Steps to keep cool
PROMODE KANT
|
Bjorn Lomborg’s take on the global warming debate offering a prescription to tackle the challenge
|
COOL IT — The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming: Bjorn Lomborg; Vintage Books, a Division of Random House, Inc., New York. Westland Books, 571, Poonamalle High Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai-600029. $ 13.95.
The sea level rise might frighten the Pacific Islander; it might be a constant worry to an impoverished Bangladeshi and cause nightmares of mass migration to their neighbours. But Bjorn Lomborg, cool and unperturbed by all the noise, sees it as something which had happened in the past too and since “they survived it in relative poverty, it is likely that they will do so much more effectively when they are more affluent.” “Why don’t they simply move to higher ground” is what he appears to be asking. Lomborg is exercising his brilliance again. He was feted across the developed world for the sheer energy that he brought on behalf of the climate change naysayer with his first book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. Now, several years down the line, he admits the reality of global warming and has shed some of his vehemence against the “choreographed screaming” of the climate change scientists. But still it is not an imminent planetary emergency, just one of the many problems that the world faces.
Costs of fossil fuel use
Lomborg feels that the world is being pushed into sharp reductions in fossil fuel use just on the basis of alarm bells ignoring that the resulting economic downturn would also mean less money for the pressing global problem of poverty. The precautionary principle, acting in time before the horse has bolted, the trade-off between avoiding possible future harm against incurring additional costs in the present, is the bedrock of the U.N. Climate Convention.
He coaxes a “best estimate” of $2 per tonne as the cost to the world of every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted from Richard Tol, a climate change economist, in a personal communication (which is not peer reviewed) and then goes on to use this “best” estimate to claim that every $5 spent to offset one tonne of carbon dioxide would bring only $2 back to the world by reducing the rise of temperature but the same $5 donated to a different organisation could bring $200 worth of social goods if spent on HIV control, and $150 worth of social goods if spent on fighting malnutrition in the less developing countries. The economics of his cheaper and more efficient options, the centrepiece of his arguments, is unlikely to pass the rigours of any scientific enquiry but that does not seem to deter him.
An oft-quoted Lomborgian logic is his comparison with traffic mortalities. Globally 1.2 million people die in traffic accidents annually and we still prefer to drive than walk. The society does not opt for it since the trade-off that it offers is not acceptable. And, to Lomborg, it has a close parallel with the global warming issue. We can solve the problem if we say no to fossil fuel but would any society accept this push back to medieval times?
New technologies
The answer to this question is obvious. But is this the right question to ask? Are there truly any parallel between the personal tragedies of traffic deaths, most of which are avoidable through discipline, training and care, and the global consequences of climate change that would leave no life on earth untouched and where the cause lies far removed from the victim?
He thinks that the most effective and efficient way to address climate change is by investment in research and development (R&D) of non-carbon emitting energy technologies but does not explain why such an investment would ever be made if there were no mandatory provisions to cut emissions, why would there be any demand for products that use such new and untested technologies when cheap products using hydrocarbons flood the market, and what would make these investments sustainable.
Equity
But still these are mere minor flaws. What strikes as strange is his complete unconcern for equity. His formulation is that the developed world, if allowed to continue to use hydrocarbons as in the past, would have the wealth, and the grace, to give some of it as a handout to those in need of help to fight poverty and disease. The architecture of the international climate convention, on the other hand, is an attempt to move towards equity as in adopting the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” and acknowledging that the developing countries will emit more to meet their development needs. Recall how much the developing world fought to include these words at Rio de Janeiro, refusing to recognise any special rights of the “first occupants” of the common resource of the Earth’s atmosphere, against the might of the developed world backed by a powerful western media.
Of the few courageous souls who still manage to argue against curbs on fossil fuel use in the face of evidence that mounts by the day, Lomborg is the most articulate. His book is a readable work. For its wit, not wisdom.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Book Review
