CHICAGO – Patrick McDonald of HollywoodChicago.com audio review for the streaming series “Emily in Paris” the adventures of Emily Cooper and her fanciful/fashionable Paris friends and lovers, now in its fourth season. Episodes 1-5 currently on Netflix.
DVD Review: ‘Cool It’ Ignores But Doesn’t Deny Global Warming
![Printer-friendly version Printer-friendly version](/sites/all/modules/print/icons/print_icon.gif)
![E-mail page to friend E-mail page to friend](/sites/all/modules/print/icons/mail_icon.gif)
![PDF version PDF version](/sites/all/modules/print/icons/pdf_icon.gif)
CHICAGO – Any film that adds to the climate debate by bringing in a fresh and intelligent voice is certainly worth one’s time. From that perspective, “Cool It” is a documentary of considerable value, though it’s less rewarding than one might hope. Though it aims to be the cinematic rebuttal to “An Inconvenient Truth,” it falls far short, in part because the film simply isn’t as well-crafted or effective as Davis Guggenheim’s 2006 Oscar-winner.
“Truth” served its purpose as a call to alarm, jettisoning the undeniable yet controversial issue of global warming into the public consciousness. As author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” Bjørn Lomborg is determined to debunk the scare-tactics and misinformation that he feels ran rampant throughout “Truth.” Yet with its reputation-cleansing montages and self-serving analysis, “Cool It” is every bit as much a manipulative work of propaganda as Guggenheim’s film, lionizing Lomborg in much the same way “Truth” glorified Al Gore.
![]() DVD Rating: 2.5/5.0 |
While Lomborg is clearly not a climate change denier, he doesn’t believe global warming is an important enough issue to justify the exorbitant cost brought about by penalizing fossil fuel. Swayed by Julian Simon’s optimistic assessment, “The State of Humanity,” Lomborg wants to prove that the world is fixable, and its remedy has a digestible price tag. At the Copenhagen Consensus Center, he participates in an economical think tank that prioritizes global problems. After twenty minutes of character-building scenes that add nothing to the overall picture (such as a sentimental visit with Lomborg’s Alzheimer’s-stricken mother), the film announces its ultimate goal: to provide workable solutions for our current environmental threats, concluding with Lomborg’s proposal of how to spend 250 billion dollars wisely. Unfortunately, the proposal is never adequately explained, while the “solutions” are more focused on adapting to global warming rather than preventing it. To the credit of editors Debra Light, Brian Singbiel and David Timoner, the film never attempts to demonize the “other side” of the argument, and even allows dissenter Stephen Schneider to voice his opinion without being reduced to a few hateful soundbites. Lomborg bends over backwards to find a common ground where warring ideologies and interests can finally embrace the tools of change.
![Bjørn Lomborg voices his controversial views in Ondi Timoner’s Cool It. Bjørn Lomborg voices his controversial views in Ondi Timoner’s Cool It.](http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/sites/default/files/coolit.jpg)
Bjørn Lomborg voices his controversial views in Ondi Timoner’s Cool It.
Photo credit: Lionsgate Entertainment
What’s troubling about Lomborg’s approach is the ease with which he dismisses global warming as a lesser issue. He sees it as a line on a checklist rather than an overarching crisis. The claims of “alarmists” are equated with the worries of naive children in developed parts of the world that have the luxury of worrying about whether the sea level rises a foot. Lomborg’s perspective is valid, but he frequently appears to be avoiding the issues his film promised to address. He does a great job of highlighting all the methods for emissions reduction that wouldn’t work, from cap-and-trade (defined as “an invitation to corruption”) to the latest in a series of international summits producing legislation that amounts to nothing. Various “myths” about the effects of climate change are subverted, such as the claim that polar bears will become extinct as a result of meting ice caps (Lomborg points to hunting as the main reason for their decline), or the argument that Hurricane Katrina’s path of destruction was an unprecedented natural disaster as opposed to the result of ineffectual flood control. And don’t bother to light those eco-friendly candles on Earth Day. They apparently release more carbon dioxide than your electricity.
![]() Cool It was released on DVD on March 29, 2011. Photo credit: Lionsgate Entertainment |
The film is at its most interesting during the last third, when Lomborg begins to explore some theoretical remedies with the help of various experts, including Stephen Salter, a pioneer in both cloud brightening and wave technology (which could allegedly supply half of America’s electricity needs). There’s also an interesting discussion of concepts such as artificial photosynthesis, urban cooling and geoengineering, which would be used only in the event of a climate emergency. These are all fascinating topics for discussion and debate, but “Cool It” never makes them coalesce into a satisfying whole. Director Ondi Timoner has always been drawn to following influential figures in modern culture; her portrait of entrepreneur Josh Harris in 2009’s criminally overlooked doc, “We Live in Public,” deserves to be sought out. She succeeds in making this picture compulsively watchable, but like Lomborg, she ultimately fails at getting under the surface of her subject.
“Cool It” is presented in its 1.78:1 aspect ratio, and includes 15 minutes of deleted scenes, none of which are particularly enlightening. Lomborg poses on the rapidly melting Ilulissat glacier before arguing that its movement is simply the latest in a series of advances and retreats that have taken place over several thousand years. A brief animated sketch introduces the concept of “greenwashing,” in which companies charge more for green products, allowing consumers to pay for the luxury of “feeling good about themselves.” In an extended sequence about the IPCC, a few scientists come forward to discuss how they had to fight to get their names erased from the group’s first draft of its assessment report, which they claim was hijacked by alarmists. Some of Lomborg’s statements are more compelling than others, such as his belief that the greatest environmental problem facing our world is, in fact, indoor air pollution. Yet other insights prove less than helpful, especially when Lomborg lists the positive effects of global warming, such as a decrease in “cold-related deaths.”
![]() | By MATT FAGERHOLM |