How important is global warming?
If possible, read the very well-argued book by the above author – Bjorn Lomborg
In contrast to other figures that promote a single issue while ignoring others, Lomborg views the globe as a whole, studies all the problems we face, ranks them, and determines how best, and in what order, we should address them… Not surprisingly, Time Magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world… Lomborg is only interested in real problems, and he has no patience with media fear-mongering; he begins by dispatching the myth of the endangered polar bears, showing that this Disneyesque cartoon has no relevance to the real world where polar bear populations are in fact increasing. Lomborg considers the issue in detail, citing sources from Al Gore to the World Wildlife Fund, then demonstrating that polar bear populations have actually increased five fold since the 1960s.
Lomborg then works his way through the concerns we hear so much about: higher temperatures, heat deaths, species extinctions, the cost of cutting carbon, the technology to do it. Lomborg believes firmly in climate change–despite his critics, he’s no denier–but his fact-based approach, grounded in economic analyses, leads him again and again to a different view. He reviews published estimates of the cost of climate change, and the cost of addressing it, and concludes that “we actually end up paying more for a partial solution than the cost of the entire problem. That is a bad deal.”
…Lomborg recounts what leading climate figures have said about anyone who questions the orthodoxy, thus demonstrating the illiberal, antidemocratic tone of the current debate. Lomborg himself takes the larger view, explaining in detail why the tone of hysteria is inappropriate to addressing the problems we face.
In the end… He contrasts our concern for climate with other concerns such as HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, and providing clean water to the world. In the end, his ability to put climate in a global perspective is perhaps the book’s greatest value. Lomborg and Cool It are our best guides to our shared environmental future.
–Michael Crichton
Often economic liberals in India who courageously support free markets and smart welfare, let the heart rule the head when it comes to global warming. This was the only major point on which I did not agree with Nandan Nilekani’s ideas as expressed in his book Imagining India
For example, in the section over what India’s policy response to global climate change should be, carbon taxes and emission caps for India are directly endorsed. But the question remains: even given the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming, what is the opportunity cost of mitigating global warming? In other words, is the current cost to combat global warming less than the net present value of future costs if the problem is not addressed on a war footing?
Furthermore, is it in India’s national interest from a strategic point of view to commit to ceilings and green taxes now? These are tough issues but the economic future of millions is at stake. Maybe sticking to carbon credits while further encouraging technology transfer globally and better environmental practices locally is our best option.
There is one policy measure which India can adopt which is anthropocentric global warming neutral and can get us some money in the meantime.
Legalise weather futures and environmental futures. Let people bet on any aspect of the global environment/weather which they think is in danger and agree to a measurement mechanism for the same. When the time to settle the bet comes in, it can automatically be found out who is right.
eg. if HLL is concerned that this time monsoon will affect their prospects, they can place a bet that the monsoon will do badly. The measure will be the average rainfall over 50 cities. The amount is set. The odds are given. If people come along who think that the monsoon will do better than that number, they can pitch in their bit and counter it. When the rain comes in, the decision is made. If the rain is good HLL loses, but gains in sales. If the rain is bad, HLL wins in the bet and covers the loss in sales.
This can get the government some money in the form of transaction trade tax and short term capital gains tax, as well.
In complete agreement with you, Prakash.
Almost all kinds of futures should be legalized, and lets see whether the environmentalists put their money where their mouth is.
Not to mention that, as your HLL example shows, it can be good insurance also.
Global Warming is a pet topic of mine – and this post unfortunately seems to give it the short end of the stick.
We can say a hundred other things, but “progress” without environmental well-being and the earth’s well-being is stupid – purely from a quality of life point of view.
Let me give you an example:
Bangalore has far lesser tree cover than before and every new area has lesser and lesser trees, and lung space. Then every development project includes felling of trees – indiscriminately.
On an average, this forces A/c in cars to be used way more than otherwise (witness growth of Volvos). Hence higher fuel consumption – which leads to more CO2 – which cant be absorbed by trees cos they’re being cut down and hence warmer temperatures. (not to mention air pollution with noxious fumes – hence more A/c)
Because of lack of trees – any new development which involves groundwork will throw up sand/mud which cannot be checked from going anywhere by trees (including prevention of soil erosion) – this again leads to more dust, and air pollution.
And the resulting health issues from being artificially conditioned air most of the time!
So, by not considering the environment, by going only for development, there’s a vast cost imposed on the *most productive sectors of the economy* – which’s why environmental well-being should be included in every project plan – and it should be the paramount concern.
hi bangaloreguy
I think you are confusing the local environment, and global climate. Pollution is a negative externality but most its impact is local.
So – as mentioned in the video above, we could incentivize bangalore to have more parks and lakes because that is shown to dramatically drop local temperature (should partially take care of those volvos). We could even tax cars in proportion to their sizes, and so on.
I am a pragmatic environmentalist and for sustainable development. So just like I would not put development over everything – thats why I am supporting all those car taxes and urban greenery – I would not put the environment over everything also.
Harsh,
On your local argument, I have one word for you:
CFCs.
If you need me to say a couple more words, I’d say El Nino.
There is a reason why Javed Akhtar wrote so poetically that “Panchi, nadiyaan, pawan ke jhonke… koi sarhad na inhe roke”. There is *nothing* localised about pollution.
I dont intend to make “Environment” a millstone around development, but what I am saying Environmental safety should be paramount – primarily because we’re seeing irresponsible looting characterised as “development” and the resulting damage.
@ BG,
Regarding CFCs, India has already signed this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol and I support more such reasonable specific measures. So I dont know what your argument is there?
Regarding El Nino, I have heard this phenomenon/theory being mentioned a lot – could you kindly explain its importance to me and the other readers (a genuine non-sarcastic request)
Oh btw, I had a post on why India should take the lead in a less/non-polluting growth – precisely for the reason why the Government thinks we should go on a pollution led growth level.
the post’s here:
http://bombatbengluru.blogspot.com/2007/12/take-lead-do-not-trod-polluting-path.html
Global warming is a serious issue which threatens the future of our planet’s ecosystem.
It is a better idea to listen to scientists than to economists and what they say can be accomplished within the acceptability of market.
The best technologies to fight global warming actually make the markets more efficient and our lives more comfortable : energy efficiency and nuclear power.
What is needed is a global sharing of knowledge on these technologies (such as the Integral Fast Reactor). And particularly, a well-managed nuclear fuel inventory program which eases the entire world into an energy transition.
Harsh,
CFC pollution from various countries have depleted the Ozone layer over different parts of the earth – in fact thats what your link proves. It also proves my point about environmental pollution, and climate change being the result of local pollution with global consequences.
The El Nino context was similar – where an Atlantic warm wind has the capability to alter course of weather in different areas of the world (the extent is sometimes debated).
And thank you for bringing up the Montreal Protocol – I was referring to India taking the lead and owning more such measures.
Global warming and environmental degradation affects the poor the most – primarily because they do not have the financial means to overcome its effects – which’s why environmental safety should be prioritised.
BangaloreGuy,
It looks like we are talking about two different things. I am in support of the Montreal Protocol which is CFC-based.
I do NOT support an international treaty penalizing CO2 emissions, because the economic opportunity cost is too high, and the benefits too little too delayed.
My bad – I should have made the “CO2 vs CFC/other specific problems” distinction clearer.