Cool it: The sceptical environmentalist's guide to global warming

Lomborg's basic thesis is that we should spend money on things other than combating global warming, such as HIV/Aids. He is a very plausible author and the book makes a very interesting read. Initially I had thought that Lomborg was a climate-change denier but this is not the case. His arguments seem to be aimed at down-playing the consequences of global warming and climate change.

There are plenty of "facts" in the book supported by an extremely extensive bibliography and references. I use quotes around the word "facts" because without substantial research, I would find it hard to refute any particular "fact". However by the end of the book, which is well-written, was I convinced that we should not be acting now to tackle the various issues raised by global warming? - well the answer is "No".

Rather than write a more detailed review, yet again I use someone else' work (ex Amazon - all copyrights acknowledged) which loosely agrees with my sentiments but read the book and decide for yourself, as this review says, get both sides of the argument. However, I am not as cynical about the effectiveness of a carbon tax, for example, as the reviewer. Tackling bankers' bonuses is trivial when compared with the technical challenges we face.

Quote....

Get both sides of the argument, 5 Feb 2008
By Big Jim "Big Jim" (London, UK) - See all my reviews

I buy into a lot of what Lomberg has to say, however just because he produces copious footnotes and references doesn't mean that his view has to be taken as sacrosanct. Indeed whilst having read a few books, read many arguments on the net, and listened to numerous programmes and podcasts on this issue recently it seems to me that everyone is in danger of becoming entrenched in their views and rejecting any view that differs from their own. Fiddling whilst Rome burns indeed (pun intended) and of course it all becomes someone else's problem. Many of the "anti" environmentalist lobby (and large swathes of this book) complacently argue that there is nothing wrong in our western lifestyle and indeed that it is a force for "good", forgetting all the while the damaging effects on the rest of the world to feed our "wants" (most consumer goods are hardly "needs").

Eventually - and this is where the jury may well still be out - those effects may start to be felt in the West. I can't believe that Lomberg thinks that any capital gained through carbon tax or whatever would be pumped back into envornmentally friendly schemes. I can just see the city fat cats giving their multi-million pound bonuses to Oxfam for instance. Still it is good for the debate that not everyone goes along with the received wisdom that cutting carbon emmissions is the be all and end all.

The whole climate change argument for me is summed up by the situation in Cumbria recently where "environmentalists" rejected plans for a wind farm "because it spoils the view" and a few birds might get whacked by the blades. Yep, renewable energy is alright when the windmill is built somewhere else - much like a nuclear power station really.

End of quote ....