|
Putting Global Warming in Perspective |
Bjørn Lomborg believes that global warming is real, man-made and will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century. In a range of books (including The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It), articles and now a film, Lomborg argues that we need to look at the costs and benefits of the proposed measures. He demonstrates that drastic, here-and-now measures are the worst way to spend money as climate change is a 100-year problem that cannot be fixed in ten years. Instead we should focus on the smartest solutions to the problems that the world faces, whether we’re dealing with climate change, communicable diseases, malnutrition, or agricultural subsidies. If we want to help the world to the greatest extent we can, we do need to fix climate, but should do so smartly and effectively, and we should also remember there are many other important things we can focus on right now, like micronutrient supplementation and fortification, community nutrition programmes, expanded vaccination coverage for children, elimination of financial barriers to education, improving agricultural technology that would do amazing things at very low cost. He presents his case and then debates it with local experts including Juliet Davenport (CEO and founder of renewable electricity supplier, Good Energy), Professor Jim Longhurst (University of the West of England) and Peter Madden, Director, Forum for the Future.
Bjørn Lomborg was named as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in 2004. Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines listed him as the world’s 14th most influential intellectual in 2005. He is the author of the bestselling The Skeptical Environmentalist (CUP, 2001) which sold over 100,000 copies worldwide and regularly appears in the media. His most recent book is Smart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing Costs and Benefits. www.lomborg.com
Responses
Comments
If you would like to subscribe to our RSS Comments feed, please click on the orange XML logo below (click here to read more about our RSS feeds).
** Should you wish to retract a comment, or if you experience technical difficulties, please email us at: ideas@gwebusinesswest.co.uk. We reserve the right to delete posts containing offensive language or content.
May 25th, 2011 at 10:05 am
[...] http://www.ideasfestival.co.uk/?p=1022#more-1022 [...]
May 31st, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Lomborg swept into the Festival with a message of hope for us all. Yes, climate change is real – and we are driving it. But, the consequences of global warming are being exaggerated – “it’s not the end of the world!”
According to Lomborg, agreements to decrease carbon emissions, such as Kyoto, merely result in an astronomical amount of money being squandered on strategies which produce disproportionately small measurable results in the real world. Furthermore, the consequent reduction in economic growth will simply hobble nations in their attempt to tackle the very problems that need to be addressed.
Lomborg’s answer is that we should be investing in what he calls “smart solutions”. If we plough only 0.2% of global GDP into R&D into non-carbon emitting technologies, we will commit $100bn a year to the fight – half the cost of Kyoto but 50 times more than is currently being spent. He suggests that this would be more politically acceptable than the current vogue for binding agreements, as it would allow each country to focus on its own vision – and would have the added bonus of allowing us to simultaneously concentrate on other global problems where we can “do more good”, such as clean water, basic healthcare and education.
Backing up his arguments with a blizzard of statistics, Lomborg provided much food for thought and seemed fairly unfazed by objections from the panel concerning the posing of false opposites (EITHER mitigation OR adaption), and geo-engineering being like “mopping up water while the taps are on full”.
However, I read that the Copenhagen Climate Consensus (the organisation co-founded by Lomborg which to an extent acts as a vehicle for the sort of views expressed here tonight) was, in the early stages the project, initially co-funded by the Economist. An Observer article of 2005 noted that the magazine’s writers “rarely see a political or economic problem that cannot be solved by the trusted three-card trick of privatisation, de-regulation and liberalisation”.
I can only imagine that many of those who would agree with those sentiments must be very energised by Lomborg’s message that one of our priorities in the fight against climate change should be to “get people rich first”. So I asked Lomborg how he felt about the possibility that (wittingly or unwittingly) he must be providing support to people – the very same folks that enthusiastically led us into a world of accelerated global warming in the first place – who would no doubt be very happy to sell us technological “quick fixes” as Rome burns.
He referred back to previous comments about how it was a shame that his message could be distorted and used by climate change deniers. But with respect, the reply sidestepped my point, which was not about climate change deniers but climate change profiteers.
There is an old saying – follow the money. Who will make a profit out of Lomborg’s proposed solutions? How much profit will they make? And who, as usual, will suffer badly in the long run if Lomborg happens to be wrong?
As I said, Lomborg posed some valid points and he is an important voice in the debate. But the last time we were sold the idea that the solution to our problems revolved around “getting people rich first” didn’t work out too well for the vast majority of us.