3 ms·

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

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.
        anthonyb 16y ago
        Yep, it's about 2.9 trillion per year globally, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio... and my calculator. That's for the most aggressive option though, which they estimate will stabilise CO2 by 2030. There's a $20 and $50 option, but sadly no link to the actual paper, so no idea what those options would get you. Lomborg's proposal apparently takes until 2100, but it doesn't say how he arrived at that date, or how he knows that'll be either safe or enough to halt emissions.
        Devilboy 16y ago
        Yea so Lomborg is basically arguing that we don't need to be quite that aggressive and that it would be cheaper to stabilize slowly in 90 years rather than doing it for a high cost in 20. Sure it will cause more problems for people to do it slowly but if we want to HELP PEOPLE it's better to put that money towards other programs which will help people much more on a 'per dollar spent' basis.
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?

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.
      - anthonyb 16y ago
        Yep, it's about 2.9 trillion per year globally, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dio... and my calculator. That's for the most aggressive option though, which they estimate will stabilise CO2 by 2030. There's a $20 and $50 option, but sadly no link to the actual paper, so no idea what those options would get you. Lomborg's proposal apparently takes until 2100, but it doesn't say how he arrived at that date, or how he knows that'll be either safe or enough to halt emissions.
        Devilboy 16y ago
        Yea so Lomborg is basically arguing that we don't need to be quite that aggressive and that it would be cheaper to stabilize slowly in 90 years rather than doing it for a high cost in 20. Sure it will cause more problems for people to do it slowly but if we want to HELP PEOPLE it's better to put that money towards other programs which will help people much more on a 'per dollar spent' basis.

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?