Cool It?

Would you read a book that the Wall Street Journal describes as "a calm analysis of what today's best science tells us about global warming and its risks"?

We're wondering if the book, by author Bjørn Lomborg, is really a calm analysis, or if it's more of an apologia that justifies the status quo. A big part of his criticism seems to be that our reaction to global warming is based on emotional reactions, rather than reason. That got us thinking about our own focus on the home and why we feel it's so important.

We're fully aware that certain choices we make, such as owning a car and flying, for example, outweigh all of the adjustments we've made at home, from changing light bulbs to CFLs, to getting rid of carpet. But there's something reassuring about waking up every day in an environment that reflects who you are and how you choose to see the future.

Is rational analysis needed? Absolutely. But framing emotional reactions to global warming as frivolous doesn't strike us as entirely rational, either.

The full title of Lomborg's book is Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming. Judging from the Amazon reviews, people seem to like it. If you pick up a copy or have read it already, let us know what you think.

Comments (2)

I read this book not too long ago and I must say it was an interesting read. I didn't feel that Lomborg was saying "our reaction to global warming is based on emotional reactions, rather than reason", but he explores how global warming, and specifically the significance place on reducing carbon emissions, is being blown way out of proportion by our current media. He gives detailed information from his own research to show how little we can actually do to slow global warming by reducing our carbon emissions and what those billions and billions of dollars could be better used for towards saving more people now like AIDS research and whatnot. I say give this book a read, it never hurts to hear another point of view.

I was going to read it, until I read a few articles about it over at the Grist blog (1, 2, 3) - apparently Lomborg has quite a lot of facts wrong. I can handle some inaccuracy, especially if I've got the right facts elsewhere to refer to, but there's so many other green books to read that I'd rather spend my time on ones by more careful authors.