Bjørn Lomborg
Everyone hates Lomborg, as far as I can tell. The true believers in the climate change lobby don't like him; the true skeptics don't like him either. The former are alarmed by the way that he takes the IPCC predictions as accurate, but then suggests responses which challenge the prevailing orthodoxy. The latter, well, think the IPCC are a bunch of scare-mongers, and so have no time for someone who believes the statistics in the 4th Assessment Report.
Lomborg argues, for example, that although it has been accurately argued that global warming will give rise to many additional heat-related deaths, most overlook the fact that the self-same warming would mean many, many fewer cold-related deaths. He argues similarly for water stress, and food production. He argues that the predicted rise in sea levels is best addressed through improved sea defences. And so on.
The book, published in 2007, is of course already out of date. [It's a little repetitive, too, but we'll overlook that.] The chief criticism of it that I've come across is that he assumes largely linear, continuous variations in impacts, rather than allowing for "tipping points" and sudden, catastrophic change. I think that slightly unfair: he uses, rigorously, the IPCC data and its scenarios. Some argue already that the IPCC predictions are in fact too conservative, and that the real out-turn will be even worse. But the point of having an IPCC is to ensure careful, balanced, measured assessments.
Out-of-date or not, the methodology is interesting. What is the moral response to these concerns? It is certainly true that the targets of the Kyoto treaty deliver almost no benefits by 2100, on the orthodox models. And the Kyoto signatories are struggling to deliver on its targets. To make a material difference to CO2 levels in the atmosphere requires a restructuring of Western society on a scale we can barely imagine. And it means depriving the developing world of the benefits of the industrial revolution.
All this is bound up with complex questions of economics. Although the statistics relating to planning for a hundred years hence trip off the tongue easily, it is salutatory to consider just how much of life today could have been predicted by the politicians and economists of 1909. The IPCC expectations of development, for example, mean that by 2100 Bangladesh should enjoy the standard of living of present-day Denmark. That is rather hard to imagine. But 100 years is a long time.
So Lomborg talks of the cost of implementing a massive reduction in CO2 emissions. And the relative benefit, compared to the cost of preventing the spread of malaria, say, or of providing clean drinking water for the whole world. And so on. This is a debate we don't seem to be having.
Or take the thought experiment a little further. If we are, as James Lovelock says, past the point of no return as regards run-away climate change, what is the moral response. Should we eat, drink, and be merry? Should we spend money on reducing emissions, or spend it on improving the lot of the world's poorest?
The whole debate seems to come down to a sterile is/isn't game. I think we can do better. Love him or loathe him, Lomborg is certainly a part of doing that.
No comments:
Post a Comment