Environment

Wired's Anderson on Lomborg's "Cool It"

Posted by: Bgiussani

Wired editor Chris Anderson got an advance copy of Bjorn Lomborg’s upcoming book Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, and his summary is: read it, but don’t follow his advice.

Lomborg (watch his TED2005 speech) argues that although global warming is clearly happening and is human-caused, the debate over what to do about it has been polluted by way too much bad science, non-science, inflamed rhetoric and outright fibs.

In the book, the Danish political scientist offers numerous examples of how much of the rhetoric over the effects of climate change doesn’t stand up to scrutiny (for example: the most likely effect of climate change would be to increase, not decrease, the amount of ice in Antarctica).

“It’s time to put the debate over whether human-driven climate change is happening behind us and instead focus on technologies to decarbonize the economy,” writes Anderson. But climate change is only one of three strong reasons to do this, he adds: the others are economics (rising direct and indirect costs of oil and carbon fuels) and geopolitics (oil revenues prop up bad governments around the world).

There is a fourth reason that Anderson forgets, and which has been convincingly put forth by Al Gore in his TED2006 speech: it’s a moral imperative.

Comments (5)

  • vcao best commented on May 23 2009

    Is the energy here (so to speak) generated by the impact of higher temperatures or on the fact (?) that the change is caused by human economic activity? http://www.cddvdripper.com

  • kitty parker commented on May 12 2009

    Find the files you are looking for at best-soft-archive.com the most comprehensive source for free-to-try files downloads on the Web

  • Martin Smith commented on Dec 14 2007

    So, if global warming were an entirely natural phenomenon (nothing to do with man), would we be having the same debate? Would environmentalists switch sides and oppose messing with “nature”? Is the energy here (so to speak) generated by the impact of higher temperatures or on the fact (?) that the change is caused by human economic activity?

    Which would be the greater (natural) threat to the Earth and humanity’s future: climate change or an asteroid collision? Should we be investing a few bucks in avoiding the asteroids?

  • Robert Bruce commented on Aug 18 2007

    Why does everyone still maintain the humans caused global warming.

    This is factually incorrect so stop spreading the myth.

  • Fred Feuerstein commented on Aug 14 2007

    Both Bjorn and Al have it pretty much wrong and are coming from the wrong side. Bjorn’s economics thinking false absolutely appart because he does not understand the energy factor in the economics. Al Gore does not understand the energy factor as well. The real scary problem humanity is fighting is the coming energy crisis if we do not solve that global warming will never be solved or be an issue again!