Recently

More articles in the archive.

Tackling climate change 'too expensive' 11 May 04

Our old friend Bjorn Lomborg disinters himself with an unwelcome appearance in today’s Times, making his oh-so familiar argument that implementing Kyoto will take billions of dollars which would otherwise have helped feed starving babies in Africa (or, more likely, flabby arms dealers in Washington). “The cost of the Kyoto Protocol will be at least $150 billion a year, and possibly much more,” he whines. Of course, the only thing we can all be certain about with regard to economic predictions (unlike science-based climatological ones) is that they’ll be wrong, and that they reflect the assumptions of those doing the calculating rather than anything approaching reality. And as usual, Lomborg supports his case by underplaying (though not denying) the dangerous impacts of climate change – for which he provides only a laughably optimistic costing. So combating global warming will cost billions, whilst not combating it will cost, er, not very much. And a bit of warming may even be good for us! Impeccable logic as always, Lomborg.

Comments

Mark Lynas

Guardian columnist George Monbiot today takes Lomborg to task for his flawed analysis and figures in a letter to the Times.

Peter Winters

George Monbiot touches on something, in his reply to Bjorn Lomborg, which I feel is at the heart of many mistakes in public policy or other future planning. It is the sense that money takes place in some vacuum outside of the real world.

I feel it is similar to the false security often felt by people saving for retirement. This money will only have value if there are things to spend it on, and people happy to believe that the money represent value. If the world is altered by that time individuals reach retirement through any of a number of scenarios (environmental problems, aged population with few workers, fuel problems, war etc. etc.) the markets will reflect this and impact directly on the value of people’s monetary savings.

With global warming being such a threat to the health of the planet, creating a value for not making remedial action becomes a meaningless exercise. What will any amount of money buy in a ravaged earth?

PeterW

Leave a Reply