LOMBORG IN THE GUARDIAN:

The "skeptical environmentalist" gives the Guardianistas the facts

In a world where we cannot deal with all the problems at the same time, we need to ask: what should we do first? This was the question answered by the Copenhagen Consensus, a project that brought together 38 of the world's top economists to set up a list of the global priorities. They looked at the main challenges to humanity, and the many solutions that we already have, analysing both their benefits but also their price tag. By using cost-benefit analysis the expert panel of economists found that HIV/Aids, hunger, free trade and malaria were the world's top priorities. Equally, the experts rated urgent responses to climate change extremely low. In fact, the panel called these ventures "bad projects", simply because they cost more than the good they do.

Last week, a coalition of environmental and development organisations published a report stating the Kyoto protocol and even stricter policies should be our first priority. Not surprisingly, they criticised the Copenhagen Consensus as "intellectually corrupt" with "bizarre conclusions" reached through "intellectual illiteracy". Such language is often used instead of strong arguments. If you read the coalition's report, it does not show that global warming is where we can do the most good. It simply points out that climate change can have serious, negative impacts. The real question remains: where can we do the most good for our efforts?

Here the coalition goes overboard on its claims about global warming. It says climate stability holds absolute precedence over all other is sues, stating: "A stable climate is something we might now call a system condition for civilisation." Without it, "civilisation is impossible". Such a gambit is politically savvy - but also incorrect. Let us agree that human activity is changing our climate and that global warming will have serious, negative impacts. Nonetheless, all the information from the UN climate panel, the IPCC, tells us that it will not end civilisation.

The coalition tells us that the proportion of hungry people may actually go up by 2015. Yet the fact is that the UN expects the proportion to decline from 17% to less than 12% of the developing world. By 2015, only a very small portion of global warming will have taken hold, and even by 2080, the IPCC expects that the global food production will have increased by about as much as it would in an unwarmed world.

It worries that malaria will rise in a warmer world. This claim has some theoretical validity, but forgets that malaria only persists with poor infrastructure and health care. Actually, throughout the 1500-1800s, malaria was a major epidemic disease in Europe, the US and far into the Arctic Circle. It didn't end because it got colder, but because Europe and the US became richer and dealt with the problem.

The coalition tells us that sea levels will rise by some 50cm by 2100 in the highest scenarios. This will clearly cause problems in low-lying countries such as Bangladesh. Yet what it forgets to tell us is that sea levels rose in the 20th century by up to 25cm. Sea level rise in the 21st century will be worse and should not be trivialised, but the IPCC estimates that the total cost of adaptation will be around 0.1% of gross domestic product.

The end-of-civilisation argument is counterproductive to a serious public discourse on our actions. We do have a choice. We can make climate change our first priority, or choose to do other good first.

If we go ahead with Kyoto, the cost will be more than $150bn (œ80bn) each year, yet the effect will first be in 2100, and will be only marginal. This should be compared with spending the $150bn each year on the most effective measures outlined in the Copenhagen Consensus, saving millions of lives. The UN estimates that for just half the cost of Kyoto we could give all third world inhabitants access to the basics like health, education and sanitation.

Global warming is a problem. But we need to ask if we can do more for the world if we tackle other issues first. This question addresses the pressing problem of prioritisation head-on. Why did thousands die in Haiti during the recent hurricanes and not in Florida? Because Haitians are poor and cannot take preventive measures. Addressing the most pressing issues will not only do obvious good, but also make people less vulnerable to the effects of climate change. We need to do the best things first.

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

*****************************************