Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming | Bjørn Lomborg

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming | Bjørn Lomborg | Common Sense

books:

Cool It: The Skept...

	Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming Bjørn Lomborg Knopf, 2007 - 272 pages average customer review:based on 95 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

A Book Everyone Should Read

"Cool It" has an important message: we need to focus on the best ways of solving the world's problems. Presently, we are headed in the wrong direction. Not because our direction won't help solve problems related to global warming, but because it is a very inefficient and expensive way of trying to reach a solution. Lomborg gives alternatives that are both effective and much more affordable. His thought out solutions are in contrast with the world's panicked running in all directions with the hope that something will work.

Common Sense

Finally, some common sense to rescue us from the hysteria of the media hype. There are smart ways to deal with global warming and not so smart ways. Let's actually do some good by enacting policies that can work. Signing treaties that no one will ever adhere to in order to feel good about ourselves is not the answer. The heavy R and D program recommended in the book is our only real hope for a solution. The world never has and never will cut back on its own energy use voluntarily. Technologies must change because people sure won't.
TP

for more information click here

Raises several interesting issues to start a serious debate about GW

Disclaimer 1: First, let me say upfront that this review is neither a smear critic nor a bipartisan criticism of U.S. politics. You can find that in other reviews below. If such is your interest, you may skip this review.

In a few words, this book is a must read if you have a genuine interest in the controversy of global warming/climate change and the science behind the debate. Beyond Mr. Lomborg's opinion on this issue, and the assumptions he made to develop his analysis, the book's most important message is really to "cool it", to abandon any radical positions and having an open dialogue, based on scientific facts, considering the economic effectiveness and deciding objectively on the priorities.

Mr. Lomborg opens the book with a strong critic to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth movie and the companion book, quite deserved due to Gore's multiple exaggerations and lack of scientific rigor, such as the well-known unrealistic worst-case scenario regarding future sea levels, when the latest IPCC does not support such scenario; or the showing Larsen B ice shelf melting at the Antarctica Peninsula, while in reality most of the big Antarctica continent has had a cooling trend in the last decades, and because actually the continent is increasing its ice sheet and would increase even more in the future due to global warming; etc. It is important to note that Bjørn book is based on the latest U.N. IPPC's 2007 Report findings (Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Climate Change 2007)), while Gore's work is not (across the board the newest IPPC projections are less pessimistic than in previous IPPC reports).

The book is full of references, but they are not presented in the conventional format, which makes more laborious to follow up and corroborate the information and the scientific sources presented. A major shortcoming is the lack of the basic technical information regarding the economic analysis and prioritization done by the Copenhagen Consensus. Any economic analysis is very sensible to the initials assumptions regarding key variables, such us the discount rate, especially when considering different time horizons in such a long term. Also the different methodologies matter and depending on the circumstances, calculation of the Internal Rate of Return might have been a better choice than the simpler Cost/Benefit Ratio (though the choice is clearly better for a book aimed for such wide audience). A basic and key premise for the analysis presented is that all countries, including today's poorest, will be wealthier in the next 100 years. What is the justification for that assumption? Alternate scenarios were considered? Definitively a short appendix on the methodology used in the Copenhagen Consensus exercise and the justification for the basic assumptions would have come very handy, so that interested readers or with a background on economics had a chance of making their own assessment of the reasonability of the economic analysis presented in the book. That's why I did not give the book 5 stars. Surely controversy will arise regarding these assumptions.

But despite any existing biased embedded in the analysis, this economic framework allowed Bjørn to raise several very interesting issues that deserve to be seriously considered.

First of all, based on the Copenhagen Consensus economic appraisal, Mr. Lomborg concludes that the Kyoto Protocol recommendations are not effective or economically feasible, under standard economic appraisal criteria. The key issue is how much are we going to accomplish, and how much is going is going to cost vis-à-vis the cost of solving urgent present problems, such as health (HIV/AIDS, malaria, etc.) and starvation, that are already killing millions today in the poorest countries of the world.

Interestingly enough, the United Nations is already trying to undermine Mr. Lomborg's question in its recently published Human Development Report 2007: Climate Change and Human Development--Rising to the Challenge (Human Development Report) (available in the web in pdf), which beyond the annual calculation of the HDI index, and as its title suggests, introduces a brand new thesis claiming that "climate change is already starting to affect some of the poorest and most vulnerable communities around the world", and thus, it is already undermining the international community's efforts to reduce extreme poverty, and in the long-run, it is a massive threat to human development. The constituencies with a weak political voice are now two: the world's poor and future generations. Very clever indeed! Make your own judgment.

Other interesting issue presented in the book is how politicians all over the world, Bush included, have agreed to do something, but most are doing nothing; they are just acting politically correct for their constituencies and the media. The political price of Kyoto's stringent carbon cuts will not help anybody win an election in most countries, and almost nobody talks about what should be done to reach those goals. Just think how many people is willing to give up their daily car travel. Or carbon taxes to industry are not going to be passed to consumers? That's why Mr. Lomborg asserts that the radical environmental are trying to push us back to medieval standards of living. No wonder, as Bjørn tells us in the book, some radicals tried to stop publication of "Cool it".

Finally, besides proposing an open minded dialogue to discuss these issues and set the priorities straight, Bjørn is proposing a simple common sense short term action: developed countries should spend more in R&D in the search of new commercially viable clean technologies to reduce carbon emissions. No catastrophic prophecies are required for this course of action.

I highly recommend this book for those with a rational and objective interest in global warming/climate change and its consequences. And take a peek to the U.N.'s Human Development Report 2007 Executive Summary, compare them and make your own judgment.

Disclaimer 2: I strongly believe we have a moral obligation to take good care of our Pale Blue Dot, for us and to preserve our planet environment and natural resources for future generations. I am concerned about keeping science apolitical and faithful to its mission, open to questioning, so it better help us increase our knowledge as close to the truth as possible. And as Albert Einstein wisely said:"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth"

PS: If you enjoy Cool it, then look for An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming coming in July 2008

for more information click here

Might be right, might be wrong

Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg
Reviewed by Carl Steinke

He says if climate change will cause only a 1-foot rise in sea level by 2100, the Kyoto protocols would cost $180 billion per year and produce miniscule benefit to people. An alternative plan, such as installing coastal protections and providing mosquito nets, condoms, and clean water would cost 70% less and benefit humans 100 times more.

Lomborg thinks we should reduce CO2 gradually rather than quickly. He says that the threat has been greatly exaggerated. What an environmental scientist calls a worst- case scenario, Lomborg calls an exaggeration.

He recommends a surtax of 4% on fossil fuels increasing to about 50% by the end of the century.

Steinke's Reflections:
I'm an expert in energy conservation. Rather, I'm an expert at noticing energy waste.
Lomborg and the delegates to Kyoto are probably not conscious of the enormous amount of energy we waste. Saving energy doesn't cost money. It usually saves.

Lomborg doesn't seem to factor in the environmental costs of coal mining and the health costs of coal burning. The coal industry passes these costs on to their neighbors.

It is the job of the environmental scientist to consider the worst-case scenario. Lomborg doesn't. He does not consider what will happen after the year 2100.

The worst-case scenario involves feedback loops. Ice reflects sunlight. When ice melts, less sunlight is reflected and the planet might warm faster. If Greenland melts, the ocean might rise 24 feet. Rises higher than 1 foot are not considered. Lomborg's surtax will not stop global warming at one foot.

Green house gas emissions today, do not melt the ice today; they melt it bit-by-bit over decades. With Lomborg's recommendation, greenhouse gases will increase significantly throughout the century. Sea levels will rise more rapidly during the next century, than during this century.

Lomborg says that the oceans have already risen 5 inches in the last 65 years. If that is true, I wonder if the IPCC adequately considered the effect of China and India adding 1000 coal burning power plants and 200 million cars. It is difficult to believe that the oceans will rise only 1 foot this century.

A major issue was not discussed is methane. I don't know if the IPCC considered the effect of methane from increased meat consumption or from thawing permafrost. I don't know if Kyoto addresses methane.

Lomborg is from Denmark, which is gung-ho for windmills having about 3000 giants in place. I believe Lomborg would rather have the seven coal burning power plants they take the place of because coal is about 5% cheaper than wind.

Even if global warming was not an issue, coal burning is bad and should be reduced. The coal industry talks about clean coal and then violates and fights the regulations to make it cleaner.

The tar sands of Alberta are an environmental disaster. The cost of gasoline extracted from tar sands is probably not included in Lomborg's economic models.

The Vancouver Schools easily waste a million dollars of electricity each year to light up empty places. When the price of electricity goes up, the schools don't reduce waste, they just ask Congress for energy subsidies.

A 4% surcharge will not motivate people to reduce waste. A 10% surcharge used to fund energy conservation would be better.

Many building managers are not interested in reducing energy consumption unless someone does it for them with no upfront cost. They're too busy with other responsibilities.

I think Lomborg underestimates the risk of global warming, and overestimates the cost of remedies. But I really appreciate his polite and restrained manner.

for more information click here