The Rational Environmentalist

Bjorn Lomborg on the priorities that should come before global warming

Ronald Bailey from the October 2008 issue

Where in the world can we do the most good? That is the basic question addressed by the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think tank founded six years ago by the Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg. To answer the question, the center periodically convenes panels of leading economists, who weigh and prioritize the solutions experts have proposed to the world's biggest problems.

Lomborg, a boyish 43-year-old, first burst onto the intellectual scene in 2001 with his best-selling book The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. There the former Greenpeace member argued persuasively that most of the planetary doom scenarios imagined by ideological environmentalists were contradicted by the available ecological and economic data. The book provoked a furious green backlash, the low point of which was a 2003 ruling by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty that "the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty." Lomborg was vindicated later that year when the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation overturned the ruling, calling it "completely void of argumentation."

Lomborg's international reputation had already taken off by then, the odd activist cream pie to the face notwithstanding. In 2001 the World Economic Forum nominated him as one of the Global Leaders for Tomorrow; in 2004 Time named him one of the world's 100 most influential people; in 2005 Foreign Policy ranked him as the world's 14th most influential intellectual; and this year The Guardian dubbed him one of "50 people who could save the planet."

Saving the planet became a specific job description six years ago, when Lomborg was appointed director of the Danish National Environmental Assessment Institute, a group whose explicit aim is to "get the most environment for the money." In 2004, under Lomborg's guidance, the institute convened the first Copenhagen Consensus conference, in which eight leading economists, including four Nobel laureates, were asked to allocate a theoretical $50 billion to solve the world's biggest problems. The panel was presented with 30 proposals from other researchers for ranking and evaluation. The top four priorities left standing at the end of the conference were: controlling HIV/AIDS, providing micronutrients to children, liberalizing trade, and rolling back malaria. Addressing climate change ranked near the bottom. This infuriated many environmentalists, but overall the meeting garnered favorable attention around the world.

In 2007, following with the Copenhagen Consensus theme of sensible policy prioritization, Lomborg published Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, in which he acknowledged that man-made global warming is a problem but challenged the notion that it is the biggest threat to human well-being. Instead of draconian and poverty-inducing cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, Lomborg argued, rich countries could more effectively tackle the problem through massive research and development into low-carbon energy technologies.

In May 2008, Lomborg convened the second Copenhagen Consensus Center conference. This time eight leading economists, including five Nobelists, considered how to allocate a theoretical $75 billion during the next four years to solve 10 of the world's largest problems. Would it be better, for example, to provide efficient stoves to poor people who are exposed to indoor cooking smoke, or supply middle-aged people in developing countries with cheap pills combining aspirin and cholesterol-reducing statins to prevent heart attacks? The panel's top four solutions: providing vitamin A and zinc supplements to poor children, liberalizing trade, fortifying salt and staple foods with the micronutrients iodine and iron, and expanding childhood immunization. Cutting greenhouse gases came in at the bottom, although another approach to global warming—R&D spending on low-carbon energy technologies—was a mid-list priority.

Ronald Bailey, reason's science correspondent, interviewed Lomborg in a gilt-edged room at the Moltkes Palace in Copenhagen during a lunch break at the 2008 Copenhagen Consensus Conference.

reason: How did you come up with the idea of the Copenhagen Consensus?

Bjorn Lomborg: It really started with my discussion of global warming. The advantages of doing the Kyoto Protocol are fairly small, but the cost of doing Kyoto for just one year is about what it would cost to give clean drinking water and sanitation to everyone.

We did some searches. I was sure somebody had done global priority setting before. We do it implicitly by the way we spend money, but apparently nobody's ever thought about it formally.

reason: What's been the reaction to the Copenhagen Consensus process around the world?

Lomborg: Most people who have no sort of preconceived notions about one thing or another think it's eminently sensible. They're a bit like, "You're telling me people didn't do this before?" But as soon as you get people participating in the public debate about this and that issue, it's incredibly hard for them to disassociate themselves from where their problem and especially their solution came on the list. I think most of the arguments against the Copenhagen Consensus boil down to "my area should also have been high on the priorities list," or "we should do all things" and implicitly therefore also my area.

I gave a presentation to Congress last year, and a congressman-I'll not mention his name or his affiliation-told me, "Bjorn, I understand why you're focusing on prioritization, because Denmark is a small country and you can't do all things." But honestly, even though America is vastly larger and you have done incredible amounts of good, you are also constrained by a bunch of restrictions. You have not fixed all the problems in the world in the last 50 years, and it seems reasonable to assume that you won't in the next 10 years. So for all societies, we have to ask ourselves, "What do we want to spend our money on?" If we spend it on something that does only a little good, it could be to the detriment of things that could've done even more good.

reason: Have the experts put things low on the list that you would've liked to see ranked higher?

Lomborg: These are some of the smartest people on the planet. I think of myself more as an intellectual entrepreneur bringing them all together and making sure they hear all the good arguments for and against and then make their informed decisions. I can conceivably imagine that I would end up disagreeing with them at some point, but these are really smart people and I'll probably defer to their judgment.

Comments

|10.1.08 @ 3:11PM|#

I myself am a skeptical environmentalist, yet I prefer to be referred to as "conspiracy theorist" when I'm being described by the media.

|10.1.08 @ 3:19PM|#

Someone told me that this month's issue of Reason has two articles featuring blonde swedes. I was sorely disappointed.

Johnny Nowhere|10.1.08 @ 3:46PM|#

Save the Caribbean Plate!
Stop Plate Tectonics!

|10.1.08 @ 4:05PM|#

Socialism scares me. does it work well in Denmark?

the message is good that global warming really isn't the existential threat that it has been portrayed as.

Earthquakes on the other hand, *shudder*.

|10.1.08 @ 4:16PM|#

For God's sake, when are we going to do something about the supervolcanoes?!? I demand that the Discovery Channel raise awareness of this important issue.

Also the possibility of something like in "The Happening", but with sharks.

Neu Mejican|10.1.08 @ 4:21PM|#

Lomborg: Most people who have no sort of preconceived notions about one thing or another think it's eminently sensible.

Is this most infants?

Translation: those that think it is eminently sensible have the same bias I do, so they seem to be unbiased?

|10.1.08 @ 4:26PM|#

Great article.

I disagree with Mr. Lomborg on lots of stuff. That said, I really like his humility and the approach he takes towards problem definition and solutions. It is no wonder that he pisses off lots of folks.

Neu Mejican|10.1.08 @ 4:36PM|#

JsubD,

I actually agree with you in your opinion about Lomborg. He does, however, dismiss his critics a little too easily. Some of the criticism of his work has been rooted in disagreements with his scientific methodology and the assumptions he used in his analysis of the environmental issues. Similar to the some of the criticisms that can be leveled at Freakonomics...for instance. Good statisticians will tell you that any analysis is only valid to the degree that your assumptions are valid. Validity doesn't come from the numbers...they support validity, but they don't create it.

Like many intellectuals, Lomborg's work is used inappropriately to back some pretty ridiculous positions. He gets some of the flak that comes off of the reaction. Lots of it is undeserved. His reaction to more nuanced criticism may be a result how it is mixed in with the undeserved flak.

Perhaps.

NM copy editor|10.1.08 @ 4:37PM|#

add an "of" as needed.

MAX HATS|10.1.08 @ 4:53PM|#

Global warming denial - Is that still happening, or have we moved on to "it's happening but there's nothing we can do to change it." Sorry, missed the memo.

|10.1.08 @ 5:06PM|#

Global warming denial - Is that still happening, or have we moved on to "it's happening but there's nothing we can do to change it." Sorry, missed the memo.

You've sorta got a little glimmer of the new meme.

It's happening but for rational people it is farther down the list of priorities than Al Gore would like.

|10.1.08 @ 5:08PM|#

I actually agree with you in your opinion about Lomborg. He does, however, dismiss his critics a little too easily.

Fortunately you and I are never guilty of that. ;-)

|10.1.08 @ 5:11PM|#

The tempature dropped 0.7 degrees C in 2007. Further sun spot activity is at an all time low. Odd coincidence isn't it? I will be curious to see the numbers for 2008.

Neu Mejican|10.1.08 @ 5:19PM|#

John,

That is indeed a coincidence.

Coincidence-noun
1. a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance.

|10.1.08 @ 5:21PM|#

Heh Bailey,..HEH BAILEYYYYY
I got Reason yesterday and there is no man made global warming. It is solar activity.
Your wrong.
When are you going to admit it?
Are you still a member of the ACLU?

Chad|10.1.08 @ 5:59PM|#

Lombborg is a smart guy, but I disagree with him on several points

1: Even in his own Copenhagen Consensus, combating climate change was found to provide a positive cost-benefit in almost every scenario. He does not often point this out.

2: The methodology used by the Consensus, like all other cost-benefits, uses a process called discounting - essentially, lowering the value of future benefits by a set percent for every year they exist in the future. Therefore, any cost-benefit analysis involving the deep future winds up being more of a debate around the appropriate discount rate rather than the facts about the system. 3% vs 4% compounded a hundred times makes a wild change in your conclusions. Not surprisingly, Lomborg's team chose a high discount rate, making future payoffs very small.

3: The Consensus did not account for far too many effects of global warming. The essentially focused on weather events (floods, droughts), sea level rise, and effects on crops. Losing 1/3 of the species on earth, for example, didn't factor into their equations at all.

4: Lomborg just doesn't understand one major difference between climate change and everything else on the list - climate change is not charity. While a dollar donated towards providing malaria nets in Africa might be a great way for me to spend my charitable dollars, by no means is this anything but charity. However, I have a responsibility to clean up the pollution that I dump into the public commons. This makes a world of difference politically.

|10.1.08 @ 5:59PM|#

NM, I have to say I have a hard time believing that changes in the activity of the sun and changes in the Earth's temperature are completely unrelated.

|10.1.08 @ 6:10PM|#

Guys, guys, guys (gals too).
This is not a global warming thread. It's a risk assessment and bang for the buck thread.

I'm stockpiling data for the next time an AGW thread appears. ;-)

|10.1.08 @ 7:16PM|#

Lomborg and Bailey are obviously in the pocket of Big Peroxide.

|10.1.08 @ 8:28PM|#

I got Reason yesterday and there is no man made global warming. It is solar activity.
Your wrong.
When are you going to admit it?
Are you still a member of the ACLU?

That's great news, Terry! Just submit your data to the appropriate journals so we can all stop caring about it.

|10.1.08 @ 9:06PM|#

NM -- Are you seriously implying that the strong correlation over long periods of time between sunspot activity and global temperature is complete coincidence?

Are you a sunspot cooling denier?

MAX HATS|10.1.08 @ 9:15PM|#

Who needs science? I have a messageboard. And blogs! I can find stuff that I already agree with there. And there are LOLcats!!!!

|10.1.08 @ 9:27PM|#

That was a great article Ron, kudos.

I liked the fact that there was actually some disagreement, but along with it was rational debate. So often when it comes to discussions on environmental issues, reason and rational thought just go out the window. I really must get around to reading some of Mr Lomborg's books.

I also really like the idea of the Copenhagen Consensus and actual risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis. There is only a finite amount of resources to go around for these issues and at some point we really have to prioritise their allocation.

Chad|10.1.08 @ 10:39PM|#

prolefeed | October 1, 2008, 9:06pm | #

NM -- Are you seriously implying that the strong correlation over long periods of time between sunspot activity and global temperature is complete coincidence?

Are you a sunspot cooling denier?

Ummm....solar output and sunspot cycles are included in the IPCC calculations. Their effect is minor. And btw, the current sunspot minimum is one of the several "natural" effects that is currently blunting global warming. Of course, the sunspot cycle should be reversing any time now...

Adam S | October 1, 2008, 9:27pm | #

That was a great article Ron, kudos.

I also really like the idea of the Copenhagen Consensus and actual risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis. There is only a finite amount of resources to go around for these issues and at some point we really have to prioritise their allocation.

Adam, cost-benefit analysis just don't work well when talking about long time frames, because it inevitably breaks down into philosophical arguments about the discount rate rather than a debate about the situation being considered. Since the discount rate is compounded hundreds of times in any climate change discussion, it wildly affects the conclusions. If you pick 5% and I argue for 2%, we are going to reach entirely different conclusions even if we agree on everything else.

|10.2.08 @ 1:22AM|#

Chad, sure, but so often these things have *no* cost/benefit analysis done at *all*. I agree that the discount rate is important.

|10.2.08 @ 2:40AM|#

Neu Mejican | October 1, 2008, 4:21pm | #

Lomborg: Most people who have no sort of preconceived notions about one thing or another think it's eminently sensible.

Is this most infants?

Translation: those that think it is eminently sensible have the same bias I do, so they seem to be unbiased?

Nuevo: Perhaps you need to reconsider your committment to rationality. I can recall many times in my life, as my beliefs evolved based on new (to me) evidence, that an eminently sensible idea altered my biases ;-}

|10.2.08 @ 2:52AM|#

Agreed Kant. I have often changed my view on something when presented with incontrovertible evidence.

Neu Mejican|10.2.08 @ 10:07AM|#

Re: Coincidence discussion above.

Chad covers the questions regarding solar activity.

It was a poor attempt at a dig at John.

The "it's the sun" argument is fueled on straw rather than fusion.

|10.3.08 @ 9:54PM|#

The problem with the priorities presented is that they all decrease the overall human mortality rate. The sheer number of human alive right now is one of the major causes of the environmental damage being done. We could all live like the Amish, but as long as the global population continues to rise, we will still destroy the habitable world we now live in. Make priority one global birth control, and maybe I can get behind those measure which aim to improve the quality of human existence. And before everyone gets all upset at my "trampling on other people's freedom" let me say that my freedom to responsibly have even one child has first been trampled by those who have already bred excessively. No one can honestly claim to both desire a sustainable human treatment of the Earth and allow for unending population growth. Everyone who breeds beyond the mortality rate is adding a permanent increase in humanity's load on the Biosphere. Everyone who lowers the mortality rate is doing damage on that line as well.

Chad|10.4.08 @ 4:03PM|#

City Bear: Go ahead and have all the kids you want. The entire developed world has fertility rates well below replacement levels. So does most of the developing world. Birth-rates are generally falling in most of the least-developed areas as well.

The problem is rapidly becoming one of too FEW people, not too many. Population will peak in the second half of this century, according to the UN, and then begin to decline. The problem of low birth rates is already becoming a severe issue in some European and Asian nations, particularly Japan, Korea and Singapore. The problem will spread to the US in another generation or so.

If you really feel guilty about increasing the population, for each child you have, simply donate $1000 to one of many good charities that deal with family planning in poor nations. You will get the children that you want while simultaneously preventing the birth of tens of unwanted children whose parents cannot support them. Everyone wins.

Sarah Palin|10.5.08 @ 4:16AM|#

"We could all live like the Amish"

Thanks but no thanks.

|10.5.08 @ 4:16AM|#

Thanks but no thanks.

|10.7.08 @ 10:13AM|#

Ron, it's a puzzle why you didn't challenge (1) the obvious inapplicability of the "Copenhagen Consensus" effort to prioritize government spending on development aid to climate mitigation policy or (2) the disconnect between Lomborg's desire for strong government leadership on clean energy investments - in the form of "a lot of cheap researchers having smart ideas rather than big projects that make the politicians feel comfortable" - and his very tepid support for carbon pricing that economists have long favored as the best way of eliciting increased investment.

As for point (1), the CC economists were measuring how a fixed purse of money might be best spent; in doing so, they simply ignored the possibility that climate mitigation policy might take the form of carbon taxes or auctioned permits - which would RAISE MONEY (not use it), which revenues could in fact be used to increase the pool of money to be spent on the rest of the government aid priorities weighed by the CC.

In other words, as I have argued on Pielke's thread concerning the Lomborg and Yohe spat, the CC structure just doesn't make sense in the context of climate change policy alternatives and so tells us almost nothing about climate change policy.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/09/04/lomborg-misapplies-the-quot-copenhagen-consensus-quot-to-ignore-carbon-pricing-and-yet-argue-for-massive-government-investments-in-clean-energy.aspx