6 ms·

Which is crap. Most of Bangladesh is only a few metres above sea level, ditto for some of India and Pakistan, the South Pacific islands, etc. Most human settlem

Which is crap. Most of Bangladesh is only a few metres above sea level, ditto for some of India and Pakistan, the South Pacific islands, etc. Most human settlement is either near a river or the ocean.

InclinedPlane 16y ago
I think you failed to grasp the argument. Most of Bangladesh may be only a few meters above sea level, but by the time that Bangladesh faces serious problems from rising sea levels they will almost assuredly be a first world nation in terms of affluence. What level of economic misery should we impose on the entire world both rich and poor, including Bangladesh, today to save affluent future Bangladeshis from dealing with a problem which the Dutch have already solved today?
- anthonyb 16y ago
  I'm familiar with the argument. If Bangladesh and India have levels of affluence comparable to western nations, then the increased CO2 emissions will make sea levels rise faster, surely? And that's assuming that a) they'll have that level of affluence and b) that sea levels aren't going to rise more quickly. I don't think either of these things are assured at this point. Another point to note is that he's an economist, not a climate scientist. Most of the criticism directed towards him and the Copenhagen Consensus is that they underplay the level of potential global warming while overplaying the part that economics has to play. In other words, his risk to reward ratio is well out of whack. ps. "Economic misery" is a loaded term. IIRC, mitigating CO2 was estimated to be at most a couple of percent of GDP.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - anthonyb 16y ago
      The issue is not with the science that he's quoting - the bulk of the criticism comes from what he's quoting, ie. it's pretty selective, and that in some cases he's been found to be quoting the lower edge of a range, rather than giving an accurate indication of the science.
  - Devilboy 16y ago
    "a) they'll have that level of affluence and b) that sea levels aren't going to rise more quickly. I don't think either of these things are assured at this point." Look again. Even the most pessimistic predictions shows that Lomborg is probably correct. Lomborg's significant body of research trumps your 'I don't think' unless you can show us some real evidence.
    - anthonyb 16y ago
      A lot of climate scientists have serious misgivings about Lomborg's body of research, including selective quoting - it's hardly cut and dried. Also, if you're going to try and tar me with the 'real evidence' brush, you should probably include a link to the predictions that you're talking about. Just looking at Google Maps, Bangladesh and India have a couple of hundred kilometers of low lying coastline - a couple of orders of magnitude bigger than Holland's problem. Given the issues that the US has with it's sea wall, how much do you think they'll need to spend to keep the sea out?
      - Devilboy 16y ago
        According to Lomborg's research it will be cheaper to fix it later. Why spend $1 today if you can wait and spend <$1 tomorrow?
        anthonyb 16y ago
        Really? What about his call for $100bn per year to be spent on climate change? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomb...
        Devilboy 16y ago
        His solution is much cheaper than the proposals from others. For example this panel: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050401214.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05... wanted 100$ for a tonne of CO2 emitted, that's way more that 100billion per year.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    You say "couple percent of GDP" as if that's a trifling thing. Economic growth is typically only a few percent of GDP, so if you allot that elsewhere perhaps you cause an economic plateau or regression. Anywho, the key point is that nobody has put as much effort into a thorough and serious analysis as is warranted.
    - anthonyb 16y ago
      Well, at this point it's possible, and not "Economic misery". What happens when the problem is ignored for another 10 years and becomes 5% of GDP?
      - InclinedPlane 16y ago
        This isn't just a 10 year problem, it's a 100 year problem. And at 100 years exponentials swamp everything else.
        anthonyb 16y ago
        Your point being? CO2 emissions have been growing exponentially too: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_vs_emissions.gif http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_vs_emissions.gif and the longer it gets put off, the more expensive it will be to fix.
        InclinedPlane 16y ago
        That looks rather linear. Per capita Carbon emissions in developed countries have actually leveled off over the past several decades, though per capita GDP continues to rise. Assume for the moment that putting off addressing global warming will make the consequences more costly to address. How much more costly do they have to be to justify the sort of spending and sacrifices it would take today to curb Carbon emissions sharply? In 100 years Bangladeshis and Indonesians will likely be richer than Americans today. What problems could they face which would justify sacrifices today in order to save such comparatively more wealthy and technologically advanced folks from them?
jacoblyles 16y ago
I am sure Mr. Lomborg was aware of the elevation of Bangladesh when he did his studies. It's generally considered polite to read/listen to someone's argument before you criticize it.

InclinedPlane 16y ago

I think you failed to grasp the argument. Most of Bangladesh may be only a few meters above sea level, but by the time that Bangladesh faces serious problems from rising sea levels they will almost assuredly be a first world nation in terms of affluence. What level of economic misery should we impose on the entire world both rich and poor, including Bangladesh, today to save affluent future Bangladeshis from dealing with a problem which the Dutch have already solved today?

anthonyb 16y ago
I'm familiar with the argument. If Bangladesh and India have levels of affluence comparable to western nations, then the increased CO2 emissions will make sea levels rise faster, surely? And that's assuming that a) they'll have that level of affluence and b) that sea levels aren't going to rise more quickly. I don't think either of these things are assured at this point. Another point to note is that he's an economist, not a climate scientist. Most of the criticism directed towards him and the Copenhagen Consensus is that they underplay the level of potential global warming while overplaying the part that economics has to play. In other words, his risk to reward ratio is well out of whack. ps. "Economic misery" is a loaded term. IIRC, mitigating CO2 was estimated to be at most a couple of percent of GDP.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    The issue is not with the science that he's quoting - the bulk of the criticism comes from what he's quoting, ie. it's pretty selective, and that in some cases he's been found to be quoting the lower edge of a range, rather than giving an accurate indication of the science.
- Devilboy 16y ago
  "a) they'll have that level of affluence and b) that sea levels aren't going to rise more quickly. I don't think either of these things are assured at this point." Look again. Even the most pessimistic predictions shows that Lomborg is probably correct. Lomborg's significant body of research trumps your 'I don't think' unless you can show us some real evidence.
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    A lot of climate scientists have serious misgivings about Lomborg's body of research, including selective quoting - it's hardly cut and dried. Also, if you're going to try and tar me with the 'real evidence' brush, you should probably include a link to the predictions that you're talking about. Just looking at Google Maps, Bangladesh and India have a couple of hundred kilometers of low lying coastline - a couple of orders of magnitude bigger than Holland's problem. Given the issues that the US has with it's sea wall, how much do you think they'll need to spend to keep the sea out?
    - Devilboy 16y ago
      According to Lomborg's research it will be cheaper to fix it later. Why spend $1 today if you can wait and spend <$1 tomorrow?
      - anthonyb 16y ago
        Really? What about his call for $100bn per year to be spent on climate change? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomb...
        Devilboy 16y ago
        His solution is much cheaper than the proposals from others. For example this panel: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050401214.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05... wanted 100$ for a tonne of CO2 emitted, that's way more that 100billion per year.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  You say "couple percent of GDP" as if that's a trifling thing. Economic growth is typically only a few percent of GDP, so if you allot that elsewhere perhaps you cause an economic plateau or regression. Anywho, the key point is that nobody has put as much effort into a thorough and serious analysis as is warranted.
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Well, at this point it's possible, and not "Economic misery". What happens when the problem is ignored for another 10 years and becomes 5% of GDP?
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      This isn't just a 10 year problem, it's a 100 year problem. And at 100 years exponentials swamp everything else.
      - anthonyb 16y ago
        Your point being? CO2 emissions have been growing exponentially too: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_vs_emissions.gif http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_vs_emissions.gif and the longer it gets put off, the more expensive it will be to fix.
        InclinedPlane 16y ago
        That looks rather linear. Per capita Carbon emissions in developed countries have actually leveled off over the past several decades, though per capita GDP continues to rise. Assume for the moment that putting off addressing global warming will make the consequences more costly to address. How much more costly do they have to be to justify the sort of spending and sacrifices it would take today to curb Carbon emissions sharply? In 100 years Bangladeshis and Indonesians will likely be richer than Americans today. What problems could they face which would justify sacrifices today in order to save such comparatively more wealthy and technologically advanced folks from them?

jacoblyles 16y ago

I am sure Mr. Lomborg was aware of the elevation of Bangladesh when he did his studies. It's generally considered polite to read/listen to someone's argument before you criticize it.