Nope, I'm holding on to mine. I tell you, I wish they had this book as part of the curriculum when I was in High School.
What gets me is the whole point of the book is not so much to bash contemporary environmentalists as it is to say "Let's do something practical- let's spend money on problems we can actually solve (like clean drinking water for everyone)". That is a perfectly reasonable suggestion and in a sane world it never would have caused such an uproar.
I think the enviro whackos just got their knickers in a twist when he referred to their standard rants as "The Litany" and then went on to try to demonstrate to the reader how the environmental debate ever got to the state it's in. He does a good job of it and the book is laid out logically, in clean, matter of fact prose and is a useful read- not just for pointing out some facts but as an exercise in critical thinking.
As in his book, Lomborg repeats that the Kyoto Protocol would postpone global warming for only six years. This is an empty, deceptive argument because the Kyoto Protocol isn’t meant to solve the problem by itself; it is a first step that establishes a framework for getting countries to cooperate on additional measures over time.
This is quite nearly too dense for words. Lomborg extrapolates the kyoto protocol as a worst-case scenario from the standpoint of environmental action and discusses the costs of that. For comparison, he states what little environmental impact it will have.
of COURSE kyoto wont be around 100 years from now--as the Editor-Something-Or-Other mentions the environmentalists intend even _stricter_ controls. But Lomborg's point about the costs remain valid, since they will only go UP as the environmental controls TIGHTEN. And if you believe in diminishing returns at all, the tradeoffs will become even worse.