The problem with this argument is that CO2 emissions reductions programmes are are the only ones with a very long-term solution in mind, and one that is equitable for the planet. As Nicholas Stern’s 2006 and 2008 reports show, most of the 8bn of the 9bn people on the planet by 2050 will have contributed little to climate change, but suffer most of the effects.
At the heart of CO2 emissions reductions programmes for the key polluters, including in the next round of discussions India and China and Brazil, is–or should be–long-term global equity.
Blogger Bishop Hill asks commenters on the Guardian’s site to deal with what Lomborg is saying, rather than the person, which is absolutely right. Lomborg’s argument hangs on the fact that Western countries are being expected to curtail their freedoms and become poorer, relatively, because of the need to reduce emissions. Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus has always been about, ostensibly, not forgetting the world’s other great problems, such as malnutrition and malaria.
However, climate change is intricately linked with these other ‘poverty’ issues. As IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri told journalists at the release of the 4th AR report summary for policymakers in Brussels last year: “It is the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit. This does become a global responsibility in my view.”
Without addressing climate change, long-term, these problems that Lomborg wants to address will get worse. And it’s for another blog post to address why in fact we haven’t already addressed solvable problems by, say, putting a 0.5% tax on financial trading: known as the Tobin Tax?
Another angle: what does business think of Lomborg’s views? Not a direct response, but some interesting counter-arguments. As Economist Business Editor Tom Standage told me a few weeks ago:
We’re with Nicholas Stern on this, that climate change is the biggest market failure in history. And we think it can be fixed, as long as the right incentives are used. It’s a strange position for us, but not completely. We’re right-wing on fiscal policy, but left on social policy. On the economy we’re very much in line with the US right-wing, but on this we disagree. For us this is real.
Standage used the example of General Electric to show that business wants to invest, in big ways, in climate change emissions reductions programmes, such as cap-and-trade:
Jeff Immelt from GE was saying a couple of years ago, when McCain was the front runner for the Republican nomination, that a cap-and-trade system would be inevitable Whoever was the next President it would mean the US would go into a cap-and-trade system. And that was good for GE because it meant they could think about how to invest. Most CEOs think the same.
Instead, Lomborg argues:
California senator Diane Feinstein argues that we should curb carbon emissions because the Sierra snowpack, which accounts for much of California’s drinking water, will be reduced by 40% by 2050 due to global warming. What she fails to tell us is that even a substantial reduction in emissions – at a high cost – will have an immeasurable effect on snowmelt by 2050. Instead, we should perhaps invest in water storage facilities.
Water storage for Californians, great. Let the Californians pay for that: they’ve got enough cash. But the scientific facts of how long CO2 lasts in the atmosphere mean we need to act now, as Lomborg implicitly agrees by using this factor in his argument. The Western industrial countries have benefited massively from industrialisation, whereas a majority of the world’s population have not. For the century 2100-2200 and beyond, let’s give the whole world a fairer compact on how we, as a planet, treat our shared atmosphere.
Which way will it go? Again, as Tom Standage told me:
What’s going to dominate Copenhagen is the trade off between rich vs. poor. And there are some obvious answers and compromises here, for example developed world cuts by 80%, developing countries by 50%, or whatever. What’s perhaps more at stake is that there has to be some way of transferring the wealth to pay for the climate change clean up, which is going to affect developing countries more than developed. For businesses, whatever the nature of the compromise, they’re view is “come on, just get it done, just do it”, and really Copenhagen will be about that.
At the heart of CO2 emissions reductions programmes for the key polluters, including in the next round of discussions India and China and Brazil, is–or should be–long-term global equity.
Blogger Bishop Hill asks commenters on the Guardian’s site to deal with what Lomborg is saying, rather than the person, which is absolutely right. Lomborg’s argument hangs on the fact that Western countries are being expected to curtail their freedoms and become poorer, relatively, because of the need to reduce emissions. Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus has always been about, ostensibly, not forgetting the world’s other great problems, such as malnutrition and malaria.
However, climate change is intricately linked with these other ‘poverty’ issues. As IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri told journalists at the release of the 4th AR report summary for policymakers in Brussels last year: “It is the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit. This does become a global responsibility in my view.”
Without addressing climate change, long-term, these problems that Lomborg wants to address will get worse. And it’s for another blog post to address why in fact we haven’t already addressed solvable problems by, say, putting a 0.5% tax on financial trading: known as the Tobin Tax?
Another angle: what does business think of Lomborg’s views? Not a direct response, but some interesting counter-arguments. As Economist Business Editor Tom Standage told me a few weeks ago:
Standage used the example of General Electric to show that business wants to invest, in big ways, in climate change emissions reductions programmes, such as cap-and-trade:
Instead, Lomborg argues:
Water storage for Californians, great. Let the Californians pay for that: they’ve got enough cash. But the scientific facts of how long CO2 lasts in the atmosphere mean we need to act now, as Lomborg implicitly agrees by using this factor in his argument. The Western industrial countries have benefited massively from industrialisation, whereas a majority of the world’s population have not. For the century 2100-2200 and beyond, let’s give the whole world a fairer compact on how we, as a planet, treat our shared atmosphere.
Which way will it go? Again, as Tom Standage told me: