Lomborg cherry-picks data to present skewed view of how we should combat global warming

• Square peg economics for a round hole problem
• Engineering the climate–a dangerous proposition
• Discounts threat of climate change
• Criticizes the Kyoto Protocol
• Argues against clean energy policies and action in isolation
• Recycles discredited claim about global cooling

A new documentary on climate change recently opened up in theaters. Titled “Cool It,” it features a Danish political scientist, Bjørn Lomborg, who has stirred up controversy in the past by questioning the urgency of addressing the problem.

The good news about “Cool It” is that it doesn't dispute the reality of climate change. Lomborg accepts the overwhelming scientific evidence that burning coal and oil and destroying forests has overloaded the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, trapping heat that would otherwise escape into space, thus warming the planet and disrupting the climate.

Instead, the film argues against “fearing” climate change. It opens with animations and voice-overs from schoolchildren talking about climate change, including a child worrying that the Earth is getting “very, very, very, very, very, very” hot.

While the film features many interviews with schoolchildren to bolster its case, Lomborg fails to convey the urgent need to address climate change that scientists have identified. They have concluded that if we do nothing to reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions, we could lock in 4 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit of global temperature increase by the end of the century.

Below are just a few of the problems in the film.

Square peg economics for a round hole problem

Broadly, the film focuses on issues Lomborg argues should take priority over addressing climate change, including poverty, malnutrition, disease and clean water. In fact, those interrelated problems are only going to be more difficult to address in an increasingly warming world. 

Lomborg also sees climate change through the narrow lens of classical economics. For example, he relies on traditional cost-benefit analysis, like weighing the economic benefits of a new bridge against to the cost of constructing it and, perhaps, the cost of relocating a few hundred local residents whose homes would be displaced by the bridge and new roads.

But as many economists have pointed out, climate change presents a unique challenge because actions we take (or fail to take) today will have grave repercussions for generations to come.

Back to top

Engineering the climate–a dangerous proposition

Lomborg argues for more research on geoengineering, such as using a stratospheric spray of small particles to reflect sunlight from the Earth, to “buy time” while scientists and engineers develop new clean energy technology.

“Cool It,” however, does not explore the high risks and uncertainties of many geoengineering proposals. Reflecting sunlight, for example, would damage crop production worldwide because plants need sunlight to grow.

Back to top

Lomborg accepts that climate change is real, but incorrectly discounts its threat

The film makes it clear that climate change is real and driven by human activities that overload the Earth’s atmosphere with carbon that traps excess heat like a blanket.

However, the documentary discounts the future consequences of unabated climate change and the economic costs and impacts on people and communities. 

Back to top

Lomborg criticizes the Kyoto Protocol, but doesn't acknowledge it was never meant to solve climate change on its own

There is nearly universal agreement that the Kyoto Protocol, as Lomborg says, is not enough to seriously address the problem of climate change. That is narrowly true, but the reality is that the Kyoto agreement was intended to be just a first step in a long-term global effort.

It did set up a framework for reducing emissions, but major emitting nations such as the United States and Australia did not ratify it, so its effectiveness was undermined.

Back to top

Lomborg argues against specific clean energy policies and action in isolation, failing to acknowledge that they all could work together

At various points in the film, Lomborg cherry-picks a single action or clean energy policy, emphasizes its cost, and contrasts it with what he claims would be its relatively small impact on global temperatures.

For example, he criticizes the European Union’s renewable electricity requirement, hybrid cars and compact fluorescent light bulbs. However, he fails to mention what a full suite of policies and consumer actions could accomplish.

Multiple analyses (including UCS’s 2009 blueprint) have concluded that a combination of policies aimed at reducing vehicle emissions, boosting renewable electricity production, and increasing energy efficiency would dramatically lower carbon dioxide emissions.

Back to top

Lomborg recycles the discredited claim about global cooling and misrepresents scientific research

“Cool It” includes a clip from a 1978 “In Search Of...” television episode titled “The Coming Ice Age.” The program was an interesting—but not always scientifically accurate—television show narrated by Leonard Nimoy, who played Mr. Spock on the original “Star Trek.”

”In Search of...” featured such topics as UFOs, Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster in a less than scientifically rigorous fashion.

Back to top

 

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading U.S. science-based nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also has offices in Berkeley, Chicago and Washington, D.C.