It is often claimed by environmentalists that ‘stopping climate change’ is an obligation the world’s so-called rich and developed nations have to the poorer developing nations.
Thus the Kyoto protocol is all about ‘developed nations’ reducing carbon emissions, while countries like China and India are exempt.
If the Kyoto Protocol was really about the environment, then surely everyone would be expected to reduced emissions, particularly the really big emitters like China and India.
Yet according to Bjorn Lomborg, the Copenhagen Consensus, and Ambassadors from the United Nations, combating climate change through the Kyoto Protocol is a poor investment for humanity.
Lomborg begins a recent opinion piece in The Observer titled ‘Climate Change Can Wait, World Health Can’t’ by making the point that combating climate change through the Kyoto Protocol has a social value of less than a dollar for each dollar spent.
He goes on to repeat the findings from the Copenhagen Consensus that:
“The economists found that spending $27bn on an HIV/Aids prevention programme would be the best possible investment for humanity. It would save more than 28 million lives within six years and have massive flow-on effects, including increased productivity.
Providing micronutrient-rich dietary supplements to the malnourished was their second-highest priority. More than half the world suffers from deficiencies of iron, iodine, zinc or vitamin A, so cheap solutions such as nutrient fortification have an exceptionally high ratio of benefits to costs.
Third on the list was trade liberalisation. Although this would require politically difficult decisions, it would be remarkably cheap and would benefit the entire world, not least the developing world. A staggering GDP increase of $2,400bn annually would accrue equally to developed and developing countries with free trade.”
I understand that neither the European Union nor the United States are showing any real commitment to trade liberalisation at this current final Doha Round of World Trade Organisation negotiations in Geneva.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The EU are adamant that they wont and the US says they wont if the EU wont – stalemate.
The Copenhagen Consensus came under some criticism for being partisan (ie not enough lefty economists)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_consensus
Isn’t this guy Lomborg OUT — once he lied he was a former Greenpeace member,actually he had only once done a donation.
Ann,
What did Lomborg lie about? His book ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ was published by Cambridge University Press and is full of interesting and useful statistics.
Ann,
I’ve just re-read your earlier comment. Your suggesting that Lomborg lied by suggesting he was a member of Greenpeace?
I guess people who sign up as supporters think they are members. I gather that’s what Lomborg did, sign up as a supporter?
But in fact, its a little known fact, that Greenpeace is not a democratic organisation in so much as lots of signed up supporters are not members and have no voting or other rights. I gather Greenpeace has very few members and that only these members have voting rights at Annual General Meetings?
How many actual members does Greenpeace have?
What if GP record keeping is poor? I bet donations were given, people joined up, cash in and out, few records..nowadays things are different?
To join GP NZ you make a donation
https://www.greenpeace.org.nz/pdf/join_form.pdf
Supporters, donors, members – its all the same to GP
https://www.greenpeace.org.au/donate/index.html?appeal_id=000
So we keep them alive with better health and nutrition – only to lose them in heatwaves, drought, and increased pests and disease from global warming. Yep makes sense.
Why does it have to be a competition. Don’t we need to do both?
Jennifer,
Lomborg did money on calling himself a former Greenpeacer,” suggesting” that he played an important role in the organisation??? Actually Greenpeace cannot find any records of him( though it is possible that he has donated money once ).
Regarding GP supporters in Scandinavia we have over 100 000 paying supportes and worldwide I guess about 2,9 million.
Gerry
That would depend upn where they lived,and whether or not they could move 100kms further N or S,or 100 ms higher.
It would also depend upon how real the threat was and over what time frame.
In the meantime people and nations are suffering from their current calamities not imaginary ones that may for may happen.
Yep, fixing what we know makes sense to me, and is long overdue.
Rog, there is a difference. members get to vote at Annual General Meetings, influence policy direction etcetera etcetera.
Ann, how many members does Greenpeace have?
And I am still unclear how Lomborg lied? Did he claim he was a member when he was only a supporter?
Jennifer,
There are NO members in GP, there are only supporters and the Annual General Meetings have a different structure than an ordinary corporation.
Jennifer – From Wikipedia:
“On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision in the complaints. The ruling was a mixed message, finding that the book was scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty by virtue of lack of expertise in the fields in question.[3] Specifically, they cited TSE for:
1. Fabrication of data;
2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5. Plagiarism;
6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others’ results.
The wording of the ruling left no doubt that the DCSD, while not finding Lomborg guilty, was not exonerating him either:
Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. … In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg’s publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.
On February 13, 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation against the DCSD’s decision.
On December 17, 2003, the Ministry found that the DCSD had made a number of procedural errors, including:
* The DCSD did not use a precise standard for deciding “good scientific practice” in the social sciences;
* The DCSD’s definition of “objective scientific dishonesty” was not clear about whether “distortion of statistical data” had to be deliberate or not;
* The DCSD had not properly documented that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place;
* The DCSD did not provide specific statements on actual errors.
The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD, which invalidated the previous findings of scientific dishonesty in regard to the book. The Minstry also instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate.”
However the Ministry did not object to the findings that Lomborg’s book contained Fabrication of data, Selective discarding of unwanted results etc only that social science does not have a precise definition of good scientific method.
From the same article Bjorn Lomborg is not a physical scientist and cannot be properly used as an authority on climate science or ecology.
Other references:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0108-04.htm
“Corporate-sponsored groups and libertarian Washington think tanks praised and promoted the book during Lomborg’s visit to the United States. But the book touched off a wave of criticism from environmental groups and academics. They said Lomborg had been highly selective in his use of research data and secondary source material to attack the work of dozens of respected and prize-winning scientists and broad-based, peer-reviewed scientific panels.
Eleven distinguished scientists, including Thomas Eisner of Cornell University and Edward O. Wilson of Harvard, said in a letter to the publisher in July that “we rarely see this type of careless and manipulative scholarship in the undergraduates we teach.” ”
http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D70.Lomborg.html
“Reviewing Lomborg’s claims are Dr. Peter Gleick, an internationally recognized expert on the state of freshwater resources; Dr. Jerry Mahlman, one of the most highly regarded atmospheric scientists and climate modelers; and top biologists and biodiversity experts Dr.’s Edward O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, Norman Myers, Jeffrey Harvey and Stuart Pimm.
These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg’s book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg’s assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature — often not peer-reviewed — that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick’s words “unexpected and disturbing in a statistician”.”
Perhaps you should have another look at Lomborgs work and decide yourself. It may be what you want to hear however it is at odds with the science that shows the biosphere is degraded.
Malcolm,
People in all continents are now at risk from climate extremes. People die now – so it’s already serious. It’s far from imaginary. Do you think our current climate is nice to us? Calculate what a few percent change in the climate risk at the extremes will make to human misery. This is not armageddon stuff – just shifting the balance.
People tend not to move for many reasons – different nation states (come on down to Australia dear climate refugees – not!), poverty, war etc. A superpower like the USA has major trouble moving its citizens for a single event like Katrina – with all its wealth and transportation infrastructure. Dislocated families are still not settled.
We need to deal efficiently with many issues- human health and nutrition, managing natural systems sustainbly, including unnecessary climate impacts. Do the sums – what do droughts, floods, heatwaves, hurricanes and extreme weather cost humanity now. It’s not cheap.
Does it make sense to save a young generation from TB to have them die in the next drought?
Gerry,
I think it is in the main a complete exaggeration, getting to the level of being quite hysterical.
When I can see work also being undertaken to document the positives of AGW, then I will agree that people have their feet on the ground.
When I also see some honest work being done to identify/document cause and effect, then it may be more believable.
But whilst one sees every little variation and calamity being blamed on AGW, like most people, I turn off.
For example you mention floods and drought. Most of these are caused by inappropriate land and tree clearing.The documentation of this is pretty clear.
When Insurance companies like Swiss Re start telling the truth about the real cause of growth in pay outs, then we might be getting closer to balanced view.
In short the story has got a long way to go before being credible.The previous work of people like Ian Castles on this blog is a case in point.
In the meantime the work of the Copenhagen Consensus is valuable contribution to those who have their feet on the ground…. and not elswhere.
So the El Nino effect is caused by land clearing. World circulation patterns change from tree clearing? Give us a break.
Some would argue that more trees mean less water.
The warming work is honest. To say that the vast volume of literature on the subject is dishonest is really lame. In contrast, most of the opposition is pure drivel and whining by people who don’t want to know or are emotionally offended that they might be doing something.
Gerry,
Lomborg accepts what the IPCC says, he accepts their predictions, but concludes Kyoto is still a bad investment.
Yes it appears that it may be so. Lamentably that’s all they could get on the day as an agreement. And now nations are fiddling with the numbers but what’s new – that’s what nation ststes and markets do all the time.
Try to exploit advantage. If you can double dip, side saddle or dodge – that’s what free markets do.
Jennifer, if you go to GP site and click on “join” you are transferred to “donate.”
Technically Lomborg was incorrect, he may have thought that by signing up and paying he was joining but it is only donating, membership of GP is by another process not easily found.
https://www.greenpeace.org.au/aboutus/governance_apform.html
Membership is governed by a Constitution
https://www.greenpeace.org.au/aboutus/pdfs/constitution.pdf
Lomborg just wants to be controverisal making a buck doing controversial statements, he used Greenpeace’s name for a PR stunt, like who knows who Patrick Moore is, he is just famous for being a co-founder of Greenpeace.
Who can really take Lomborg seriously after doing statements like ” poor people in developing countries using cow dung as fuel is the major cause for air pollution in the world”.
OK, maybe I was a bit unfair, correct quotation by Lomborg is:” The single most important environmental problem today is indoor air pollution , caused by poor people cooking and heating their homes with dung and cardboard,such pollutions cause the deaths of 2,8 million people…” . Lomborg’s solution is that people need to use kerosene instead of dung…
People need to be able to improve their lot and not be forced to burn dung for fuel.
Anne – “Lomborg’s solution is that people need to use kerosene instead of dung…”
Assuming they can afford it of course. Generally in such poor countries that have the misfortune to have a lot of oil, like Nigeria, the oil is exported and kerosene remains out of reach. A consequence of high oil prices.
Lomborg says use kerosene instead of dung , but kerosene has major environmental impact as well.
Being a primary lighting fuel, kerosene causes heavy local and indoor pollution resulting in illness and death. It leads to respiratory infections in children in developing countries causing about 2 million deaths.
It is also a CO emitter.
The point is that they be rich enough to afford kerosene.
Just think about cooking on kerosene yourself for a few minutes. No thanks !
rog – “The point is that they be rich enough to afford kerosene.”
How does this happen? Surely this is better.
http://solarcooking.org/bernardart1.htm
“Half the inhabitants of earth burn wood to cook but more than a billion and a half of these people are having difficulty finding the fuel. If nothing is done, this situation can only grow worse because there are ever more inhabitants of earth and fewer and fewer trees. In the year 2000, according to United Nations estimates, 2.4 billion people will suffer from a shortage of fuel wood.
Increasing deforestation causes numerous other degradations of the environment such as:
* climate modification,
* floods,
* erosion by wind and rain,
* the destruction of arable land.
Because the affected regions generally have high insolation, (sometimes more than 300 days of sun per year), it is reasonable to project the use of solar energy everywhere possible, while reserving wood – that solar energy “in the can” – for sunless hours and days.”
*sigh*
long time waiting for your evening meal to cook, worse during the monsoon.
rog – “while reserving wood – that solar energy “in the can” – for sunless hours and days.””
You obviously did not read this.
What are you on about Ender, cant you read?
“According to Bev Blum, “the keys to success are a sunny climate and…”
Jennifer- “Lomborgs book is full of interesting and useful statistics”.
Yes, very interesting indeed but hardly reliable..
Lomborg claims for example that deforestation is a myth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1504051.stm
rog – “”According to Bev Blum, “the keys to success are a sunny climate and…””
No really? You need sun for a solar cooker? Go on with you rog.
I am with you rog, I would starve or eat cold food rather that use one of these unreliable contraptions.
Before writing off Lomborg on the basis of a few select quotes go and look at his replies to his critics at
http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm
He seems to me to have much the best of teh argument. And it is not absurd that burning dung and other fuels of the poor might be the major environmental hazard in terms of current deaths. This is an issue worth investigating. Just because deaths from indoor smoke are not very visible and do not make good TV does not mean Lomborg is wrong. If you want to convince me show me the evidence that Lomborg’s statement is wrong.
Lomborg is not a scientist and this argument weaker than his others. If you find this convincing I don’t have a whole lot to say about your training.