Screw global warming!

[Perfection]

He's talking about how curbing global warming will cost too much economically (which is stupid because ideally that money should be towards making more efficienct technology which ultimately will increase productivity).

I'm skeptical about his numbers there too, but I do think he has some interesting points regarding cost benefit.

Now he's saying sanitation and water for poor people should be the 2nd lowest priority. That's just idiotic.

How so?

3rd best thing is increase globalization according to Bjorn, temporarily raising living standards (though not much) in the 3rd world but basically making them wage-slaves for the first world.

Well, it worked for Japan and South Korea...

I agree that AIDS prevention is important (especially for those who will choose to have children despite knowing they have it) but calling it more important than global warming is shortsighted.

Partially yes, but he gave some good justifications for it, such as the general increase in wealth that will occur by them. And really, I think there are some longterm reprecussions for the AIDs epidemic worsening

It's interesting to note that he didn't even address the REAL most important issue of the 21st century, which is hydrocarbon depletion and energy issues. Funny how economists ignore this, forgetting that almost all other economic issues these days are dependent on cheap energy.

I can't you there Narz, you're in your own crazy peak-oilest land.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

He is still victim to his own ideas of perceived limitations (solving global warming = reducing economic growth is one of his logical fallacies).

How exactly would you propose solving global warming without reducing economic growth?

 

[Perfection]

How exactly would you propose solving global warming without reducing economic growth?

The idea is to invest in technology that will allow us to do more with less via increases in efficiency.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

The idea is to invest in technology that will allow us to do more with less via increases in efficiency.

But wouldn't it make more sense to invest in that technology, then do even more with the same amount via increases in efficiency? I mean, the end purpose of all technology is not necessarily to lower carbon emissions...

 

[Perfection]

Can you rephrase that, I'm not understanding.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Alright. Suppose that you can do y work with x units of energy. Now suppose that technology lets you do y work with x/2 units of energy. Doesn't that mean you might as well keep on devoting x units of energy to do twice the work that you would have been able to do before this technological advance?

Basically, I'm saying that if we can do the same amount of work with less emissions, that also means that we can do more work with the same amount of emissions, so reducing emissions still leads to a decrease in the work we could do.

 

[Narz]

I'm skeptical about his numbers there too, but I do think he has some interesting points regarding cost benefit.

I wouldn't know, not having seen his data.

How so?

What good is being AIDS-free if you don't have clean water or basic sanitation?

IWell, it worked for Japan and South Korea...

Was a different world back then.

IPartially yes, but he gave some good justifications for it, such as the general increase in wealth that will occur by them. And really, I think there are some longterm reprecussions for the AIDs epidemic worsening

I agree that AIDS is a big deal just not the "biggest deal".

II can't you there Narz, you're in your own crazy peak-oilest land.

Peak oil is a fact, only question is when and if we'll have a strong enough technology to match the power and versatility of coal & oil in time.

Alright. Suppose that you can do y work with x units of energy. Now suppose that technology lets you do y work with x/2 units of energy. Doesn't that mean you might as well keep on devoting x units of energy to do twice the work that you would have been able to do before this technological advance?

Basically, I'm saying that if we can do the same amount of work with less emissions, that also means that we can do more work with the same amount of emissions, so reducing emissions still leads to a decrease in the work we could do.

Ideally we create a fuel that produces no emissions or better yet, produces useful emissions.

 

[Yoda Power]

And apparently he isn't concise enough when what he says is totally ignored

Ignored? Bush has proclaimed himself a supporter of him.

 

[storealex]

This man is using incorrect data, false assumptions and neglets several important parts of the issue. That's why he in Denmark (His home country) went from the governments darling to be shunned by it.

He is good at making his point, and the whole prioritising stuff sure is interesting. But don't let him fool you like he fooled many Danes in the past.

 

[El_Machinae]

Alright. Suppose that you can do y work with x units of energy. Now suppose that technology lets you do y work with x/2 units of energy. Doesn't that mean you might as well keep on devoting x units of energy to do twice the work that you would have been able to do before this technological advance?

Basically, I'm saying that if we can do the same amount of work with less emissions, that also means that we can do more work with the same amount of emissions, so reducing emissions still leads to a decrease in the work we could do.

Analogy time: if you eat the seed grain in addition to the storehouse grain, you will be able to do more work (thus increasing output) this year. However, long-term, your total output is much much higher if you sustainably consume your resources.

Remember too that Climate Change will have negative impacts on the economy. This means that the damages done to economies will have to be balanced against the increased output of excessive CO2 consumption.

I personally believe that the long-term growth rate will be worse if we don't factor in CO2 pollution; thus I want to.

*The entire analogy is based on the idea that CO2 pollution 'room' (or leeway) is a renewable but limited resource. The trick is to treat it that way.

 

[Hygro]

Alright. Suppose that you can do y work with x units of energy. Now suppose that technology lets you do y work with x/2 units of energy. Doesn't that mean you might as well keep on devoting x units of energy to do twice the work that you would have been able to do before this technological advance?

Basically, I'm saying that if we can do the same amount of work with less emissions, that also means that we can do more work with the same amount of emissions, so reducing emissions still leads to a decrease in the work we could do.

But we aren't limitted by a total emmissions, and emmissions are not a sign of productivity but rather an externality.

El_Machinae says something better though.

 

[Princeps]

Bah. Before AIDS prevention comes proper sanitation infrastructure and such simple things as chimney pipes. The lack of chimney pipes kill more than aids in the developing world.

 

[nivi]

Bah. Before AIDS prevention comes proper sanitation infrastructure and such simple things as chimney pipes. The lack of chimney pipes kill more than aids in the developing world.

Got a source?

Anyway, screw AIDS, while it as a serious serious disease, it is just to sexy (no pun intended), being that it kills so many in the developed world, theres alot of money in it, so it draws money away from others diseases. If only a fraction of what is invested in AIDS research, went into TB research for instance, it could be cured, or even, prevented. And the major benefactors? The developing world, and...AIDS patients! But drug companies rather spend money on hair loss and imoptence.

 

[Nylan]

Ignored? Bush has proclaimed himself a supporter of him.

by Narz. I got the impression he ignored every point he made...and it was a play on what he'd said earlier

which is why I reiterated his points


Yes, all of these issues are important, but I still agree that we should solve what we can solve before we put all our energy into monolithic tasks that would be better off taken a small bit at a time.

Nylan-out

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

This guy has been quackin' for years now. And BMW? Come one, German cars aren't known for their fuel efficiency...

Most economic assumptions seemt to be based on the idea that the quality of the environment will be the same in the coming decades. If you don't account for environmental degradation, economic calculations are highly inaccurate. That is why mere economic expertise is not enough.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Still love it when 1 person's opinion is regarded more highly than countless others. Everytime the sanddivers can come up with them, it makes a good case for GW.

Opinions are like bad hairdays, everyone's got 'em.

 

[Gothmog]

Bjorn Lomborg, eh.

He wrote a sensationalistic book, which had some valid philosophical points but which also had some bad science and economic, including statistical, analyses.

He has been accused of cherry picking his environmental data, but that's not really relevant to his TED talk as he doesn't even bring it up. Of course, as he says, you wouldn't expect an economist to understand or be an expert on environmental issues.

He has also been accused of using 'slanted' economic models in his analyses. I'm not an economist and so am not sure about the details. I'll just say it wouldn't surprise me, it's the kind of thing that humans do.

There were a bunch of critiques by reputable scientists and economists in their field after the book was released. I read a number, I remember a particular one by EO Wilson (a scientist whom I respect greatly) about extinction. I seem to remember a number of critiques in the economist magazine as well.

Basically they say that he made the type of mistakes you would expect from a sensationalistic non-expert. This was around 2001.

His TED talk was much more refined and reasonable.

It is my understanding that he now agrees with the science behind AGW. When he wrote his book he didn't, but I guess he has now actually looked at the science.

i.e. in TED talk -
"climate change is such a big problem"

"there are several billion people who will be severely affected by global warming"

"If you want to know about climate, ask a climatologist."

It's hard to believe Urederra worships this guy given these quotes.

I agree with him that climate change is one of many problems faced by the human race in the near future.

The question of what we value is not open to scientific analysis, but is an important one.

Do we value increased individual wealth?
Do we value increased societal stability?
Do we value a pristine environment?
Some combination?
How much are we willing to spend, or not generate?

The problem I have with Lomborg is mostly that he is a sensationalist, and to this end he uses questionable and obfuscating tactics, much worse than Gore IMO.

Personally, if I had 50 billion I would spend it on alternative energy.
American oil dependance is, IMO, one of the greatest problems in the world today (Re: American involvement in the middle east over the last 30+ years right up to and including the Iraq war). Not to even mention the global economic sustainability issues.

 

[Yoda Power]

Great post Gothmog! Defiently sums up a few points I tried (and maybe failed, I don't know) to make myself.

 

[Goa]

There were a bunch of critiques by reputable scientists and economists in their field after the book was released. I read a number, I remember a particular one by EO Wilson (a scientist whom I respect greatly) about extinction. I seem to remember a number of critiques in the economist magazine as well.

If I can believe this website (It looks quite investigative but I haven't Lomborgs book, so I can't verify these critics) : http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/examples.htm, I would judge him even harder than you do. He is not only cherry picking but he is deliberately "adapting" data, to fit his claims. For me that's one step beyond cherry picking.

About his TED talk:
I'm not an economist, but I wonder how his idea of prioritizing was seen as revolutionary. Isn't this since a long time implemented in economics by the concept of opportunity costs? If any present, could an economist explain me what was new about his idea?
Just to be clear, I completely agree on the general idea of putting priorities. I have only a gripe with a) the way he presents it as if we should work on the different problems one after the other, and not several in parallel (ok, he isn't saying this, but nevertheless it was the impression I had from watching the vid) and b) with him believing that you just have to assemble a small group of economists to do the list. The world is to complex for that.

About the part where he presents his list of priorities: Does anybody know what data was used by the working groups? Was it a set of data selected by Lomborg?

Anyway, like Gothmog I find it quite funny how our GWDC (global warming denier crowd) applauds this man, despite him agreeing on climate change...

 

[El_Machinae]

a) the way he presents it as if we should work on the different problems one after the other, and not several in parallel

He's forgetting specialisation. You get more 'bang for your buck' if you pay (say) Gothmog to work on climate than if you pay him to work on AIDS.