A Cool Look at Global Warming (Global Warming Problem)

A Cool Look at Global Warming:

Your Turn to Take On Bjorn Lomborg

By John Tierney

I’m going to take a wild guess that a few readers differ with Bjorn Lomborg’s message in my Findings column. Here’s your chance to disagree. But first let me present a little more of his argument, and tell you why I like his new book, “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming.”

Dr. Lomborg believes in global warming but isn’t a zealot — he doesn’t refer to scientists who question the climate models as “denialists,” as if there were some revealed dogma about future climate. He wants to take steps to reduce the impact of global warming by imposing a carbon tax, increasing spending on energy research and directly mitigating the impacts of rising seas and temperatures.

But he also recognizes that many of the policies in vogue among rich Westerners are expensive, particularly when the costs gets passed on to people in poor countries who have a lot more things to worry about than a future decline in polar-bear populations. Some Westerners like to fantasize that we can cut greenhouse-gas emissions cheaply, or even save money by doing so — but if it were so cheap, why aren’t people already doing it?

Here’s a summary of Dr. Lomborg’s argument from the preface of “Cool It”:

That humanity has caused a substantial rise in atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels over the past centuries, thereby contributing to global warming, is beyond debate. What is debatable, however, is whether hysteria and headlong spending on extravagant CO₂-cutting programs at an unprecedented price is the only possible response. Such a course is especially debatable in a world where billions of people live in poverty, where millions die of curable diseases, and where these lives could be saved, societies strengthened, and environments improved at a fraction of the cost.

Global warming is a complex subject. No one–not Al Gore, not the world’s leading scientists, and most of all not myself–claims to have all the knowledge and all the solutions. But we have to act on the best available data from both the natural and the social sciences. The title of this book has two meanings: the first and obvious one is that we have to set our minds and resources toward the most effective way to tackle long-term global warming. But the second refers to the current nature of the debate. At present, anyone who does not support the most radical solutions to global warming is deemed an outcast and is called irresponsible and is seen as possibly an evil puppet of the oil lobby. It is my contention that this is not the best way to frame a debate on so crucial an issue. I believe most participants in the debate have good and honorable intentions–we all want to work toward a better world. But to do so, we need to cool the rhetoric, allowing us to have a measured discussion about the best ways forward. Being smart about our future is the reason we have done so well in the past. We should not abandon our smarts now.

If we manage to stay cool, we will likely leave the twenty-first century with societies much stronger, without rampant death, suffering, and loss, and with nations much richer, with unimaginable opportunity in a cleaner, healthy environment.

Dr. Lomborg’s critics like to argue that it’s not an either-or question, that we can save lives in poor countries right now while also making sharp reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, and that we can somehow force rich countries to foot the bill. But you can’t make deep cuts in emissions without affecting people in poor countries. Slowing economic growth in rich countries will have an impact on poor countries that sell to them. And the more money and attention that governments and philanthropists spend on global warming, the less there is for other problems.

I don’t expect the rhetoric in your responses to be uniformly cool, but I do hope you’ll deal with the issues Dr. Lomborg raises: how to set priorities, how to figure the trade-offs, how to be realistic in recognizing the limited impact that emission cuts will have — assuming that countries actually follow through on their promises, which is a big if. European countries are already balking at the Kyoto cuts. As Dr. Lomborg said to me, “A lot of people look at Kyoto and say, ‘Well, that didn’t go so well, so let’s do more of that.’” He calls Kyoto a “feel-good” policy because it appeals both to the hair-shirt school of environmentalists who want to be less sinfully profligate and also to political leaders who can sign a treaty that won’t upset voters until after they leave office.

Dr. Lomborg prefers a “do-good” strategy that focuses more on immediate problems like hunger, malaria and poverty. For a third of the cost of Kyoto, he figures, we could start preparing for climate change while also lifting a billion people out of poverty and saving hundreds of millions of lives.

What’s your choice?

To be continue in other article...

(Jakarta, Senin 18 February 2008, 15.44 siang)

Re-publish by Jacob Paradox from link (www.nytimes.com)