Alex Tabarrok protests too much in response to John Q.’s post on the Lomborg ranking exercise.
Thus, believe it or not, the new theory of how Lomborg rigged the climate change study is that he chose someone to write the global climate change chapter who was too strong an proponent of its importance! Give me a break.
Alex may sneer, but this is exactly what at least one, and possibly two of the members of the Lomborg panel suggest, according to the Economist
Thomas Schelling of the University of Maryland, who voted on the final choices, thinks that presenting climate change at the bottom of the list as “bad” is misleading. He says he and the other gurus did not like Kyoto or the aggressive proposals made by Dr Cline, whom he sees as the “most alarmist of the serious climate policy experts”, but Dr Schelling says he would have ranked modest climate proposals higher on the list, because he sees climate as a real problem. Robert Mendelsohn, a conservative Yale economist who was an official “critic” of the climate paper in this process, goes further: because Dr Cline’s positions are “well out of the mainstream”, he had no choice but to reject them. He worries that “climate change was set up to fail.”
This is strong language for academics - Mendelsohn is saying that Lomborg may have tried to predetermine the outcome by ensuring that the climate change choice was unpalatable to all the panelists. Nor does this invalidate John’s previous argument that the panelists as well as the choices on offer were selected in order to conduct towards this outcome - a different group of economists might well have preferred even the more radical climate change option that was on offer. I’m not sure what the point is to Tabarrok’s surly and ungracious post. If he doesn’t believe that choices between several options can be fixed so that individuals go for the one rather than the other, he only needs to find out a little more about the gentle art of push-polling. If he’d like a slightly more rigorous discussion, I refer him to William Riker’s work on heresthetics. If he doesn’t believe that there’s some serious reason to suspect that this is what happened here, he should re-read Schelling’s and Mendelsohn’s descriptions of the process, as quoted in the Economist. There’s nothing here that’s exactly difficult to get.
“He says he and the other gurus did not like Kyoto or the aggressive proposals made by Dr Cline, whom he sees as the “most alarmist of the serious climate policy experts…”
Two things.
First, I had always understood that Kyoto is meant to be a first step. If Kyoto is too much for you, I can’t imagine that a majority of other proposals are going to be ok from a cost/benefit perspective.
Second, in the Social Security debate, proposals other than Bush’s are being dismissed as ‘not on the table’. If that is a legitimate reaction (i’m not convinced it is, but it is a very common reaction) it would apply with even more force to something like Kyoto which has been in the works for almost a decade.
Oops I’ve discovered a third. According to the UN reports—which to say the least are pro-Kyoto, Kyoto would only slow prospective global warming by at most 5 years. If Kyoto would have so little effect, and would be unpalatable to Schelling, it is very difficult to believe that lesser proposals would be more effective—unless Kyoto is a piss-poor method of dealing with climate change. If that is true, it might be a good thing to admit up front.
“He says he and the other gurus did not like Kyoto or the aggressive proposals made by Dr Cline”
There seems to be a strong thread in a lot of the posts on this subject so far that Kyoto somehow represents an excessive approach to Carbon emissions, but from what I understand, it is actually very modest, and probably wouldn’t help very much - by its nature it is a compromise that is far from the ideal action that needs to be taken (I think Henry gets at this above, suggesting a “different group of economists” may have ranked priorities another way).
The real point to be made is not about the methodology of this exercise, but its very existence. The distribution and availability of natural resources is connected to climate change - the latter could have effects both positive and negative (and the balance here would be a real topic for debate…) on the former, so ranking them makes a massive category error (in this case treating climate change and resources as discrete problems). The real bottom line is that all of the topics dealt with by the Copenhagen Consensus (and what great Newspeak there!) deserve attention and financing, and that Lomborg’s project is a nakedly political exercise aimed at dismissing one such topic he has taken an unjustified dislike to.
If you accept the premise that the major factor in global warming is the emission of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel combustion by humans, which is the presumption of the IPCC, then there are only two possible approaches.
1. deindustrialization on a massive scale, or
2. conversion to a nuclear based electrical system.
anything else is a pipedream.
Oh I should have added
The CC was a cost benefit exercise. The rating reflected the massive cost of intervention (many trillions of dollars) versus the benefits to be realized far in the future. Even with the spiked discount rate used by Cline it didn’t look good in comparision to the other policy initiatives.
The reality of the impact of people on the composition of the atmosphere of the Earth is not a “presumption” of the IPCC, it is the result of a large body of scientific research.
Ditto for the likely consequences for the climate of the Earth. There are quite a few other families of solutions besides nuclear power and returning to hunter-gatherer mode. As you look
at progressively longer time frames for adopting you get more and more choices. Wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen-powered cars etc may not be able to carry a lot of the load within a decade…but with resources and the collective will to make an effort, they might well be enough 2-3 decades down the road, and certainly within 50 years.
marc
I didn’t mean that there wasn’t evidence that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing at a rapid rate. It has. And the almost certain cause has been the burning of fossil fuels. The presumption I was referring to was that this increase in CO2 was warming the atmosphere. The is still debate on the existence and extent of this relationship.
Respectfully, I don’t think there are any other families of solutions. The power demands to maintain our modern industrial lifestyle are just to great. To point out one obvious difficulty, hydrogen must be produced through a process which at the present time largely involves the burning of fossil fuels. We could of course substitute nuclear power for this.
To point out one obvious difficulty, hydrogen must be produced through a process which at the present time largely involves the burning of fossil fuels.
Current car engines are horribly inefficient. Hydrogen can be produced in a highly efficient way. Thus the large energy savings.
And besides the CO2 issue, it is far more efficient to remove other pollutants from a power plant than from all those cars.
(But then hybrid cars are a good compromise and are here now, so the hydrogen car isn’t a certainty yet.)
luc,
You seem knowledgable, have you read about any updates on solving the hydrogen storage problem for autos?
Petroleum is amazingly safe. Have you ever seen a fire at a pump? However Hydrogen is dangerous even to trained professionals who handle it. I think that hydrogen powered cars have a lot of hurdles to tackle before they become feasible.
Current car engines are horribly inefficient.
Have you seen a Honda Civic EX? That gets 38mph, which is remarkably good efficiency.
On the same note, Hybrid cars do not get nearly the efficiency that the EPA purports them to, and they have nasty batteries in them that are dangerous and pollutant when ruptured.
Anyway, I think that Tabbarok is a reactionary.
Anyway, I think that Tabbarok is a reactionary.
In general, I find him to be a very interesting and stimulating blogger - Marginal Revolution is one of my daily reads. This, however, read to me as a very bad post.
Anyway, I think that Tabbarok is a reactionary.
In general, I find him to be a very interesting and stimulating blogger - Marginal Revolution is one of my daily reads. This, however, read to me as a very bad post.
Hey me too! I do read everything on MR, but I still think that Tabarrok is a reactionary:
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/12/mirror_mirror_o.html
If all SUV’s were substituted with Civics, then …
But, no, I’m not very knowledgeable on the specifics of hydrogen technology.
These days nano is the tech fashion word, so hydrogen storage has nano catalysts.
Oil companies and car manufacturers are investing in these companies, thus I think there’s a real chance that hydrogen cars can succeed.
As an aside, even the US is implementing Kyoto in part. It may not feel itself bound by any limit on CO2 emissions, but for example California has regulations to reduce CO2 output as an answer to climate change, with about the same argument as Kyoto, that is, to lead instead of to wait. And if the media are to believed several other US states are set to follow.
“The panel recognised that global warming must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive. The experts expressed an interest in an alternative, proposed in one of the opponent papers, that envisaged a carbon tax much lower in the first years of implementation than the figures called for in the challenge paper, rising gradually in later years. Such a proposal however was not examined in detail in the presentations put to the panel, and so was not ranked. The panel urged increased funding for research into more affordable carbon-abatement technologies.”
http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC14898.htm
Lomborg favors the development of alternative energy sources as well, but thinks that an approach like Kyoto is the wrong way to do that because diminished economies would be less capable of serious investment in alternative energy research. Perhaps he is mistaken, but his position does not strike me as absurd.
I suspect, however, that ed is right. Alternative energy sources (other than nuclear) being discussed now don’t seem capable of scaling up to the demands of first-world economies.
Given that the IPCC admits it doesn’t use cosmic radiation theory in its warming models, how can anyone take it seriously? Good for Lomborg for calling the IPCC guide irrelevant.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review