RSS Feed MenuEnvironmentalists loathe Bjorn Lomborg, the famous “skeptical environmentalist.”
Like Red Sox fans loathe the Yankees. Like Republicans loathe trial lawyers. Like seemingly everyone loathes airline fees, insurance companies, and congressmen, not necessarily in that order.
Lomborg stirred the pot again the other day, but this time he made waves that splashed all over climate change skeptics. Lomborg appeared to drop his earlier insistence that addressing climate change would cost too much and accomplish too little, a stance that regularly incited paroxysms of temple throbbing in the green set.
The Danish statistician is about to publish a book, Smart Solutions to Climate Change, that will recommend spending $150 billion a year on low-carbon energy technology R&D and on climate change adaptation.
Rajenda Pachauri, the controversial head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, once likened Lomborg to Hitler. The very same Rajenda Pachauri gave Lomborg an attaboy publicity quote for the book launch.
Lomborg suggests a $7-per-metric-ton carbon tax to raise $250 billion per year, with 40 percent dedicated to researching R&D for nuclear, solar, and other low-carbon energy technologies, 20 percent on adaptation – higher sea walls, for example – and 39.6 percent to pay for development basics in impoverished countries – clean water, education, and health care.
That would leave $1 billion for researchers to dig into fending off climate change through geoengineering. One such idea is shooting tiny droplets of seawater into the sky to thicken up cloud layers so they reflect more solar heat back to space. Another is fertilizing the ocean to stir up a population explosion of carbon-hungry phytoplankton.
Lomborg told the Guardian in an August 30 interview that he got to thinking about geoengineering when considering the black swan circling the climate debate – the low-probability, high-consequence possibility that greenhouse gas emissions could cause the global climate system to shift into a dangerously unstable state, or “something really bad lurking around the corner,” as he put it. We ought to give geoengineering a serious look, he recommended, for insurance.
Geoengineering has long been the crazy uncle in the climate change policy debate. Environmentalists get the willies talking about it, out of a reasonable fear that wobbly politicians thinking no further ahead than the next election will embrace unproven techno-fixes that could set off dangerous unintended consequences.
Basic geoengineering questions are unresolved, such as who would be in charge of such projects, who would finance the work, and who would pay for damages in case of screw-ups. Like pulling down the shades over sunlight-dependent croplands.
In a 2009 policy statement, the American Meteorological Society drily described the potential for an international affray: “The consequences of reflecting sunlight would almost certainly not be the same for all nations and peoples, thus raising legal, ethical, diplomatic, and national security concerns.”
Lomborg acknowledged in the Guardian interview that geoengineering could result in “really bad stuff,” but that there is an “obligation to at least look at it.”
The meteorologists offered a geoengineering middle ground that wary greens and starry-eyed techno-optimists ought to consider:
Go ahead with the research, look closely for unintended consequences, consider the ethical questions, and do it in the open.
Don’t look at geoengineering as an easy substitute for reducing greenhouse gas emissions or adapting to climate change consequences already in the queue.
And make doubly sure that no one jumps the gun and starts shooting at the clouds before we know what the hell we’re doing.
Meanwhile, Lomborg’s recalibration of his climate change stance has added some spice to a global policy debate that has been stuck in neutral since the Copenhagen summit and the whole lotta nothin’ that it produced.
His ideas are worth a look, even from dyed-in-the-wool environmentalists who have little use for the “skeptical environmentalist.”
GEValle // Sep 7, 2010 at 3:19 pm
He was for man-made global warming.
Then he was against it.
Now he’s for it again?
What a joke. Sounds like Bjorn is catching scorn from his lefty buddies in Scandanavia.
It also points out how vacuous the man-made global warming cause actually is.
CO Independent // Sep 7, 2010 at 3:37 pm
>> The Danish statistician is about to publish a book, Smart Solutions to Climate Change, that will recommend spending $150 billion a year on low-carbon energy technology R&D and on climate change adaptation.
He is not a statistician. He has an M.A. and a PhD in Political Science. He has no formal degrees in science, math, or economics. Nor has he done any serious scholarly research in science, math, or economics.
He is, however, a shrewd self-promoter.
EricRohrs // Sep 7, 2010 at 4:24 pm
GEValle,
Lomborg was never “against” man-made global warming as you put it, he simply stated that he accepted it as being an established fact, while questioning the wisdom of some of the more hysterical sky-is-falling responses to it.
His arguments were always along the lines of putting any proposed solutions to global warming through a cost-benefit analysis, to make sure the economic costs of any mitigation efforts did not outweigh the long-term benefits.
Having read his second book, “Cool It,” but not his first one, it sounds to me like the upcoming third book mentioned in the above article represents less a repudiation of his previous ideas than a refinement of them.
P.S. Here’s a link I just found, delineating quotes from Lomborg’s earliest book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” in 2001 through the present. Read them and judge for yourself whether his views have really changed all that radically: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-quotes
CowboyDan // Sep 7, 2010 at 4:47 pm
The fact that Lomborg has now switched to the side of scientific consensus isn’t impressive or even that great for the side of enviros. Geo-engineering is cop out to what something which needs to start to be dealt with now. Jim Depeso said it well “unproven techno-fixes that could set off dangerous unintended consequences.” Nuclear power, fusion R&D, geothermal, energy efficiency, economic consequences to exacerbating the problem, these are what we should be focusing on; not whether to spray ocean water into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight (or drop a giant icecube in the ocean like on Futurama). I take Lomborg’s suggestions as seriously as those of Greenpeace; both are effectively science in drag.
easton // Sep 7, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Like Red Sox fans loathe the Yankees
Wrong, wrong, wrong. They don’t loathe them, they envy them to such a degree it inspired bling rage. Yankees fans, otoh, loathe Red Sox fans as a man loathes stepping in dog doo.
And I am with CowboyDan on Lomborg. Not funding Saudi oil sheiks is enough for me, and since coal is inherently dangerous to miners and a disaster for the environment (outside of greenhouse gases, go to China sometime, Zhengzhou is miserable with toxicity)
“Nuclear power, fusion R&D, geothermal, energy efficiency” amen and hallelujah to that.
balconesfault // Sep 7, 2010 at 6:21 pm
EricRohrs – you beat me to it. Lomborg’s position has been that the money it would take to combat climate change would save a lot more lives if applied to a lot of third world projects for infrastructure, water supply, disease eradication, food supply, etc.
I haven’t looked closely at his new reasoning, but it would be logical for anyone to conclude that the dollar savings generated by the chief carbon emitting countries failing to take on reduction of CO2 emissions will not result in a flow of dollars to improve the lot of third world populations. So the populations of both developed nations AND third world nations are more likely to benefit long-term if those dollars are put to use in CO2 reductions.
LFC // Sep 8, 2010 at 1:05 pm
The thought of geoengineering scares the livin’ crap out of me. This is a place where the law of unintended consequences needs to be highly respected. Think about it. We can’t get an accurate local 5-day forecast (or 3-day, or 2-day, or 2-hour), but we’re going to intentionally change the climate of the planet? Uuuuuuuh … yeah.
balconesfault // Sep 8, 2010 at 10:39 pm
lfc – I have the same response. Scares the hell out of me.
It really seems that if we think man is having too great an impact on the atmosphere for our own good, the right answer is to do what it takes to scale back our impact on the atmosphere – and not to double down with more intentional and greater impacts on the atmosphere.
Can you imagine the liability if we screw up?
abj // Sep 9, 2010 at 9:32 am
As balconesfault et al. have already pointed out, Lomborg isn’t really a “climate change skeptic” – he accepts climate change as scientific fact but doesn’t believe efforts to stop it are worth the negative economic consequences (though I’m not sure how he has since refined his argument). He believes we should focus on mitigating the worst effects of climate change, rather than attempting to stop it from happening altogether.
On this, I tend to agree. Most climate scientists will tell you the likelihood of truly catastrophic consequences is pretty remote. Of course, one could argue (as I imagine balconesfault would, judging from his/her comments above) that even the remote possibility of catastrophe should spur us into action. I’m not so convinced. There’s also a remote possibility of an asteroid colliding with the earth and eliminating life as we know it, but I don’t think that contingency justifies spending trillions on a global program to eliminate the possibility of an asteroid collision. (Yes, catastrophic global warming is much more likely than a catastrophic asteroid collision…but at what point do we draw the line?)
The other issue is the inherent futility of enacting global climate change policy. See, Copenhagen. The only way to reduce the earth’s temperature by 2 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years (which most climate scientists agree is necessary to avert major negative consequences), is by enacting a global agreement. Simply put – this will not happen. Anyone who watched Copenhagen devolve could not possibly believe the developing world will agree to limit its carbon emissions to the extent necessary to meet the 2 degree reduction. China and India agreed to reduce their “carbon intensity” (which is a joke – all it means is that they’re agreeing to pollute a little less per unit of GDP growth), and if Waxman-Markey became law, it would – at most – reduce the world’s temperature by 0.2 degrees Celsius by 2050. (A separate argument exists as to whether even that target is, in reality, feasible – also, my numbers as to dates may be a bit off so feel free to correct – though it won’t change the underlying analysis).
Since 0.2 < 2.0, we have a serious math problem. Short of securing an agreement from China, India and the developing world to reduce their own emissions (rather than merely agreeing to pollute less as they continue to expand), an effective global climate agreement is impossible.
So, what to do? Perhaps we can start by acknowledging basic reality up front and changing our approach. Reduce our carbon footprint, yes, but also invest in R&D as to how to best mitigate climate change (and some of you seem much better-versed in this issue than I am, so maybe you would have some good ideas here).
JJWFromME // Sep 9, 2010 at 10:36 am
Most climate scientists will tell you the likelihood of truly catastrophic consequences is pretty remote.
I don’t know where you get that. Are the scientists listed on this page really so much on the fringe?
http://globalchange.mit.edu/resources/gamble/no-policy.html
Who are you referring to when you say “most scientists”?
abj // Sep 9, 2010 at 10:49 am
JJWFromME -
The link you provided addresses the likelihood of temperature increases in the absence of action – not the likelihood of catastrophe in the absence of action. Apples and oranges…
Krugman quoting Marty Weitzman, a climate scientist at Harvard: “Weitzman’s point is, first, that we don’t actually know that: a small loss may be the most likely outcome given what we know now, but there’s some chance that things will be much worse. (Marty surveys the existing climate models, and suggests that they give about a 1% probability to truly catastrophic change, say a 20-degree centigrade rise in average temperature.)”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/economics-of-catastrophe/
JJWFromME // Sep 9, 2010 at 11:18 am
Well a 10-15 degree F change in temperature would certainly be quite bad when we consider the impacts. If the Himalyas melt, think of all the river systems affected. No fresh water for huge populations. If large swathes of prime farm land turns into dust bowls, what’s going to replace them? Then you have to factor in that there will likely be contention over sparse resources–if you think there’s terrorism and war now…
Sure, 40 degrees Fahrenheit would be plainly catastrophic. But we have people to feed, countries to defend, and I haven’t even mentioned sea level. So the word “catastrophic” could be applied in a lot of ways that don’t require the 1% scenario, and in fact, it could be applied to events that seem *likely* if nothing is done.
abj // Sep 9, 2010 at 12:13 pm
JJWFromME -
Catastrophe doesn’t appear imminent, and even if it were – how does one overcome the futility problem I cited above? Securing a global agreement stringent enough to head off climate change is, essentially, impossible. So, why should the U.S. impose stringent carbon caps on itself when the end result is likely to be the same as doing nothing?
JJWFromME // Sep 10, 2010 at 12:09 pm
abj– You have to look at the nature of the problem:
Part of this is a technology problem. Everyone in the world wants to be middle class–car driving Jeffersonian smallholders like us, etc. We have to create the markets so the technology develops that deals with the resource costs of everyone becoming middle class. Once solutions emerge, they’ll be accessible to everyone else. At this point, the solutions aren’t available, because the markets are uncertain about investment. They’re uncertain because there’s a vacuum in government policy.
We have an obligation to be a leader. We’ve been polluting longer and at greater per capita than India and China. So if our actions meet our stated “city on a hill” ideals, we need to lead to solve the problem and let the others catch up and follow our lead. Eventually, I think, it will be in our best interest even if many of these problems are unavoidable, because other countries will start putting tariffs on our carbon-intensive exports (not to mention effects on our diplomatic relations with the rest of the world due to our inaction).
One thing to note is that this isn’t just a binary proposition. It’s not just “is it, or is it not” going to happen. If some climate change is going to happen, we have an obligation to lessen its severity. Another thing to remember is that the effects lag the accumulation of CO2, so you could put a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere before you see the results. I think this is a big reason why citizens in a democracy might be unconcerned–”I don’t see anything, so why should I worry?” You might not be getting feedback in what you see day to day, but you’re still creating problems. So you might not *see* catastrophe, but the feedback is latent…
PatrickQuint // Sep 23, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Climate change policy on a global scale has failed, and there’s no reason to think that this situation will change. Any policy will have to be unilateral. Reducing carbon emissions to zero won’t happen either, as hydrocarbon fuels are simply too effective as a way of storing energy.
Since we won’t be reducing emissions any time soon, mitigating atmospheric carbon will have to come from the other side of the equation. This means repairing and/or inventing carbon sinks.
Geoengineering may have serious unintended consequences, but it’s hard to imagine it being worse than a 40-degree farenheit increase in world temperature. As for the legal issue, we don’t fine countries for putting carbon into the atmosphere, so I have a hard time believing that anyone will be able to pull off damages for trying to fix it. If things continue with no policy, eventually geoengineering becomes the only feasible option.