If you are like me and have wanted to find a book that presented a level-headed assessment of the environment in a concise manner, then pick up Bjorn Lomborg's new book "Cool It". About a year ago I read Lomborg's popular "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and it pursuaded me to look at things differently than how they are portrayed in the media and elsewhere.
Now more than ever, Lomborg's message of increased dialogue and smarter environmental policies are needed. Today we are swarmed with a barrage of stories prediciting calamity for humanity if nothing is done to reverse the damage to the environment. So exactly where does Lomborg differ from the mainstream?
He believes that the threats to the world are vastly exaggerated and that we need to understand that the massive climate changing policies (i.e. Kyoto, Cap & Trade programs) are wildly expensive and actually end up doing very little for the environment.
The major problem is that there is so much hysteria surrounding global warming that not enough people are stopping to think about the consequences of inacting massive spending projects to cut back carbon emissions. This has a lot to do with the fact that scientists and politicians don't care to weight the costs of such policies, but the general public also needs to be more aware of the realities concerning increasing temperatures, how they will affect us, and what we can really do about it.
Basically, Lomborg's message is that we can't do much to stop the increase in temperatures and it's foolish to spend trillions of dollars to do so. For example, just adhering to the Kyoto Protocol would cost tens of billions every year but by 2100 the temperature would only be 0.2 Farenheight cooler. Essentially, we would be paying an exorbiant amount of money in order to delay warming by a few years.
This is crucial to today's arguments surrounding global warming. Scientists and politicians do not want to debate these issues because right now the green revolution is too much of a gold mine. However, over time people will begin to realize the foolishness of such grand policies and by continuing to beat the drum of such policies without taking any criticism, as scientists and politicians do, the overkill will eventually turn people away from their message.
The example of malaria is fitting. It is predicted that over the next century malaria will become rampant in the developing world as the temperatures rise. This has been another rallying cry put forth by environmentalists. The problem is, most of the new opportunities for malaria will occur in areas where it is cold today, but will become slightly warmer in the future. In other words, in the developed world in places like the northern United States.
Yet, malaria is not a disease that affects the U.S. because we have adaquate health policies and disease control. The poorer regions of the world where malaria is already a problem won't see much more problems. And even if they did, what could we do about it?
Well, by trying to change the climate and temperature we could possibly reduce the cases of malaria by a fraction, perhaps saving some of the people, but all for an extraordinary price tag. Or we could spend 1% of that money and completely wipe malaria out and control it through better health and disease control. Which one seems more sensible?
The same is evident with all of the problems associated with global warming. We are told that polar bears are losing their homes and dying because there is no longer enough ice to support their habitat. Yet studies show the polar bear population has increased sixfold over the past half century. In reality, global warming kills an average of 1.5 bears per year as opposed to an average of 50 that are killed through illegal hunting.
We could spend billions, even trillions, trying to turn the temperature knob of earth and save a couple bears. Or we could spend a fraction of that and save scores more by making illegal hunting more difficult. Again, which way is smarter?
Another example put forth by Lomborg is the issue of heat related deaths. With increasing temperatures we are bound to experience more deaths because of heat and this is certainly a valid point. However, what is not talked about is the amount of lives that will be saved because cold related deaths will become less frequent. And as it stands today, there are five times as many cold related deaths each year.
We could spend a ton of money once again to try and reduce temperatures, but wouldn't it be much smarter to focus on things such as better health policies and more air conditioners at a sliver of the cost?
One of the biggest scare tactics put forth is that of rising sea levels. Al Gore has said that ocean levels will rise twenty feet by 2100. He postulates that because of melting ice caps in the northern hemisphere. Never mind that it would take a very, very long time for that to happen. The truth is that the United Nations expects sea levels to rise by a foot or two over the next 100 years.
What's interesting is that sea levels have already risen that same amount over the past century. We're still doing alright aren't we? Now you may say that we need to improve our resistance to flooding (which is one of the biggest killers in the world) and that it very true. But when you look at the price of cutting carbon emissions as a solution to the increase in temperature causing more violent storms (still scientifically disputed by the way), doing simpler things like building better breaker walls and barriers is infinitely more effective at a much lower price.
*Side note: The devestation of Hurricane Katrina is another example put forth how the Co2 we are putting into the atmosphere is fueling more deadly hurricanes. However, Katrina was not one of the strongest hurricanes in history. What has happened is that we have moved into places where hurricanes and flooding are common.
In terms of property damage, Katrina was the worst we've seen in U.S. history, but that's because of our increase in population. There are 40 times as many peope living in the two surrounding counties of Miami, Florida than there were people living in the U.S. from Texas to North Carolina 100 years ago. In reality, the storms are not getting stronger, there's just more property and people for them to damage.
A good analogy Lomborg uses is that of automobile related injuries and deaths. We could, if we really wanted to, rid ourselves of these casualites by simply banning driving or reducing the speed limit to 5 mph. Yet, we do not do that because the overall impact of driving in our society is so important and crucial to our prosperity. And instead of taking away driving or slowing speed limits to ridiculous levels (i.e. attempting to lower the earth's temperature at the cost of billions in lost GDP) we focus on better safety in cars, traffic lights, and road materials.
Why do we not do the same with regard to global warming? We could prevent millions of malaria cases, reduce heat related deaths, increase the developing world's health services, better manage water supplies, prevent HIV, in short, help humanity today, all for a tenth of the price of these proposed climate change policies.
Even more, we could increase funding tenfold into research and development of new energy and still be nowhere near the price of the Kyoto Protocol and other carbon cutting programs. What this could do is leave us with the money to help people today, and allow further research to bring forth new technology that will help us actually do something about the temperature at a much lower cost than today.
Because when it comes down to it, we need to create a better world today so that we are better able to deal with any problems in the future. By enacting massive carbon cutting programs we will, in effect, be making ourselves more poor and in turn, we will be unable to help those even poorer than us today. We would get all of that for virtually zero change in temperature.
Or we could use our wealth today to research new ways to provide clean energy at lower prices, and help those who are poor become more well off so they too can be able to deal with the problems associated with climate change. After all, you don't see many heat related deaths, malaria cases, and other catastrophes caused by increasing temperatures in the United States because we are wealthy enough to deal with those problems.
Now more than ever, Lomborg's message of increased dialogue and smarter environmental policies are needed. Today we are swarmed with a barrage of stories prediciting calamity for humanity if nothing is done to reverse the damage to the environment. So exactly where does Lomborg differ from the mainstream?
He believes that the threats to the world are vastly exaggerated and that we need to understand that the massive climate changing policies (i.e. Kyoto, Cap & Trade programs) are wildly expensive and actually end up doing very little for the environment.
The major problem is that there is so much hysteria surrounding global warming that not enough people are stopping to think about the consequences of inacting massive spending projects to cut back carbon emissions. This has a lot to do with the fact that scientists and politicians don't care to weight the costs of such policies, but the general public also needs to be more aware of the realities concerning increasing temperatures, how they will affect us, and what we can really do about it.
Basically, Lomborg's message is that we can't do much to stop the increase in temperatures and it's foolish to spend trillions of dollars to do so. For example, just adhering to the Kyoto Protocol would cost tens of billions every year but by 2100 the temperature would only be 0.2 Farenheight cooler. Essentially, we would be paying an exorbiant amount of money in order to delay warming by a few years.
This is crucial to today's arguments surrounding global warming. Scientists and politicians do not want to debate these issues because right now the green revolution is too much of a gold mine. However, over time people will begin to realize the foolishness of such grand policies and by continuing to beat the drum of such policies without taking any criticism, as scientists and politicians do, the overkill will eventually turn people away from their message.
The example of malaria is fitting. It is predicted that over the next century malaria will become rampant in the developing world as the temperatures rise. This has been another rallying cry put forth by environmentalists. The problem is, most of the new opportunities for malaria will occur in areas where it is cold today, but will become slightly warmer in the future. In other words, in the developed world in places like the northern United States.
Yet, malaria is not a disease that affects the U.S. because we have adaquate health policies and disease control. The poorer regions of the world where malaria is already a problem won't see much more problems. And even if they did, what could we do about it?
Well, by trying to change the climate and temperature we could possibly reduce the cases of malaria by a fraction, perhaps saving some of the people, but all for an extraordinary price tag. Or we could spend 1% of that money and completely wipe malaria out and control it through better health and disease control. Which one seems more sensible?
The same is evident with all of the problems associated with global warming. We are told that polar bears are losing their homes and dying because there is no longer enough ice to support their habitat. Yet studies show the polar bear population has increased sixfold over the past half century. In reality, global warming kills an average of 1.5 bears per year as opposed to an average of 50 that are killed through illegal hunting.
We could spend billions, even trillions, trying to turn the temperature knob of earth and save a couple bears. Or we could spend a fraction of that and save scores more by making illegal hunting more difficult. Again, which way is smarter?
Another example put forth by Lomborg is the issue of heat related deaths. With increasing temperatures we are bound to experience more deaths because of heat and this is certainly a valid point. However, what is not talked about is the amount of lives that will be saved because cold related deaths will become less frequent. And as it stands today, there are five times as many cold related deaths each year.
We could spend a ton of money once again to try and reduce temperatures, but wouldn't it be much smarter to focus on things such as better health policies and more air conditioners at a sliver of the cost?
One of the biggest scare tactics put forth is that of rising sea levels. Al Gore has said that ocean levels will rise twenty feet by 2100. He postulates that because of melting ice caps in the northern hemisphere. Never mind that it would take a very, very long time for that to happen. The truth is that the United Nations expects sea levels to rise by a foot or two over the next 100 years.
What's interesting is that sea levels have already risen that same amount over the past century. We're still doing alright aren't we? Now you may say that we need to improve our resistance to flooding (which is one of the biggest killers in the world) and that it very true. But when you look at the price of cutting carbon emissions as a solution to the increase in temperature causing more violent storms (still scientifically disputed by the way), doing simpler things like building better breaker walls and barriers is infinitely more effective at a much lower price.
*Side note: The devestation of Hurricane Katrina is another example put forth how the Co2 we are putting into the atmosphere is fueling more deadly hurricanes. However, Katrina was not one of the strongest hurricanes in history. What has happened is that we have moved into places where hurricanes and flooding are common.
In terms of property damage, Katrina was the worst we've seen in U.S. history, but that's because of our increase in population. There are 40 times as many peope living in the two surrounding counties of Miami, Florida than there were people living in the U.S. from Texas to North Carolina 100 years ago. In reality, the storms are not getting stronger, there's just more property and people for them to damage.
A good analogy Lomborg uses is that of automobile related injuries and deaths. We could, if we really wanted to, rid ourselves of these casualites by simply banning driving or reducing the speed limit to 5 mph. Yet, we do not do that because the overall impact of driving in our society is so important and crucial to our prosperity. And instead of taking away driving or slowing speed limits to ridiculous levels (i.e. attempting to lower the earth's temperature at the cost of billions in lost GDP) we focus on better safety in cars, traffic lights, and road materials.
Why do we not do the same with regard to global warming? We could prevent millions of malaria cases, reduce heat related deaths, increase the developing world's health services, better manage water supplies, prevent HIV, in short, help humanity today, all for a tenth of the price of these proposed climate change policies.
Even more, we could increase funding tenfold into research and development of new energy and still be nowhere near the price of the Kyoto Protocol and other carbon cutting programs. What this could do is leave us with the money to help people today, and allow further research to bring forth new technology that will help us actually do something about the temperature at a much lower cost than today.
Because when it comes down to it, we need to create a better world today so that we are better able to deal with any problems in the future. By enacting massive carbon cutting programs we will, in effect, be making ourselves more poor and in turn, we will be unable to help those even poorer than us today. We would get all of that for virtually zero change in temperature.
Or we could use our wealth today to research new ways to provide clean energy at lower prices, and help those who are poor become more well off so they too can be able to deal with the problems associated with climate change. After all, you don't see many heat related deaths, malaria cases, and other catastrophes caused by increasing temperatures in the United States because we are wealthy enough to deal with those problems.
But we're also wealthy enough to drum up hysteria about global warming even though it doesn't affect us to any major degree. Would it make sense to lose our wealth, deny the developing world more access to greatly needed wealth, all for policies that won't do much good?
No comments:
Post a Comment