Cool It

Cool It is a documentary about climate change. But before this sends anyone who has ever listened to five minutes of talkback radio running for the slowly-rising ocean, be aware that this is a doco with a difference. Here there are no doomsayers; no scare tactics; just one man and his quarter-trillion dollar plan to fix not only climate change, but many of the world's most urgent issues.

This one man is Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and world betterment maverick. His unique approach to the issue of global warming, in which he shoots down almost every public policy on the issue in preference of rationality, has earnt him equal parts admirers and demonisers.

The film excels in its biting criticism of the Western and developing world's approach to the problem. Lomborg doesn't argue that we aren't doing any good, but rather that we are not maximising our return on the social good generated per dollar spent. He deconstructs and demolishes projects like 'Earth Hour' and the 'cap and trade' scheme (similar in nature to Australia's freshly-implemented carbon tax) with an engaging tone that makes sense to even the most apolitical viewer.

Given the film's subject matter, it is only a matter of time before the inevitable comparisons to An Inconvenient Truth arise. Here, Lomborg, with the help of articulate talking heads from all over the world, picks apart the 'blatant scare tactics' used by Gore in a manner that is, if nothing else, an intriguing exposition on the behind-the-scenes agendas of documentary filmmaking.

The final third, in which Lomborg recruits scientists to justify the mechanics of his plan, can be occasionally hard to swallow, particularly if one's knowledge of physics ended on the last day of Year Nine. And yet, this late onslaught of high-level science only lightly sours what is a wholeheartedly thoughtful experience.

*There's nothing I love more than a bit of feedback, good or bad. So drop me a line on jnatsis@iprimus.com.au and let me know what you thought of my review. If you're looking for a writer for your movie website or other publication, I'd also love to hear from you.**

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.

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, by focusing on how we can adapt, and how 'we can use our money for better things' is avoiding a solution to the problem. He has moved on to accept the science, but now he is saying there is nothing to worry about, and we have better things to do.

His agenda is revealed by what he *doesn't* say. His goal is to avoid penalizing fossil fuel for as long as possible. Of course, such a penalty will not be a significant cost on the economy. There are free market solutions to the problem which can utilize the market to remove fossil fuel from the economy in a quarter of a century or less. This would create a good return on investment many times over, in terms of energy security and technological innovation (fossil energy is *old*), and of course avoiding some of the immigration and starvation that will be caused by warming.

This film challenges us to think creatively, and provides lots of information not provided by either side of the global warming debate. I suspect the reviewer didn't watch the entire film.