
The single most well-reasoned talk on Global Warming that I have ever seen - Lomborg - Prrometheus
http://reason.com/blog/show/130469.html
======
netcan
_For those without the time, this is the jist:_

Accept that climate change is real & man made. Reject the panic that goes
along with the acceptance of this. Most carbon reduction plans are very costly
to implement & according to climate change models result in a very modest
average temperature reduction. The many arguments presented in favour of
climate change policy are not a rational use of these funds.

Urban heat related deaths can be prevented by painting roofs white & planting
trees at a tiny fraction of the cost of reducing emissions. Polar bear deaths
(1 per year due to warming) can more cheaply be prevented by not shooting
them. Increased malaria fatalities (weak correlation between heat & malaria)
can be more cheaply & effectively prevented by treating malaria.

Basically, the approach to climate change uses inefficient technologies &
approaches because it is a dumb debate with alarmists promoting multi-billion
dollar projects that have virtually no effect (holding global warming off by
one hour at the end of 100 years).

From what I understand, he recommends investing technology, saving the money,
treating the symptoms for now.

 _I disagree somewhat, but that is a different comment. The speaker is calm,
rational, a good speaker. It is worth listening to._

------
glymor
I agree with Lombory's philosophy of pragmatism over ideology but I think his
excessive focus on things heat deaths and polar bears in this talk amounts to
a straw-man argument.

The big danger of Global warming is that it shifts liveable areas in three
ways. water shortages eg China, India anywhere draining from the Himalayas;
more slowly general temperature increases moving productive zones outwards, eg
desertification in North Africa and the possibility of Greenland's ice-sheet
joining the ocean and raising sea levels.

Water shortages could be solved by desalination and water conservation
thankfully California will probably pay for the development; general migration
will require the generally richer countries in the north to take more people
(or those people will come all at once) and rising water levels: lots of
dykes? (this is actually one of the few costs of Global Warming that wouldn't
be recuperable and could be v. expensive).

By picking small things that were never really advanced as the big dangers of
Global Warming he seems more deceptive than the environmentalists he's
attempting to criticise.

~~~
netcan
I agree that these are straw man arguments. I also reacted to them at first.
But then he doesn't seem to rely on them too much. He admits that they are a
metaphor. To be really convinced I would have liked to see him address issues
like the likely major food shortage (technology will probably not solve this)
& the likely major regional problems caused by mass migrations and/or wars
over resources. However, his general argument is that a lot of money is being
spent stupidly, very stupidly. I think that he is correct & that he makes that
point.

I am still hesitant to take his side on this. I have some major problems with
this approach:

(1) World Government - At the best of times governments are inefficient. For
normal maintenance issues like how to run infrastructure, hospital systems,
school systems & such they make mistakes, but they get by. Once issues become
election winning issues, the debate gets really dumb. this is not only a
central focus issue, it is a very technical issue. As he suggests, this is
complicated & technical & every action needs to be weighed up. It's
inefficient to simply take an ideological stance (renewable energy, energy
efficiency, hybrid cars, etc) & get behind anything that promotes it. It is
exponentially more rational to make this decision like an accountant creating
a cash flow strategy.

Unfortunately, it is impossible for a political process such as this to take
on an accountant like decision making process. Political debates need to be
much more dumbed down to be possible. In this case, this process can be seen
as being conducted by the 'Government of the World,' a body very weak in the
existence department, never mind the efficiency department. So in a real
sense, if a policy can't be chanted by a mob, it cannot be pursued. Certainly
not over the 50+ year period necessary. I just don't think that his 'plan' is
a possibility. The political structure & decision making process here is our
tool. We have a wood. He is proposing building a house from bricks.

(2) Maybe panic is Necessary - Many predict that there is indeed a need for
panic. That is possibly because of point of no return due to feedback. There
are two kinds of feedback: the physical kind such as methane releases from
melting permafrost, the political kind due to climate related political
consequences such as a Chinese famine or a Pakistan/India war related to river
flows.

(3) Economic models break down at these sorts of concepts. Comparing economic
outputs between two scenarios where one of them includes mass starvation is
apples to oranges.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_To be really convinced I would have liked to see him address issues like the
likely major food shortage (technology will probably not solve this)_

This will most likely be solved by growing food in Canada and Siberia.

~~~
netcan
The idea that new land will become available at a perfect replacement rate is
a little bit up in the air.

Anyway, even if this does happen, the adjustment period could starve 2 billion
people over several decades or more.

Large scale grain production is pretty optimised. That means it's very
sensitive to any changes in the environment. Even if melted Siberian
permafrost did provide a wheat growing hectare for every hectare lost down
hear in Australia, it could take decades to shift production, optimise
methods, industries & crop varieties.

BTW, this may be another downside of GM. A kind of 'more of the same' to
monocropping.

------
mike_organon
Interesting talk. Lomborg is not just a skeptic, he accepts warming as true
and probably caused by humans, but his talk focuses on solving problem rather
than wasting effort on carbon reductions. For example, if people are dying in
heat waves and your goal is to actually save lives, cutting carbon will do
next to nothing, but things like trees and water in cities (or air
conditioning) would save many lives and be vastly less expensive. It makes you
wonder what people's real goals are.

~~~
newt0311
The efforts of most environmentalists become a lot easier to comprehend if you
think of environmentalism and global warming as a religion.

~~~
davidw
I don't know... I grew up in Oregon, and used to ride my mountain bike around
in places like this:

[http://local.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=43.939069,-123.43714...](http://local.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=43.939069,-123.437147&spn=0.038628,0.11158&t=h&z=14)

and as a consequence am quite willing to believe that people can have far
ranging, destructive consequences, and am willing to consider the fact that
current environmental policy may do a poor job of dealing with certain
negative externalities.

Posts like this one, though, are yet more evidence of why these discussions
are pointless. "Environmentalism is a religion" hah! Good one! In one snarky
sentence, you get to call a broad and diverse movement (which ranges from
people who are a bit bonkers to plenty of very reasonable people) a bunch of
illogical doodyheads. Gee, if only more people would tell them this, maybe
they'd see the light.

------
jsmcgd
How can he not mention the significant threats posed by climate change and
only mention polar bears and heat-wave deaths? What about the collapse of the
Gulf Stream? What about the world's major cities and low lying countries being
submerged in water? etc etc

If climate change only amounted to the things he mentioned, I'd say pollute
away but it has the potential for a genuine global catastrophe.

Also where does he get his amazingly precise figures from and why does he keep
mentioning Al Gore?

~~~
Prrometheus
He starts with the UN IPCC estimates for what the effects of Global Warming
are likely to be in the next 100 years, and bases his recommendations on that.
If he doesn't address some doomsday scenario, then it is probably because no
scientist thinks it particularly likely.

It is a 30 minute talk, after all.

------
netcan
At the end of the talk he cites a list of top Economists 'Best bang for you
buck.'

Anyone know any more about that? A link would be appreciated.

~~~
berryg
<http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=953>

~~~
netcan
Thank you

------
peregrine
Lets face it we are at a cossroads. Our population is growing exponentially,
our technology is pacing with us. Our planet cannot sustain people and nature
successfully without one giving way. I'd make the argument that spending money
on technology to improve our well being with things like,

Better plants, better growing techniques, safer drugs, more sustainable
energy, cheaper housing, better schools and space travel technology.

Improving all of those will help us take the next step as humanity and thats
towords the moon.

~~~
anamax
If you believe that population will continue to grow exponentially, reducing
resource use per person linearly doesn't help.

I note that population growth varies significantly with technology. Folks with
TVs have fewer kids than those without. Folks with computers have even fewer.

~~~
netcan
OLPC as birth control?

------
numair
Whoa, weird! How did I end up on Climatologist News? Does anyone know where
Hacker News went?

~~~
Prrometheus
You can always form the connection by making sure your site is green
certified:

[http://www.co2stats.com/certpro.php?s=1138&ref=http://ne...](http://www.co2stats.com/certpro.php?s=1138&ref=http://news.ycombinator.com/news)

Nothing like the latest fad for making money.

