Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg - Book Report/Review Example

Order: 438902 Topic: Bjorn Lomborg: Cool It. Overview of the book: Bjorn Lomborg’s concerns for humankind are showing from the word go in his book. “Cool It!” He has dedicated the book not to his wife and children, friends and relatives, not to parents, but to the “Future Generations.” What he means is, the future generations are bound to occupy this Planet Earth and global warming will not sink the world! He challenges the prophets of doom who ‘scientifically predict’ that life on Planet Earth will disappear etc…He gives the first credit to such individuals and concedes “Global warming has been portrayed recently as the greatest crisis in the history of civilization. As of this writing, stories on it occupy the front pages of Time and Newsweek and are featured prominently in countless media around the world.” (Preface, ix) But he hastens to put a check on such uncalled for comments and observations that create fear in the minds of the people. He writes, “Statements about the strong, ominous, and immediate consequences of global warming are often widely exaggerated, and this is unlikely to result in good policy.”(p. 8) He does not wish to create a grim scenario on the subject of global warming. It is an issue, serious enough, but not insurmountable, according to Lomborg. He is at loggerheads with those who predict “that an ice-free Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked.”(p.13) With his arguments, Lomborg succeeds in reversing the tempo of the debate. He makes light of the serious issue of climate change and disagrees with the grim scenarios waiting in the wings to overpower humanity. He is in total disagreement of the policies of many nations earmarking substantial amounts to deal with climate change. It is not that difficult to live with the consequences of climate change, according to Lomborg. Why waste huge sums on projects supposedly to counter the harmful effect of climate change? The logic of Lomborg in linking poverty with climate change is not understood. Poverty is an independent issue that needs to be tackled by the respective governments. It has nothing to with the climate change. The process of climate change, affects both-the rich and the poor countries. Lomborg has, however, succeeded in providing a new perspective to the issue of climate change and his voice is the rare dissenting one on the subject. He has made good efforts to link the environmental issues with other human needs. To that extent he has contributed to increase the ‘temperature’ of the debate. Whereas he relies on statistical methods to prove his point that the climate won’t change that drastically as propounded by the environmentalists, he turns an emotional philanthropist and pleads for stopping the projects that involve hundreds of billions of dollars that are proposed to be spent on steps to counter global warming. Such measures will have little impact on the world’s temperature, according to him. Whether or not the ideas contained in Lomborg’s book will influence and modify the decision making process related to the projects to counter global warming, they will certainly the most talked about ones for years to come. Lomborg has certainly opened the second line of defense on the subject, which cannot be totally ignored. He repeatedly makes the case for focusing more attention on public health such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and ensuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply—which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He pleads for a rational dialogue on the subject and states that his dissenting voice merits consideration. Bjorn Lomborg is eminently suited argue on the subject. He is the author of the book “The Skeptical Environmentalist.” His articles have been published in many reputed magazines, like the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Economist. He is the adjunct Professor at the Copenhagen Business School. He is the founder of the Copenhagen Consensus, a body of top economists to prioritize the best solutions for the greatest challenges facing the world. Key problematic arguments: a) The beneficial results of global warming! Lomborg claims that a reduction in global cold weather-related deaths outweighs the rising number of heat-related deaths. He writes, “This confirms the prospect that we could be seeing many more heat deaths—a tragedy that will indeed be caused by global warming. But cold spells will decrease just as much as heat waves increase.”(p.14)The logical conclusion, if humanity accepts Lomborg’s arguments is: there is nothing to worry about global warming and it is good for humanity. Going by the current research on the subject of global warming Lomborg is in hopeless minority or he may not have a companion at all! The Danish statistician’s contention that concerns about environment are overblown is difficult to accept. To the question why?—Lomborg’s answer is simple and straightforward. Why not? He begins with the example of Polar Bears and concludes that hunting them should be banned and the effect of global warning on them is only marginal. He argues that hunting ban would save 800 bears. He welcomes global warming by asserting that in Europe 200,000 people die of heat while 1.5 million die from cold. The conclusion is, more warming, less death. His projection goes on thus; in 2200, more people will die from cold than from heat. He urges those who talk much about global warming, about the prevailing conditions. “…for many cities the urban-heat-island increases of the twentieth century are on a larger scale than those to come from global warming in the twenty-first-century.”(p.20) b) The rise of the sea-level: Lomborg plays cool to the projections of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) about sea levels rising by a feet. That IPCC figures have not taken into account the collapsing ice sheets, is cleverly swept under the carpet by Lomborg. The collapse of the ice sheets is not a problem for him. He writes, “Global warming of glaciers means that a large part of the world can use more water than fifty years before.”(p.58) He mentions about putting up dikes which may result in the availability of more lands. He is just short of asking for a total embargo on expenditure on projects related to climate change, with the suggestion that the amount may be utilized elsewhere for development projects for the benefit of the poor. Lomborg style of arguments can be compared to one way traffic. He ignores certain findings without assigning any reasons. He doesn’t take into account the entire range of future climate possibilities. The computer model projections that show catastrophic results of climate change are ignored by him. The researchers have shown with conclusive proof that the sea is rising more speedily and the outcomes could be worst scenarios than what have been projected. Lomnborg is silent on such irrefutable findings of comparison of the real world data with the 2001 IPCC projections. He welcomes the water-melting process. With the meltdown of the idle water resources (the glaciers), the rivers will have more water content, and the availability of water in summer for the poor people for irrigation will be more. The materialistic civilization has taught humankind to challenge nature. The outcomes of the numerous programs have resulted in a substantial rise in atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels, resulting in global warming. The issue is clear and finds agreement with every section of the society in all the countries. The strong intervention of Lomborg is about the belligerent CO2 cutting programs involving unprecedented budgetary allocations. He writes, “The extra cost we pay should be compared to the environmental benefit that we receive in less global warming. The perspective is worth contemplating.”(p.27) Global warming deaths visualized in the future must be prevented. His question is what about the current death-spree of millions of people due to poverty and lack of proper health facilities? Why not strengthen the society and improve the environment for which comparatively less money is required? Global warming is a complex subject. Its implications may mean different for different countries. Rise in the sea-level may immediately impact certain countries, whereas for other countries its impact may be less. The study on the subject is of recent origin, and no one can claim to have the full knowledge of the implications of global warming process. Measures to tackle the long-term global warming must be taken—Lomborg doesn’t deny. But according to him, one who does not support the current measures is not the enemy of humankind. He desires for the debate within the appropriate framework and expects a measured discussion and not the cheap rhetoric of the politicians and the interested lobby. He is not at all convinced about the huge budgetary allocations on the so-called measures to blockade global warming. He wants threadbare discussion on the subject. He writes, “It will enable these societies to deal much better with future problems—be they natural or from global warming. Investing in today will not only alleviate today’s problems but also improve tomorrow.”(p.47) Objections to Lomborg’s arguments: Not all that he says can be objected to. Lomborg opines that the pressing problems facing the humankind are hundred percent right, but he is articulating the case through wrong forum. Poverty and public health have been successfully challenged by many countries, by keeping intact the budget allocated for the global warming prevention measures. What about the enormous amount of military spending by the rich and the poor countries alike? There will be no end to arguments and counter-arguments if important issues facing the humankind are linked by pitting them one against the other. Global warming is basically a scientific issue- call it wrong application of the achievements of the science, due to human aggrandizement. But, it is an important issue today. Some see a serious problem ahead; some see nothing but catastrophe for humanity. Lomborg nevertheless makes an important point and all the freedom loving people of the democratic world, must welcome his viewpoint. Global warming is a major subject and any attempt to stifle debate on it would be an unfair approach. Open mind and multiple points of view are hallmarks of a healthy debate that has world-wide ramifications. Global warming is not the sole concern of any power-block. It concerns humanity and the generations to come. It now depends, what we do with what the previous generations have left to us, and from where they have left! Whereas objection can be raised about the stand of Lomborg for clubbing the other economic issues with global warming, his stand how the negligence of successive government in many countries resulted in natural disasters, merits consideration. He cites the devastation in New Orleans which is not because of global warming but on account of the poorly maintained levees and destruction of the wetlands that would have offered natural protection in good measure against the velocity of the hurricane. How politicians capitalize on the sentiments of the people? He writes, “The politics of global warming climate policies aren’t our only option. The debate is about our generational mission.”(p.113) Lomborg’s worst fears are, environmentalists are out to treat this as another profiteering- industry to reap the harvest, cashing upon the fears of the gullible. They’re fighting hard to keep the humankind scared. The brilliant salesmen of the environmental lobby are trying to sell the refrigerators to the Eskimos! He writes, “Whether or not we like to acknowledge it, doing something about global warming will have both costs and benefits, and we need the dialogue on how much we should do.”(p.138) He comes out with the harsh criticism and gives a note of caution for those who make haste about the issue. “Jumping on the bandwagon of catastrophe, sexing up the ramifications of global warming, and exploiting fears of disaster may be good for selling papers, captivating viewers, and getting attention.”(p.131) Lomborg has an issue and discussion on it must be continued without any bias. ************* Works Cited: Lomborg, Bjorn. Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalists Guide to Global Warming; Knopf; 1 edition, September 4, 2007. Read More