analysis of the book, and a summation of the contents. While I taught a year or two of High School Biology in Cheatham County, TN, that probably isn't going to qualify me to sit on the International Global Warming Council anytime soon. I'll try and avoid the observation that it still probably makes me more qualified than a lot of people suddenly making careers out of Global Warming.

The book was not what I expected. I kind of thought, based on the controversy it had generated, that it would be a global warming denial book espousing the glories of capitalism and a desire to turn North America into the new Sahara. Well it is nothing of the sort. The book, whether you agree with the science or not, never argues that global warming is happening nor even that it results to varying degrees from human produced co2. What is argued is that there has become a political, and even hysterical component that has insinuated itself so in the discussion that it has overwhelmed all other argument. Any attempt at debate is met with howls that those bringing up objections are evil incarnate and should be fired, imprisoned, etc. It is an interesting debate technique, and nice work if you can get it, but I'm not sure it's an accepted debating format.

For all the balance the book brings, it probably won't warm hearts on either side. The need for redistribution of wealth is a recurring theme, and his arguments against Kyoto, etc, are more that they are an inefficient means to accomplish this goal, not that they are idealogically mistaken. Much of his analysis also relies heavily on the projection that the next 100 years will produce great wealth across the board.... This strikes me as speculative, but then again what about the whole issue is not?

The book is extremely well documented, footnotes comprising almost as much volume as the treatise itself. And treatise might be the word, much is repeated and reiterated, and it has the feel of a lengthy article that was expanded to meet book-length requirements. It doesn't suffer too badly in spite of this, as the author writes pretty well and so much of the material is so outside media template information that it probably requires several presentations of the same facts.

All in all it struck me as balanced, well written, and very logical. One of his major points, that debate has been stifled unfairly, makes one reluctant to criticise for fear of proving his point, but be that as it may it seems a salient observation. It is a quick read, and I'd certainly recommend it as a work that cuts against the grain. Read more ›

85 of 97 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Terrific information and sensible proposals. Well worth reading. October 8, 2007

By Craig Matteson HALL OF FAMETOP 500 REVIEWER

Format:Hardcover

True believers won't like this book, but anyone who is willing to listen with an open mind and consider multiple points of view will find this book to be a breath of fresh air in the climate change / global warming clash. Bjorn Lomborg is a liberal, a vegetarian, an economist and a passionate environmentalist. Certainly, he is far left of me. He also is convinced that global warming is real, that mankind does have a role in creating it and making it worse, and that we do need to change the way we live in order to improve conditions for all life on the planet. So, why do I like him and find this book very much worth reading?

Because he is sensible in the arguments he makes. Rather than beating the drum of gloom and doom, he looks at the evidence, looks at what we can realistically do, and what it is we can do that will have the most effect. He also pokes holes in the overheated bag-of-wind arguments of the drowning polar bears (more die from hunting), the 20 foot sea rise (it is rising, but no more in the coming century than in the last), and the benefits of Kyoto (basically an attempted $16 trillion tax on the United States that would, after a century, delay global warming by a few years). And he nicely points out that the devastation in New Orleans was NOT because of global warming or because of the hurricane itself, but because of poorly maintained levees and destroyed wetlands that would have provided some protection. He is also right in pointing out that there has been NO increase in the violence of the storms. The critics will point to the vastly increased costs of the storms.... But those costs have their roots in the fact that more people are living in these risky areas (partly because of increased wealth and partly because of government subsidies to those experiencing losses in these areas) and are building more costly structures in areas that people mostly avoided in the past.

His emphasis on what we can do that will have the most positive effect for the money spent is terrific. For example, changing the kinds of building materials we use, the amount of concrete and asphalt versus the opening of green space in our cities all make good sense, as does the helping of people in the developing world with micronutrients and controlling malaria. The list of items that experts and politicians recognize as the most pressing issues and the most useful for the money spent (see pages 44 and 162) is most instructive regarding reality versus hype.

Frankly, I think Lomborg calls himself the skeptical environmentalist because it sounds better than the sensible environmentalist. However, he really is sensible and worth listening to whether you end up agreeing with his prescriptions or not.

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI Read more ›

38 of 44 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Lomborg and Al Gore will become friends. Read why. November 20, 2007

By Gaetan Lion TOP 1000 REVIEWER

Format:Hardcover

Environmentalists have attacked Lomborg ever since he wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. I have not read it, but read critiques in Scientific American. It seemed Lomborg did cross lines that rendered him vulnerable to scientific attacks; But, with "Cool It" he his on strong scientific ground. He is still attacked by the usual suspects such as Kare Fog, a Danish biologist who posts on the web all the "errors" Lomborg made. Fog goes on pages advancing a case how Lomborg misinterpreted sea level rise data. Fog argues sea level rise is more likely to be two feet instead of one per Lomborg (relying on the IPCC best estimate). In the end Fog contradicts himself by quoting most recent studies that support Lomborg. Kare Fog other attacks are fruitless.

In this great short book, Lomborg covers the following fascinating themes. First, the impact of Global Warming is hugely exaggerated. Second, the efficacy of the Kyoto Protocol is close to nil. Third, the Kyoto Protocol is unworkable as the majority of member-countries fail their CO2 reduction targets. Fourth, we can improve our environmental prospects at a fraction of the Kyoto Protocol's cost and with often more than a 1,000 times the effectiveness.

In the first three chapters Lomborg debunks all the wild exaggerations regarding the impact of Global Warming as conveyed by the media. A couple of examples include the supposedly rapid disappearance of the polar bear often pictured on a melting iceberg. Meanwhile, the overall polar bear population is actually growing.... Another is the prospective catastrophic sea level rise of 20 to 40 feet as vividly depicted in An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It with maps showing flooded global coastal regions. Meanwhile the IPCC scientists' models suggest only a one foot increase by the end of the century (same as what we experienced over the last century without any disruption). Al Gore scenarios entail the melting of half or all of the ice caps of both Greenland and Antarctica. The reality is that Greenland is loosing ice at a very slow pace and Antarctica is actually gaining mass. Warmer temperatures cause more precipitation and more snow and ice formation in Antarctica that contributes to lower sea levels. Lomborg goes on uncovering a bunch more mythical exaggerations including the increasing frequency and intensity of hurricanes. None of them is being supported by IPCC data. He also mentions the flawed `hockey stick' graph manufactured by Michael Mann's spurious model that artificially created a spike in simulated temperatures in present time. He indicated how reluctant the IPCC scientific community was to admit the flaw in this hockey stick model. I was not surprised by any of the above. I have studied Global Warming for several years now, and had already learned about these politicized exaggerations in other excellent books including: Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media and Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming.

Lomborg moves on to explaining how ineffective the Kyoto Protocol is. If all countries ratified this agreement and met their CO2 reduction targets, it would only reduce temperature by 0.3 degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century with a negligible impact on sea level and the environment. This estimate is from IPCC scientists. Lomborg adds that the Kyoto Protocol is unworkable. Countries with already modernized economies, growing population and rising living standards can't dramatically cut CO2 emissions. The majority of West European countries, Canada, and New Zealand have routinely failed their respective CO2 emission reduction targets. The EU has seen CO2 emission per capita increase by 4% since 1990. Meanwhile, the U.S. has remained flat.

Since 2002, Lomborg has dedicated his professional life to exploring the best social policies to improve life on Earth given a hypothetical $50 billion a year. In this effort, he co-founded the Copenhagen Consensus that has engaged numerous Nobel Prize winning economists to evaluate the best social policies. This led him to write this book and also edit How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place. After demonstrating that the Kyoto Protocol is ineffective, he also shares how costly it is ($180 billion a year). On table 2 page 162, he benchmarks the Kyoto Protocol's cost and benefits vs the alternatives. The discrepancy between the two is almost ridiculous. Are you concerned about the polar bears? The Kyoto Protocol would save 0.06 polar bears lives per annum. A simple tighter hunting regulation could easily save 49 polar bears a year at little cost. You are concerned about the spreading of malaria? The Kyoto Protocol would result in 70 million infections avoided over this century. Much cheaper alternatives entailing distribution of mosquitoes net would reduce infections by 28 billion over the same time frame. You are concerned about starvation. The Kyoto Protocol would result in just 2 million fewer starving. Low cost agricultural policies would result in 229 million fewer starving. Thus, social policies deliver often 100 to over 1,000 times the result of the Kyoto Protocol (if countries could meet targets) at less than one third the costs ($50 billion vs $180 billion).

Regarding CO2 emission, Lomborg recommends a low carbon tax of $2 per ton (vs Al Gore's $140). He states this tax would reduce emission by 5% which is much more than what the Kyoto Protocol achieves. He also recommends nations to commit 0.05% of GDP in R&D of noncarbon emitting energy technology (about $25 billion a year or 7 times cheaper than Kyoto). He quotes a scientist who states that dramatic CO2 reduction schemes won't succeed until the public has a cost effective convenient access to an alternative. Lomborg should cheer up; Al Gore has become a venture capitalist working on new energy technologies! Read more ›