Letters to the Editor
-
Copenhagen Consensus Flaw
I'm generally very sympathetic to the Copenhagen Consensus, and the idea that we _should_ be prioritizing efforts based on analysis, not just what's "sexy." That being said, unless they've changed their methodology, they were using a standard Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model to value these various benefit streams, and I do have a problem with that. DCF works fine when analyzing benefits to us, today. It's not viable (or should be used with a zero discount rate, which is essentially the same thing) for things like climate change, since we should be caring equally as much about the benefit of the citizens of 2100 as the citizens of today. DCF doesn't get you there, since the impact of discounting is to make things in the far future have essentially zero impact.
-
Middle Groung
Bjorn Lomborg doesn't entirely dismiss global warming. He is merely trying to put it in perspective. The problem is that he separates out global warming as a problem that must be dealt with separately from everything else. You have a choice, either fight malaria or global warming. You can only choose one.
But what if global warming causes malaria spread from the tropics and moved across Europe, the coast of China, and Japan? Fighting global warming is really part of the battle for malaria.
Also, treating global warming as a "problem" instead of a "life style issue" presents it as something that must be triaged. Imagine an overly obese person trying to figure out if he should deal with his weight, blood pressure, heart problems, or his diabetes first. He might decide that being overweight isn't as much of a problem as the others, and that's where he should be spending his resources. Learning to eat healthier and exercising is put on the back burner. In reality, losing the weight will help alleviate his other problems.
Bjorn also make tackling global warming as only a cost and not a benefit. Japan uses half as much energy as the United States per person, yet I don't think that the people in Japan live in any sort of depravation. Being more efficient means that they can run their economy much more efficiently than we can, and in the global market place, it means that Japanese goods will outsell American goods. By fighting global warming, we could actually see a great economic benefit.
The problem with Bjorn's view is that all issues aren't separate items on a store shelf. Where you can only pick what fits in your budget. It's that the issues are all interrelated. By fighting global warming, we improve the efficiency of our economy, become more competitive, decrease pollution, save resources, keep our food supply stable, and fight disease.
-
But what if you were a polar bear with AIDS?
In keeping with Lomborg's approach of moderation, I feel somewhere in the middle in my reaction to him. I think he has a point that we tend to get all excited about something, envision worst case scenarios ( I think the bird flu example was great), but strangely let it drop from sight after exhausting ourselves in unproductive panic.
This is more a fault of the media than scientists studying the problems. A steady, consistent approach is needed. We need to keep the public's attention on this not by ratcheting up the fear, which burns out eventually, but by sustainable goals. In the face of such a huge problem as global warming, we do need to act intelligently (and act now) on this and not necessarily throw money at the first idea that comes (like ethanol).
That being said, I'd hate to be a polar bear! That's some damn quick evolving! He has some good ideas, but his analysis has flaws and it seems he's almost aware of them. You could almost hear him realize he was defending an indefensible point.
He should probably stick to calling for projects that will pay off and stay away from comenting on specific biological or meteorological issues.
-
Since we 'do' almost nothing, doing a little would be a great first step
The idea that we shouldn't rush headlong over the cliff is purely a rhetorical point. We do almost nothing in terms of actually addressing GW, or not, as the case may be. I would propose that if we did even a little, started anywhere and proceeded from there it would be better than doing nothing and certainly less extreme that turning the whole world upside down, which just as clearly isn't going to happen either. There is never going to be a 4th Industrial Revolution founded on simply doing what's right. The Left should disabuse themselves of that ASAP. But equally specious is the idea that pollution is imaginary. It is not imaginary and the Right is simply lying to you when they claim this.
-
Lomborg vs. Gore, etc
Bjørn Lomborg's argument, at least in its broad outline, makes a great deal of intuitive sense. It stands to reason that global warming is in fact a legitimate phenomenon, and that the real arguments should be focused on the specifics, of which policies we should be pursuing to adress it, and to what degree.
As far as whether or not Al Gore is in fact exaggerating, I recognize that I don't have the expertise to honestly evaluate that. (Of course, my impression is that Lomborg doesn't either.)
Nevertheless, I think the real problem with the question of whether or not persons at the Gore side of the debate are exaggerating is the frustrating fact that in our country we have a certain right-wing, busybody contingent who insist on moving the goalposts with nonsensical assertions about virtually any policy debate that displeases them, whether it's stem-cell research or funding sex-ed in 3rd world countries-- or global warming.
I strongly suspect that their (utterly undeserved) presence in the global warming debate, shifting the subject to whether or not it was caused by man(irrelevant if it's a pressing and fixable problem) or if it even IS occurring at all(?!!) is a big part of why the other end of the spectrum seems "extreme" in the first place.
-
Not the Lomborg I am familiar with
He is a non-scientist who has distorted scientific results in his earlier writings. (You can find all the references to scientist's response easily enough.) He is now trying to act "reasonable". Pay no attention.