Mr. Gore, Your Solution to Global Warming Is Wrong

[PJABBER]

I just finished reading an article in Esquire by Bjørn Lomborg on the opportunity costs that need to be considered in any debate on climate change. As an environmentalist and a finance guy that spends a lot of time considering macroeconomics, I found this brief discussion of opportunity costs to be spot on.

There is no way that we should consider proposed legislation on this issue currently under discussion in the U.S. Congress, or participate in diplomatic negotiations for international treaties, without understanding what the opportunity costs are and how those kind of dollars can be best used.

In fact, while I am not convinced of human cause climate shifting like Mr. Lomborg, I so like his approach to the greater issues he recounts in this article and at length elsewhere, that I am going to send a copy to the White House, to my Senators and Congressmen and to the members of the Senate. I also plan to send a copy to Mrs. Clinton, who represents U.S. interests in treaty negotiations. Why not?

While it is fun to post here and exchange a few opinions, the reality is that the decisions that are being made right now are being made by a very few elected and appointed representatives in Washington who are not environmentalists, nor are they economists. They are politicians that generally only respond to the pressure of money and votes so they can keep their jobs. If you vote, express your opinion to them as well as here. If you care enough to post here, you should care enough to spend a couple of bucks and a few minutes of your time to print something like this out and send off a few letters or emails.

Remember, the August recess is coming and most every one of them is going to be coming home from Washington, wanting to know what you think. So let them know!

Here are the people that will act on your behalf, or on the behalf of others who took the time and money to make them listen -

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Contacting your Congressman

Contacting your Senator

Write to Secretary of State Clinton

Send a letter to President Obama

OK, here is the article that has caught my imagination -

Mr. Gore, Your Solution to Global Warming Is Wrong

Same article in an easier to read single page format, easy to print and send with your comments hand written on the doc -

Single Page Format

The plan we are most likely to adopt to address climate change will cost far too much and do next to nothing. The fight over the science of warming is over, yes. But the debate over the solution to global warming hasn't even begun.

By Bjørn Lomborg

Bjørn Lomborg is adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School. He is the organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which brings together some of the world's top economists, including 5 Nobel laureates, to set priorities for the world. Time magazine named Lomborg one of the world's 100 most influential people in 2004. In 2008 he was named "one of the 50 people who could save the planet" by the UK Guardian; "one of the top 100 public intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazine; and "one of the world's 75 most influential people of the 21st century" by Esquire.

More on his WWW site -

The Skeptical Environmentalist

I have regularly enjoyed reading Bjørn's works, he is a thoughtful and practical environmentalist and economist. He has a new book out that I have not yet read, but look forward to checking it out soon. Here is a link to it on Amazon, though you can buy it most everywhere -

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming

If you are into the economics of environmentalism as I am, you should also definitely check out Blue Planet in Green Shackles by Václav Klaus, the second President of the Czech Republic (since 2003, reelected 2008, has 70%+ popularity!), former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic (1992?1997), and just finished with a term as EU President (Presidency of the Council of the European Union.)

Blue Planet in Green Shackles

As Klaus is a professor of economics, his book may be a little bit more of an economics tome than you might care for, but the detailed analysis of environmentalism impacts - physical, social and governmental - that he provides makes his case that environmentalism is the new totalitarianism extraordinarily compelling. Having lived under communism himself, his positions have special poignancy.

Anyone remember the old TV show "The Paper Chase"? When I met Václav Klaus, he reminded me of a particularly abrasive and acerbic Professor Charles W. Kingsfield, Jr., the character played by John Houseman. He irritates the hell out of his governmental peers in the EU who can't handle the intellectual heat.

 

[Fern]

He reminds me (and it may have been him) of a Scandinavian guy I saw on the news recently.

Similar thinking anyway. This professor was also stressing alt enegery development over reduction. He was pointing out reducing our emissions while India and China didn't was pointless and stupid - but if we make solar (or whatever) cheaper than existing technology they'd adopt it in a flash. Then, of course, they'd be generating less emissions too.

R&D for cheaper energy production that will be quickly adopted by the rest of the world is much bigger bang for buck and far more effective than subsidisng purchase of current alt energy tech and/or cap-n-trade type reductions.

Fern

 

[PJABBER]

Originally posted by: Fern
He reminds me (and it may have been him) of a Scandinavian guy I saw on the news recently.

Similar thinking anyway. This professor was also stressing alt enegery development over reduction. He was pointing out reducing our emissions while India and China didn't was pointless and stupid - but if we make solar (or whatever) cheaper than existing technology they'd adopt it in a flash. Then, of course, they'd be generating less emissions too.

R&D for cheaper energy production that will be quickly adopted by the rest of the world is much bigger bang for buck and far more effective than subsidisng purchase of current alt energy tech and/or cap-n-trade type reductions.

Fern

Definitely sounds like his ideas. He gets a lot of press coverage and interviews so I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Fern
He reminds me (and it may have been him) of a Scandinavian guy I saw on the news recently.

Similar thinking anyway. This professor was also stressing alt enegery development over reduction. He was pointing out reducing our emissions while India and China didn't was pointless and stupid - but if we make solar (or whatever) cheaper than existing technology they'd adopt it in a flash. Then, of course, they'd be generating less emissions too.

R&D for cheaper energy production that will be quickly adopted by the rest of the world is much bigger bang for buck and far more effective than subsidisng purchase of current alt energy tech and/or cap-n-trade type reductions.

Fern

Wow... energy policy I can actually support! :thumbsup:

 

[sandorski]

Innovation is Key. That's why there is Cap and Trade, to spur Innovation. As the saying goes: Necessity is the Mother of Invention

Cap and Trade creates the Necessity.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Fern
He reminds me (and it may have been him) of a Scandinavian guy I saw on the news recently.

Similar thinking anyway. This professor was also stressing alt enegery development over reduction. He was pointing out reducing our emissions while India and China didn't was pointless and stupid - but if we make solar (or whatever) cheaper than existing technology they'd adopt it in a flash. Then, of course, they'd be generating less emissions too.

R&D for cheaper energy production that will be quickly adopted by the rest of the world is much bigger bang for buck and far more effective than subsidisng purchase of current alt energy tech and/or cap-n-trade type reductions.

Fern

1. That statement is pointless and stupid, whatever reductions we can make are still reductions. India and China aren't sitting still, they know they cannot keep polluting the way they are.

2. R&D doesn't happen overnight and those who continue to put off real action hoping for a magic bullet that solves the problem completely are dooming all of us. We need to start reducing emissions yesterday. The technology is going to take time. Until that happens we need to do what we can.

 

[theeedude]

The fight over the science of warming is over, yes.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

1. That statement is pointless and stupid, whatever reductions we can make are still reductions. India and China aren't sitting still, they know they cannot keep polluting the way they are.

2. R&D doesn't happen overnight and those who continue to put off real action hoping for a magic bullet that solves the problem completely are dooming all of us. We need to start reducing emissions yesterday. The technology is going to take time. Until that happens we need to do what we can.

Somebody didn't read the article.

Fern

 

[Ackmed]

Of course its wrong. Global warming is a myth.

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: sandorski
That's why there is Cap and Trade, to spur Innovation.

Wow, can I have a hit of whatever you are smoking?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: sandorski
That's why there is Cap and Trade, to spur Innovation.

Wow, can I have a hit of whatever you are smoking?

Reality? It's Free and available everywhere and at anytime. Give it a try.

 

[Drako]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: sandorski
That's why there is Cap and Trade, to spur Innovation.

Wow, can I have a hit of whatever you are smoking?

Reality? It's Free and available everywhere and at anytime. Give it a try.

Manbearpig, is that you?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Drako

Originally posted by: sandorski
That's why there is Cap and Trade, to spur Innovation.

Wow, can I have a hit of whatever you are smoking?

Reality? It's Free and available everywhere and at anytime. Give it a try.

Manbearpig, is that you?

Go ahead man, Reality is cool once you adapt to it.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Innovation is Key. That's why there is Cap and Trade, to spur Innovation. As the saying goes: Necessity is the Mother of Invention

Cap and Trade creates the Necessity.

At what level of offsets?

At the original level of offsets they were discussing it wasn't a cap at all - it was a pat on the back with a 'nod and a wink' to the special interests.

There is a lot of room for negotiation and needed compromise - as long as it's not with yer buddy up there

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: sandorski
Innovation is Key. That's why there is Cap and Trade, to spur Innovation. As the saying goes: Necessity is the Mother of Invention

Cap and Trade creates the Necessity.

At what level of offsets?

At the original level of offsets they were discussing it wasn't a cap at all - it was a pat on the back with a 'nod and a wink' to the special interests.

There is a lot of room for negotiation and needed compromise - as long as it's not with yer buddy up there

The final Bill was watered down a lot, so they'll probably need to go back and look at it again sometime in the future. It clearly sends a message though, that being that CO2 emissions are going to be made a Cost and that avoiding that Cost has benefits.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Fern
He reminds me (and it may have been him) of a Scandinavian guy I saw on the news recently.

Similar thinking anyway. This professor was also stressing alt enegery development over reduction. He was pointing out reducing our emissions while India and China didn't was pointless and stupid - but if we make solar (or whatever) cheaper than existing technology they'd adopt it in a flash. Then, of course, they'd be generating less emissions too.

R&D for cheaper energy production that will be quickly adopted by the rest of the world is much bigger bang for buck and far more effective than subsidisng purchase of current alt energy tech and/or cap-n-trade type reductions.

Fern

Wow... energy policy I can actually support! :thumbsup:

Second that....
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

BTW: This is one of the alternative plans purposed by the Republicans but you would never know that because they are the party of 'NO' and the party of no alternative solutions.

 

[OCGuy]

Having Al Gore as the poster child for Global Cooling...err...Warming.....errr... "Climate Change" is probably the worst thing that could have happened to the envirowhackos.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Innovation is Key. That's why there is Cap and Trade, to spur Innovation. As the saying goes: Necessity is the Mother of Invention

Cap and Trade creates the Necessity.

The problem with your logic is that you ramp down the economy while you are spurring innovation....all the while China and India play by different rules and attract business.

Now imagine if the government too the billions it wants to spend on Cap and Trade and just built 1000 nuclear power plants....problem solved.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: sandorski
Innovation is Key. That's why there is Cap and Trade, to spur Innovation. As the saying goes: Necessity is the Mother of Invention

Cap and Trade creates the Necessity.

The problem with your logic is that you ramp down the economy while you are spurring innovation....all the while China and India play by different rules and attract business.

Now imagine if the government too the billions it wants to spend on Cap and Trade and just built 1000 nuclear power plants....problem solved.

"Ramp Down" the Economy? If you do, sure, but you're not.

 

[daniel1113]

I've been a fan of Bjørn Lomborg for years. His first book, the Skeptical Environmentalist, is a must read, and he is spot on with his analysis of global warming.

A simple cost/benefit analysis consistently shows that agreements like Kyoto will have a negligible impact and that the same amount of money could be spent on other things that would have far greater positive long-term effects.

 

[Moonbeam]

I am writing a book which my publisher assures me will make millions on how to eat all you want, get as fat as you want, and outlive Methuselah.

 

[PJABBER]

As both Lomborg and Klaus point out, the rift over environmental controls is likely to widen between developed and developing nations and be a source of considerable international and national tension.

Though this article doesn't get into a specific political/financial consequence other than the threat of withholding of some of the West's development/environment aid, imagine if India or China actually bought into the "let's stop growing" idea. A vast number of the populations of these countries live in abject poverty. A growing percentage, however, are starting to experience the benefit of development. They are told their government will now stop or slow economic development and their chance to live decent lives in the name of the global cause of environmentalism. What do you think is going to happen to the governments there? And to the people?

India widens climate rift with west

The full Financial Times article -

India widens climate rift with west

By James Lamont in New Delhi, Joshua Chaffin in Are and Fiona Harvey in London

Published: July 23 2009 22:05 | Last updated: July 24 2009 09:57

The Financial Times

A split between rich and poor nations in the run-up to climate-change talks widened on Thursday.

India rejected key scientific findings on global warming, while the European Union called for more action by developing states on greenhouse gas emissions.

Jairam Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, accused the developed world of needlessly raising alarm over melting Himalayan glaciers.

He dismissed scientists? predictions that Himalayan glaciers might disappear within 40 years as a result of global warming.

?We have to get out of the preconceived notion, which is based on western media, and invest our scientific research and other capacities to study Himalayan atmosphere,? he said.

?Science has its limitation. You cannot substitute the knowledge that has been gained by the people living in cold deserts through everyday experience.?

Mr Ramesh was also clear that India would not take on targets to cut its emissions, even though developed countries are asking only for curbs in the growth of emissions, rather than absolute cuts.

His stance was at wide variance with that of Andreas Carlgren, his Swedish counterpart. Sweden holds the European Union?s revolving presidency until a conference in Copenhagen in December at which governments will try to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto protocol on curbing greenhouse emissions ? the main provisions of which expire in 2012.

Mr Carlgren said in Are, Sweden, that developing countries such as India, China and Brazil must propose more ambitious plans to reduce emissions if they were to receive finance from wealthy nations.

Rich and poor countries have been squabbling over the issue of financing for months, imperilling the outcome of the Copenhagen talks. Rich countries have not agreed to provide the funding that poor nations say is necessary to help them cut their emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change.

Mr Carlgren went on the offensive on Thursday, saying poorer countries must come up with firm plans to cut emissions before financing will be forthcoming.

States such as China and India have produced plans for curbing the growth in their emissions but these have not been formalised within the negotiating process.

Mr Carlgren also criticised rich countries for failing to agree to cut their emissions by the amounts needed. ?So far, what we have seen from other countries is too low. We expect more from developed countries,? he said.

But the Swedish environment minister said poor countries must also do more to forge an agreement. ?We are prepared to put money on the table. But it should also be said that if we don?t see significant reductions that will really deviate from business as usual?.?.?.?then there is no money,? Mr Carlgren said, singling out China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia. ?We are also prepared to deliver financing, but we must see that there is something to pay for.?

India has taken the hardest line in the negotiations so far. Along with China, India refused at the meeting of the Group of Eight industrialised nations this month to sign up to a target of cutting global emissions by half by 2050. The countries were holding out to gain concessions from the west on financing.

The claims from Mr Ramesh that Western science was wrong on the question of melting Himalayan glaciers appeared to reinforce Delhi?s recalcitrant stance.

Mr Ramesh on Friday reiterated that India would not accept emissions caps to held curb global warming, Bloomberg reported. ?The world has nothing to fear from India?s development ... An artificial cap is not desirable and not even necessary as we haven?t been responsible for emissions in the first place,? he said.

Earlier this week, he also challenged Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, over her appeal to India to embrace a low-carbon future and not repeat the mistakes of the developed world in seeking fast industrialisation.

The consequences of depleted glaciers ? sensitive to rising temperature and humidity ? would be dire.

Seven of the world?s greatest rivers , including the Ganges and the Yangtze, are fed by the glaciers of the Himalayas and Tibet. They supply water to about 40 per cent of the world?s population.

Water supply is likely to become an increasing national security priority for both India and China as they seek to maintain high economic growth rates and sustain large populations dependent on farming. Some scientists have warned that rivers such as the Ganges, Indus and Brahmaputra could become seasonal rivers as a result of global warming.

Indians are also fearful of weakening monsoon rains. Some parts of India, including Delhi, the capital, are still waiting anxiously for this year?s rains to come in earnest. A late, or a poor, monsoon would be a drag on economic growth.

Achim Steiner, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, has described melting glaciers as a ?canary in the climate-change coal mine?, warning that billions of people depend on these natural water storage facilities for drinking water, power generation and agriculture.

Mr Ramesh said the rate of retreat of glaciers in the Himalayas varied from a ?couple of centimetres a year to a couple of metres?, but that this was a natural process that had taken place occurred over the centuries. Some were, in fact, growing, he said.

The glaciers ? estimated by India?s space agency to number about 15,000 ? had also been affected by debris and the large number of tourists, he said.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

 

[sandorski]

China and India are being used as Strawmen. Both are already working on Greening their Energy Industries, not that they'll be able to Cut Emissions any time soon, but neither of their Per Capita CO2 rates are anywhere close to that in the West. Certainly total CO2 Output is what's important concerning GW/CC, but to suggest that Third World Nations must stay Impoverished is not going to get you anywhere. That's why those who can afford the change must. Innovations will come and then we can tackle the issue. Cap and Trade forces Innovation.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: sandorski
China and India are being used as Strawmen. Both are already working on Greening their Energy Industries, not that they'll be able to Cut Emissions any time soon, but neither of their Per Capita CO2 rates are anywhere close to that in the West. Certainly total CO2 Output is what's important concerning GW/CC, but to suggest that Third World Nations must stay Impoverished is not going to get you anywhere. That's why those who can afford the change must. Innovations will come and then we can tackle the issue. Cap and Trade forces Innovation.

Except it isn't a straw-man argument.

 

[Babbles]

Good article, thanks OP.