http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704517504574589952331068322-lMyQjAxMDA5MDEwNTExNDUyWj.html
We haven't posted on "Climategate" or the "Copenhagen Collapse" in at least two weeks so we feel remiss. Today we received a very nice note from someone and they reminded me about what's not going on over there. By "over there", we mean the world climate conference taking place over this two week period in Copenhagen (the conference is now in its second week). Coincidentally, we heard an interview with Bjorn Lomborg (who is at the conference) on National Public Radio this morning. Lomborg is the "enemy" of the global warming police. He is also the Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think tank, and author of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalists Guide to Global Warming" (Knopf, 2007). Among other things, Lomborg had the novel idea last year of putting together several Nobel Prize winning economists and other experts to prioritize what should be done to "fix" the earth. His approach: we give you $10 billion, $50 billion, $75 billion - what is the most important thing to do for the 6.7 billion (plus or minus) people who live on the planet today? And, his group came up with a ranking of those things.
Where did "global warming" come in on the list? Roughly, 30th. Why? There's a simple answer and a way for the climate fanatics to coexist with more rational souls. Continued economic growth will keep people, and especially children, from starving. Stealing money meant for that in order to move carbon capture up the list of important things to do, will increase starvation and disease. Lomborg has a creative and relevant recommendation: radically increase spending on R&D for green energy - to 0.2% of global GDP, or $100 billion. That's 50 times more than the world spends now - but still twice as cheap as anything being considered now by the carbon posse. Wait, and, it would have a real chance of working! What a concept!
We have attached Lomborg's 12/14 "OPINION" post in the WSJ. Please refer to his calculations on, for example, the European countries' plan to divert $50 billion in development aid budgets to repackage them as climate-change assistance. Look at the trade off between what that buys in climate change and what the world loses in children that stand to starve "now" if that's done.
Today's NY Times had an editorial that indicated nothing was accomplished in the first week of Copenhagen. Nothing will be accomplished in the second week either because China and India have no interest in sacrificing economic growth because Al Gore has a "cause". Good for them!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The world is sad place for the many, a luxury for the few. One of the realities you face in studying the world (and world history) is the unbearable pain piercing the soul as you place yourself in the shoes of people who have no voice, no future.
ReplyDeleteLomborg got it right, but let us not forget the reality of the world, politics.
As I read this article and this post, one word keeps coming to my mind. Culling. Whether it be the kangaroos of Australia or the mustangs of the midwest, some agency or another steps in to cull the overgrown populations of these animals to prevent starvation of the majority. I've always been appalled by the necessity of this act but the logical side of my brain tells me it's unavoidable. If left to nature, these populations will suffer before death by starvation of many.
ReplyDeleteI guess where I'm going with this is that to prepare for the future in some instances, some in the now are going to suffer. I'm certainly not suggesting culling but unfortunately if using money that could be spent on current fixes will instead be used towards the best possible fixes for the future (although this is the great debate!) then this appears to be an unavoidable curse for the future of our planet and humankind. Do we save the population now or save the planet for the future?