This may not be the most popular approach to climate change today, but the author continues his previous arguments that we are throwing away trillions and the opportunity for great economic development, by focusing on only the anticipated temperature of the global atmosphere (mitigation measures). In contrast, the author's suggestions to turn to adaptation strategies would cost only in the order of hundreds of billions, but afford numerous co-benefits, not the least in terms of improved incomes and welfare. The author bolsters his previous arguments with a greater range of cost-benefit figures, generated with the cooperation of hundreds of scientists and economists working with the Copenhagen Consensus thinktank. ( )

A lonely voice in the absent conversation on climate change response. ( )

Concerns about climate change have in the past 30 years moved from the periphery of national and international politics much closer to the center, thanks in large part to the work done by a new generation of environmentally minded journalists. The author of this book criticizes contemporary reporting on climate change for excessive alarmism and for a limited capacity to understand and compare problems. He also argues that the default assumptions of current policies - especially that emission reductions must always be the main goal, at any cost - are misguided. Finally, he offers a set of alternative policies that could lead to a better future.

I agree on his points about overly pessimistic reporting. For some reason environmentalists find it in the best interest of coming generations to perpetuate an apocalyptic discourse which might eventually become bankrupt if few of those dire predictions turn out to be true. The author shows that policies advocated by the environmental movement can sometimes have immediate harmful consequences especially in less developed countries because they lead to money being wasted on policies which hinder economic development.

The author's alternative vision about learning to live with climate change through a spectrum of policies - adaptation and economic development foremost among them - seems reasonable. However, I must say that some of the research the author presents in favor of his conclusions is utterly ridiculous. Models where GDP is modelled as a function of temperature increase, or predicted a century into the future, have absolutely no scientific validity. They are just arbitrary extrapolations of a badly defined variable on a ridiculously long timescale. It seems to me that the main pieces of the arguments presented in this book could have been put together even without citing this shoddy subfield of economic research, but I suppose the citations reflect the author's own interests.

In any case, despite the argumentative weaknesses of some parts, this book is educational and certainly worth reading as a thoughtful antidote to alarming news.

Reading this book put me through the 5 stages of grief. ( )

Interesting concepts. I agree with some, but not all. ( )