[McGINNIS] A new documentary is out saying there's no need to panic over climate change. It's called "Cool It," and in it, Bjørn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," says the most dire predictions of disaster are highly exaggerated. He calls into question current plans to deal with it through legislation and international negotiations. Lomborg discounts what he calls Al Gore's attempts to spark global warming alarmism, simply because he says it's not the end of the world.

[LOMBORG] Fear has been ruling the climate debate. It's about time that we realize the current approach is broken.

[PROFESSOR GWYN PRINS] If you want to get people's attention on a complex issue, you scare the pants off them.

[LOMBORG] If we only listen to worst-case scenarios, we're likely to be spending most of our money on the people who shout the loudest.

[GORE] The future of human civilization is at stake.

[McGINNIS] Joining me now for theMIX from New York City, Bjørn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and star of this new movie, "Cool It." And here in the studio, Gloria Reuben is actress and environmental advocate, also special advisor to the Alliance for Climate Protection. For years, she played nurse Jeanie Boulet on the hit series "E.R." Also, we have senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and "energyNOW!" contributor Dan Weiss. Welcome, all of you.

Bjørn, let me start with you, because your bottom line is, global warming is happening, but the worst predictions are just scare tactics. They're highly exaggerated. How are they exaggerated?

[LOMBORG] Two things -- first of all, telling us we're going to see 20 feet of sea level rise when the U.N. estimate somewhere between 1/2 and 2 feet is not good information. But it's also scaring us witless to make bad political decisions, essentially saying let's promise grand carbon cuts, which we then don't do. We have been failing at doing anything against global warming for the last 18 years because we've been following this approach of just making promises but not actually doing it. The trick -- and that's what most of the film is really about -- is we need to dramatically increase investment in research and development into green energy, because the only real way we're going to get the world to change over is if we make green energy so cheap, everyone wants to buy it.

[McGINNIS] Gloria, do you agree that the exaggeration has led to poor policy decisions?

[REUBEN] I think there are a couple of things that are important here to consider. One of them is, there needs to be a balance. Panic, of course, doesn't create anything good in the outcome. But denial also is not effective. So there needs to be a balance of people being aware, of people acknowledging and accepting the fact that, yes, climate change is real and we are seeing the ramifications of climate change in this country and around the world more frequently now than ever. We have to be highly alert and aware of what's going on. And we can't be in denial. So there has to be a middle ground.

[McGINNIS] But I think Bjørn is questioning that potential legislation and other moves, including world climate talks, as a way to solve the problem. That's what he's talking about when he says "poor policy decisions." Dan, the film pretty much bashes cap-and-trade, other kinds of regulations to cut emissions. What do you say to Bjørn?

[WEISS] First, I think your film ought to be called, "Don't Worry, Be Oblivious." Just like the very first cigarette won't cause you cancer, you still need to cut out smoking because otherwise you're going to eventually get cancer. I think what we need to do is to realize that in this country in the last year, the people shouting the loudest have been the climate science deniers. In fact, they've been able to shout out reasonable policy choices that would have not only reduced our global warming pollution but increased jobs, increased national security, reduced oil use, and had a number of benefits for us. His approach -- "Let's invest more in green technologies" -- that's great. But to do nothing until those technologies come to fruition is bad for our economy, bad for our security, and bad for our environment.

[McGINNIS] I don't think anybody is arguing over global warming itself. We're trying to talk about current plans or proposals that he thinks are going wrong, and I want to listen to a clip from the film "Cool It" and I'll get your reaction.

[LOMBORG] ...in Kyoto in 1997 and promised much more, that we would cut our carbon emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels before 2012. Of course, we did no such thing. The U.S. didn't ratify. But also Canada didn't do it, Australia, many other countries. If we'd spent that money, Kyoto would have cost about $180 billion a year. The reduction in temperature would have been about 0.008 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

[McGINNIS] Basically, the funding earmarked for climate change in current proposals, or if all countries had followed Kyoto, would have been a colossal waste of money and made only a fraction of a difference.

[REUBEN] I don't know where those numbers come from. I'm not a scientist, nor do I know about the specific numbers -- all that I know is under the Bush Administration, clearly, the Kyoto Protocol, we weren't even signed on for it, and as far as Canada is concerned, of course they weren't wanting to sign on for that either because of the Alberta tar sands. So, if we do want to talk about solutions, which is what we're all here to do and we want to talk about how we can -- you know, is regulation part of the answer? And I have to say yes, because we have seen in this country what deregulation has done. We saw it in the financial industry, and we are seeing it now in the potential industries of green tech. Again, the numbers, I don't know where those come from.

[McGINNIS] Bjørn, are you a climate scientist?

[LOMBORG] I'm not a climate scientist, no. This is run by some of the best models that we have. The cost comes from the best models that we have in the energy economy models, and the impacts come from the standard climate models. And listen, nobody discounts the fact that Kyoto would have done very, very little and it would have had a fairly high cost. It would not have obliterated growth, but --

[McGINNIS] Let's move on to what can be done. You are saying no price on carbon, no regulation of carbon. Are you talking even auto emission standards, building standards, things like that?

[LOMBORG] No, listen, there's sensible things we can do. We have standards for some things, and that actually makes sense. I have always advocated a low carbon tax but I'm pointing out that we're putting the cart in front of the horse if we believe that the regulation is the main way to move forward.

[McGINNIS] Do you think we need a price on carbon?

[LOMBORG] Yes, I have been saying that all along, that we should have a low tax on carbon. But we should not kid ourselves and believe that that's what's going to fix the problem. At best, it can raise the money to fund the research and development. And unfortunately, Dan is basically still telling us, we should just have gone ahead and do more than Kyoto, but the problem is, that is not going to happen. It's not going to happen in the U.S., politically, but it's certainly not going to happen in China and India.

[WEISS] Well, in fact, Bjørn, as you know, China is already far ahead of us in the adaptation of clean energy technologies like wind, solar. They've already got a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle on the road that costs half of what ours is going to cost. Doesn't meet all the safety requirements that we have. In other words, other countries -- China, Germany, Japan -- are getting ahead of us. And for the United States to compete economically, let alone the impact on the environment, we need to be investing in these technologies. And part of that equation is not only figuring out a way to make the solar panels and technology cheaper, as you said, but raise the cost of polluting sources, because they are artificially cheap right now because society pays for the cost of the pollution, rather than the user.

[LOMBORG] We agree there should be a low carbon tax, but that's not what's going to foster the innovation.

[McGINNIS] Bjørn is simply arguing that what is happening is not enough. More investment needs to go into innovation and clean energy -- what's wrong with that?

[REUBEN] Clearly, this is just part of the solution. There needs to be regulation. There needs to be cap-and-trade. There has to be that system in place. Tom Friedman said it brilliantly when he said, when Congress was not going to move forward on the comprehensive climate bill, he was like, "China was high-fiving themselves."

[McGINNIS] He says okay to a carbon tax.

[REUBEN] Indeed, that's fine, but that's part of the solution. First and foremost, the public needs to get educated about what's really going on. Industry needs to set up, regulations need to be in place, and we have to start passing laws so that this much-needed innovation -- manufacturing, technology, all of those things -- can be produced here in the United States. Otherwise, we will fall even further behind China than we are.

[LOMBORG] We're basically talking about innovation, which has huge potential to save this problem, and regulation, which will have very little opportunity. That's why I'm so disconcerted by the fact that everybody seems to be pushing the inefficient policies before we try to push the efficient policies.

[McGINNIS] Quick, final word, Gloria.

[REUBEN] Innovation comes from regulation. That's where the innovation will come from.

[LOMBORG] We never legislated for computers.

[REUBEN] This is a different thing. People are waiting to have... If we had legislation, innovation would have come.

[McGINNIS] Dan, get the final word.

[WEISS] The catalytic converter for cars was developed in response to the need to reduce air pollution from cars. It wasn't invented first and then required.

[LOMBORG] It only --

[WEISS] Excuse me, Bjørn, you had time to talk. We need to put a price on pollution, raise that cost, invest in new technologies, like you suggested, but we also need to begin taking steps to create financial mechanisms, markets, and infrastructure to speed that along. It's got to be comprehensive and not just a single magic bullet.

[McGINNIS] Okay, we're going to have to end it there. That's going to have to be the final word. The film is called "Cool It." I want to thank Bjørn Lomborg, and also Gloria Reuben, Dan Weiss for being with us and lending your insight. Thank you.