Download Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist`s Guide to Global Warming

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming
Bjorn Lomborg
Helen Amos
University of Washington
25 March 2008
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
Preface
Summary: The fact that global warming is happening is beyond debate. However, all of
the hysteria that has been whipped up about stopping climate change may not produce the
best course of action. We need to “cool the rhetoric” about climate change and engage in
careful, measured discussion about what goals/actions will secure a better future for this
planet.
Chapter I: Polar Bears: Today’s Canaries in the Coal Mine?
Summary: Lomborg sets the foundation for the major argument of his book with the
example of polar bears. Popular media is telling the public polar bears are severely
threatened by global warming, but Lomborg contends that the evidence suggests
otherwise. The argument that Lomborg adopts for book is as follows:
1. Global warming is real and man-made.
2. Strong, ominous, and immediate consequences of global warming are often wildly
exaggerated.
3. We need simpler, smarter, and more efficient solutions for global warming.
4. Many other issues are much more important than global warming.
* “We need to remind ourselves that our ultimate goal is not to reduce greenhouse
gases or global warming per se but to improve the quality of life and the
environment” (9).
Chapter II: It’s Getting Hotter: The Short Story
Summary:
Intro: Lomborg discusses the projected warming associated with global warming and the
implications it might have for mankind. He seems to want to conclude warming the
planet a few degrees won’t be such a bad thing.
Heat Deaths — Way of the Future?: More people die from cold-related conditions than
heat-related conditions. It is this reasonable to assume that warmer temperatures will
effectively lower the death rates.
Death in Europe: Lomborg acknowledges the 2003 heat wave that struck Europe claimed
a “heartbreaking” number of lives. However, he makes it very clear with statistical
reports that the number of people who die in Europe of cold-related conditions in any
given year far exceeds the total loss of life in the 2003 heat wave. Then he goes on to
discuss “optimal temperatures” for different cities and again hits the argument that
warmer temperatures will translate into fewer temperature-related deaths overall.
Lomborg goes onto demonstrate that many major cities have already seen temperature
rises on the order of what’s projected to accompany global warming because of the urban
heat island effect. Have Philadelphia, London, and Tokyo collapsed? No. They adapted.
Lomborg doesn’t want to claim the warming experience in major urban centers is good,
he just wants to prove the point that a few degrees Fahrenheit won’t cause widespread
collapse.
The Kyoto Protocol: Buying Seven Days: The Kyoto Protocol is more of a symbolic
treaty than anything else. Even if participating nations were on track to reduce their
emissions, the delay in warming would be fairly insignificant.
The Cost of Cutting Carbon: Lomborg assess the economic costs and benefits of cutting
carbon emissions. Mentions carbon taxes and the impact it will have on consumers.
Costs and Benefits – The Value of a Ton of CO2: Lomborg attempts to use professional
opinions from economists and environmentalists to estimate the cost of one ton of CO2.
His best guess puts the cost of one ton of carbon at roughly $2.00. Lomborg goes on to
say establishes that it’s tricky to establish the best value for a carbon tax. “If we put it too
low, we emit too much CO2; if we put it too high, we end up much poorer without doing
enough good”. (31)
Costs and Benefits of Climate Action: With the assistance of “major peer-reviewed
economics models”, Lomborg puts a price tag on cutting carbon emissions. From a
purely economic standpoint, it can be concluded that the amount of money required to
reduce emissions does not return enough good to justify the spending. “If we try to
stabilize emissions, it turns out that for the first 170 years the costs are greater than the
benefits” (36). Lomborg’s point to all of this: “We clearly need smarter ways to deal with
climate change” (38).
Living in a Hotter World: Lomborg is putting forth that claim that warmer temperatures
will actually save lives until at least 2200. When considering lives saved in the third
world (which are projected to be hit the hardest), we need to look at the cost of climate
change. Lomborg postures that if we try and save lives by mitigating warming each life
saved will cost $100 million, versus the cost of saving a life by more conventional aid is
estimated to be less than $2000.
Warming is Not the Only Issue: Lomborg outlines the Copenhagen Consensus, which
gathered the world’s top economists to assemble a list of global problems and prioritize
them according to a cost-benefit analysis. Disease, malnutrition, and clean water were at
the top of the list; climate change was at the bottom. At an assembly of world leaders was
convened at asked to perform a similar task. Again, disease and malnutrition sat at the top
of the priority list and climate change at the bottom. Lomborg’s emphasis seems to be
such that we should act now on the problems from which we can see a high return.
Our Generational Mission: Global efforts to combat hunger and disease could do a lot
more good and save a lot more lives than combating climate change. Both are morally
compelling, but it is more realistic to improve the quality of life by taking on the
challenges of impoverished, malnourished developing countries.
Smart Strategies: Lomborg doesn’t want his audience to think he’s advocating that we do
nothing at all about climate change. Quite the contrary. He simply thinks we should be
smarter about it. The cost of cutting emissions must come down.
Chapter III: Global Warming: Our Many Worries
Summary:
Melting Glaciers: Lomborg makes the case that the world’s glaciers naturally advance
and retreat, so we should calm down a little. Additionally, he points out that the glaciers
have actually been retreating since the 1800s (note, however, that he never makes any
mention of the recent acceleration of the rate at which glaciers are retreating). Lomborg
also wants to claim that, for the immediate future, glacial melting could be a good thing
because increased melting means more available fresh water.
Rising Sea Levels: Lomborg addresses the seriousness of sea levels rising one foot over
the next century. He thinks we’ll be fine; we’ve already seen sea level rise on this
magnitude over the past 150 yrs and coastal inhabitants have adjusted without massive
disruption and chaos. Everyone always mentions Greenland and Antarctica when talking
about sea level rise, and so does Lomborg. He walks through a list of statistics on both
ice sheets to convince his reader the melting isn’t as dramatic as is hyped in the media.
Towards the end of the section, Lomborg makes the claim that it is in peoples’ best
interest to invest in protecting their land with relatively cheap fixtures like dikes and
levees, so we will actually see very little land loss 100 yrs from now. Lomborg wants to
say environmentally-minded nations will not be as rich in the future and will thus be less
able to protect their land, therefore it is something to think about that maybe we should
help countries develop their wealth first.
Extreme Weather, Extreme Hype: It is incorrect to point to a single extreme weather
event, like hurricane Katrina, and say it is evidence of global warming. Second, it is
incorrect to say hurricanes are getting more powerful and destructive when basing your
argument on dollar-values of damage sustained. Hurricane damage is getting more
expensive because there are simply more people with more assets (because they have
more money) sitting in harm’s way. Lomborg advocates investing in measures to protect
people and their assets (e.g. stricter building codes, stronger structure reinforcements).
You save more people and more materials goods for less money than if Kyoto was
implemented until 2050.
Flooding Rivers: Lomborg’s argument in this section is similar to his argument about
hurricanes. In fact, he wants to claim that, “a dollar spent on flood management will
reduce flooding 1,300 times better than a dollar spent on Kyoto” (86).
A New Ice Age over Europe: Hysterical claims of the Thermohaline Circulation shutting
off and plunging Europe into an ice age are vastly exaggerated. Lomborg cites Carl
Wunsch and the IPCC as sources that people should be turning to. The IPCC is quoted as
saying, “Europe will still experience warming since CO2 warming overwhelms the
cooling associated with the Gulf Stream reduction” (92)
Malaria in Vermont: Malaria is less an issue of climate change than it is of economic
position and physiology of the parasite. Poor people are most heavily afflicted with the
burden of malaria because they cannot afford the nets, sprays, and medical treatment that
are more easily accessed by wealthy countries. In addition, the malaria parasite has
become resistant to the “cheap” drug and poor people can’t afford the more effective but
more expensive drug. It is currently estimated that “we can cut malaria incidence to about
half by 2015 for about $3 billion annually – or 2 percent of the cost of Kyoto” (100).
Lomborg returns to his favorite pitch with malaria, too – we could save a lot more lives
for a lot less money than with the Kyoto Protocol.
More Heat Means More Starvation?: “If we implemented Kyoto, this would reduce
malnutrition by two million people in 2080 for about $180 billion annually… The UN
estimates that we could reduce hunger by 229 million people by 2015 for about $10
billion annually… [by focusing] on simple measures like investing in agriculture and
direct policies such as school meals and nutrient fortification” (107). Once again,
Lomborg revisits the theme of helping more people with less money by implementing
smarter policies. Lomborg recognizes that some food production in some regions will
suffer because of climate change, but he also wants to point out that other regions will see
a boon in productivity.
Water Shortages: Global warming will produce more precipitation (regionally), which
means more water for people. The real dilemma regarding future water-stresses comes
from our ability to provide the global community with clean, safe water and sanitation.
Chapter IV: The Politics of Global Warming
Summary:
Climate Policies Aren’t Our Only Option: Lomborg is just reiterating the same theme
he’s been touting the whole book – we can do more good with less money than if we
invest all of our money and efforts into reducing CO2 emissions.
What We Should Do? Drastic Increase in R&D: Lomborg advocates the abandonment of
Kyoto because it is an expensive, ineffective, and politically divisive policy. Instead, he
wants to suggest that we should commit our investments to research and development
(R&D) for alternative energy technologies. As a figure, Lomborg encourages 0.05
percent of GDP to be spent on R&D.
Instead of Thinking, We Get Scared Witless: Science has taken on the language of
catastrophe, which is problematic for a multitude of reasons. Popular media only
exacerbates this issue.
The Economics: The Loss of a Sensible Dialogue: Honestly speaking, addressing global
warming will cost money and someone will have to carry the burden of paying for it.
Some might say it insensitive and uncaring to frame the global warming discussion in
dollars, but we need to be intelligent and realistic about climate policy spending because
we might be on the brink of embarking on the most expensive global endeavor of all
time. Rigorous discussions involving explicit dollar values need to happen.
The Science: The Loss of a Sensible Dialogue: Lomborg makes the claim that scientific
dialogues have become highly politicized. This inflated political language seems to be an
effort on the behalf of scientists to gain public attention, secure funding, and steer the
political agendas of officeholders. Lomborg points out, though, that “global warming is
not the only issue, and having some scientists making scary scenarios and dramatic
statements simply closes off the vital dialogue on social priorities” (142).
The Politics: The Loss of Sensible Dialogue: Lomborg says, “When the time comes to
commit to the political rhetoric of global warming, support suddenly withers away,
because governments know that CO2 cuts will quickly become very expensive and likely
be politically dangerous” (147). The exaggerated and terror-ridden language being used
in the media to communicate global warming issues is polarizing politicians and
rendering intelligent, measured dialogues crippled.
Chapter 5: Conclusion: Making Our Top Priorities Cool
Summary:
Time for a Sensible Dialogue: Lomborg reiterates his two major policy suggestions: 1)
“We should tax CO2 at the economically correct level of about two dollars per ton, or
maximally fourteen dollars per ton” and 2) “All nations should commit themselves to
spending 0.05 percent of GDP in R&D of non-carbon-emitting energy technologies”
(152). In addition, when we are discussing climate policies we need to focus less on what
is “technically possible” and more on what is realistically doable (e.g. yes, we could stop
CO2 emissions today, but it would bring developed nations to a halt). We need to commit
to sensible, long-term goals.
The Coolest Options: Too much ineffective spending on climate policy could leave other
global problems neglected and render our planet worse off in 50 yrs than it might have
been otherwise. We need to have level-headed discussions based on rigorous scientific
fact and economic principles to prioritize the global problems.