Cool It (2010) Reviews

• Someone has to tell it right

  Fred-S2010-11-17

  After reading the first 3 reviews I decided that a review from someone who has read Bjorn Lonborg - who is an economist (not "a poly-sci guy" as one newspaper reviewer referred to him) - and who has studied the science of global climate change for more than a decade might be helpful. First off, Lonborg is not a GW skeptic: he thinks it is real, but that the severity has often been greatly overstated, which even the scientists at IPCC will admit. Also, he does not mean that if we spend a few trillion dollars and deprive (by creating large deficits of energy) poor people all over the world of the few things they currently get to enjoy (like adequate food) we will decrease global temperature by 1 degree: he means we will limit the increase by one degree. Big difference. He is pointing out that taking a sledge hammer to the world economy will not really make much difference in temperature, but a big difference to people who will not be able to buy energy at the intentionally increased prices. Lonborg points out that we will be able to adapt to the climate change, as people and animals have been doing throughout history, as we gradually change from fossil fuels as more desirable technologies mature. Some parts of the world - equatorial zones - may change drastically, but those nearer the poles (Minnesota, Canada) will likely gain a longer growing season and more tillable land. But, Lonborg's main point is that if we spent these large sums of money and resources on things we can change: hunger, diseases like malaria and AIDS, and clean water, we could bring about some real improvement in the lives of millions of people world-wide. My studies, which include a discussion with one of the leading scientists at IPCC, lead me to think that Lonborg makes a very good case. I don't know why so many reviewers ridicule Lonborg. This movie, if you really watch and listen, does not deny climate change. It does state that global poverty is not the best way to counteract global climate change.

• A Rational Approach to a Divisive Issue

  ockraz2011-05-31

  Bjørn Lomborg is an environmentalist and an economist. He accepts without reservation that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by human activity, but he makes a critical examination of the methods by which we're attempting to deal with the problem. In other words, he disagrees with those who would say that climate change is not a real and serious problem, but he is skeptical of the primary strategies to combat the problem which have been advanced by mainstream environmentalists. He's become controversial because he's asking questions of fellow environmentalists which they would rather not have to answer. Are climate change activists engaging in alarmist scare tactics and exaggerating the dangers involved in an attempt to motivate through fear? If we wish to invest in attempts to improve the lives of those who are most disadvantaged, what is the relative benefit of spending on climate compared to other humanitarian endeavors? Are attempts to artificially raise the price of fossil fuels likely to be successful at lowering temperatures? Will they be sufficiently effective to justify the costs in terms of slowed economic growth and lost increases in the standard of living? Lomborg seems to believe that the most reasonable approach is a combination of: >engage in many relatively unobtrusive small scale activities to combat global warming in the short term while contributing more to efforts to promote global health and education >employ geo-engineering and adaptation in the medium term to minimize the disruption of temperature increases >make large immediate increases in funding for research and development of renewable energy and more sophisticated nuclear reactors so that in the long term alternative energy will not be more costly than fossil fuels His arguments about what the rational approach (lacking the unreflective dogmatism of both the deniers and the alarmists) is to finding the best future for the global population certainly merit the time it takes to view this film.

• Lomborg believes in global warming, so much so that he advocates doing something about it!

  lionmama2011-06-06

  Like Inconvenient Truth, this documentary (and it is a very good documentary) should be watched if you wish to empower yourself with additional information on the whole climate change debate. Lomborg believes in global warming, so much so that he is advocating that we do something about it. The difference between his proposals and those of the alarmists and fear-mongers is that he is questioning the current high costs for carbon reduction (and as usual the political protection of big corporations) that result in very little benefit to the planet. Instead he presents scientists who are already tackling the same problem (of global warming) but in different, non-mainstream ways that could also improve health, education, reduce poverty and enable a better way of life for people on the planet. So why should people decry this documentary when all he's asking is for us to consider alternatives that may be more efficient but potentially less profitable for the folks protecting the status quo? Remember, we only need to protect Earth for humans to survive and thrive on it, otherwise the planet will take care of itself as it has been doing for millions of years. Even if Earth's environment becomes that of Mars, Earth would adapt and continue. It's mankind that will disappear. What Lomborg is asking all of us to do is to think of and support alternative solutions that are practical without bankrupting mankind (thus stopping anything from being done in the first place because of the high costs). If putting solar panels on your house while painting your exterior walls and roof white COULD cost no more than what you would pay for cable TV in one year and it helped reduce your dependence on fossil fuels by cutting your energy bill as well as cooled the planet, wouldn't this be worth doing and writing to your congress representative for? As he points out, turning your lights off for one hour per year and lighting candles so that you can see in the dark does not affect climate change whatsoever. In fact, your candles are probably making it worse. Change your tactics: Do good that really makes a difference (follow the money and the data) rather than do good that's only a facade (skin deep).

• Finally an eco-wacktovist movie not mired in doom and blame

  douglasp2012-01-04

  I watched this movie last night on Netflix. I had remembered reading an article about Bjorn Lomborg in one of the Popular Something magazines so I figured this would be something more than the propaganda of Birth of a Nation, Triumph of the Will, and Algore's I'm Super Cereal! So I decided to give it a twirl. I don't necessarily agree with Lomborg across the board but it was so refreshing to see a movie about solutions instead of the usual misanthropic Neo-Christianity and doom and gloom of the eco-wacktovist movement. And just like Europe was at the point of deforestation when coal suddenly showed up, it is important to look for rational alternatives, or better yet, additions to oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear, instead of constantly carping on how we are "addicted to oil" which is probably the dumbest slogan the misanthropic eco-wacktovists have adopted yet. One might as well say we are addicted to healthy, happy lives.

• Intro to Global warming, but a 300 level course

  unub082011-12-23

  This is a excellent documentary about what is really happening. Lomborg is NOT saying global warming is fake. He is simply saying we are using our money and time for solutions that DOES NOT WORK. Solar panels are expensive toys, wind turbines are not reliable. and etc... This movie tackles with something most of us avoid to talk, and it does it brilliantly. There are many different if not permanent solutions to the problem of Global warming, we just need to get to use them until a cheaper renewable energy is at hand. Must watch movie for many of us, and if you do watch it keep an open mind about the solutions he suggest. If you disagree and think it's fallacious please do a little research on your own.