Skeptical Environmentalist's Response to Gore Plan
Ronald Bailey | March 21, 2007, 1:58pm
C-SPAN radio broadcast former V-P Al Gore's Congressional testimony earlier today and I blogged his ten point plan to address the "climate crisis." A vote came up and the committee delayed Copenhagen Consensus Center director Bjorn Lomborg's response to Gore's testimony. C-SPAN radio is now broadcasting hearings about issuing subpoenas to White House in the U.S. attorney general firing matter.
So, I am providing below a selection from Lomborg's press release and directions to link to his formal testimony (pdf 25 pages).
Lomborg...
cited the issues of heat deaths, sea level rise, hurricanes and malaria as outstanding examples of Gore’s exaggerated and incorrect claims.
“We need to know just how many more heat deaths we can expect compared with how many fewer cold deaths,” Lomborg said. He cited statistics that showed that each year about 1.5 million people die from excessive cold in Europe, more than seven times the heat deaths. “That we so easily forget these deaths and so easily embrace the exclusive worry about global warming tells us of a breakdown inour sense of proportion,” Lomborg said.
On the issue of sea level change, Lomborg asked, “How is it possible that one of today’s strongest voices on climate change can say something so dramatically different from the est science (provided by the IPCC)?” He added, “IPCC estimates a foot, Gore tops them 20 times.”
Gore’s prediction that if Greenland melted or broke up and slipped into the sea or if half of Greenland and half of Antarctica id the same thing, sea levels worldwide would increase between 18 and 20 feet, Lomborg said, is “simply positing a hypothetical and then in full graphic and gory detail showing us what – hypothetically – would happen to Miami, San Francisco, Amsterdam, Beijing, Shanghai, Dhaka and then New York.”
Lomborg said stronger and more frequent hurricanes have been cited as a calamity of global warming, yet the most reputable scientific sources have drawn no firm conclusions. “When Al Gore tells us that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ that global warming is making hurricanes more powerful and more destructive, it is incorrect.”
The recent increase in human suffering and economic impact as a result of tropical cyclones “has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions,” Lomborg said. “There are many more people, residing in much more vulnerable areas, with many more assets to lose,” he said. “In the U.S. today, the two coastal South Florida counties, Dade and Broward, are home to more people than the number of people who lived in 1930 in all 109 coastal counties stretching from Texas through irginia, along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts.”
Gore’s assertions that malaria has increased as a result of global warming are similarly flawed, Lomborg said. “Like most stories, there is at core some truth to the claim that malaria will increase with temperature, but it is a small part compared to richness and health infrastructure,” he said. “Even if we could entirely stop global warming today…we would only change malaria risk in 2085 by 3.2 percent.” Even with a “stringent climate policy” Lomborg said studies show “there is little clear effect by the 2080s.”
“Compare this to current expectations that we can cut malaria incidence to about half to three‐fourths by 2015 for about $3 billion annually – or 2 percent of the cost of Kyoto,” Lomborg said.
Lomborg's whole press release and his complete formal testimony can be downloaded from the Copenhagen Consensus Center.
thoreau | March 21, 2007, 3:47pm | #
Regarding the 1.5 million winter-related deaths in Europe:
I suppose that in addition to those who froze to death and deaths from snow shoveling and other obvious winter-related deaths we could look at diseases that have some sort of seasonal correlation or are exacerbated during winter.
e.g. Cold and flu season can be deadly for elderly folks. And it wouldn't shock me if having to stay inside for a few months due to cold and ice and frail bones exacerbates certain diseases of the elderly.
But while milder winters might somewhat alleviate the worst of the flu season, I doubt the effect will be big. For instance, even southern California has a winter flu season (trust me, I lived there), albeit not as bad as, say, Maine or Alaska. So talking about 1.5 million winter-related deaths seems a bit misleading. Especially since there's no way that global warming will turn Oslo into Athens.
Also, it doesn't seem particularly helpful to compare on the one hand tropical diseases and floods and whatnot (things that can have significant effects on all age brackets) and on the other hand a slight reduction in illnesses that predominantly afflict the elderly. When you start talking about life years lost and economic impact (things that sound cold and cruel to those with grandparents, but are nonetheless difficult and pertinent realities). you have to be careful with what you're comparing.
Mind you, I'm not here to offer any particular estimates of deaths from floods or tropical diseases or whatever else.
But when some guy steps forward to act as the voice of reason, to counter what he claims is fear mongering, and then tosses out a horrifying number that is missing a lot of context, I'm not going to be impressed. The best response that he can hope for is a Cathy Young-esque "Well, looks like both sides have their fear mongers." (That's the best response. The worst response, at least from his perspective, is that I might take the other side more seriously.)
In other words, guys, if you want to call Al Gore a fear-monger, well, fine. But don't swallow everything said by those who disagree with him. That number on winter-related deaths stinks like a corpse floating in a malaria-infested swamp.
grylliade | March 21, 2007, 4:28pm | #
joe,
Using the Greenland colony as an argument is wrong. The colony was marginal at the best of times; probably the only thing that made European colonization possible was the medieval warm period, and when the climate changed back that was the end for the colony. To compare a marginal settlement that was just scraping by at the best of times to modern Europe is just silly. Using European colonies in North America is just as wrong. Again, you're comparing people who were just scraping by at the best of times for half a century or so to modern societies who have wealth to throw around on jetting celebrities around the world. We can adapt. It might not be the best thing to do, but we
can adapt.
You also cite a climate change figure of five degrees (I'm guessing Celsius) over the next century. That is near the top end of the projected change. Three degrees is the actual most likely projection. If you read the IPCC report, you'll see that.
The whole controversy now is over what to do about global warming. You keep on insisting that there is no discussion on this topic, which is I think dishonest. Maybe that's the way you feel, but there are many issues to be decided here. Firstly, if you want to defer to experts, defer to economists here. Scaremongering that preventing climate change through emissions reduction is certainly wrong; saying that emissions reduction isn't the most cost-effective way
may be wrong, but it's something to be discussed. Maybe emissions reduction is the only thing that will work. Maybe a mixture of emissions reduction and adaptation to higher temperatures will work better. Maybe it would be better to do nothing (though I doubt it).
To be honest, I think that it would be alright if we did nothing. The earth would warm (more than the deniers think, less than the doomsayers think), and we would adapt. Carbon-based fuel technology is probably already on its way out, for various reasons. By 2050, we'd have enough wealth and technical know-how to better address global warming in an intelligent way. If we want to be conservative, maybe it's best to start doing something about it now. But overreacting might do as much harm as underreacting. The earth can wait for five years while we look at the best evidence. It could probably wait for longer, but I wouldn't want the doomsayers to piss their pants waiting. Rather than jump into anything, why don't we make an intelligent, informed decision?
As an aside, I'm guessing that not much is going to be done about this. The "do nothing" scenario is likely to be tested; look at how much Europe is doing to comply with Kyoto, and Europe is the heart of the Green movement! Don't worry, though; the sky won't fall.
