I watched Thomas Lomborg's documentary the other day on the financisl options to counter global warming. His film gives a far more balanced, rational and, above all, economics driven approach to the problem than a lot of the hype that is out there. He clearly states that climate change is happening; the discussion being on how we resolve it and how to spend the money most wisely. Sound judgement or an environmental heretic?
It's been my consistent opinion for a few years now that climate change has become too much of a one track issue; too 'religious' in many ways; and too prone to exagerated warnings. Those of us into the Sustainability movement know it can only be solved by looking at the whole picture of environment, society and the economcy. But it is consistently looked at in isolation. Most climate change conferences have failed precisely because they are solely on climate.
I thus welcome the main messages of Cool It - that if we are going to spend USD 250 bn per year there are better ways to do this than putting it all into reducing carbeon emissions and on cap and trade.
Where it is flawed, however, is he doesn't even touch on some of the really big issues - such as population control, technology transfer and how to get the 3rd World out of poverty whilst not making the same mistakes as we have. And if you are going to claim that a good % of this money could be used on education and famine in Africa, this brings in the whole realm of the enormous sums of money rich countries spend their money on, such as defence.
But all in all, a very good film, Idealists may differ, but economics will drive the solutions to global warming, not dire warnings.