In this short, easy to read ten year old book, Lomborg argues that approaches like the Kyoto Protocol trying to address climate change by drastically trying to reduce carbon emission are total non-sense. Before readers start to look at him with disgust, he clearly states that there is absolutely no question that the planet is getting warmer due to human beings and the resulting effects need to be addressed. Having repeated this statement multiple times, he then veers off as to how the effect should be addressed.
Current common wisdom is that the carbon emission that gets into the atmosphere is warming the planet and so we need to drastically curtail the emission to reverse its effect. Though this is the politically correct statement to make these days, even the ardent supporters of this notion concede that the extent to which this one knob needs to be turned back to correct all the ill effects of global warming makes it exceedingly difficult to pull it off. Still most argue that since doing x amount of carbon reduction will be inadequate, the solution is to move ahead with 2x, 3x or 10x reduction, costs be damned. But we all know this is not going to work since even x amount of reduction is hard to achieve in reality.
Instead of that approach, Lomborg goes about methodically listing out what are the bad effects that we need to address and then looks for other means of addressing those effects at about 1/100th of the cost. Here are some of the ill effects of global warming he considers with proposed solutions:
- Polar bear population is dwindling: If we really dig into the numbers, actual polar bear deaths due to global warming is apparently in the dozens while about 800 polar bears get killed by hunters each year. So, simply reducing the number of hunting permits given to shoot polar bears will do lot more to revive the population.
- There will be major floods & hurricanes: He points out that Haiti & Dominican Republic that are right next to each other in the island of Hispaniola and experience the same hurricanes come out looking strikingly different each time. Haiti is an impoverished, poorly managed country, while DR is comparatively better off. So, in one year when DR that has better hurricane shelters and evacuation procedures in place came out with 10 hurricane related deaths, its next door neighbor Haiti saw a death toll of 2000. Investing in better hurricane management infrastructure in Haiti will be much faster/cheaper/effective than hoping to turn the carbon dial down worldwide to save those 2000 lives. Same idea applies to floods, and so for example, simply by avoiding development in flood prone areas you can save lot more lives and property.
- Famines/Starvation: The dire projections presume people/countries don't react to changes and simply continue living exactly as they did before. In reality, how many people go hungry will depend a lot more on demography, income, and specific locations on the planet. Since production of food in the planet is continue to increase for several decades, managing and distributing it well will easily feed lot more people lot more efficiently.
After similarly considering water stress, poverty, diseases, he takes up things such as HIV/AIDS epidemic, micronutrients that are not considered part of the climate change equation but can be effectively addressed and argues that we will get much better bang for the buck solving those problems the world over if we want to improve the quality of life for the planet's inhabitants. I took a picture of one simple table found in the book (see attached) that compares feel good initiatives vs. effective solutions. He does repeatedly say that in an ideal world, we'd like to do everything found on both columns of the table. But in the real world where resources are not infinite, we need to do things that will actually address the problems on hand. He really goes after Al Gore in the book, dissecting many of his "An Inconvenient Truth" presentation points and arguing as to how Gore's data is either not complete (e.g. Gore's presentation saying penguin population is dwindling shows reduction in just one island while population is increasing in other islands) or how the carbon reduction solutions won't make a big impact. He also criticizes Gore for brushing aside anyone with differing ideas as stooges of the fossil fuel industry. Lomborg also points out as to how politicians like Tony Blair that are ostentatiously supporting carbon reduction initiatives, signed on to goals that his successors have to meet decades later, while he gets the credit now and simultaneously pushed back on any annual goals that his administration has to meet right away as it will have a negative impact on the British economy under his watch. :-)
Being the skeptic, I didn't want to buy Lomborg's arguments in the book without some fact checking. So, looked around and found pages like this one that pushes back his writings. http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/bjorn-lomborgs-lukewarmer-misinformation-about-climate-change-and-poverty/. But beyond generally complaining that Lomborg is aiding climate deniers and making exaggerated claims, I didn't find any clear explanation as to why he is totally wrong. So, I came away thinking that instead of endlessly saying we should reduce carbon emission and then not really doing much, approaching individual issues separately to find the most efficient solution will be far better and will actually work. We should continue to move towards less dependence on fossil fuel, technologies that will reduce our impact on climate change, etc. But unless we make the needed changes economically attractive, needle won't move much despite everyone making noises or doing small things to make themselves feel better while letting the problems grow endlessly. Though not mentioned in the book, I personally find the "Save the Planet" arguments implying we are doing something good and helping the planet earth very amusing. The planet or universe doesn't really care whether we live or perish. So, if we are fixing things, it is to help human civilization, not really to help the planet. However we address or not address global warming, it will be there humming along long after we are gone. :-)
Do check out the book, author's talks/videos on YouTube and/or the EconTalk interview in which he covers the same material. Let me know what you think and where you stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment