Comments on: Copenhagen: conned again

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:05:56 +0000

Mark, we’re running off the page, so I’ll try to do a substantive post a bit later.

By: Mark Upcher

Mark Upcher — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:36:02 +0000

John, you say ”……I’ve spent more time attacking Lomborg than most, but I’ve spent more time on costs and benefits of Kyoto and similar environmental initiatives, as you can check from my CV. There’s a ton of literature on the costs of implementing Kyoto and alternatives, and a smaller (but still substantial) volume on costs of climate change (equivalently, benefits of mitigation).” Yes, but many readers of your blogspot or Crooked Timber do not have the time to work their way through the massive amounts of literature on the costs of Kyoto or the benefits of mitigation of global warming. However, we often hear of a figure of $150 billion pa as the cost of implementing Kyoto (quoted in Lomborg’s article). And we can deduce that Lomborg/Copenhagen Consensus have assessed the benefits as being less than $150 billion pa. In the same way it should be possible for the pro-Kyoto lobby to provide similar estimates that and answer some simple questions: (1)What do they think the cost of Kyoto compliance is? Is the $150 billion pa in the right ball park? (2)Based on the smaller but substantial literature on the costs of climate change, what is the range of estimates for the benefits of the mitigation that will occur through the Kyoto initiatives? (3)If the consensus view of climate modellers is that impact of Kyoto on global warming is a reduction of only 0.15 degrees C out of an expected 1.4-5.8 degrees C over the next 100 years, how can we say that there are any significant benefits from implementation of Kyoto in its current form? Grateful for any guidance you can provide on these questions.

By: frankis

frankis — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:39:26 +0000

Lateral thinking Jet! Spending that much on alternative fuels research would be serious overkill though, I think, because even one hundredth that sum (on top of what is already going into such research) would revolutionize our energy economy within a few years. It could be funded by a carbon tax set at such a minuscule rate – a US$1.5b per annum carbon tax for the world representing about $0.00006 per kg CO2 emitted or about $0.0003 per litre oil consumed (by a quick and dirty calculation on i) world CO2 emissions and ii) world oil consumption, this year) that I don’t think an economic case can be made against it. I mean, if you believe a carbon tax ought to be funding other things as well as fuels research then fine – we can clearly afford to do them as well for this kind money. That $0.0003 per litre was only for oil, btw. Were the carbon tax spread right across the fossil fuel sector – coal, oil, natural gas, LPG etc – as it ought to be, the already minuscule rate would become “unmeasurably cheap” or somesuch :)

By: jet

jet — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:23:42 +0000

Maybe Lomborg should stop fighting Kyoto with third world aid. Perhaps he should start saying why handicap the world to the tune of $150B/year when we could just spend $150B/year on alternative fuel research. That was certainly seem more palatable to everyone since Kytoto’s benefits won’t be seen by us, but alternative fuels certainly would.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:04:15 +0000

“Lomborg et. al. are at least making some attempt to quantify their assessment of costs and benefits. Because the pro-Kyoto lobby seem to studiously avoid doing so, and spend most of their time personally attacking Lomborg, it leads me to believe that it is they that are trying to con me.” Mark, I’ve spent more time attacking Lomborg than most, but I’ve spent more time on costs and benefits of Kyoto and similar environmental initiatives, as you can check from my CV. There’s a ton of literature on the costs of implementing Kyoto and alternatives, and a smaller (but still substantial) volume on costs of climate change (equivalently, benefits of mitigation).

By: Mark Upcher

Mark Upcher — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 12:46:41 +0000

John I am still an agnostic on Kyoto. Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus are not just arguing that there are other more worthwhile policies than Kyoto. They are also arguing that Kyoto is a croc – the costs exceed the benefits. In other words not implementing Kyoto will be a net improvement regardless of whether money is spent on projects where benefits exceed the costs. Opposing Kyoto while not crusading for other policies that yield a net benefit is therefore a reasonable position and I see no dishonesty or con-job underlying this. Doing cost-benefit analysis on global warming requires sweeping assumptions, is fraught with uncertainties, and will reflect the value placed on certain environmental effects. For example, some people are far more concerned about species extinction than others. (I, for one, would be quite happy to see cockroaches extinguished.) Lomborg et. al. are at least making some attempt to quantify their assessment of costs and benefits. Because the pro-Kyoto lobby seem to studiously avoid doing so, and spend most of their time personally attacking Lomborg, it leads me to believe that it is they that are trying to con me.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:18:57 +0000

“Amongst other things, that Amnesty report was the one devoted to the US. Righteous indignation over a report on the US because… it condemned US action.” Wrong. It was allegedly a condemnation fo ‘war crimes’. Also the discussion was about a month ago. And hey dan, I’ve been sick lately. If I can’t sulk when I’m sick…. But you are right I shouldn’t have whined. Back to Lomborg. What about it. If you think less serious problem A is detracting significantly from more serious problem B why is it illegitimate as a tactic to show why A isn’t that serious? Isn’t the real problem that you don’t think AIDS really is more serious? You think that global climate change is more serious. Which is precisely why he has to argue the way he does. First he needs to convince people that climate change is less serious than they think.

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:35:24 +0000

bad, jet, bad. There is no reason to touch “Kyoto” before we touch the war on Iraq, that must already have mispent a tad more than the vaporware 15 billion dollars of aid to Africa. DSW

By: nic

nic — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:33:57 +0000

Amongst other things, that Amnesty report was the one devoted to the US. Righteous indignation over a report on the US because… it condemned US action. My gosh, that’s so exactly like criticism of Lomborg (and why, oh why should he criticised at all? it really is a mystery!) for dodging the very main issue at the center of his “work”. Why didn’t we see it before. You can attempt to raise the profile of AIDS problems or you can try to decrease the attention paid to global warming. The concepts are not contradictory. No, they aren’t. They also aren’t mutually dependent. By what bizarre logic does the former require the latter? Should more attention to the issue of nuclear waste disposal come at the expense of attention to the issue of obesity? I mean, the two things are not even in the same category of issues. What is it, the theory of communicating vases applied to social policies and public attention??

By: jet

jet — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 19:25:37 +0000

John Emerson, Using the failure equation on Lomborg’s book would leave me thinking that Lomborg would be crushed if nothing was done about the situation in the third world. The only people who are capable of being annoying enough to actually make changes in the world contrary to what is best for profits are the same people pushing Kyoto. It is my belief that Lomborg is trying to get Kyoto off the radar so that group of annoying people can put their annoyingness to much better use, like helping the third world. Imagine if third world aid got as much attention as Kyoto gets. How many votes did foreign aid effect in the last election? How many votes did Kyoto/the environment effect? Lomborg, in simplest terms, is trying to change the focus of the world activist from the environment to human suffering. The Left, Always attacking motives and only scratching at the actions. You can’t possibly know what motivates Lomborg unless you can read minds, so you’ll have to take him at face value. And at face value he’s making a very rational argument that has gathered a lot of irrational attacks. Only mockery for Bush’s 15 billion to Africa, and only mockery for Lomborg’s plea for a realignment of world priorities.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:14:39 +0000

Shorter Seb: In discussing possible carbon reductions in December 2004, what really matters is that I’m sulking because someone disagreed with me on an entirely unrelated topic 18 months ago; this proves that I was right all along about everything.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:13:45 +0000

By: dsquared

dsquared — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 18:12:27 +0000

John S: the option valuation models tend to have a term representing the “dividend yield” of the underlying asset. If something is actually getting worse at a predictable rate while you wait, then the option value is substantially attenuated. So yes, I would certainly have advocated waiting to do something about global warming until we were sure that there was a problem, but it is my personal view that this moment has long since passed.

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:47:55 +0000

mr SH (funny that’s the same for the other SH), Lomborg never cared about AIDS, simply he has found a way to live off right wing money. DSW

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:18:39 +0000

No dan you absolutely can criticize whomever you want. But last time I raised the problem of AI on this site it was pointed out that counting the number, emphasis and order of paragraphs in such public pronouncements was childish. Nice to see that not everyone agrees. As for Lomborg himself I’m not sure what the criticism is. If you believe that AIDS is one of the more pressing problems in the world and that attention to it is being sucked away by attention to global warming, you can do two logical things. You can attempt to raise the profile of AIDS problems or you can try to decrease the attention paid to global warming. The concepts are not contradictory.