With Global Warming, Delay is Not An Option

After reading a transcript of Fareed Zakaria's interview with Bjorn Lomborg on Global Public Square on CNN this past Sunday (June 15), my colleagues and I feel compelled to clarify several points which merit clarification as well as context.

WRI has rebutted Bjorn Lomborg's logic and conclusions about global warming before (see here), and we will do so again.

Countless peer reviewed studies all indicate that the threat of climate change is real and that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities will change the climate in catastrophic ways if unchecked. Because greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for many years, we do not possess the ability to fully avert climate change. However, we do have the ability to control our own destiny and avert the most serious consequences.

Despite Mr. Lomborg's fatalistic outlook on the problem, we must address global warming now, and there are good ethical and economic reasons to do so. In stark contrast to the idea that simply adapting to global warming will be cheaper than preventing it, Lord Nicholas Stern did a comprehensive economic assessment of the costs of climate change in the Report on the Economics of Climate Change. In his words, he found that:

The overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.

Lomborg's assertion that it will be easier to adapt to climate changes than to reduce emissions also ignores much of the science. The real issue is not so much the gradual changes that will take place, including sea level rise, the disappearance of glaciers that provide many countries with reliable water supplies, and so on. Rather, it lies in the potential for much more dramatic change as the climate reaches certain "tipping points". If the Greenland ice sheet were to melt, a threat that looks increasingly possible, sea level rise would be measured in meters, not centimeters. Cutting emissions today is not just about tweaking sea level rise as Lomborg suggests, but about insuring against unpredictable but potentially catastrophic effects. Acting now allows us to avoid taking even more aggressive measures later.

The case for action is clear, and we are left to tackle the question of what is feasible and reasonable. Fortunately there are already a number of opportunities for greenhouse emissions reductions readily available, opportunities that can improve fuel diversity and security, and in the case of energy efficiency even save industry and consumers money. Furthermore, technologies like wind energy are highly evolved and already being deployed at high rates in many parts of the world. Mr Lomborg seems to see technology as something that turns up magically, but in fact it is climate policies that have been driving the innovation in many areas of energy technology. The German renewable energy support that Mr Lomborg derides does not merely postpone global warming for an hour: it creates the economies of scale that allow these technologies to be taken up around the world. Similar policies in his own country of Denmark have made his compatriots the world leaders in wind energy, and have underwritten the huge deployment of these technologies today in China, India and other countries. It is a fallacy to suggest that new technologies negate the argument for policy; they ARE the argument for policy. His reference to research and development as the means to reduce costs suggests a lack of awareness of where many of these technologies are today. It is not only R&D (though R&D is necessary), but deployment and economies of scale that are needed, and that are the main aims of climate policy. And solar will be competitive with fossil fuels long, long before "mid-century" thanks to these policies. To fully harness the creative minds of industry we must institute market-based programs that put a price on carbon and provide the regulatory certainty needed for private investment.

Mr. Lomborg also implies that China and India will not be ready to deploy clean energy themselves until that far distant date when the costs are at rock-bottom. He should perhaps visit China, where wind energy is being deployed faster than anywhere else in the world and has built one of the world's leading solar industries. China has identified climate change as a key threat to its economy, and clean energy as a centerpiece of its development.

In closing, we believe that acting now to address climate change will not only (hopefully) avert catastrophic consequences, it will create jobs, improve energy security and improve people's lives the world over. Let's get started now.

Comments

[TheBlackCat]

Found this great little quip on wonderful page, *I* certainly can't say it any better:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

"Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn't because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it's that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information.

But how could it be possible, for instance, for every nearly every scientist in a field be working together to promote a falsehood? People who believe this is possible simply have no practical understanding of how science works as a discipline. For one, scientists don't just publish articles that reaffirm a consensus opinion. Articles that just rehash what is already known or say "everything is the same" aren't interesting and don't get into good journals. Scientific journals are only interested in articles that extend knowledge, or challenge consensus (using data of course). Articles getting published in the big journals like Science or Nature are often revolutionary (and not infrequently wrong), challenge the expectations of scientists or represent some phenomenal experiment or hard work (like the human genome project). The idea that scientists would keep some kind of exceptional secret is absurd"

[mergina]

Actually my dear, delay was not an option 30 years ago. Today, with all that is taking shape around us in the form of tiny love taps from Mother Nature, A PANIC STRICKEN EVERY MUST DO THEIR PART IMMEDIATELY OR ELSE is not an option. Mother Natures wake up call love taps going on all around the world will soon turn into slaps, and when she clenches her fists and slams us with them, LOOK OUT!

We are the illogical species that destroys life. We destroy each other. We destroy our environment. We destroy the very home, the only home, we have to exist on.

Perhaps humans are not worth having around in the universe after all. Who would want us in their neighbourhood? We are a destructive abomination as a total species.

[CluelessOne]

What is with the title of this article? Of course delay is an option. Just about every course of action (or inaction) is an option. This is just silly/alarmist.

[Beachrunner]

For all of you out there who think CO2 is some kind of pollutant -- better hold your breath. Forever. (Or just not exhale.)

[Michale32086]

LexLuthier

Surely you can see the utter hypocrisy in Al Gore...

This is a man who wants EVERYONE else to treat Human Caused Global Warming like it's an imminent catastrophe, yet he uses more electricity in one month than over 200 house would use..

The Goreacle is a man who decried the lack of debate in the run up to the Iraq War, yet he REFUSES to debate the issue of HCCC, even though he promised to do so years ago...

Al Gore is a con man and a hypocrite.... Pure and simple...

Michale.....

[KillTheMessenger]

And this matter why? Just asking... I left kindergarten some time ago, so I am not playing the "You did it!" game any longer.

[LexLuthier]

Michale

First, go back and look at those figures on the Gore household's energy usage. They are misleading, and that is probably intentional. The statement was that their usage for one YEAR would supply over 200 households for one MONTH. See how that little manipulation led you to misinterpret? But you can only see that it is Al Gore who is doing the conning. But your distaste for the man isn't relevant to the issue that is being discussed here.

I am not an expert in the field of global warming, just a concerned citizen. Back in the early seventies during the "Arab oil embargo," I began to see how dangerous it was for us to consume so much oil and rely so heavily on it for our energy needs. A burgeoning population depending on a finite, dwindling supply of petroleum; can you not see the problem inherent there? Even if the burning of fossil fuels were not leading to the degradation of our environment (and it is), there would be the problem of maintaining supply.

I don't believe that you are a con man. I just don't think you are looking at these problems realistically, probably because you are being misled.

LL

[Michale32086]

Good point about that little misleading tidbit.. You are correct, I did not catch that.

However, even as it states, that's over 17 THOUSAND kilowatt hours a month..

And this guy tells other people to conserve!!????

Do you know why I am convinced that Human Caused Global Warming is a con??

1. The hysterical nature of the claims

2. The fact that so much money can be had by just jumping on the HCGW bandwagon. Over 50 BILLION just to STUDY the problem...

3. The fact that the HCGW crowd puts out grandiose and hysterical "facts" that turn out to be complete BS...

4. The fact that Al Gore simply REFUSES to debate the issue, despite having castigated the lack of debate in the run up to the Iraq War...

5. The earth's climate has been changing for BILLIONS of years. Mankind's existence on earth is a mere mote of a speck of that time... It's simply inconceivable that something as robust as the earth's climate can be affected in that mere speck of time. See my "Man pissing in the Atlantic" analogy.

6. Professionals cannot accurately predict the weather in the coming 24 hours. Are we to believe that weather can accurately be predicted in the coming 10 years?? 20 years?? 50 years??? Doubtful..

CONT

[Michale32086]

CONT

7. The "do as I say, not as I do" attitude of nearly ALL HCGW proponents.. Al Gore and his 17,000+ K/w house is one. John Travolta and his private airplanes and airfield is another..

8. Al Gore owns the "carbon credit" industry.. Isn't that coincidental?? He creates the emergency and then profits from the alleged "cure"...

And so many MANY other reasons...

It's not a question of anyone misleading me..

It's simply a matter of the fact that the hysterical claims of the HCGW crowd simply defies belief..

Michale.....

[Beachrunner]

I'm going to follow AG's example:

"In the past year, AG’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month."

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

[LexLuthier]

...or 8,379,840 average households for one minute, or 502,790,400 average households for one second. Oh yeah, and his son was arrested for doing over 100mph in a Prius, so surely we can dismiss everything he has to say.

[vipersdad]

So-
to those who are denying or debating the notion that climate change is real, or a cause for alarm:

Here is my invitation -

Read more than the tidbits of data that you find on drudge or limbaugh or some other site that has a clear political agenda.
Note that there are thinkers on the right politically who actually think that Climate Change is a serious threat.
Open your mind to the totality of the facts, not just the "deniers greatest hits."

Become an expert on the topic.....not just someone who regurgitates talking points and URLs that don't tell the whole story.

Then come back here and post to your hearts' content.
in the meantime - ask yourself this question -

"what's my motivation in challenging all this science when I myself don't really understand the totality of it?"
What's in it for you?

Ask yourself - who stands to make or lose more money if we embrace the notions of climate change as a threat? Energy conglomerates, or Climate Scientists?

Lastly - ask yourself this question: "What if I'm wrong?" What if all this climate change stuff you spend so much energy arguing aginst is correct? What if the planet is really in danger?

Got another planet we can move to?

[Michale32086]

No one is denying that climate change is real..

All the real scientific data supports the logical and rational conclusion that the earth's climate IS changing.

Just as all the real scientific data supports the logical and rational conclusion that the earth's climate is ALWAYS changing...

But the Flat Earth Human Caused Global Warming types want everyone to believe that the Earth's Climate has NEVER changed as much as it has since man entered the picture a mere speck of time ago.

And THAT is just flat out BS.... Just like many of the other outlandish and ridiculous claims made by the new Flat Earth groups...

My fav is the Goreacle's assertion that ManMade CO2 is "heavier" than natural CO2..

That one gave me a good laugh..

Michale.....

[KillTheMessenger]

You are talking a lot about "real scientific data". Is there false scientific data? Can you show some to us?

The rest of your post sounds like trolling and smells like trolling, so I won't go into details.

[kingcityguru]

Ah, yah, yah, it is.
Gore said we have "10 years left" -- I say we wait until that date to see just how bad it is. As long as you globalwarminmongers stay opposed to CO2 and air pollution free nuclear energy for the generation of electricity I will not believe in your warnings. I mean, if it really is as serious as you say and time is of the essense, you could completely shut down EVERY coal and natural gas burning electrical generator in the US by building 100 new modern reactors (remember, France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear energy -- why can't we?)

[Michale32086]

Exactamundo...

Michale.....

[KillTheMessenger]

How old are you, again?

[LexLuthier]

Plutonium?

[Michale32086]

@BlackbirdHighway

You quote the UN??

Isn't this the same UN that made 9 BILLION DOLLARS (Yea, with a B) a year off the Iraq Oil For Food program??

Isn't this the same UN that went down to an African nation to disarm the rebels and ended up SELLING them weapons??

Is THAT the UN that you are quoting??

The UN is just like any huge US Corporation. It's all about making money... Period..

"The best thing for the UN to do is go condo."
-Robin Williams

Michale.....

[BlackbirdHighway]

Yeah, they same UN that told us there were NO WMDs in Iraq.

The same UN group of scientists that won a Nobel prize.

So, how about this one:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/world_warmth.html

Or do you have problems with NASA too? Maybe problems with any scientists that don't see things your way?

[Michale32086]

"The same UN group of scientists that won a Nobel prize."

Yea, they won a PEACE PRIZE for scientific work that wasn't even scientific..

THAT should give you a good indication of the relevance of THAT prize, eh?? :D

Your NASA report reflects cooked (no pun intended) data. It's a documented fact that the Earth's climate has actually been cooling the last 10 years, completely erasing the rise in temps that have the hysterical alarmists so.. well.. hysterical.

HuffPo won't let you list a bunch of links, so just GOOGLE "Global Cooling" and "last 10 years" and you'll see all the REAL science..

No one is denying there is Climate Change. Where the conflict arises is the "Flat Earth" types and their political/consensus argument insist that it is caused by man, completely ignoring the REAL science that indicates otherwise.

Think of it as a man in a dingy, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. He drops his drawers and takes a piss off the side of the boat. Yea, it might not be the most healthy thing for the fish in the immediate area of his.. er.. dingy. But to put forth the idea that this guy taking a piss in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean is going to raise the temp of the ENTIRE OCEAN is ludicrous to the point of absurdity.

So it is with Gore'acle and his preachings.

And even the Gore'acle himself cannot follow his own preachings. Why should we??

Michale.....

[NL207]

And you trust the same NASA that through hubris, incompetence and mismanagement spectacularly destroyed two space shuttles worth many billions of dollars while snuffing out the lives of 14 people?

Your link contains this quote: "the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels in the current interglacial period, which has lasted nearly 12,000 years", which is directly contradicted by the results ever several paleoclimate reconstructions, all of which agree that is was at least 1.0 degree K warmer 6,000 years ago than it is today. The above statement is clearly false.

ttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/jouzel2007/fig2.jpg
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics/tempplot5.gif
http://www.lakepowell.net/sciencecenter/paleoclimate.htm

[BlackbirdHighway]

Besides, the man just asked for one study, not one non-UN study. You deniers should be more specific!

[Michale32086]

@certainot

"been listening to professor limbaugh's daily meteorology show?"

Actually, I don't listen to or read anything from Limbaugh...

But thank you for conceding the message by attacking the messenger..

Your concession is appreciated..

Michale.....

[TheBlackCat]

Statements like this make me think that global warming skeptics aremostly just people with a victim /martyr complex. The love taking up a fantastical argument and feeling like the whole world is against them. They will cherry pick data without actually reading a single scientific abstract on their own, because they're so smart all they need to do is read sentences gleamed from internet web pages and they know EVERYTHING they need to know now. The more proof there is that they are in the wrong, the stronger they cling to their beliefs, because NOW a conspiracy must be involved! Yes, a conspiracy! How else would every scientific body on Earth come up with the same data over a thirty year period? And I can save the world, I can save EVERYONE by just opening their eyes and showing them that all scientists are wrong and I am right! Or that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US! Or that there was no moon landing! I can show them the truth!!!

They then pose the most ridiculous of arguments, knowing that they will be mocked by anyone with half a brain. And then when they are mocked, they LOVE it,. because it makes them "the better person." It makes them feel under attack, victimized, special. Just like Jesus.

Well listen bub, you're no Jesus.

[TheBlackCat]

Oh and by the way, trying to turn the tables on the scientist is a stupid move and right out of the crank handbook. You try and majke it seem like global warming scientists are part of ome nutty fringe group, when in fact every reputable scientific journal supports global warming. Do you think they're debating this at Harvard? Europe's already accepted global warming for YEARS and has moved to sustainable energy. . My idea is ridiculous, but to defend myself, I will say no, YOUR idea is ridiculous. You're a flat earther!! All the scientists are flat earthers! Not me! Not me!

It's like when people who believe in creationism, which there is no evidence for whatsoever, try and go after evolutionary scientists by saying THEY don't have any real facts. It's laughable.

So go ahead, call us flat earthers. Yawn!!

[dobermanmacleod]

The size and speed of emission cuts necessary to avoid climate catastrophe are unfeasible:

"Way too little and way too late," runs the refrain, followed by the claim that nothing less than an 80% reduction in emissions by the year 2050 will suffice – what I call the "80 by 50" target. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have endorsed it. John McCain is not far behind, calling for a 65% reduction...By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction. It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low – even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood." --"The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change," WSJ

There is a very inexpensive simple way to immediately cool the Earth: just put a small amount of aerosol into the air to dim the sun.

"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008

[lfotweaker]

The spraying has been happening for a while now. It's just a matter of how it will be sold to the public.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724410-29277,00.html

Several months ago I heard a report that perchlorate was found in much of the drinking water here in the US. So, we can put 2+2 together. The chemtrails were much more sparse when I was a kid, and they actually disappeared after a few minutes.

The propositions to fight AGW just get more and more ridiculous.

[Uosdwis]

You're new here. It's the ONLY option for Republicans.

[gage]

We don't want wind in my area of the country because of the large number of endangered local bird species, our position in the Central Flyway, and the presence of the world's largest maternity bat caves.

I would rather see more nuclear plants. I don't believe anyone who's not for more nuclear is really serious about the climate. I'll believe you're really worried about the climate when you start advocating for nukes.

[UnbiasView]

Nuclear is off limits with liberals, sorry.

[ShaunHammer]

I was just leafing through a 1983 NY times article that was pushing for Nuke power instead of Coal Plants to curb acid rain.

Government is the wrong people to put your trust into because after researching just the acid rain topic, you see that they did not really do anything on purpose, they imposed limits so that utility companies could be fined and that money to feed back to the government. They have been doing it for years. They create a problem, act like they have the solution only to tax the things we NEED so that the money never stops.

As soon as they find a way to tax hydrogen and nuclear energy they will let the energy companies go ahead with building. We are all screwed by a tyranical govt.

[speakeasy]

How many birds have you ever seen who died flying into a tree at full tilt? Even in the wind? None. That should answer any questions as to whether they can see a pole or a slow moving propeller.

[ShaunHammer]

A few points I would like to counter of yours...

"Countless peer reviewed studies all indicate that the threat of climate change is real "
Show me just one....

"The overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever"
- That is quite an emotional statement. But where do you get these monetary stats? How on earth can you predict diasters? I mean, I am looking at stats here. CO2 has went up year after year, storms are supposed to get worse, we only have 10 years left....whatever... Unfortunately, the last 2 years we have had two of the LEAST active hurricane seasons on record. The stat you throw out is for inciting fear only. Coping with the problems, if there will be any more than normal, would be cheaper.

Thank you

[BlackbirdHighway]

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

[ShaunHammer]

A number of peer-reviewed papers that references “grey literature” which hasn’t been peer reviewed. Then the peer-reviewed study that cites the grey literature is subsequently cited in another publication to refer to the information in the original non-peer reviewed source. This is a way to give the shine of peer review to a non-peer-reviewed study.

Besides, chapter 9, which is the key chapter that asserts that CO2 has been the dominant cause of warming over the last 50 years has been reviewed by 23 independant reviewers and only 4 agreed with the statement, yet they published it anyway....

[jbatch]

The key to this debate -- in rhetorical terms -- is simple, and you stated it early. Lomborg makes an assertion; while Sterns has conducted a detailed analysis.

An assertion is a statement that has no backing in fact and data -- it may be true, or it may not, but it is not substantiated. As it happens, Lomborg's assertion is not true.

We know this from Sterns, McKinsey, DOE's 5-Lab Study and WRI's various meta-analysese, which tell us that the cost of ignoring global warming far exceeds the cost of addressing it.

This should be intuitively obvious -- losing even a small amount of shoreline, coupled with paying increasingly high prices for a dwindling resource like fossil fuels -- a resource we will have to replace anyway -- imposes huge costs. And since we would have to replace this infrastructure anyway, it all comes down to discount rates.

And herein is the ultimate folly. Discounting was developed to allow trade-offs of future benefits against present expenditures. But not all things are tradable. We cannot restore species which have become extinct nor can we realistically replace, say, the Outer Banks and Bangladesh -- at any discount rate.

There is a paradox for free-marketeers like Lomborg. They advocate leaving global warming to the market and ridicule any who would trust the government to address it. But if we do that we will soon be asking the government to regulate the planetary thermostat -- a far more challenging and intrusive task than

[NL207]

"Lomborg makes an assertion; while Sterns has conducted a detailed analysis"

This is indeed rhetoric. Lomborg has, in fact, done as much or more research than Sterns. Anyone who states otherwise is simply ignorant or dishonest.

from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2001/08/25/bogren25.xml

"Its importance lies partly in its relentless statistics. With 173 charts, nine tables and a staggering 2,930 footnotes, The Skeptical Environmentalist will be a source of reference for years to come"

Even more telling Lomborg's motiovation for his research was to disprove Julian Simon. http://www.juliansimon.com/ Simon is the man who made the famous bet with doomsayer, Paul Ehrlich. Simon proved be correct but did not ever collect the bet from the craven Ehrlich.

[TheBlackCat]

Who the hell cares how many footnotes he has? Do you know that many of the scientists he scites in his book have since sued him for misrepresenting THEIR research.

Lomberg did NONE of his own research. NONE. ZERO. ZIP Do you know what his degree is in? Wait for it..wait for it...business. Not science. He is not affiliated with any sscientific body, holds no scientific degrees and has puiblished none of his own scientific abstracts.

Whenever I see something like "The skeptical environmentalist" or "The Global Warming Swindle" the first thing I do is look up the authors. And you know what I've found, never EVER has one of these "experts" done their OWN research. They take the research of OTHER scientists and declare findings opposite to what the ACTUAL RESEARCHES themselves concluded. There are 12 different scinetists right now suing the makers of "the Global Warming Swindle" and I think about two dozen suing Lomberg for fraud because they took the research of other people and out and out lied about the conclusions.