Enhanced descriptions from Syndetics:

Written by the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, this groundbreaking book transforms the debate about global warming by offering a fresh perspective based on human needs as well as environmental concerns.

Excerpt provided by Syndetics

Preface 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. In the face of this level of unmitigated despair, it is perhaps surprising-and will by many be seen as inappropriate-to write a book that is basically optimistic about humanity's prospects. That humanity has caused a substantial rise in atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels over the past centuries, thereby contributing to global warming, is beyond debate. What is debatable, however, is whether hysteria and headlong spending on extravagant CO2-cutting programs at an unprecedented price is the only possible response. Such a course is especially debatable in a world where billions of people live in poverty, where millions die of curable diseases, and where these lives could be saved, societies strengthened, and environments improved at a fraction of the cost. Global warming is a complex subject. No one-not Al Gore, not the world's leading scientists, and most of all not myself-claims to have all the knowledge and all the solutions. But we have to act on the best available data from both the natural and the social sciences. The title of this book has two meanings: the first and obvious one is that we have to set our minds and resources toward the most effective way to tackle long-term global warming. But the second refers to the current nature of the debate. At present, anyone who does not support the most radical solutions to global warming is deemed an outcast and is called irresponsible and is seen as possibly an evil puppet of the oil lobby. It is my contention that this is not the best way to frame a debate on so crucial an issue. I believe most participants in the debate have good and honorable intentions-we all want to work toward a better world. But to do so, we need to cool the rhetoric, allowing us to have a measured discussion about the best ways forward. Being smart about our future is the reason we have done so well in the past. We should not abandon our smarts now. If we manage to stay cool, we will likely leave the twenty-first century with societies much stronger, without rampant death, suffering, and loss, and with nations much richer, with unimaginable opportunity in a cleaner, healthy environment. Excerpted from Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming by Bjorn Lomborg All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.

Reviews provided by Syndetics

Publishers Weekly Review

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. (Sept.) Copyright 2007 Reed Business Information.

Booklist Review

The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001), Copenhagen-based Lomborg's 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 people's lives, and call for the development of noncarbon-emitting energy technologies make this an invaluable contribution to the climate debate.--Seaman, Donna Copyright 2007 Booklist