[tt] WP: Bjorn Lomborg: Chill out.

[Premise Checker]

Bjorn Lomborg: Chill out.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501676_pf.html
7.10.7

Stop fighting over global warming -- here's the smart way to attack
it.

COPENHAGEN

All eyes are on Greenland's melting glaciers as alarm about global
warming spreads. This year, delegations of U.S. and European
politicians have made pilgrimages to the fastest-moving glacier at
Ilulissat, where they declare that they see climate change
unfolding before their eyes.

Curiously, something that's rarely mentioned is that temperatures
in Greenland were higher in 1941 than they are today. Or that melt
rates around Ilulissat were faster in the early part of the past
century, according to a new study. And while the delegations first
fly into Kangerlussuaq, about 100 miles to the south, they all
change planes to go straight to Ilulissat -- perhaps because the
Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing.

I point this out not to challenge the reality of global warming or
the fact that it's caused in large part by humans, but because the
discussion about climate change has turned into a nasty dustup,
with one side arguing that we're headed for catastrophe and the
other maintaining that it's all a hoax. I say that neither is
right. It's wrong to deny the obvious: The Earth is warming, and
we're causing it. But that's not the whole story, and predictions
of impending disaster just don't stack up.

We have to rediscover the middle ground, where we can have a
sensible conversation. We shouldn't ignore climate change or the
policies that could attack it. But we should be honest about the
shortcomings and costs of those policies, as well as the benefits.

Environmental groups say that the only way to deal with the effects
of global warming is to make drastic cuts in carbon emissions -- a
project that will cost the world trillions (the Kyoto Protocol
alone would cost $180 billion annually). The research I've done
over the last decade, beginning with my first book, "The Skeptical
Environmentalist," has convinced me that this approach is unsound;
it means spending an awful lot to achieve very little. Instead, we
should be thinking creatively and pragmatically about how we could
combat the much larger challenges facing our planet.

Nobody knows for certain how climate change will play out. But we
should deal with the most widely accepted estimates. According to
the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), ocean levels will rise between half a foot and two feet,
with the best expectation being about one foot, in this century,
mainly because of water expanding as it warms. That's similar to
what the world experienced in the past 150 years.

Some individuals and environmental organizations scoff that the
IPCC has severely underestimated the melting of glaciers,
especially in Greenland. In fact, the IPCC has factored in the
likely melt-off from Greenland (contributing a bit over an inch to
sea levels in this century) and Antarctica (which, because global
warming also generally produces more precipitation, will actually
accumulate ice rather than shedding it, making sea levels two
inches lower by 2100). At the moment, people are alarmed by a
dramatic increase in Greenland's melting. This high level seems
transitory, but if sustained it would add three inches, instead of
one, to the sea level rise by the end of the century.

A one-foot rise in sea level isn't a catastrophe, though it will
pose a problem, particularly for small island nations. But let's
remember that very little land was lost when sea levels rose last
century. It costs relatively little to protect the land from rising
tides: We can drain wetlands, build levees and divert waterways. As
nations become richer and land becomes a scarcer commodity, this
process makes ever more sense: Like our parents and grandparents,
our generation will ensure that the water doesn't claim valuable
land.

The IPCC tells us two things: If we focus on economic development
and ignore global warming, we're likely to see a 13-inch rise in
sea levels by 2100. If we focus instead on environmental concerns
and, for instance, adopt the hefty cuts in carbon emissions many
environmental groups promote, this could reduce the rise by about
five inches. But cutting emissions comes at a cost: Everybody would
be poorer in 2100. With less money around to protect land from the
sea, cutting carbon emissions would mean that more dry land would
be lost, especially in vulnerable regions such as Micronesia,
Tuvalu, Vietnam, Bangladesh and the Maldives.

As sea levels rise, so will temperatures. It seems logical to
expect more heat waves and therefore more deaths. But though this
fact gets much less billing, rising temperatures will also reduce
the number of cold spells. This is important because research shows
that the cold is a much bigger killer than the heat. According to
the first complete peer-reviewed survey of climate change's health
effects, global warming will actually save lives. It's estimated
that by 2050, global warming will cause almost 400,000 more
heat-related deaths each year. But at the same time, 1.8 million
fewer people will die from cold.

The Kyoto Protocol, with its drastic emissions cuts, is not a
sensible way to stop people from dying in future heat waves. At a
much lower cost, urban designers and politicians could lower
temperatures more effectively by planting trees, adding water
features and reducing the amount of asphalt in at-risk cities.
Estimates show that this could reduce the peak temperatures in
cities by more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

Global warming will claim lives in another way: by increasing the
number of people at risk of catching malaria by about 3 percent
over this century. According to scientific models, implementing the
Kyoto Protocol for the rest of this century would reduce the
malaria risk by just 0.2 percent.

On the other hand, we could spend $3 billion annually -- 2 percent
of the protocol's cost -- on mosquito nets and medication and cut
malaria incidence almost in half within a decade. Malaria death
rates are rising in sub-Saharan Africa, but this has nothing to do
with climate change and everything to do with poverty: Poor and
corrupt governments find it hard to implement and fund the spraying
and the provision of mosquito nets that would help eradicate the
disease. Yet for every dollar we spend saving one person through
policies like the Kyoto Protocol, we could save 36,000 through
direct intervention.

Of course, it's not just humans we care about. Environmentalists
point out that magnificent creatures such as polar bears will be
decimated by global warming as their icy habitat melts. Kyoto would
save just one bear a year. Yet every year, hunters kill 300 to 500
polar bears, according to the World Conservation Union. Outlawing
this slaughter would be cheap and easy -- and much more effective
than a worldwide pact on carbon emissions.

Wherever you look, the inescapable conclusion is the same: Reducing
carbon emissions is not the best way to help the world. I don't
point this out merely to be contrarian. We do need to fix global
warming in the long run. But I'm frustrated at our blinkered focus
on policies that won't achieve it.

In 1992, wealthy nations promised to cut emissions to 1990 levels
by 2000. Instead, emissions grew by 12 percent. In 1997, they
promised to cut emissions to about 5 percent below 1990 levels by
2010. Yet levels will likely be 25 percent higher than hoped for.

The Kyoto Protocol is set to expire in 2012. U.N. members will be
negotiating its replacement in Copenhagen by the end of 2009.
Politicians insist that the "next Kyoto" should be even tougher.
But after two spectacular failures, we have to ask whether "let's
try again, and this time let's aim for much higher reductions" is
the right approach.

Even if the policymakers' earlier promises had been met, they would
have done virtually no good, but would have cost us a small
fortune. The climate models show that Kyoto would have postponed
the effects of global warming by seven days by the end of the
century. Even if the United States and Australia had signed on and
everyone stuck to Kyoto for this entire century, we would postpone
the effects of global warming by only five years.

Proponents of pacts such as Kyoto want us to spend enormous sums of
money doing very little good for the planet a hundred years from
now. We need to find a smarter way. The first step is to start
focusing our resources on making carbon emissions cuts much easier.

The typical cost of cutting a ton of CO2is currently about $20.
Yet, according to a wealth of scientific literature, the damage
from a ton of carbon in the atmosphere is about $2. Spending $20 to
do $2 worth of good is not smart policy. It may make you feel good,
but it's not going to stop global warming.

We need to reduce the cost of cutting emissions from $20 a ton to,
say, $2. That would mean that really helping the environment
wouldn't just be the preserve of the rich but could be opened up to
everyone else -- including China and India, which are expected to
be the main emitters of the 21st century but have many more
pressing issues to deal with first.

The way to achieve this is to dramatically increase spending on
research and development of low-carbon energy. Ideally, every
nation should commit to spending 0.05 percent of its gross domestic
product exploring non-carbon-emitting energy technologies, be they
wind, wave or solar power, or capturing CO2emissions from power
plants. This spending could add up to about $25 billion per year
but would still be seven times cheaper than the Kyoto Protocol and
would increase global R&D tenfold. All nations would be involved,
yet the richer ones would pay the larger share.

We must accept that climate change is real and that we've helped
cause it. There is no hoax. But neither is there a looming
apocalypse.

To some people, cutting carbon emissions has become the answer,
regardless of the question. Cutting emissions is said to be our
"generational mission." But don't we want to implement the most
efficient policies first?

Combating the real climate challenges facing the planet -- malaria,
more heat deaths, declining polar bear populations -- often
requires simpler, less glamorous policies than carbon cuts. We also
need to remember that the 21st century will hold many other
challenges, for which we need low-cost, durable solutions.

I formed the Copenhagen Consensus in 2004 so that some of the
world's top economists could come together to ask not only where we
can do good, but at what cost, and to rank the best things for the
world to do first. The top priorities they've come up with are
dealing with infectious diseases, malnutrition, agricultural
research and first-world access to third-world agriculture. For
less than a fifth of Kyoto's price tag, we could tackle all these
issues.

Obviously we should also work on a long-term solution to climate
change. Solving it will take the better part of a century and will
require a political will spanning political parties, continents and
generations. If we invest in research and development, we'll do
some real good in the long run, rather than just making ourselves
feel good today.

But embracing the best response to global warming is difficult in
the midst of bitter fighting that shuts out sensible dialogue. So
first, we really need to cool our debate.

Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, is 
the author, most recently, of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's 
Guide to Global Warming."