Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (Vintage)
Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (Vintage) – Review
Economist Bjorn Lomborg advocates an initial total carbon tax around 2 per ton, rising to about 27 at the end of the century. The goal is to reduce the temperature increase by 0.2F by the end of the century. However, positive outlooks distinguish us we are already locked into at least 3.6F (2C) increase, not accounting for tipping points, which is an obviously dangerous mistake. Lomborg falls into the regular trap of affecting climate change will change linearly and not exponentially. And why did he choose this policy? Because “Uniquely, it costs about 600 billion but creates twice that in benefits, meaning for each dollar it does two dollars of social good.” “Going much beyond the small best initiative is economically unjustified” (p36). First, Lomborg’s conclusion (2/tCO2-eq tax) is drastically different than the IPCC proposal of rapidly increasing carbon taxes to 50-300/tCO2. Second, his justification is ill founded: he states that the “benefit goes centuries down the line” and the first people to benefit will be born in the 24th Century (p37). Lomborg continues his commentary by specifically citing an financial paper, Economy-Wide Estimates of the Implications of Climate Change: Human Health, to claim “it shows us very clearly that climate change will not cause great disruptions or massive death tolls” (p38). The article’s abstract says “We study the financial effects of climate-change-induced change in individual health, viz. cardiovascular and respiratory disorders, diarrhoea, malaria, dengue fever and schistosomiasis” (Bosello, Roson, Tol: 2006). For Lomborg to say that it is very sunny climate change will not cause great disruptions is extremely misleading because the article clearly does not investigate the chance of catastrophic, non-linear tipping points such as methane hydrates — a major problem that is anything but clearly benign. Lomborg attempts to make efficient arguments in favor of limited mitigation policies but fails to incorporate critical ecological information into his analysis. Not eventually taking this into account, or the chance of tipping points, is sure to produce a biased, incomplete, and useless financial analysis. Furthermore, the movement of technical publications in the first half of 2009 completely discredit Lomborg’s positive aspect of a steady climate and his policy solutions. If you’re currently looking for a book that advocates a inexpensive way to solve climate change, look everywhere else. Or better yet, stop wasting your time.