Cool It

September 3, 2007
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.

September 10, 2007
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 2007 Library Journal, LLC Used with permission.

September 15, 2007
The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), Copenhagen-based Lomborgs first critique of environmental discourse, aroused intense controversy. Unfazed, Lomborg continues his attack on what he believes is alarmist media coverage of global warming in a follow-up book fitted with a heat shield comprised of 70 pages of notes and sources. Lomborg does not deny that climate change is real, but he does argue that it will not cause massive disruption or huge death tolls. And he insists that attempts to cut carbon emissions are basically pointless. It will cost too much and accomplish too little. We should be more concerned with eradicating poverty and disease. Issue by issue, Lomborg refutes claims of calamity, insisting that polar bears are fine and that melting glaciers increase the freshwater supply. His arguments are as oversimplified as those he debunks, and his failure to address the root causes of poverty and environmental degradation is a serious omission. Yet his coolheaded cost analyses, focused on improving peoples lives, and call for the development of noncarbon-emitting energy technologies make this an invaluable contribution to the climate debate.(Reprinted with permission of Booklist, copyright 2007, American Library Association.)