Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg

Sensible proposals for coping with the consequences of global warming
Will Podmore, A reviewer, 04/28/2008

Bjørn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, has written another well-researched book. As he writes, “Global warming is happening, the consequences are important and mostly negative.” He notes that the 2007 International Panel on Climate Change has predicted rises of 1.50C by 2050 and 2.50C by 2100, which will raise sea levels and increase malaria, starvation and poverty. But, Lomborg argues, it does not follow that directly combating climate change through cutting CO2 will do most to maximise human welfare. Preventing disease, providing clean drinking water and feeding people could do more good more cheaply. What are the options? We could, for example, spend $3 billion a year on mosquito eradication, medicine and mosquito nets: this would halve malaria incidence (2 billion infections and one million deaths every year) by 2015. We could spend $4 billion a year on helping three billion people to access clean water and sanitation. Or, by contrast, we could do what the EU tells us and spend $84 trillion to cut CO2 emissions to 20% below 1990 levels, to ensure that the temperature rises by no more than 20C above pre-industrial times. Yet this hugely expensive effort would have only a tiny effect: it would be 2.480C hotter than now by 2100 instead of by 2098. And a 2.5% rise is only what the IPCC predicted would happen anyway! As a 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Energy Policy concluded, “the 20C target of the EU seems unfounded.” Lomborg shows that the consequences of global warming will not be as bad as they have been painted. For example, the IPCC predicted that sea-levels would rise by 29 cm by 2100 (the same as the rise since 1860), as against the 20 feet that Al Gore publicises. We could cope with this by better use of floodplains, more wetlands, stricter building policies and fewer floodplain subsidies. Lomborg shows that global warming does not cause extreme weather events, which are anyway not curable by cutting CO2. The IPCC said of the Hollywood/Pentagon/Al Gore picture of a new ice age triggered by a shutdown of the Gulf Stream, “we can confidently exclude this scenario.” Fossil fuels have grown the industries that produce the goods we need and give us low-cost light, heat, food, travel and trade. As Lomborg writes, “a world without fossil fuels … is a lot like a world gone medieval.” So he argues that we need to spend far more on researching renewable energy and energy efficiency. Directly cutting CO2 would be hugely expensive. Lomborg argues that we should do what is both cheaper and more effective - cope with the consequences of global warming rather than try to stop it at source. If he is right, we would maximise human welfare not by rolling back our civilisation’s industrial advance, but by using our industrial ingenuity and know-how to prevent disease, provide people with food and water, and develop energy resources.

Also recommended: The skeptical environmentalist, by Bjorn Lomborg. Meltdown, by Patrick Michaels. Scared to death, by Christopher Booker.

A reviewer
Jeff, a student, A reviewer, 12/04/2007

Bjorn Lomborg does a great job of describing the global warming 'catastrophe'. He does not just jump all in to a conclusion but thinks about this decision a bit. He does admit that global warming is a problem, but right now we don't have the technology or knowledge to solve this global problem efficiently. It makes more sense to solve the pressing issues of today's world and concentrate more on finding a better solution rather than solving global warming with the ineffective plan we have now. Lomborg really makes some good comparisons, but he does not write this book strictly focused on his opinion. He provides facts to support his ideas, and he shows both sides of the debate.

Skewed and Damaging
Andrew, concerned for the environment, 09/18/2007

While Lumborg is certainly entitled to his own opinion, his facts are hand-picked and do not represent the whole global warming picture. Idly allowing an increase of 4 and a half degrees is insane due to the costs of dealing with the consequences. Displacement from rising ocean levels, droughts and monsoons due to shifting weather patterns, and the subsequent loss of farmland are reasons alone to try to keep global warming to a minimum doing whatever we can. Ignoring the feedback loops is just as dangerous, and while Lumborg argues against sensationalist environmentalism, it is no more sensational or emotional to appeal to the natural laziness of the average person.

Also recommended: The World Without Us, Alan Weisman

A refreshing look at the state of the world and the hysteria surrounding global warming
Ben, a student, 09/10/2007

The great thing about this book is that it looks at the environment and the problems surrounding it with a level-headed and democratic mindset. Everything you read about global warming in the media today leads you to believe that the world is heading toward extinction. It was nice to read something that did not try to scare me into supporting an agenda. Aside from obvious grammer problems, 'Jesse Jenkins, a energy and climate change blogger' (the reviewer below) seemed to have a strong pre-determined view of the environment and likes to spit out stats that don't mean much to people to try and get an agenda across. That is exactly what this book is talking about. Lomborg realizes that global warming IS something that needs to given attention, but it should be looked at with a level-head and a composed mindset. He points out that scare tactics and hysteria do not lead to good debate and it causes us to waste money where it could be put to better use.

Bjorn Lomborg's 'Cool It' Spouts More Hot Air
Jesse Jenkins, a energy and climate change blogger, 09/06/2007

Like his earlier work, 'The Skeptical Environmentalist,' which prominent Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson called a 'sordid mess' and was found to have cherry-picked the facts, Bjorn Lombord's latest effort, 'Cool It' is more hot air. Lomborg's basic thesis, that 'scare-monger' environmentalists have over-hyped the threat of climate change and that we shouldn't take any serious action to tackle the climate crisis because doing so would harm economic growth that poor people need requires a particularly slanted view of the world and rests on 'facts' selectively picked to support his arguments as he ignores a vast body of science. As economist Eban Goodstein's review of 'Cool It' in Salon writes: 'In 'Cool It,' Lomborg has three messages. First, the planet will warm up no more than 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit this century, and on balance, this will be bad, but not too bad. Second, all benefit-cost models show that serious limits on global warming emissions are too costly, and therefore we should pollute with virtual impunity. And -- surprisingly -- we should invest a decent amount '$25 billion per year' in clean energy technologies now so that, starting in a few decades, we will have tools to slow down global warming just a little bit through 2100.' While I can't agree more with the third point, his first two messages are quite frankly bull. Lomborg's first agrument assumes that global warming will be held to 'only' 4.7 degrees F. First off, that's a swing of temperatures halfway to ice age proportions 'the last ice age was only 9 degrees F colder than today'. Not a big deal, eh? Lomborg argues that as the temperatures heat up, deaths from heat waves will be offset by less deaths from cold exposure. This contradicts the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's authoritative Fourth Assessment Report, released earlier this year. The report does agree that cold deaths will decrease with warming, but says that while 'climate change is projected to bring some benefits, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure ... overall it is expected that these benefits will be outweighed by the negative health benefits of rising temperatures, especially worldwide.' So sure, Mr. Lomborg, less people will die of cold exposure in rich countries in Northern climes. But at the same time, the IPCC report warns that literally billions of people will be affected by water and food shortages, droughts, floods, storms, etc. People in poorer developing countries, the people Lomborg supposedly cares so much about, will be most severely affected. These aren't the made-up scenarios of 'fear-mongering environmentalists.' They're the warnings of an international body of the world's top climate scientists, literally hundreds of them, and the report they produced is truly a consensus document every word in the 'summary for policymakers' report I referenced above has to be approved by representatives of 130+ countries 'including representatives of the Bush Administration'! In fact, throughout his book, Lomborg cites the IPCC report like gospel, all the while selectively ignoring much that doesn't serve his arguments. For example, in assuming that temperatures will not warm by more than 4.7 degrees, despite the inaction that he advocates, he ignores the fact that the IPCC includes a range of temperature estimates going all the way up to 10.5 degrees. The most crucial error in the book - the most glaring oversight that disqualifies the book as a serious examination of the risks and tradeoffs of climate change - is that Lomborg ignores the existence of powerful climate feedback loops hidden within the climate system. As Eban Goodstein writes,: 'The global warming 'alarmism' that Lomborg finds so distasteful is motivated by a serious, science-driven concern that hidden within our global climate system are powerful positive feedback loops. So that as we inch up from 3 to 4 and then 4 to 5 degrees of warming, we may very well cross some temperature threshold that would trigger a couple of degrees of further warming, causing a catastrophic upward spiral in global temperatures. For example, if the Amazon heats up and dries out too much, much of it could burn down, flipping to savannah, and releasing tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Similarly, as the permafrost in the Arctic melts, a huge pulse of methane may be released. The science is clear that, interacting, these and other biophysical and socioeconomic factors could drive planetary temperatures far beyond the range that Lomborg addresses. By ignoring the vast uncertainty underlying these forecasts, and every alternative outcome except his preferred 'moderate' warming scenario, 'Cool It' reduces to an uninteresting discussion of why folks alive today should choose 4.7 degrees of warming rather than 4.4 as the optimal outcome for our grandkids.' But there is no sound scientific reason to assume that as we sit inactively, following Lomborg's advice, that temperatures will stop rising at 4.7 degrees. In fact, there is every reason to worry that if we don't begin a proactive, concerted effort to halt warming temperatures within the next few years, we will lock ourselves in to a degree of warming that will push us past what America's top climate scientist, James Hansen, calls 'the Tipping Point' where temperatures and greenhouse gas levels will have increased enough to set off a chain reaction of these feedback loops that will push global warming beyond our control. Once we pass the Tipping Point, warming will simply spin out of control and no matter what we do, we won't be able to halt or reverse the changing climate. We could stop using all fossil fuels entirely, but if we did it one day after crossing the Tipping Point - think of it as the Point of No Return - it wouldn't do a damn bit of good. But don't take my word for it. Let's hear what Dr. Hansen has to say: 'In my opinion,' he testified in 2006, 'there is no significant doubt 'probability 99%'' that projections for warming in a business-as-usual future 'one that Lomborg advocates' 'would push the Earth beyond the tipping point and cause dramatic climate impacts including eventual sea level rise of at least several meters, extermination of a substantial fraction of the animal and plant species on the planet, and major regional climate disruptions.' Translation: unless we act soon to change course and avoid this business as usual future, we will almost certainly pass the Point of No Return. By ignoring this fundamental and critical characteristic of climate systems, Lomborg's thesis that waiting to tackle climate change until technology develops is fundamentally flawed. In a supposed 'rational discussion' of risks, trade-offs and benefits of climate change, Lomborg ignores the biggest risk of all: that in sitting idle, we will cross the Tipping Point. As a result, Lomborg advocates for delayed action against climate change, essentially arguing that we play Russian roulette with our lives and the fate of all future inhabitants of the planet. There are other flaws with Lomborg's book, and I'd encourage you to read Goodstein's review for more, but I'll leave it at that for now. Don't pick up Lomborg's book unless you're looking for more misleading, heel-dragging hot air.

Also recommended: The Weather Makers, by Tim Flannery. Fighting for Love in the Centry of Extinction, by Eban Goodstein. Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming, by Chris Mooney