This weekend, the New York Times gave Bjorn Lomborg -- the self-proclaimed "skeptical environmentalist" -- more air time. Lomborg wrote an op-ed that railed against those who want to cut greenhouse gas emissions dramatically. He offered his opinion on a better solution: "make low-carbon alternatives like solar and wind energy competitive with old carbon sources."
As usual, Lomborg sets up a false straw-man to knock down. He says "we are often told that...we must cut emissions immediately and drastically." Then he worries that people just don't get that we actually need to make renewables cheaper. Really? So none of the major environmental NGOs, or country delegations to global climate negotiations, have thought of that? So to tackle obesity we shouldn't just talk about weight, but also about exercising more and eating right? So insightful...
Lomborg has a long habit of tilting at windmills that he mostly imagines. His most famous argument is that we shouldn't prioritize climate change over other pressing social priorities like poverty alleviation -- as if they're all separate. The poorest people in the world are energy poor and don't have access to clean water -- the two biggest environmental challenges of our time. He's always setting up false tradeoffs to establish his more "reaonsable" middleground.
I will say that one overarching aspect of his arguments is important. Of course we should constantly ask ourselves, "What's the cheapest way to solve that problem, and where should we allocate scarce resources?" He's always pushing for that discussion. But as we've seen time and again, whenever a group -- usually a particular industry most affected by a change -- says it will be too expensive to solve an environmental challenge, it ends up being much cheaper. We innovate, get smarter, get leaner, and move away from what's ailing us.
To me, Lomborg's arguments seem couched in a way to just maximize attention, not for the ideas themselves, but for Lomborg. And I'm guilty of spilling ink on him now. Climate change deniers use his work to say, wait, let's not rush into anything (which makes me ask, you mean rushing into things that might save us money, keep cash and jobs here instead of sending them to parts of the world that hate us, and improve our health -- you mean those things?).
Lomborg's arguments are more subtle than he usually gets credit for. Probably 75% of what he says is dead on -- but that's what makes him so dangerous. It's the other 25% that gets us in trouble.
I welcome your thoughts on his role...
Andrew Winston helps companies use environmental thinking to grow and prosper. He is author of the upcoming Green Recovery -- a special preview is available free here. He is also co-author of the best-seller Green to Gold,
Bjørn Lomborg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bjorn Lomborg sets global priorities | Video on TED.com
Bjørn Lomborg: Climate change decisions should be based on science ...
No country can "do everything", any more than a person can, so his advice to choose wisely is welcomed. We have far too many examples of having "jumped the gun" with terrible results: ethanol, as mentioned, but also palm-oil diesel, MBTE, the first round of wind energy in the 80's, maybe CFL bulbs, etc. Some were just a waste of resources, others actually did harm.
IF we are facing an industry or ememy that is destroying our future, AND they are " just too big to fail"
Then we need to at least slow them down. And let the hot air out of them slowely.
Tax the polluters, they will pass it on to their customers.
The customers can now make an informed choice. Oil and Coal with/tax cost ....This Much$$$ . Wind , Solar, and (Name the new tech) cost ....this much$$$
Then the customer can choose ,based on not only the cost of manufacturing, profit. shipping, but also with the cost of clean up, invironmental damage factored in.
And the customer faced with these choices may choose also to conserve.
Hey this is all win win.
He is a liar and self-publicist (lied about being an environmentalist, lied about being a member of Greenpeace etc we know that he's a self-publicist from the fact that we know his name and yet he is clearly not actually an expert in anything he is talking about).
I do like the fact that he is raising "other" global issues in his continuing quest to have global warming sidelined. He has been driven from every previous position he has held by the facts. And today any 9 year old can see that his current objection is ridiculous because you don't have to choose between which problems to solve. BUT he has opened up the idea that we SHOULD be solving common global problems. So thanks for that, now is there any reason we should listen to him?
His economic arguments are so clearly starting with the answer (enviros are wrong, and for Bjorn's constantly vague and shifting reasons) that what he says doesn't even pass a sniff test.
So, no. Noise.
Sebb
What is his argument? We should spend money on other global issues and continue to burn fossil fuels?
This is pure grandstanding. We no longer have time to indulge in theatrics.
What is the cost of a life? Well, the speed limit should be set at 1 mile per hour. No accident-related death. But then ambulances move so slow that people die of heart attack before reaching the hospital. Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.
Some are naive to think that Nature is pristine. Nature is dirty, brutal and brutish.
Bjorn Lomborg has the correct idea. Given the resources you have, how best to use it. The "best" is determined by the population at large since each segment have different problems/needs and at different degree.
Example: what to do about Mississippi floods? In some cases, rebuild the levees. In others, move the towns to higher ground. More and more, the US army corps of Engineers is choosing the latter solution.
The rain that waters my garden, also washes the man's home away down in the valley.
Nature was neither benevolent or angry.
I think what Bjorn is saying is that since we are intent on spending money to correct something he doesn't want to correct. He now wants to block this by suggesting we spend money on something else instead that we were not going to spent money on anyway.
20 of us are in a lifeboat, and we find a hole in the bottem, It is sinking. It can be patched. There are also bones to set, diapers to change, people to feed, questions to answer, radios to fix..
What do you think we should tend to first.
And if you do build make sure no one CLEARCUTS all the forest and fills all the marshes with farmland , subdivisions, and parking lots upstream, so that the water pours directly into the river causing even bigger floods.
Many items tied to The Fight on Climate Change are huge waste of money and resources by any length of the stick - carbon sequestration, ethanol, etc. But one thing is clear, the best way to improve the world is to improve the people who impact it - hence Lomborg's argument for medical innovation, poverty alleviation and prioritizing education.
http://www.acpropulsion.com/company/press-releases.php
"AC Propulsion is the owner of 6 issued patents on EV technology, which have been licensed to other companies, including Tesla Motors. Some of this technology was originally developed by AC Propulsion for its tzero™ electric sports car which achieved 0-60 mph acceleration in 3.6 seconds and 300 mile range while driving 60 mph."
As for not rushing in to things: Supposedly, atmospheric levels of CO2 are the major concern (which may or may not be true, but for argument's sake). If that is the case, then cutting the rate of emissions doesn't solve the problem. It merely slows the rate at which the problem is exacerbated. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will continue to climb as a result of human influence - they just might not reach the imaginary "tipping point" as quickly.
I think that's the essence of Lomborg's argument. "Greening" the economy with the current state-of-the-art is an expensive"feel-good" measure that doesn't solve the problem it targets.