Global Warming: Bjorn Lomborg's Stern Report Review

[Roxanne Appleby]

Prediction: Attempts to demonize Mr. Lomborg will increase, crowding out any substantive engagement with the critical issues he raises. Given his noble efforts to improve health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education in the third world by building concensus on reasonable priorities for the use of scarce resources, the result will be more suffering and death among the world's poor.


Stern Report Review
By BJORN LOMBORG

The report on climate change by Nicholas Stern and the U.K. government has sparked publicity and scary headlines around the world. Much attention has been devoted to Mr. Stern's core argument that the price of inaction would be extraordinary and the cost of action modest.

Unfortunately, this claim falls apart when one actually reads the 700-page tome. Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. Its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalized, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off.

* * *
The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions. Little else is right, however, and the report seems hastily put-together, with many sloppy errors. As an example, the cost of hurricanes in the U.S. is said to be both 0.13% of U.S. GDP and 10 times that figure.


The review is also one-sided, focusing almost exclusively on carbon-emission cuts as the solution to the problem of climate change. Mr. Stern sees increasing hurricane damage in the U.S. as a powerful argument for carbon controls. However, hurricane damage is increasing predominantly because there are more people with more goods to be damaged, settling in ever more risky habitats. Even if global warming does significantly increase the power of hurricanes, it is estimated that 95% to 98% of the increased damage will be due to demographics. The review acknowledges that simple initiatives like bracing and securing roof trusses and walls can cheaply reduce damage by more than 80%; yet its policy recommendations on expensive carbon reductions promise to cut the damages by 1% to 2% at best. That is a bad deal.

Mr. Stern is also selective, often seeming to cherry-pick statistics to fit an argument. This is demonstrated most clearly in the review's examination of the social damage costs of CO2 -- essentially the environmental cost of emitting each extra ton of CO2. The most well-recognized climate economist in the world is probably Yale University's William Nordhaus, whose "approach is perhaps closest in spirit to ours," according to the Stern review. Mr. Nordhaus finds that the social cost of CO2 is $2.50 per ton. Mr. Stern, however, uses a figure of $85 per ton. Picking a rate even higher than the official U.K. estimates -- that have themselves been criticized for being over the top -- speaks volumes.

Mr. Stern tells us that the cost of U.K. flooding will quadruple to 0.4% from 0.1% of GDP due to climate change. However, we are not told that these alarming figures only hold true if one assumes that the U.K. will take no additional measures -- essentially doing absolutely nothing and allowing itself to get flooded, perhaps time and again. In contrast, the U.K. government's own assumptions take into account a modest increase in flood prevention, finding that the cost will actually decline sharply to 0.04% of U.K. GDP, in spite of climate change. Why does Mr. Stern not share that information?

But nowhere is the imbalance clearer than in Mr. Stern's central argument about the costs and benefits of action on climate change. The review tells us that we should make significant cuts in carbon emissions to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 550 ppm (parts per million). Yet such a stark recommendation is not matched by an explicit explanation of what this would mean in terms of temperature.

The U.N. Climate Panel estimates that stabilizing at 550 ppm would mean an increase in temperature of about 2.3 degrees Celsius in the year 2100. This might be several degrees below what would otherwise happen, but it might also be higher. Mr. Nordhaus estimates that the stabilization policy would reduce the rise in temperature from 2.53 degrees Celsius to just 2.42 degrees Celsius. One can understand the reluctance of the Stern review to advertise such a puny effect.

Most economists were surprised by Mr. Stern's large economic estimates of damage from global warming. Mr. Nordhaus's model, for example, anticipates 3% will be wiped off global GDP if nothing is done over the coming century, taking into account the risk for catastrophes. The Stern review purports to show that the cost is "larger than many earlier studies suggested."

On the face of it, Mr. Stern actually accepts Mr. Nordhaus's figure: Even including risks of catastrophe and non-market costs, he agrees that an increase of four degrees Celsius will cost about 3% of GDP. But he assumes that we will continue to pump out carbon far into the 22nd century -- a rather unlikely scenario given the falling cost of alternative fuels, and especially if some of his predictions become clear to us toward the end of this century. Thus he estimates that the higher temperatures of eight degrees Celsius in the 2180s will be very damaging, costing 11% to 14% of GDP.

The Stern review then analyzes what the cost would be if everyone in the present and the future paid equally. Suddenly the cost estimate is not 0% now and 3% in 2100 -- but 11% of GDP right now and forever. If this seems like a trick, it is certainly underscored by the fact that the Stern review picks an extremely low discount rate, which makes the cost look much more ominous now.

But even 11% is not the last word. Mr. Stern suggests that there is a risk that the cost of global warming will be higher than the top end of the U.N. climate panel's estimates, inventing, in effect, a "worst-case scenario" even worse than any others on the table. Therefore, the estimated damage to GDP jumps to 15% from 11%. Moreover, Mr. Stern admonishes that poor people count for less in the economic calculus, so he then inflates 15% to 20%.

This figure, 20%, was the number that rocketed around the world, although it is simply a much-massaged reworking of the standard 3% GDP cost in 2100 -- a figure accepted among most economists to be a reasonable estimate.

Likewise, Mr. Stern readjusts the cost of dealing with climate change. The U.N. found that the cost of 550 ppm stabilization would be somewhere around 0.2% to 3.2% of GDP today; he reports that costs could lie between -4% and 15% of GDP. The -4% is based on the suggestion that cutting carbon emissions could make us richer because revenue recycling could address inefficiencies in taxation -- but the alleged inefficiencies, if correct, should be addressed no matter what the policies about climate change. The reason Mr. Stern nevertheless finds a very low cost estimate is because he only considers models with so-called Induced Technological Change. These models are known to reduce costs by about two percentage points because carbon cuts lead to an increase in research and development, which again makes further cuts cheaper. Thus Mr. Stern concludes that the costs are on average 1% of GDP, and in the summary actually claims that this is a maximum cost.

* * *
The Stern review's cornerstone argument for immediate and strong action now is based on the suggestion that doing nothing about climate change costs 20% of GDP now, and doing something only costs 1%. However, this argument hinges on three very problematic assumptions.

First, it assumes that if we act, we will not still have to pay. But this is not so -- Mr. Stern actually tells us that his solution is "already associated with significant risks." Second, it requires the cost of action to be as cheap as he tells us -- and on this front his numbers are at best overly optimistic. Third, and most importantly, it requires the cost of doing nothing to be a realistic assumption: But the 20% of GDP figure is inflated by an unrealistically pessimistic vision of the 22nd century, and by an extreme and unrealistically low discount rate. According to the background numbers in Mr. Stern's own report, climate change will cost us 0% now and 3% of GDP in 2100, a much more informative number than the 20% now and forever.

In other words: Given reasonable inputs, most cost-benefit models show that dramatic and early carbon reductions cost more than the good they do. Mr. Stern's attempt to challenge that understanding is based on a chain of unlikely assumptions.

Moreover, there is a fourth major problem in Mr. Stern's argument that has received very little attention. It seems naïve to believe that the world's 192 nations can flawlessly implement Mr. Stern's multitrillion-dollar, century-long policy proposal. Will nobody try to avoid its obligations? Why would China and India even participate? And even if China got on board, would it be able to implement the policies? In 2002, China decided to cut sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 10% -- they are now 27% higher despite SO2 being nationally a much bigger health and environmental problem than climate change.

* * *
Why does all this matter? It matters because, with clever marketing and sensationalist headlines, the Stern review is about to edge its way into our collective consciousness. The suggestion that flooding will overwhelm us has already been picked up by commentators, yet going back to the background reports properly shows declining costs from flooding and fewer people at risk. The media is now quoting Mr. Stern's suggestion that climate change will wreak financial devastation that will wipe 20% off GDP, explicitly evoking memories of past financial catastrophes such as the Great Depression or World War II; yet the review clearly tells us that costs will be 0% now and just 3% in 2100.

It matters because Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Nicholas Stern all profess that one of the major reasons that they want to do something about climate change is because it will hit the world's poor the hardest. Using a worse-than-worst-case scenario, Mr. Stern warns that the wealth of South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa will be reduced by 10% to 13% in 2100 and suggests that effect would lead to 145 million more poor people.

Faced with such alarmist suggestions, spending just 1% of GDP or $450 billion each year to cut carbon emissions seems on the surface like a sound investment. In fact, it is one of the least attractive options. Spending just a fraction of this figure -- $75 billion -- the U.N. estimates that we could solve all the world's major basic problems. We could give everyone clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care and education right now. Is that not better?

We know from economic models that dealing just with malaria could provide economic boosts to the order of 1% extra GDP growth per capita per year. Even making a very conservative estimate that solving all the major basic issues would induce just 2% extra growth, 100 years from now each individual in the developing world would be more than 700% richer. That truly trivializes Mr. Stern's 10% to 13% estimates for South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Last weekend in New York, I asked 24 U.N. ambassadors -- from nations including China, India and the U.S. -- to prioritize the best solutions for the world's greatest challenges, in a project known as Copenhagen Consensus. They looked at what spending money to combat climate change and other major problems could achieve. They found that the world should prioritize the need for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning.

We all want a better world. But we must not let ourselves be swept up in making a bad investment, simply because we have been scared by sensationalist headlines.

November 2, 2006

Mr. Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" (Cambridge, 2001), teaches at the Copenhagen Business School and is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.

 

[Tuomas]

Poverty and Evironmentalism
How the War on Poverty is destroying the Environment.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, public interest in the developed world has shifted from promoting democracy and liberty to saving the environment and helping the poor. Not that there were no concerted efforts to erradicate poverty, or wide-spread concern about the environemnt before that. The official War on Poverty was declared in 1964 by then President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson. Greenpeace has been around -if not in name- since late 1969. And slogans like, "for the price of a B-2 bomber we could (insert poverty/evironmental effort here)" have been around since Woodstock. However, it hasn't been until recienty that the public at large has taken it into mind that the evironment and elimination of poverty should be major concerns of the government.

Since 1964, over US$718 billion has been spent on wellfare and food stamps in the US alone. An aditional US$500 billion was spent over the last 40 years "fighting" poverty in sub-saharan Africa. Over US$4 billion of the current US budget will go to Africa -equivalent to twice the fiscal budget of Bolivia. At the same time, the UK Comission for Africa estimates that a total of over US$94 billion has been siphoned off aid efforts and is currently in private offshore accounts. Yet capaigns like LiveAid remain imensely popular; Irish pop-singer Bono is short-listed for the Noble prize for his efforts in sub-saharan Africa; and the Gleneagles Summet has promised an additional US$4 trillion -over 62% of global development funds- of which the United States is expected to supply 50%. (As a measure of comparision, this is equivalent of giving over US$12,000 to each man, woman and child in Africa; US$48,000 per family)

On the environmental front, no one has any clear idea how much money is being spent, or how much effort is being required. Greenpeace, according to Forbes, is a "US$360 million global empire". Another problem in calculating environmental expenditures is the fact that Environmental groups don't want you to know just how much money they are spending -or have. Mostly because they claim to be fighting the "evil capitalists", but another is because they just don't want you to know; over 61% of Greepeace's multimilion dollar budget is spent on "administrative expenses".

But, where has all that gotten us? According to Globalissues.com, "3 billion [people] have no access to sanitation", giving us the idea that they are poor, since, in another section the advertize that these 3 billion people also live on less than two dollars a day. That's half the world's population. In another publication, this time by the Institute for International Economics, only 13% of the world population lives in poverty. The World Bank claims poverty is at 23% and the UN says 37.9%. Maybe some of this money can be invested in getting some reliable data.

On the Environmental front, no one has any idea what is going on, particularly now with the discovery of Global Dimming, which precisely reduces world temperatures. At least we are doing something.

Or are we?

Depending on which side of the political spectrum you are on, poverty is definately declining/increasing, and the current programs are working/failing at a spectacular rate. From an objective standpoint -and particularly my standpoint as a common citizen with no access to real information- there is no way to know if any of this is paying off.

Let's assume that it is. We will take the UN's figure of 37.9% world poverty -because it happens to be more or less in the middle.Through some miracle, we manage to raise their income levels to be equivalent to those in Europe. Using France as an example -which has an average per household income of US$14,490 anual- these 2.3 billion people would be making a total equivalent to US$4,025 a year per person, or US$9.3 trillion.

With an average monthly income of US$1,208 a month, these people can now afford a car, and a house -mortgaged, of course. Also, they can get all those neat creature comforts that are quite abundant in Euope and the US. Let's assume, then, that they buy a car: one Hyundai Accent, at US$10,000 (on a ten-year loan). They will also buy one house to live in, a three-bedroom, living/kitchen/dining room, 1 1/2 bath, hall typical house at US$20,000.

Let's focus on the car. If all the poor people were brought out of poverty, that means there would be an aditional 437.3 million cars on the roads, consuming 335.8 billion gallons of gasoline each year. This would mean 1.7 trillion tonnes more carbon would be emitted into the atmosphere contributing to our ever increasing concern for Global Warming/Diming/All of the Above. Not to mention that the buring of this fuel will release an amount of BTU's that there is no name for (think that one gallon produces aprox. 10^8 j according to NASA specialist David Mazza).

That is aside from the production and natural resources required to construct these vehicles. The gross weight of a Hyundai Accent is 1,475Kg implying that the new cars would require:
-524.8 million metric tonnes of steel.
-87.5 million metric tonnes of plastic; or about 9,2 billion barrels of petroleum.
An untold amount of aluminum, copper, dyes, chrome, etc. none of which is recycleable.

Not to mention the new factories required to build all these cars, the new roads that will have to be built for them to drive on, the new lighting and signal systems to keep the roads in place, the parts and repairs, the service stations, the repair and maintenance shops, and, last but not least, the hospitals for all the people injured in car crashes. Oh, and let's not forget the police, who will now have to have cars to catch all the speeders and drunk drivers (there is no reason why poor people are going to be any more responsible with their cars than they are with their economic future). And, of course, none of this is recycleable.

Housing? TVs? Internet? Camcorders? Video games? All these are pollutant too. Bringing the poor out of poverty will create huge industries that will poison the world 37.9% faster. Instead of having oil only for the next 20 years, we will only have oil for the next 12... if we are lucky. But, maybe the O-Zone will have given out by then, or the Polar Ice Caps melted from the Greenhouse Effect caused by all those new cars.

Now that is a future to look forward to.

_______________________________________

Aside from the obvious spelling mistakes, I wonder if Lomborg or Stirn have thought of that

 

[amicus]

I understand why this very deserving thread is being ignored, the sacred cow of the left is being gored and they have no response.

One thing, near the beginning of Roxanne's post: "...The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions...."
~~~


I challenge that, based my awareness of climatic changes that have occurred in other epochs of human existence and even before.

Compared to volcanic eruptions, the natural release of methane gases in the ocean and the effect of just plain old water vapor naturally occurring, the entire history of 'human greehouse-gas emissions' is miniscule and not relevant.

As a small matter, not one of the hand holding prognosticators of the effects of global warming and the fear mongering predictors of the 2006 hurricane season in the Atlantic have come forth with an apology. "Gee, we musta been wrong?" Where were the prediction tropical storms of 2006? Nevermind...

What most you you don't see, let alone acknowledge is that quite like the right and left in politics, there has been a century and a half battleline drawn between those who rebelled against the industrial revolution and those who sought progress through human creativity and productivity.

It is a mindset that is medieval and fuedal in general and continues to this day. It is widespread and complex and has deep roots. Way back to the Malthus theory of world population that would overwhelm available resources, somewhere around 1850, there has been an anti-industrial segment of the population.

It ran amuck in the glory days of the communist revolution in Russia after the turn of the century, but has been faithfully carried on by social liberals ever since as they still believe an utopian existence is possible if we only eliminate the greed of the individual and replace it with the 'common good of all' altruistic philosophy and social impetus.

Progress of humankind proceeds in fits and starts and errors are made, and corrected, thas the way it works, we are not born with the hindsight of the utopians.

The global effect of human actions while locally and specifically have consequences, do not, on a planet wide scale affect global weather, temperature or stability. And thas a fact, Jack.

You may question just how so many people can think other wise, so many educated, learned and sophisticated people be so wrong and I remind you of a world of religious nuts who 'believe' in some really silly things.

The innovative and creative ability of man set free, seems to be an inherent threat to those who wish to just 'believe' and not think and wish to exist in a pastoral society with no smokestacks and no industry. And yes, it is just that simple. Stupid people are content and wish to remain as such.

Sorry Roxy...I try to shy away from your posts for reasons you are aware of.

amicus...

 

[neonlyte]

I vote we postpone this discussion until after the apocalypse - by which I mean NaNo. I can't get into rational discussion on this AND find interesting ways to keep people screwing across 50,000 words.

One note of caution of the Greenhouse Gases debate (apart from the 0.5% increase in CO2 announced by monitors today over 2005 levels):

1,000 years ago, Viking farmers lived along the southern and western margins of Greenland, and sea levels, according to the position of ancient Viking settlements, were between 1 and 2 metres higher.

I bet that's stopped Amicus in his tracks

 

[amicus]

No, Neon, and by the way welcome back from your recent illness.

It may however, 'stop you in your tracks', to become aware of the fact that slightly over 10,000 years ago, one could walk from Alaska to Russia.

Sea levels naturally and normally rise and fall depending on the state of the current and past ice ages. There was even a 'mini-ice age', just a few hundred years ago during which ocean levels fell.

I think one should note that mankind is barely a hundred years into a time sophisticated enough that we can even learn these things about the past and begin calculate future events and consequences of current events. It is truly is a fascinating study if one can dump the social politics involved.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

Lomberg: [representative from many nations] They found that the world should prioritize the need for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning.

There is a good deal of validity to the first part of L's statement. Tens of thousands of lives could be saved with better health measures. I'm not sure why he says "long before"; i see no reason not to pursue parallel tracks on problems.

As ami noted, L has no problem with a) there is global warming, and b) some significant part is man made. The 'right wing' seizes on something to support their position of '1) no problem; 2) do nothing; 3) it's the enemies of the US at work.'

Perhaps the rightwing folks overlook that L disagrees with 1) and probably 3). He agree with the 'right' on 2)-- for the rest, he agrees on the majority [of scientists] formulation of the problem; he disagrees on the priority of addressing it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions.

I never heard of the Stern Report, and the line above is the only one that jumped out at me. If Mr. Lomborg wants to sit down and contend and count beans with this Mr. Stern, then let him count away. There's nothing wrong with cost-benefit analysis and setting priorities.

I would only point out that all of Mr. Lomborg's more cost-effective means for improving the lot of humanity depend entirely upon a a global climate that's the same as it is today, and that if the mean global climate should meanwhile change significantly, all his well-crafted plans will come to zilch. We're not in a position to do cost-benefit analyses because we doen't yet know the costs.

I forget the exact figure I heard, but it wouldn't take much of a change in temperature to alter rainfall patterns such the the US Wheat Belt would become an agricultural desert, in which case America would become a grain-importing country, probaby dependent on Canada's largesse to feed its citizens. I wonder if Mr. Lomborg's taken this possibility into his calculations or is he assuming a ststus quo.

The whole danger in global warming is that we don't know what it will do to the earth's climate. A rise in mean temperature of 2.5 dC doesn't mean that everyplace will just be 2.5 dC higher than it was before. Some will be much higher, some will be much colder. Wind patterns and rainfall will change. We just don't know what the outcome will be. That's why we take it so seriously.

Let's assume that it is. We will take the UN's figure of 37.9% world poverty -because it happens to be more or less in the middle.Through some miracle, we manage to raise their income levels to be equivalent to those in Europe. Using France as an example -which has an average per household income of US$14,490 anual- these 2.3 billion people would be making a total equivalent to US$4,025 a year per person, or US$9.3 trillion.

With an average monthly income of US$1,208 a month, these people can now afford a car, and a house -mortgaged, of course. Also, they can get all those neat creature comforts that are quite abundant in Euope and the US. Let's assume, then, that they buy a car: one Hyundai Accent, at US$10,000 (on a ten-year loan). They will also buy one house to live in, a three-bedroom, living/kitchen/dining room, 1 1/2 bath, hall typical house at US$20,000.

Let's focus on the car. If all the poor people were brought out of poverty, that means there would be an aditional 437.3 million cars on the roads, consuming 335.8 billion gallons of gasoline each year. This would mean 1.7 trillion tonnes more carbon would be emitted into the atmosphere contributing to our ever increasing concern for Global Warming/Diming/All of the Above. Not to mention that the buring of this fuel will release an amount of BTU's that there is no name for (think that one gallon produces aprox. 10^8 j according to NASA specialist David Mazza).

I assume the author here is writing a satire whose purpose is to show how untenable the modern consumer lifetsyle is for the rest of the world, because that's all he's proving. We already know that there aren't enough resources on the planet to support an American lifestyle for the rest of humanity. There's not enough enough gasoline to fuel all the cars China would have if it achieved the US ratio of 3 automobiles to every 2 people.

Surely he doesn't believe that the "war on poverty" involves getting everyone cars and VCRs. We're talking about providing people with water, food, and shelter, not microwave ovens and plasma screen TV's.

I understand why this very deserving thread is being ignored, the sacred cow of the left is being gored and they have no response.

No response is indeed true, but it's more like the lack of response you get were you to stand up at an astronomers' convention and try to engage someone n a discusiion of how the sun revolves around the earth.

In thread after thread we've listed the governments and scientific organizations who find the problem of the anthropogenic contribution to global warming serious enough to require immediate action, and all we get in return is Amicus's personal opinion or an occasional reference to some crackpot expert from a thinktank that turns out to be funded by the Coal Board.

Science is fine with you as long as it suits your political agenda, but when when it doesn't you go all ooga-booga and start conjuring up left wing conspiracies.

That silence you hear isn't people being rocked back on their heels by startling new evidence that proves you right. It's people turning away in embarrassment, sick of beating their heads against the impenetrable wall of your ignorance.

 

[amicus]

Y'know, Mab, farting and point a finger still doesn't make you smell good.

You well know the scientific community is divided on the issue as it concerns human causal effects for climate change and when you break down those hordes of sympathetic scientists, you find that most are feeding at a trough filled by tax monies and left wing grants.

I suppose there is no possible way to provide proof to a social liberal believer such as yourself, quite like attempting to rationally discuss the existence of God with a believer...they don't accept reason, nor do you, they and you are much more comfortable in your belief system.

Nothing new there...


amicus...

 

[Pure]

Question for amicus?

Lomberg says,

The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions. Little else is right [in the report], however,

Do you agree with Lomberg that the review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, caused by human greenhouse gas emissions?

 

[JamesSD]

The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions.

Man, wouldn't it be awesome to hear these words come out of George W. Bush's mouth?

Seriously, reading this from a detractor made me so happy I couldn't even go on!

 

[JamesSD]

You well know the scientific community is divided on the issue as it concerns human causal effects for climate change and when you break down those hordes of sympathetic scientists, you find that most are feeding at a trough filled by tax monies and left wing grants.

As long as you define "Divided" as "The vast majority feel one way, with a few dissenters, then ok. I haven't seen any peer reviewed scientific articles that don't believe humans have caused at least some global warming.

The dissenters mostly are gobbling at the feeding trough of Oil Companies and others who have financial incentive to spread doubt. It's a much bigger trough than meager academic grants.

 

[Tuomas]

I assume the author here is writing a satire whose purpose is to show how untenable the modern consumer lifetsyle is for the rest of the world, because that's all he's proving. We already know that there aren't enough resources on the planet to support an American lifestyle for the rest of humanity. There's not enough enough gasoline to fuel all the cars China would have if it achieved the US ratio of 3 automobiles to every 2 people.

Surely he doesn't believe that the "war on poverty" involves getting everyone cars and VCRs. We're talking about providing people with water, food, and shelter, not microwave ovens and plasma screen TV's.

I don't know what the author exactly was pointing at -in fact, I don't even remember where I got that- but what I got out of it was a critique of how we, as a collective group, solve one problem without considering the consecuences of to another. Unless we are able to step back and view the global picture, instead of just the small part that we are concerned about, we are ultimately going to be working against ourselves to solve our problems, and nothing will be done.

The environment and poverty are very closely linked -which is why sustainable development is so important in empovrished areas.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The dissenters mostly are gobbling at the feeding trough of Oil Companies and others who have financial incentive to spread doubt. It's a much bigger trough than meager academic grants.

Nonsense.

The proponents of the global warming fear belong to a class that benefits from expansions of government power, taxation and spending, and use global warming to scare people into favoring their agenda. They have not just a financial interest, but a class-interest, and being sincere statists, an ideological interest. They have the resources of governments to call on - witness Tony Blair's jumping on the Stern report bandwagon this week, notwithstanding the serious flaws highlighted in the Lomborg article. The U.S. EPA and many other government agencies around the world are active in funding not just research (often very bad research), but lobbying and virtual propaganda.

In addition, environmental organizations have a direct financial interest in perrennially scaring the hell out of people. If one extrapolated all the doom scenarios they have peddled beginning with Rachel Carson in the 1960s, then Paul Erlich in 1970 claiming a handful of survivors will be starving and shivering in the dark on a dead planet within 15 years, the human race would have died out three times over by now.

It is always prudent to consider the motives of the players in any public policy controversy. It is almost always foolish to ascribe self-interest to one side but not the other. You are kidding yourself if you imagine there is not a huge and growing establishment that thrives on promoting environmental threats, or that many in that establishment are just as cynical and self-serving as you accuse the other side of being.

 

[neonlyte]

Nonsense.

The proponents of the global warming fear belong to a class that benefits from expansions of government power, taxation and spending, and use global warming to scare people into favoring their agenda. They have not just a financial interest, but a class-interest, and being sincere statists, an ideological interest. They have the resources of governments to call on - witness Tony Blair's jumping on the Stern report bandwagon this week, notwithstanding the serious flaws highlighted in the Lomborg article. The U.S. EPA and many other government agencies around the world are active in funding not just research (often very bad research), but lobbying and virtual propaganda.

In addition, environmental organizations have a direct financial interest in perrennially scaring the hell out of people. If one extrapolated all the doom scenarios they have peddled beginning with Rachel Carson in the 1960s, then Paul Erlich in 1970 claiming a handful of survivors will be starving and shivering in the dark on a dead planet within 15 years, the human race would have died out three times over by now.

It is always prudent to consider the motives of the players in any public policy controversy. It is almost always foolish to ascribe self-interest to one side but not the other. You are kidding yourself if you imagine there is not a huge and growing establishment that thrives on promoting environmental threats, or that many in that establishment are just as cynical and self-serving as you accuse the other side of being.

Roxanne, I need to take issue and I don't have a lot of time (see my first post). The protaganists on both sides are working in the dark, metaphorically speaking. We actually have no concrete idea of what is or is not going to happen, as a result of the now largely agreed upon current global warming cycle. It has happened before, just as cooling has happened before and we can only educatedly guess at why these events happened in the past.

In this scenario, propagandarists (?) from each side will attempt to gain the high ground - and not entirely out of fear of drowning. At best, this thread only serves to divide opinion, one lot of us will right, the others wrong, both ultimately might be grateful, depending upon what action is eventually taken - once we have a clearer idea about what is going on. If Blair's government wants to lead the way, so be it, they might be right, but we can all agree that cleaning up environmental pollution is a sound goal regardless of their being right or wrong. The British electorate will decide if they want to pay for it, on the weight of evidence.

This thread is like inviting someone with lactose intolerence to a cheese buffet.

 

[Pure]

RAIt is always prudent to consider the motives of the players in any public policy controversy.

Neither the right wingers nor the Randians can pass Logic 101: The *motive* of one's opponent in an argument do not bear on the truth (or untruth) of what he's saying.

Further, even if motives were relevant, those of the 'do nothing, it's a conspiracy against capitalism and human betterment' group, have, by and large, transparently suspect ones. That's aside from the right wing addiction to the slogan "it's a conspiracy against capitalism and human betterment and all the we hold dear."

Lastly, the poor readers who take comfort in citing Lomberg as an ally seem not to realize he endorses the scientific conclusion that there is warming, and it's due to human activity. He simply thinks it's less pressing than malaria, building and locating better housing, etc .

 

[Tuomas]

The thing is, Global Warming is not the biggest problem we face in terms of the environment -it's just the one that is most popular. Like most things that politicians get their hooks into, this has become a tool in debate, rather than an actual interest in improving the environment.

There is a serious environmental problem, but all this political pandering is keeping us from finding solutions. For one, we are concentrating on less important issues like Global Warming, while ignoring more important issues like fishstock depletion. In fact, when a real solution is put forward -like farming fish, instead of preying on natural stock- the enviro-lobby get's out their political guns and tries to stop it. Look at all the squawk they put about building clean, efficient, and environmentally-friendly hydroelctric dams!

So, no, this is not an issue about saving the plantet, but you getting political favors by pandering to people's fears. If people really cared about the environment, they would learn about it... you know, Chapman cycle, ionic resonance, atmospheric catalysts... but no one knows that. No one knows anything scientific about Global Warming -they just know that "we have to do something about it". And what would that be? Well, Blair in all of his Godly wisdom will tell us

 

[Pure]

while ignoring more important issues like fishstock depletion.

i was just gonna start a thread on this. big article in today's paper.

pssst! ....didja know, though, the 'depletion' folks hate capitalism, human betterment and all we hold dear (wanna bet about whether this is said??).

greetings!

 

[Tuomas]

while ignoring more important issues like fishstock depletion.

i was just gonna start a thread on this. big article in today's paper.

pssst! ....didja know, though, the 'depletion' folks hate capitalism, human betterment and all we hold dear (wanna bet about whether this is said??).

greetings!

Post it! I actually work with fish and that kind of stuffs, so I would love to pick it over

I'll bet it's gonna be said. I will bet also that someone else will say it's all the greedy capitalist's fault

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Roxanne, I need to take issue and I don't have a lot of time (see my first post). The protaganists on both sides are working in the dark, metaphorically speaking. We actually have no concrete idea of what is or is not going to happen, as a result of the now largely agreed upon current global warming cycle. It has happened before, just as cooling has happened before and we can only educatedly guess at why these events happened in the past.

In this scenario, propagandarists (?) from each side will attempt to gain the high ground - and not entirely out of fear of drowning. At best, this thread only serves to divide opinion, one lot of us will right, the others wrong, both ultimately might be grateful, depending upon what action is eventually taken - once we have a clearer idea about what is going on. If Blair's government wants to lead the way, so be it, they might be right, but we can all agree that cleaning up environmental pollution is a sound goal regardless of their being right or wrong. The British electorate will decide if they want to pay for it, on the weight of evidence.

This thread is like inviting someone with lactose intolerence to a cheese buffet.

Neon, of course we can all agree that cleaning up environmental pollution is a sound goal. The issue is whether and how much carbon dioxide is a "pollutant." If the global warming people were completely sincere they wouldn't propose silly half measures like Kyoto, which only slow the increase greenhouse gases. They insteasd would honestly explain what really would be required to vastly reduce greenhouse gases. Of course people would then freak out and conclude they're all nuts, because this would mean the end of industrial civilization. Then we really would starve and die, because you can't support 7 billion people without it. Not to mention have houses that are warm in winter and cool in summer, convenient local and medium distance transportation (cars), long distance transportation (airplanes), and abundant material goods affordable by all (mass production), including lots of good things to eat. None of which I am willing to give up. Nor are you or anyone else here. (And it's not because we're evil or greedy or have our head stuck in the sand, either. We are humans who want to live and enjoy life.)

"Alright, lets be honest then," is what Lomborg is saying. We are not going to give up those things, and don't need to, either. How big is the potential problem, really? How bad is that? Let's put things into perspective, and prioritize where to devote scarce resources. It is existential reality that resources are and always will be scarce. (Beginning with time, of which every human is only granted so much.) We can ignore that reality, try to do everything, and end up doing nothing. Or we can accept it and make good decisions.

So it's not about "cleaning up environmental pollution" - that one's a no brainer. This one goes to the core of how we live.

Given the above, the sincerity of full time enviros would be much less dubious to me if they endorsed a massive increase in nuclear power. If global warming is as dire a threat as they contend there are three choices:

1. Initiate a massive emergency conversion of the entire world economy to nuclear generated electricity, to be accomplished within 25 years.
2. All die when the global warming drowns us someday, or whatever the fear-du-jour is.
3. End industrial civilization now by not burning any more fossil fuels, and watch six billion people starve to death as the system winds down, presumably over a decade or two. Including you and me.

That's it. Those are the choices. There aren't any more. (And don't say "windmills and solar" - the amount of energy needed to maintain industrial civilization is orders of magnitude greater than the most these could ever produce under even the most optimistic assumptions.)

Given the fact that those who understand these issues are not talking about this, I tend to think that the ones who are promoting global warming fear aren't being honest about their real view of the magnitude of the threat. They are insincere, and are serving some other agenda. Which I described in my previous post.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The thing is, Global Warming is not the biggest problem we face in terms of the environment -it's just the one that is most popular. Like most things that politicians get their hooks into, this has become a tool in debate, rather than an actual interest in improving the environment.

There is a serious environmental problem, but all this political pandering is keeping us from finding solutions. For one, we are concentrating on less important issues like Global Warming, while ignoring more important issues like fishstock depletion. In fact, when a real solution is put forward -like farming fish, instead of preying on natural stock- the enviro-lobby get's out their political guns and tries to stop it. Look at all the squawk they put about building clean, efficient, and environmentally-friendly hydroelctric dams!

So, no, this is not an issue about saving the plantet, but you getting political favors by pandering to people's fears. If people really cared about the environment, they would learn about it... you know, Chapman cycle, ionic resonance, atmospheric catalysts... but no one knows that. No one knows anything scientific about Global Warming -they just know that "we have to do something about it". And what would that be? Well, Blair in all of his Godly wisdom will tell us

Right on.

"In fact, when a real solution is put forward -like farming fish, instead of preying on natural stock- the enviro-lobby get's out their political guns and tries to stop it."

Same-same with nuclear energy - see my previous post.

There are two possible conclusions from these things:
1. These people are ignorant and foolish.
2. These people are not sincere and are actually pursuing some other agenda.

I'm talking about the professionals who do or should know better, not laypeople who haven't studied this deeply.

 

[neonlyte]

Neon, of course we can all agree that cleaning up environmental pollution is a sound goal. The issue is whether and how much carbon dioxide is a "pollutant." If the global warming people were completely sincere they wouldn't propose silly half measures like Kyoto, which only slow the increase greenhouse gases. They insteasd would honestly explain what really would be required to vastly reduce greenhouse gases. Of course people would then freak out and conclude they're all nuts, because this would mean the end of industrial civilization. Then we really would starve and die, because you can't support 7 billion people without it. Not to mention have houses that are warm in winter and cool in summer, convenient local and medium distance transportation (cars), long distance transportation (airplanes), and abundant material goods affordable by all (mass production), including lots of good things to eat. None of which I am willing to give up. Nor are you or anyone else here. (And it's not because we're evil or greedy or have our head stuck in the sand, either. We are humans who want to live and enjoy life.)

"Alright, lets be honest then," is what Lomborg is saying. We are not going to give up those things, and don't need to, either. How big is the potential problem, really? How bad is that? Let's put things into perspective, and prioritize where to devote scarce resources. It is existential reality that resources are and always will be scarce. (Beginning with time, of which every human is only granted so much.) We can ignore that reality, try to do everything, and end up doing nothing. Or we can accept it and make good decisions.

So it's not about "cleaning up environmental pollution" - that one's a no brainer. This one goes to the core of how we live.

Given the above, the sincerity of full time enviros would be much less dubious to me if they endorsed a massive increase in nuclear power. If global warming is as dire a threat as they contend there are three choices:

1. Initiate a massive emergency conversion of the entire world economy to nuclear generated electricity, to be accomplished within 25 years.
2. All die when the global warming drowns us someday, or whatever the fear-du-jour is.
3. End industrial civilization now by not burning any more fossil fuels, and watch six billion people starve to death as the system winds down, presumably over a decade or two. Including you and me.

That's it. Those are the choices. There aren't any more. (And don't say "windmills and solar" - the amount of energy needed to maintain industrial civilization is orders of magnitude greater than the most these could ever produce under even the most optimistic assumptions.)

Given the fact that those who understand these issues are not talking about this, I tend to think that the ones who are promoting global warming fear aren't being honest about their real view of the magnitude of the threat. They are insincere, and are serving some other agenda. Which I described in my previous post.

You see, this why I don't have time. The issue is huge and requires more input than I'm prepared to give.

I'll say this: 25 years ago, on the west coast of Portugal my in-laws lived on a small farm. Water came from a well in the garden. Electricity was intermitant. Sewerage was collected in a tank, mixed with straw and used as fertiliser. They raised chickens, pigs, ducks, goats and grew all their own fruit and vegetables. Fish came fresh from the beach 5 kilometres away. It wasn't a bad life. We adapt, we always have, we always will. Billions might die if we do nothing. Billions might still die even if we impliment all the measures of Stern because we actually do not know what we are facing.

Of course, we cannot replace today's energy needs with solar power or wind generators, but you can generate lower quanitiies of energy to meet the requirements of a low energy life style - by the way that means, going to bed when it's dark (not entirely unappealing if you're with a friend), taking your shower in daylight when you have solar hot water. Doing away with the freezer and refrigerator and returning to the use of local fresh produce. Making music instead of playing music. Telling stories instead of reading stories. No TV - listen to a 'wind up radio'. Trains and buses, instead of cars, and lots of walking.

I fly far too much - I'm fully aware of the environmental impact of my flying, the train to get me from UK to Portugal, takes 24 hours, but I could live with that, it is 4 times the cost of flying even for a low cost advance purchase ticket. Where does one start?

Back to NaNo. I've got to change the genre to Erotic Mystery, possibly just Erotic.

 

[Tuomas]

Right on.

"In fact, when a real solution is put forward -like farming fish, instead of preying on natural stock- the enviro-lobby get's out their political guns and tries to stop it."

Same-same with nuclear energy - see my previous post.

There are two possible conclusions from these things:
1. These people are ignorant and foolish.
2. These people are not sincere and are actually pursuing some other agenda.

I'm talking about the professionals who do or should know better, not laypeople who haven't studied this deeply.

I've always thought that Nuclear power was a very important if not THE solution to the energy "crisis". I think people are mostly afraid of nuclear power, because they don't understand it. Which is interesting, because people are largely in favor of alternate sources, like solar power, largely because they don't understand them, either.

As for your conclusions, I have felt the same way. I also think that these professionals are largely misquoted, or their conclusions are largely escalated in the press. Most of the material being circulated by enviroment groups is not actually sourced from scientific data, but truncated "facts" that support their idea.

A scientist might say, for example "in the worst case scenario, which is highly unlikely, it could be that we will run out of oil in 20 years." This becomes, in the press, "eminent scientist concludes that oil reserves may only last 20 years". By the time it gets to Greenpeace, it's "Petroleum reserves will dry up in less than 20 years." The more scary and sensationalist it is, the more it grabs people's atention. So, they are more likely to remember the more scarier versions, than the actual dry, calculated, realistic versions.

 

[Lady_Kit]

I've been very interested in the posts here. You've presented a mixed bag of responses and positions to a complex issue. And done so intelligently! One thing that I have never seen singled out anyware as a simple solution to reduction of polution and consumption of natural resources is population control. What do you think of that? Doesn't it make sense to stop overpopulating as at least a first step? Or am I simple to think that way?

Realized after posting that several new posts have come in while I've been typing, if someone has mentioned that, forgive me for the repetition.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You see, this why I don't have time. The issue is huge and requires more input than I'm prepared to give.

I'll say this: 25 years ago, on the west coast of Portugal my in-laws lived on a small farm. Water came from a well in the garden. Electricity was intermitant. Sewerage was collected in a tank, mixed with straw and used as fertiliser. They raised chickens, pigs, ducks, goats and grew all their own fruit and vegetables. Fish came fresh from the beach 5 kilometres away. It wasn't a bad life. We adapt, we always have, we always will. Billions might die if we do nothing. Billions might still die even if we impliment all the measures of Stern because we actually do not know what we are facing.

Of course, we cannot replace today's energy needs with solar power or wind generators, but you can generate lower quanitiies of energy to meet the requirements of a low energy life style - by the way that means, going to bed when it's dark (not entirely unappealing if you're with a friend), taking your shower in daylight when you have solar hot water. Doing away with the freezer and refrigerator and returning to the use of local fresh produce. Making music instead of playing music. Telling stories instead of reading stories. No TV - listen to a 'wind up radio'. Trains and buses, instead of cars, and lots of walking.

I fly far too much - I'm fully aware of the environmental impact of my flying, the train to get me from UK to Portugal, takes 24 hours, but I could live with that, it is 4 times the cost of flying even for a low cost advance purchase ticket. Where does one start?

Back to NaNo. I've got to change the genre to Erotic Mystery, possibly just Erotic.

Neon, I'm not prepared to start living like a Portugese peasant (a term I use with great respect), and neither are very many other people. Furthermore, there is no reason that we and our descendents should do so, or have to. That said, I agree with you that we should be more thoughtful in how we live, and that much can be done to reduce the amount of energy used by industrial civilization. We could probably cut it in half.

Which would still be orders of magnitude more than "alternatives" can provide. And unless you are prepared to slam the door in the faces of China, India and the rest of the third world people who would like to also enjoy the comforts, conveniences and security of industrial civilzation, it still means that the next 50-100 years will see increased emissions of CO2, etc.

So that brings you back to Lomborg, and the things I've been saying. At which point the discussion changes, and things like "conservation" become philosophical "what is the good life?" questions, not public policy issues. Worth asking, but not extremely relevent to this discussion.

(In other threads I have described how in the long term we can and almost certainly will have an electric economy powered by nukes, clean and sustainable for tens of thousands of years. "Conservation" will not be a public policy issue in that environment, but purely one of individual choice.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . A scientist might say, for example "in the worst case scenario, which is highly unlikely, it could be that we will run out of oil in 20 years." This becomes, in the press, "eminent scientist concludes that oil reserves may only last 20 years". By the time it gets to Greenpeace, it's "Petroleum reserves will dry up in less than 20 years." The more scary and sensationalist it is, the more it grabs people's atention. So, they are more likely to remember the more scarier versions, than the actual dry, calculated, realistic versions.

And by the time it gets here, it's "We're all gonna die!"

(Which is hard to dispute.)