Enter a zip code
(Paperback - Reprint)
A startling book that reshapes the debate about global warming and offers a moderate approach to meeting its challenges.
Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered—the Kyoto Protocol, for example—have a staggering potential cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, but, ultimately, will have little impact on the world's temperature. He suggests that rather than institutionalizing these programs to “cool” the earth's temperature 100 years from now, we should focus our resources on some of the world's most pressing immediate concerns, such as: fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS, and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply. And he considers why and how this debate has developed an atmosphere in which dissenters are immediately demonized.
Bjorn Lomborg was named one of the 100 world's most influential people by Time magazine in 2004. He is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, and The Economist, among others. He is presently an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and in 2004, he started the Copenhagen Consensus, a conference of top economists who come together to prioritize the best solutions for the world's greatest challenges. He lives in Copenhagen.
Reader Rating:
See Detailed Ratings
April 28, 2008: Bj?rn 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.
Reader Rating:
See Detailed Ratings
December 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.