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.
Mary Ellen Harte and John Harte: Addressing Global Warming: US Poised to Lose the Clean Energy Race
Whoever wins the race to a clean energy future will lead politically and economically on this planet. It's frustrating to see the US administration dreaming so senselessly about it.
Jennifer Schwab: Renewable Energy -- Not in My Backyard!
It seems many people support wind and solar energy so long as it's not in my backyard, and not in my hiking grounds either.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You never make a case that adapting is more expensive than "acting".
The German solar loan program is an excellent model, but it should be liberalized and generalized across all forms of renewable energy production. Here's how it works:
Establish a market-based system for determining the expected N-year inflation of wholesale renewable energy. Establish a standard method of calculating N-year ROI for proposed renewable energy deployments based on this expected inflation rate. Guarantee treasury-backed N-year loans to investors whose proposals have an expected ROI that covers the prime-rate interest on the loan.
This is essentially the same idea as the German system, except it doesn't rely on price controls, and it isn't limited to solar power. It makes it much easier for prospective investors to assess profitability and secure loans, and it dramatically lowers tax burden compared to conventional government spending.
Now, this I can agree with. It's in keeping with what I have been saying for years, with regards to a "Hybrid Trade In Program"..
Why not take all the billions and billions of dollars that have been spent on STUDYING Global Warming (not doing anything ABOUT it, mind you. Just STUDYING it.) and put that money into making solar powered systems affordable for low income home owners. My house in FLORIDA is situated and designed PERFECTLY for Solar Power. But I simply cannot afford to do it, even the DIY systems.
So, why not create a system where people like me who WANT to do something, can??
I'll tell you why. Because THAT would be a logical and rational approach, but it wouldn't put money in Al Gore's pocket.
THAT is why you'll never see anything like that...
Michale....
I believe that global warming is a fraud. That said, I bet I get more of my electricity from solar cells (I used Day4Energy's product (dot com) as provides the most energy per square inch) than 99% of the globalwarminmongers who tell us the world is ending in 10 years.
These people will roast before admitting to it. I have seen it, much akin to the now infamous unwavering Bush resolve.
More people will starve, before they admit the real issue is food and water.
If you studied a little economics you may have learned about the "discount rate".
Imagine the estimated damages of catastrophic warming is $100 (to make the math easier). The estimated cost to prevent this damage is $20.
Now to get expected damages you have to multiply the total damage by the probability of it happening, the same way you would calculate odds on a poker hand. So 100(X).
To test whether the 20 is worth it the inequality is 100X > 20
Thus the investment is only worth it if the value of X is right.
Similarly even if 100X > 20 you must take into account whether it is larger than the cost of alternative investment (Y). So you must also consider whether:
100X < Y
Until you can fill in those blanks there is no economic argument for combating global warming.
But what if the total lost is everything (infinity?) That means we lose everything we have including our lives. That very nearly happened at the end of the Permian Age when a volcanically driven global warming event very nearly destroyed all life on this planet. Our technology is not very likely to save us.
Suppose we faced an enemy that threatened every one of our ports and to capture territory along our entire coast line including all of Florida and Manhattan. You'd want your army to stop that from happening, wouldn’t you?
In the February 08 issue of "Scientific American" Scientist Robin Bell discussed the probabilities of that happening in her article "The Unquiet Ice." Here's her reasoning; the land based ice sheets on the continents of Iceland and Antarctica contain enough water to raise the ocean level by 200 feet. A complex of rivers and lakes is developing below the glaciers and lubricates their slide into the ocean. The balance of outflow from the glaciers has been balanced by snowfall for millennia and that is now changing in favor of the outflow.
This is scary stuff and there’s no way we can run from it. If I’m wrong and we take action to stop global warming, we will have at least freed ourselves from imported oil. If I’m right and we do nothing, then we’ll all die. Take your choice.
"If I"m wrong and we take action to stop global warming, we will have at least freed ourselves from imported oil. "
While totally decimating the world economies and keeping developing countries in the stone age..
There is a far easier and far cheaper way to free ourselves from imported oil.
But that, like Nuclear Power, doesn't fit into the destructionist agenda of the radical environmentalist.
So that option is not even mentioned.
Michale.....
Impressive...
VERY impressive...
I wonder why none of the Goreacle's disciples has seen fit to respond to this.
Actually, I don't wonder... It's obvious...
Michale.....
Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month
Gore’s personal electricity consumption up 10%, despite “energy-efficient” home renovations
“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”
In the past year, Gore’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
Personally, I am sick and tired of the "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO" so-called environmentalists who preach and preach, yet have extravagant lifestyles that they refuse to curtail...
When Gore starts living in a 2-Bedroom duplex that is more in keeping with energy efficiency, then maybe I'll concede that there is a threat...
Michale.....
If you really believe in the danger of global warming, you would never fly a private jet. You would reduce. You would live in only one home, under 1,000 sq ft. You would not sell carbon credits.
been listening to professor limbaugh's daily meteorology show?
"When Gore starts living in a 2-Bedroom duplex that is more in keeping with energy efficiency, then maybe I'll concede that there is a threat..." republicans always want someone else to lead the way.
Im so glad for you you must be a fox news enthusiest!Al gores home is much larger than most other middle class homes and he pays extra for green energy>Its like people who shop at whole foods they pay alot more than the average market.And I guess its his fault he needs gas for his car and any planes he might use?
I loved the link a right wing think tank!!Keep up the good work!!
I think there should be a $15 per gallon tax on gas to reduce global warming. If you don't agree than you're not serious about global warming.
Agree, if our objective is to cut consumption. This would help cut consumption.
We also need to triple electricity and natural gas prices to cut consumption.
Your goal sounds like more of hurting everyone instead of helping anything, but I guess that is the liberal way.
I guess I'm not serious then because 90% of Americans would be in the poor house.
If the USA adopts this plan, expect to be speaking chinese on 5th avenue without 10 years.
Tell ya what..
You make it so that ANYONE who claims Global Warming is real doesn't get a penny. No grant money, no "Carbon Credit" fees, no money whatsoever...
Take the money out of the Human Caused Global Warming religion and then see how many jump on the bandwagon... Or, in this case, jump OFF the bandwagon..
You can get many many MANY people to say just about anything when there is billion+ $$$ a year involved..
"If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say."
-Winston Zedemore, GHOSTBUSTERS
Michale.....
Ya figured it out; that's how the denial works.
rush limbaugh got a 1/3BIL$ contract plus percs. nobody gets that kind of money for truth or wisdom but he does for his ability to keep tens of millions in a constant state of denial. maybe you should question his daily global warming episodes and look around at the knuckleheads on that bandwagon you ride.
Tell us Michale... just how much money has been put towards averting Global Warming?
Now, how much money is being made by the scientific deniers that scientists say are contributing and compounding the problem.
If there is more money to be made by denying it then your $ argument is junk.
In the last 18 years, western countries have spent an estimated $50 Billion dollars on Global Warming research. ref: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU
How much have the "deniers" been paid by private enterprise? I'd bet it is a tiny fraction of $50B.
By your logic, the Anthropogenic Global Warming argument must be junk because there is more money to be made.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
