COOL IT -- Environmental Activist Bjorn Lomborg

00:00 - 00:51 Intro and first question: Do you think your background in political science and statistics helped give you a different perspective on the environmental issue?

00:51 - 01:18 Certainly shaped his approach. We need the scientists to explain the problems and the solutions. We also need to have the inspiration from economics, because not all solutions are created equal. We should do the most good for the least money first.

01:24 - 02:07 Why others react so negatively to his proposals. Everyone wants their particular problem to be the highest priority, and when Lomborg gives it a lower priority for a quick solution, they don’t like it.

02:10 - 03:14 When he first realized that there was a new way to look at the environment. He talks about being a typical Greenpeace kid and discovering that the environment was better than it had been a generation ago. Rivers no longer catch fire for example. He decries fear mongering, which he allows is great for fundraising, and prefers to have people realize that while that there is still a great deal to do, but that we are on the right track and keep building on that. Fear doesn’t contribute constructively to the debate, part of the reason book and movie are both called COOL IT.

03:16 - 03:54 Why a film as well as a book? To reach more people, same reason as Al Gore had. He was heartened that Gore didn’t like the idea of a movie of his message (Gore’s) until he saw the impact of AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. He, Lomborg, was worried that there would be less hard numbers, and he would have less control over the product, but getting the word out overrode those concerns.

04:05 - 05:11 Compares and contrast the polar bear as a rallying point in AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH and the difference that Lomborg sees between the Kyoto Accords solution, which will save about 1 polar bear a year, and his solution, which is to stop hunting polar bears, which will save between 300 and 500 polar bears a year and at a cost of $180 billion less. Not perfect, not only, solution, and doesn’t address global warming, but will save more polar bears. Also points out that polar bear populations have been growing over the last 50 years.

05:37 - 07:23 Talks about his experience having his first article about an alternate solution to global warming censured by the Danish Committee for Scientific Dishonesty. It was not able to point out one thing he had gotten wrong, but rather censured because the conclusions made them uncomfortable, and this he equates to thought police in some sectors of the environmental movement. The ruling was also eventually overturned because they could not justify their decision.

07:32 - 08:08 Talks about the advantage of his proposal for reducing malaria in the world. He discusses the political correctness that is in the environmental debate, which he thinks is preventing the most good being done for the most people.

08:15 - 09:28 How do the people who disagree with him counter his arguments? Talks again about how his research proves that his arguments do more good for less money, and how when he presents that argument to those who disagree with him, they change the subject. He asks do we want to be remembered for the pretty words that came out of Kyoto, or for doing the most good?

09:37 - 10:26 Discusses the adaptability of human beings to their environment in the short term. Not to accept global warming, but to live with it until solutions are found. He address whether or not the catastrophic predictions the environmental movement are true.

10:30 - 11:23 How he comes by his numbers. Discusses that the models he uses are not perfect, but neither are the ones used by his opponents. The difference in the numbers is in order of magnitude, which is what sets his proposals apart from the mainstream.

11:37 -12:11 Discusses how he prides himself on not using jargon, and why he doesn’t use it in his book or this movie. He can, however, use it very well when talking to experts in each field.

12:15 - 13:47 The problems with politicians making big promises about fixing the environment without having to worry about being in office by the time the promises come due. Cites Arnold Schwartzenegger and Tony Blair as examples. Allowing politicians to get away with this is a significant problem in fixing global warming, and having the public recognize that is an important step towards overcoming that.

13:52 -14:58 The potential moral hazard of bioengineering solutions, mistaking the band-aid for the solution. He emphasizes, though, that bioengineering is a vital part of the solution, though. Investing in alternative technologies is vital, as is recognizing that some of them will fail and that is to be expected.

15:00 - 15:47 Simple, relatively inexpensive solutions such as painting the rooftops of city buildings white in order to reduce the urban heating effect. Doesn’t solve everything, he notes, but solves a significant part of the global warming problem.

15:54 - 16:27 The proposal to make cloud cover microscopically brighter to help alleviate global warming and whether it would affect world precipitation patterns. He emphasizes that studies show it would, not but more research is always good and that is always a good idea to at least investigate solutions such as these.

16:43 - 17:43 The study in England 35 years ago of the feasibility of wave power supplying England’s power and the result of it having been conducted by the British Atomic Energy Commission. Why they were selected, and the way the film focuses on the fact that many solutions were proposed many years ago and were discarded for reasons other than sound science and that this is still going on. It demonstrates that the current model is broken and another is needed.

17:51 - 18:13 Making sure that the process is transparent to the public. He emphasizes the necessity of money going where it will do the most good, not to projects that allow for pretty photo ops and pretty words.

18:14 - 18:20 Thank yous and outro.