Science

False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet

False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet

  • Downloads：2517
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-05-01 11:56:06
  • Update Date：2025-09-07
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Bjørn Lomborg
  • ISBN：1541647467
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

Hurricanes batter our coasts。 Wildfires rage across the American West。 Glaciers collapse in the Artic。 Politicians， activists， and the media espouse a common message: climate change is destroying the planet， and we must take drastic action immediately to stop it。 Children panic about their future， and adults wonder if it is even ethical to bring new life into the world。
Enough， argues bestselling author Bjorn Lomborg。 Climate change is real， but it's not the apocalyptic threat that we've been told it is。 Projections of Earth's imminent demise are based on bad science and even worse economics。 In panic， world leaders have committed to wildly expensive but largely ineffective policies that hamper growth and crowd out more pressing investments in human capital， from immunization to education。

False Alarm will convince you that everything you think about climate change is wrong -- and points the way toward making the world a vastly better， if slightly warmer， place for us all。

Download

Reviews

Luca Bisio ，

Very libertarian view of the matter， but interesting nonetheless

amri ，

Forcing me to rethink about climate changeIn about the first half of the book， the author tries to diminish the impact of climate change。 Some of them are convincing， some of them not so much。The idea of 'ideal temperature rise' from economic side overlook some reality in the wolrd。 You will also found that some of the statements are using double standard or even contradict each other。It is interesting to look the climate change impact from economic （GDP） side， but again， better access to medica Forcing me to rethink about climate changeIn about the first half of the book， the author tries to diminish the impact of climate change。 Some of them are convincing， some of them not so much。The idea of 'ideal temperature rise' from economic side overlook some reality in the wolrd。 You will also found that some of the statements are using double standard or even contradict each other。It is interesting to look the climate change impact from economic （GDP） side， but again， better access to medication doesn't mean you will be healtier at the first place， you just have higher probability to get cured。Investment in climate change and the investments suggested by the author can go hand in hand， it is not something separated。 Investment in climate change is long term solution， while directly addressing the on the spot problem is short term。 。。。more

John ，

Lomborg provides ideas and stats to combat the narrative that the world is ending imminently。 So many have predicted including American Politicians like John Kerry and Al Gore， that climate is so drastic that polar bears will be extinct and that rising water levels will have already drowned certain parts of the global population。 He is NOT a climate change denier。 Lomborg is arguing that our current policies like the Paris accords will fail like the Tokyo ones did。 They are costly， do little cha Lomborg provides ideas and stats to combat the narrative that the world is ending imminently。 So many have predicted including American Politicians like John Kerry and Al Gore， that climate is so drastic that polar bears will be extinct and that rising water levels will have already drowned certain parts of the global population。 He is NOT a climate change denier。 Lomborg is arguing that our current policies like the Paris accords will fail like the Tokyo ones did。 They are costly， do little change， and impact poorer parts of the world in tragic ways。 He shows models detailing how better use of funds will bring more benefit in the fight against climate change。 。。。more

Jane Feehan ，

Uncommonly good sense Lomborg makes about climate change solutions。 Media is driving the hysteria。 Politicians and companies stand to profit off near useless solar panels and wind turbines while leaving the poor and undeveloped nations far behind。 Prosperity， adaptation， research and resilience will better serve the problem， which is not necessarily the crisis as claimed。

Samantha ，

I read this book because I like to take in different ideas about issues that are important to me， like climate change。 What's that， you say？ The sky is falling but not at as fast a clip as we think it is？ Great。 Bring on the learning。The book was a frustrating read though。 Most frustrating is the false dichotomy that we can either invest in research or in lessening our dependence on fossil fuels。 Lomborg argues that diminishing fossil fuel usage will disadvantage people living in poverty， and th I read this book because I like to take in different ideas about issues that are important to me， like climate change。 What's that， you say？ The sky is falling but not at as fast a clip as we think it is？ Great。 Bring on the learning。The book was a frustrating read though。 Most frustrating is the false dichotomy that we can either invest in research or in lessening our dependence on fossil fuels。 Lomborg argues that diminishing fossil fuel usage will disadvantage people living in poverty， and that the best way to alleviate climate change is to lift people out of poverty。 Cheap energy makes people richer， so they'll care more about the environment and be able to afford to cut their carbon emissions。 This feels like circular logic to me。 If cheap energy and reliance on fossil fuels lifted people out of poverty， wouldn't it have been doing that for generations？ And yet basic economic analysis points to an ever-widening gap between rich and poor， so what Lomborg argues hasn't been working so far。 He also says cutting off fossil fuels will most hurt poor countries， but as far as I know， no one is talking about cutting them off whole cloth， all at once。 Furthermore， we can invest in research AND we can lessen our dependence on fossil fuels。 It's not an either/or， and Lomborg doesn't really successfully argue that it is。 I also noticed that Lomborg's bio leans heavily on what the media - specifically the Guardian - has to say about him， when he devotes a fair amount of air time to saying that the media - specifically the Guardian - is making everyone hysterical and not reporting on the nuance of the issue。 Another central argument in the book is that humans are great at adapting， so things will probably be fine。 Heat waves won't result in mass deaths， he says， because people will just buy air conditioners。 （Because I guess everyone will be able to afford one because we're keeping fossil fuels？） He also says agriculture won't suffer too much because carbon dioxide acts as fertilizer。The book is also weirdly species centric for someone who's a vegetarian。 The central point seems to be that we'll all be fine - as long as you're a human！ His solution to forest fires: cut down mass amounts of trees to create a forest-free buffer around towns。 It's OK to lose the coral reefs - they are not major drivers of tourism。 Which is fine because it's not like ecology is interconnected or anything。I know I'm simplifying his arguments somewhat， but they fall apart at the slightest tug。 I finished feeling like I'd read a book full of information that had been cherry picked from more fulsome information - the exact thing Lomborg accuses the media of doing - and at a couple of points， even thought， "Who is paying this guy？" There is a blurb on the back from climate czar Jordan Peterson though， so there's that。In short， if you're interested in dissenting voices in the way we handle climate change， there are probably better places to look。 。。。more

Laeticia Gibbs ，

Point de vue original， mais demeure un long livre quelque peu redondant。

Tom De Bruyne ，

An essential read for everyone who beliefs Climate Change is real， backed by science， but who wants to think rationally about the interventions on how to solve it。 This book challenged everything I thought about climate crisis and the radical policies to fight it。

Paul Sand ，

My take here。 http://punsalad。com/cgi-bin/ps？spec=2。。。 My take here。 http://punsalad。com/cgi-bin/ps？spec=2。。。 。。。more

Kyle Kolodziej ，

Interesting read that brings up good thought provoking points regarding what policies are best for humanity moving forward。 Definitely brought some new light to what current practices and policies have done for the world in comparison to alternatives or “what if’s”。On the negative end: some predictions/numbers have footnotes that don’t really say much or not listed， metrics used are skewed towards Lomborg’s bias， and （imo） the carbon tax should be adjusted in ways to impact socioeconomic classes Interesting read that brings up good thought provoking points regarding what policies are best for humanity moving forward。 Definitely brought some new light to what current practices and policies have done for the world in comparison to alternatives or “what if’s”。On the negative end: some predictions/numbers have footnotes that don’t really say much or not listed， metrics used are skewed towards Lomborg’s bias， and （imo） the carbon tax should be adjusted in ways to impact socioeconomic classes differently as Lomborg argues throughout the book about helping the poor 。。。more

Carrie ，

The most hopeful book I’ve read in a long time。 Instead of doom and gloom， Lomborg describes wise and effective measures we can take to combat climate change。 Everyone that is fearful of climate change should read this book and take deep relaxing breaths。

Barry ，

Maybe 4。5 starsThis isn’t really a book about climate science。 This is a book about the economic consequences of climate change and of the policies designed to slow the effects of climate change。 I should point out that Lomborg is not a climate change denier。 He seems to accept at face value the claims of the climate scientists that man-made global warming is occurring due to CO2 emissions。 His focus is on the economic consequences of the solutions proposed to solve the climate crisis。 He shows— Maybe 4。5 starsThis isn’t really a book about climate science。 This is a book about the economic consequences of climate change and of the policies designed to slow the effects of climate change。 I should point out that Lomborg is not a climate change denier。 He seems to accept at face value the claims of the climate scientists that man-made global warming is occurring due to CO2 emissions。 His focus is on the economic consequences of the solutions proposed to solve the climate crisis。 He shows—I would say persuasively— that many of the proposed cures are actually worse than the disease。 We are expected to accept the climate scientists’ models that predict the future of the climate based on current and future human activity。 If we trust these models， then perhaps we should also trust the economists’ models that show how various proposals to address the climate crisis will affect the world economy and our overall well-being。 Doing nothing to address CO2 would be bad。 But instituting drastic measures that have enormous costs on GDP， but have negligible effects on global warming， would actually be worse。 There is an optimal scenario that appropriately balances these extremes。 I really don’t feel inspired to text out the details here， but the bottom line is that we would be best off overall if we adopted some appropriate global carbon taxes， spent substantially more money on R&D on alternative energy sources， and focused on things that are actually more important for overall well-being: reducing poverty， investing in education， and eliminating disease。 For the sake of balance， I think it’s important to read a critique of Lomborg’s book， such as this one by the liberal economist Joseph Stiglitz in the NYT。 https://www。nytimes。com/2020/07/16/bo。。。But then be sure to read Lomborg’s devastating response here:https://www。linkedin。com/pulse/new-yo。。。 。。。more

Vladimir ，

It could have been named the Great Extrapolation。The central point of this book is that the cost of climate change is limited to 3% of the world GDP by the end of this century。 Therefore we are better off doing mostly business as usual， as that would get us richer and thus more equipped to adapt。Problem no。1 with this is that despite warning about the dangers of extrapolation the author does the same himself。 He assumes that climate will worsen gradually （linearly）， which will result in the cost It could have been named the Great Extrapolation。The central point of this book is that the cost of climate change is limited to 3% of the world GDP by the end of this century。 Therefore we are better off doing mostly business as usual， as that would get us richer and thus more equipped to adapt。Problem no。1 with this is that despite warning about the dangers of extrapolation the author does the same himself。 He assumes that climate will worsen gradually （linearly）， which will result in the cost of 3% to the world GDP by the end of the century。 We however do not know what happens with the clouds when warmer， what happens when the arctic methane is released into the atmosphere， what happens when the Gulf stream gets changed。 There are models out there that suggest that Earth is a multistable system in terms of temperature equilibria。 We do not know what it takes to flip its state， where is the next equilibrium and how much the flip costs。 Either way， the temperature will keep rising as long as we keep emitting carbon unless it balances with some unknown sinks in future， so it really is not an option to go on without carbon cuts for a long time。 Author does not address the endgame， where do we balance out in his scenario， or do we at all。Problem no。2 is that the world is not one nation and impacts cannot be averaged。 Adaptation may mean invasions of more livable and resource-rich countries， waves of migration etc。 Imagine the impact on politics， global trade （assumed intact by extrapolating current trends）， and then GDP cost of all that。 Actually， there already is an IPCC report analysing this。Problem no。3 is that it is not all about the economy， and not all about humans。 If we ravage the current wildlife something else will take hold。 Maybe mosquitoes will return malaria， maybe more pandemics will ensue killing cattle and people。 It is even immoral to weigh the impact。 It would be akin to saying my sewage spills onto the street but my kids do not play there。 If the wildlife cannot adapt then we should just clean up what we spill。There are of course some takeaways。 One is that IPCC found no reliable trends in extreme weather， contrary to public opinion。 Second is that planting trees does not increase carbon sinking significantly。 Third is that geoengineering solutions have the potential to save the day if all else fails， and that they deserve research financing。Book is well written and well researched， it was worth the time。 I just did not find the argument convincing enough to agree with the reasoning and the conclusions。 。。。more

Mark O'mara ，

I’d pretty much recommend read everything Lomborg writes and False Alarm is no exception。 Reasoned， well written， intelligent assessment backed up with sold empirical research on e extent of the risks posed by climate change and the best approaches to finding viable solutions。 The distance between this work and the emotional recklessness of the press， activists， culture and politicians is vast， appalling and dangerous。

Matias Singers ，

I remember Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming having a big impact on me ~13 years ago after being really concerned about Climate Change after watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth。"I'm continually surprised by the amount of flak Bjørn Lomborg receives。 Many of his critics seem to miss the fact that he's examining Climate Change Policy from a pure economist cost/benefit analysis POV。 He does not at any point deny climate change， nor deny that we will see economi I remember Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming having a big impact on me ~13 years ago after being really concerned about Climate Change after watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth。"I'm continually surprised by the amount of flak Bjørn Lomborg receives。 Many of his critics seem to miss the fact that he's examining Climate Change Policy from a pure economist cost/benefit analysis POV。 He does not at any point deny climate change， nor deny that we will see economic cost as a result of changes。 My primary takeaway is this: many problems face the world today， and climate change is just one of them （not the biggest by far）。 The most effective climate change policy from a cost/benefit perspective is prosperity。 Still， the problem is that it's a lot easier to focus on specific actions like putting up solar panels or going vegetarian。 Thomas Schelling pointed out back in 1992 that the best way to help people is to focus on making them more prosperous/richer。We need to be aware that when we insist， as part of foreign aid packages， that the developing world align with our climate priorities， we are enacting a kind of imperialism。 We are not listening to what the citizens of these countries want。 We are jeopardizing their opportunity to lift their populations out of poverty for the sake of our own concerns。 This isn't just bad policy。 It's grossly unethical。 Furthermore， as incomes rise countries tend to start spending more money on green energy R&D and taxing carbon emissions:If you're poor， you burn cheap dirty fuel。 If you're richer， you can afford to subsidize wind turbines。 Most of the hysteria today is driven by （1） the media sensationalizing stories without looking at historical records or the bigger picture and （2） politicians clawing for an easy "external enemy" to unite people against。 There just aren't many clicks and votes in talking about the massive improvements humanity continues to make and how much better each generation is living。So what should we be doing？（1） Implement a carbon tax that will properly account for the market failing to price in externalities today（2） Invest more in R&D， especially around energy storage， nuclear energy， and direct air capture technologies。（3） Adaption is one of the remarkable capacities of humanity， and the richer a country is the better it will be able to adapt to a warmer planet。（4） Geoengineering is a controversial topic， but we need to invest more scientific research into it as a last-resort backup plan。If you've read this book， I think you can skip How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need since it uses many the same examples and even basic structure。 I have a feeling that Bill Gates or Breakthrough Energy works with Bjørn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus。 。。。more

Bint Laden ，

This book makes a series of simple but important points。 First that climate change is real， damaging and must be addressed。 Second that current policies will do little to limit temperature rise by the end of this century but will impose a very substantial cost， limiting economic growth and keeping more people in poverty than would otherwise be the case。 His proposed solution is to adopt lower cost solutions， not only to limit green house gases but to find alternative technologies and to help peo This book makes a series of simple but important points。 First that climate change is real， damaging and must be addressed。 Second that current policies will do little to limit temperature rise by the end of this century but will impose a very substantial cost， limiting economic growth and keeping more people in poverty than would otherwise be the case。 His proposed solution is to adopt lower cost solutions， not only to limit green house gases but to find alternative technologies and to help people adapt to the rise in temperature which is inevitable， inevitable because even if all developed countries stopped all CO2 emissions today – impossible， of course – there is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to mean temperature will rise。The inadequacy of current policies is illustrated by reference to the ‘Paris Accord’。 Lomborg says that even if all the commitments made in Paris were completely fulfilled， something we know will not happen because already countries have failed to deliver on their commitments， it would represent just 1。3% of the reduction in CO2 emissions required to meet the target of limiting temperature rise to just 2 degrees Centigrade （and just 1% if the more stringent target of 1。5 degrees is preferred）， while even the existing commitments impose huge costs on consumers， businesses and ultimately， economic growth and prosperity。 The policies are essentially futile but tick the box of being seen to do something。There are some interesting ideas in the book: choosing just one， by way of example， Lomborg describes what he calls the ‘bounce back phenomenon’ where individuals and organisations which take steps to reduce their carbon footprint often end up making things worse， because the steps taken also usually save money （not flying to climate conferences， for example， walking to work rather than taking the train） and the money saved is often then spent on activities which are more carbon intensive – a new phone， a more exotic holiday， pay rises for staff etc。The book is not without its faults。 It’s repetitious as the same point is made again and again， especially about how increasing wealth is the best climate policy of all。 There are some logical inconsistencies and he is wrong to dismiss the role of renewable energy as trivial （just look at the data for the UK， for example）。 Like others， I found his insistence on using Fahrenheit throughout irritating: yes， it shows the books principal target market is the USA but would it really have been too much effort to use both means of expressing temperatures？ And I read this on a Kindle on which the charts and graphs， which form an important element of the book， are so tiny that they’re indecipherable。Nevertheless， this is a thought-provoking book which seeks to cut through much of the climate change hype and hysteria and in which it largely succeeds。 If Greta Thunberg reads this book， it will make her even angrier than she already is – is that even possible？ 。。。more

David Mihalyi ，

Bjorn Lomborg is the most famous dissenting voice on climate change。 He doesn't dispute man made warming exists， but believes the seriousness of the issue is way overstated。 He makes his long case for it in this book， which is partly a rehash of various earlier books， articles and op-eds。Let's start with the good stuff from the book。 -He highlights that focusing our efforts on climate change mitigation involves some trade-offs。 The money spent on it could have been spent on some other urgent pri Bjorn Lomborg is the most famous dissenting voice on climate change。 He doesn't dispute man made warming exists， but believes the seriousness of the issue is way overstated。 He makes his long case for it in this book， which is partly a rehash of various earlier books， articles and op-eds。Let's start with the good stuff from the book。 -He highlights that focusing our efforts on climate change mitigation involves some trade-offs。 The money spent on it could have been spent on some other urgent priorities， which may have higher benefits over long-term horizon。 This approach is often missing in the prevailing climate change discourse （"we need all hands on deck"）。- Some believe that climate change is likely to make the planet inhabitable for most humans。 The book slams many such misconceptions which are often based on exaggerated headlines， misrepresentation of research findings or unscientific doomsayer narratives。-The book is framed around the theme of "The World Is Getting Better， but Good News Doesn't Make Headlines"。 You may recognize it from other books on tangentially related topics by Hans Rosling， Stephen Pinker， Charles Kenny， Andrew McAfee。 There is lots of truth to such framing and this kind of optimism may also cheer you up a bit。 The more troubling stuff:- Although I am no expert on climate change， it seems pretty clear that the book misrepresents where the scientific consensus is and what the major debates are on various sub-topics。 It is clearly selective in which paper it chooses to describe and how。 For example， on the economic impacts of climate change （the part I know best）， it discusses work by Nordhaus and Tol but not their criticism， nor the work by Burke， Hsiang or Weitzman which arrives to starkly different conclusions。- Many of Lomborg's more basic arguments are weak and one sided。 He highlights rebound effects when a climate continuous person switches to cheaper alternative （the extra emission from using that saving on something else）， but conveniently forgets about it when consumers switches to a more expensive greener alternative。 Bashes renewable subsidies， but ignores fossil subsidies。- He jumps around between taking down a strawman agenda， where all climate policies are totally enforced （"kills the economy"） and one where not much is happening anyway （"pointless attempts" ）。 He doesn't seem to acknowledge the messy reality of climate politics， where any agenda is ever only partly implemented。 - Lomborg doesn't tell you why he believes his views are at odds with much of the mainstream scientific community。 Surely he is aware of his reputation as a contrarian / dissenting voice。 What is his own judgment on why he is right and so many others are wrong。 Does he believe he is more knowledgeable or smarter？ Less biased or political？ Un-corruptible？ -While the book （rightly so） describes mitigating climate change as a complicated and expensive venture， there is not much nuance to the difficulties in alleviating poverty。 His repeated calls to redirect money from climate change to other programs make it sound like any money not spent on electric car subsidies in the US could instead be effectively deployed to pull people out of poverty in Bangladesh。 If only it were that easy。Read it if you like contrarian books， but make sure you read something more balanced also。 。。。more

Ovidiu ，

The climate change is real， it's man made， and it's pretty bad。However， pretty much everything we do to address it is wrong - and insanely expensive。 The climate change is real， it's man made， and it's pretty bad。However， pretty much everything we do to address it is wrong - and insanely expensive。 。。。more

Amora ，

The way the data and research is presented is very articulate but not as much as Michael Shellenberger’s book， in my opinion。 At times Lomborg might have contradicted himself by presenting research that shows that wildfires aren’t increasing and later saying that climate change will affect wildfires。 That aside， this was a joy to read。 All the political noise has made it difficult to talk about real solutions to mitigate climate change and Lomborg presents actual solutions that have been extensi The way the data and research is presented is very articulate but not as much as Michael Shellenberger’s book， in my opinion。 At times Lomborg might have contradicted himself by presenting research that shows that wildfires aren’t increasing and later saying that climate change will affect wildfires。 That aside， this was a joy to read。 All the political noise has made it difficult to talk about real solutions to mitigate climate change and Lomborg presents actual solutions that have been extensively studied。 A debate between Lomborg and Noami Klein would be something I would pay for。 。。。more

Paul Goldsmith ，

If nothing else it's worth reading these kinds of sources to understand other's perspectives， although I can't say I agree with some of the logic in this book， he makes some interesting points。 What annoys me is that early on in the book it's presented in a "neither political side is right， and I'm going to give you the facts" manner that is supposed to give you the impression that this book isn't politically biased， when in reality this book basically echos most things Trump just spent the past If nothing else it's worth reading these kinds of sources to understand other's perspectives， although I can't say I agree with some of the logic in this book， he makes some interesting points。 What annoys me is that early on in the book it's presented in a "neither political side is right， and I'm going to give you the facts" manner that is supposed to give you the impression that this book isn't politically biased， when in reality this book basically echos most things Trump just spent the past 4 years saying。 I just checked this authors website， and the last （and only） 3 articles he cited were from: Fox and Friends， Fox News， and the NY Post， so that should give you a sense of the types of sources he draws on and his standards for journalistic and academic integrity。 This book is very much the perspective of an economist （not an environmentalist， even though that's what he calls himself） in that most things are framed in monetary impact。 Over and over you will hear the words "cost" and "GDP"。 At times it feels like almost every sentence contains one of those words， especially in chapters like the one about the Paris Agreement， where the author focuses almost exclusively on cost， while quickly glossing or disputing over any benefit from the agreement。 Similarly， he nit-picks personal habits that benefit the environment like not eating meat， because the impact isn't enough for what this author considers meaningful。 He flat-out says that every little thing doesn't count， and again ignores all other environmental impacts of those decisions beyond their carbon impact。 Some of his analogies used to rationalize his positions don't work either。 He poo-poos people who want to reduce carbon emissions and are against geo-engineering （geo-engineering = performing never-before attempted large scale experiments to alter the planet）， saying that that's like telling someone they can't have cardio bypass surgery and they have to watch what they are eating better instead。 It's nuggets like that that left me scratching my head with this book。 。。。more

Jonathan Sim ，

Shorter version of his older tombs but a good quick read for a very rationale and alternative approach

Cameron Ostrom ，

Fascinating

Tim Good ，

This book has one of the most balanced approaches to addressing climate changes I have read。 It is a book that forces the reader to step out of the climate panic created in the media and look at the various costs of addressing the problems in our world and the results that money being spent will achieve。 Highly recommend this book for people who believe climate change is the most important issue we face and for those that think there are bigger problems we need to address。 I think this book is a This book has one of the most balanced approaches to addressing climate changes I have read。 It is a book that forces the reader to step out of the climate panic created in the media and look at the various costs of addressing the problems in our world and the results that money being spent will achieve。 Highly recommend this book for people who believe climate change is the most important issue we face and for those that think there are bigger problems we need to address。 I think this book is a great read for both camps。 。。。more

Josh ，

This book did a good job of convincing me that the damages from Climate Change are probably extremely overblown by the media， and that green power is not an appropriate solution。 Nuclear。 Nuclear。 NUCLEAR。 However， I was pretty annoyed by the author's assumption of effectively infinite growth。 Limits to Growth makes a pretty compelling argument that we can't keep growing forever， and there's good evidence that the last 40 years of growth have pretty much been driven by credit （as evidenced by th This book did a good job of convincing me that the damages from Climate Change are probably extremely overblown by the media， and that green power is not an appropriate solution。 Nuclear。 Nuclear。 NUCLEAR。 However， I was pretty annoyed by the author's assumption of effectively infinite growth。 Limits to Growth makes a pretty compelling argument that we can't keep growing forever， and there's good evidence that the last 40 years of growth have pretty much been driven by credit （as evidenced by the fact that energy consumption is not actually increasing in the rich world）。 This， combined with the continued insistence of economists that free trade is unalloyed good is really making me start to believe that economics is just as much of a bullshit field as sociology。 。。。more

Tim Rose ，

This book was much different than expected， in a good way。 He clearly makes the case that climate change is very real， and this is a book about the proper response to the global warming phenomenon。 Parts of this book were a bit slow simply because of all the data and numbers and studies cited， but I think he had to include all of that to solidify his arguments on such a heated issue。 No pun。

Brian ，

Bjorn Lomborg yet again delivers a rational tour de force to help us to remember our priorities。 Resources are scarce and it makes the most sense to calculate how to best allocate resources without being influenced by fads or mass hysteria。 Climate change is just such a hysteria。Lomborg takes pains to underline that he does believe that humans have a slight impact on the climate and that we likely can， at huge expense， modify that trajectory ever so slightly over the long term。 Rather than blind Bjorn Lomborg yet again delivers a rational tour de force to help us to remember our priorities。 Resources are scarce and it makes the most sense to calculate how to best allocate resources without being influenced by fads or mass hysteria。 Climate change is just such a hysteria。Lomborg takes pains to underline that he does believe that humans have a slight impact on the climate and that we likely can， at huge expense， modify that trajectory ever so slightly over the long term。 Rather than blindly pursuing that objective， he encourages us to remember all of the other ways in which we can radically improve our lives and those of our posterity in more substantial ways than blindly building windmills and taxing carbon。His approach to addressing climate change is to:1。 Think of it in terms of results， not intentions （building nuclear reactors is less sexy but more effective in reducing carbon than building windmills or solar farms， for example）2。 Balance the costs of changing the climate against those of adapting to the changes。 Often it is much cheaper to adapt to climate change than to influence it。 Building a levy to stop flooding may be much more efficient than trying to reduce carbon。3。 Remember that innovation and economic growth are often both the easiest and most effective approaches to solving large obstacles。 Moreover， humans have fewer children as they become wealthier， stabilizing population growth。 Unfortunately， governments often invest in short-term， popular solutions like subsidizing wind and solar over longer-term more investment in research for more scalable solutions。Perhaps the most important subtle message in the book is to stop working against ourselves。 Subsidizing ethanol production where more than a gallon of oil is burned to produce a gallon of ethanol is not a great way to reduce carbon。 We should also embrace changes to cleaner carbon， such as moving from coal to gas， rather than insisting on moving directly away from all carbon。 Moves away from nuclear toward fossil fuels are also foolish。Fundamentally， Lomborg promotes a rational approach to government and individual decision-making。 Unfortunately， most governments are more worried about headlines that will get them re-elected in the very near term and thus de-incentivized to invest in long-term research or projects。 While I appreciate Lomborg's respected voice in this discussion， I find that Michael Shellenberger's Apocalypse Never presents a more unified and consistent plan for addressing climate change。 。。。more

Hope Wenke ，

The futility of current efforts of man to stop global warming。

Jonathan Ward ，

A very helpful book for explaining what would really work for global climate change policy and a positive and practical antidote to a panic-driven outlook。 It relies largely upon economic analyses - it isn't a heavy academic book but does present basic footnoting to back up its assertions。 The objectives of the 2015-2016 Paris Agreement are not just completely ineffective in solving the challenges from climate change but squander monies for actual solutions。 Full global implementation of the Par A very helpful book for explaining what would really work for global climate change policy and a positive and practical antidote to a panic-driven outlook。 It relies largely upon economic analyses - it isn't a heavy academic book but does present basic footnoting to back up its assertions。 The objectives of the 2015-2016 Paris Agreement are not just completely ineffective in solving the challenges from climate change but squander monies for actual solutions。 Full global implementation of the Paris Agreement would still leave the global temperature increase at more than double what global climate campaigners claim is allowable and only very slightly less than what it would be with no Agreement at all。 It would achieve almost nothing while sucking the air out of the room for actual solutions。 Lomborg recommends three approaches instead: 1） a limited carbon tax system that achieves the low-hanging fruit of ongoing emissions reductions without damaging economic growth and condemning low-income nations to continued poverty; 2） putting money into green R&D to find low to no emission energy solutions rather than wind and solar， which have proven to be dead ends for a global solution; and 3） climate adaptation measures that will effectively protect the world and especially low-income nations from the effects of climate change。 Lomborg's main point is that climate change is not the only or main problem facing the world and that global prosperity is the best climate change policy。 The best global solutions for improving the human condition include free trade， ending diseases like TB， and ensuring access to better early nutrition， contraception， health， education， and technology。 To appreciate that message you have to ultimately decide if you are a rational humanist and environmentalist interested in following the science or an apocalyptical neo-Malthusian。 。。。more

Machiel Reyneke ，

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 Looking at environmental impact through the lens of economic tradeoffs， this is a very interesting read。 A lot of the book uses our current environmental/economic models to project into an uncertain future。 I agree with the author that we can make better， more pragmatic tradeoffs by not invoking alarmism。 There are known investments that yield good ROI for the （known） problems that we will face， and alarmists are doing themselves no favors by ignoring them。That said， the book doesn’t touch the t Looking at environmental impact through the lens of economic tradeoffs， this is a very interesting read。 A lot of the book uses our current environmental/economic models to project into an uncertain future。 I agree with the author that we can make better， more pragmatic tradeoffs by not invoking alarmism。 There are known investments that yield good ROI for the （known） problems that we will face， and alarmists are doing themselves no favors by ignoring them。That said， the book doesn’t touch the topic of what will could break the models being used。 All models break， and it’s worth understanding how。 What happens to the models if we see sudden ecological collapse？ What happens if pollution not related to global warming does lasting damage？ Perhaps these topics are addressed by research， but it’s not included in the book。 And in my mind， there is a large amount of pessimism and fear about the future of our planet as a result of the “non-warming” environmental issues we’ve caused for our planet。 Reducing the scope to only the warming aspect is OK， but it means that the author hasn’t been able to allay my natural fears of what we’re doing to the planet。The book is still worth 4 stars in my opinion， given that the book is accessible， and has opened my eyes to how we can better apply economic thinking to the environmental debate。 What is clear， is that current policy and alarmism is not helping anybody， and is even potentially doing more harm than good。 。。。more

Robert Vlach ，

Lomborg is another personal hero of mine， a public-policy contrarian willing to articulate unpopular concerns about the mainstream climate policy。 He is often being tagged as a climate-change denier （he is not） as well as one of the world’s most influential thinkers。 You read and decide。 His new book was years in the making。 It can be described as a harsh， evidence-based critique of climate alarmism on the one hand and a study of alternative climate policy on the other。 Lomborg’s previous book C Lomborg is another personal hero of mine， a public-policy contrarian willing to articulate unpopular concerns about the mainstream climate policy。 He is often being tagged as a climate-change denier （he is not） as well as one of the world’s most influential thinkers。 You read and decide。 His new book was years in the making。 It can be described as a harsh， evidence-based critique of climate alarmism on the one hand and a study of alternative climate policy on the other。 Lomborg’s previous book Cool It was fine， but this one is far more ambitious in scope and bold ideas of what should be changed in our climate policies。 And once again， don’t judge by the cover。 。。。more

Pandit ，

Good。BL is a full on Global Warmist - he shows no skepticism as to the science of the greenhouse effect （as I do myself）， but instead focusses on the economics。 How much money should be invested in weak measures to combat co2， rather than tackling TB， poverty， and other social ills？ What bad effects stem from GW anyway， and is money better spent on things like agriculture investment or sea defenses？ His main point is we should focus on improving human lives and society， which we are proven capab Good。BL is a full on Global Warmist - he shows no skepticism as to the science of the greenhouse effect （as I do myself）， but instead focusses on the economics。 How much money should be invested in weak measures to combat co2， rather than tackling TB， poverty， and other social ills？ What bad effects stem from GW anyway， and is money better spent on things like agriculture investment or sea defenses？ His main point is we should focus on improving human lives and society， which we are proven capable of。 Such benefits far outweigh any negative effects of 2 or 3 degrees （C） of warming。 Good。 Sensible。 。。。more

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0