The bottom of the list, however, aroused more in the way of hostile comment. Rated “bad”, meaning that costs were thought to exceed benefits, were all three of the schemes put before the panel for mitigating climate change, including the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse-gas emissions. (The panel rated only one other policy bad: guest-worker programmes to promote immigration, which were frowned upon because they make it harder for migrants to assimilate.) This gave rise to suspicion in some quarters that the whole exercise had been rigged. Mr Lomborg is well-known, and widely reviled, for his opposition to Kyoto. These suspicions are in fact unfounded, as your correspondent (who sat in on the otherwise private discussions) can confirm. A less biddable group would be difficult to imagine.On the contrary, as I suggested at the outset, a panel that included, say, Joe Stiglitz and Amartya Sen would have been considerably less biddable1, as well as being better qualified to look at the issues in question.
The panel did avoid some of the criticisms made here and elsewhere by excluding from the ranking issues like financial stability, civil conflicts and (with one trivial exception) governance. They compensated by subdividing the three health-related issues (diseases, malnutrition and sanitation) in the list into ten. (The other items ranked were trade liberalisation which, not surprisingly, they all liked, and migration which got mixed grades).
But the result, in a sense, only makes the process more transparent. The great majority of the approved items are now health initiatives. So, the outcome may be summarised as saying that health care in developing countries is more important than addressing climate change, which is, of course, the strongly stated view of the organiser, (The panel also agreed with Lomborg that the costs of doing anything about climate change exceed the benefits.) I’ll respond to the substantive findings in a later post, and when I’ve had time to look at any publication arising from the process.
However, the exercise could still be worthwhile. If Lomborg and the other panel members take the results to mean that they should personally campaign for action on the high-priority issues they mention, they could certainly do a lot of good. I’ll wait with interest to see if this happens.
1 To be boringly clear, I’m not suggesting that the panel was “biddable” in the sense of taking orders from Lomborg. Rather they were selected to be a likeminded group which would come up with the desired consensus.
Its called the “Copenhagen Consensus” because the intention was to produce a consensus ranking. With this in mind the panel selection makes sense since a group of likeminded people are more likely to come to a meaningful consensus. Adding a load of Stiglitzs(?!??) and Sen’s may have made the discussions more lively but would just have made a consensus harder to reach.
A more sensible repost would be for the likeminded people on the other side to take the list and come up with a Collangata Consensus ranking. That would have the advantage of at least evaluating where there are agreements before moving on to where the disagreement’s lie.
Shorter John Q: As expected, the panel was stacked in a way that made it highly unliked that climate change would be ranked highly.
Shorter giles: Yes, but that’s only because the objective was to achive consensus, so the panel was stacked with likeminded people to make sure consensus was achieved.
Wouldn’t it be more fun to argue about whether expenditures on global warming really are likely to be cost effective?
For Sebastian, I’ll repost this concise response from Monbiot.
These sickening “cost-effective?” arguments remind me of a paper I found once, arguing that making planes less noisy wasn’t really worth it, because the increase in property prices would not offset the research costs to the industry. Nowhere was it mentioned what a living hell it is to be next to an airport.
Luckily these hacks were ignored and planes are getting much quieter.
Not to disparage blogs, but John Q really should be publishing his critiques of Lomborg in print, in the UK and US as well as Australia. Email an article on spec to the FT or the Guardian- they need to give space to the kind of detailed, policy-based critique of Lomborg you are presenting.
In general, Prof Q ought to be published a lot more in the Northern Hemisphere. Isn’t there some sort of Clive James/Germaine Greer treaty under which the UK has the right to appropriate any public intellectuals it wants from the colonies? How do we get the gunboats moving on this one?
Ahhh, bollocks, it appears that we did have such a treaty but the bloody Australians reneged on it with the Federation Fellowship program.
ok mat, you’ve skewered the downside of cost effectiveness studies. What about this alternative? Three different policies are formulated: A, B and C. A should knock a degree off global temperature in 50 years and cost 10 billion; B, two degrees and cost 50 billion; C, three degrees and cost 400 billion. Do you think C is best? Wouldn’t you rather spend 50 billion on curbing global warming and 350 billion on tackling other problems?
I just can’t understand this obsession with climate change. Or this horrible aversion to cost/benefit analyses. There is a ton of suffering in the world, and we have limited resources.
Like trying to have a “conversation” with a Nader voter.
I am also a progressive who has never quite got the public policy craze about climate change. Forget about the very serious problems of disease control, malnutrition, and clean water (problems which have very measurable—and terrible—costs and clear, relatively easy solutions): even among environmental problems, there are other things which are less manageable and more easily preventable. The loss of biodiversity is one big example. A species lost is lost for good—and yet we know where these endangered species are, and it is relatively easy to see how much it would cost to protect them.
The scientific consensus is that climate change is happening. But there is an enormous noise of confusion about what effects it will have, what it would take to stop it, how likely these measures are to succeed, and whether its effects can be mitgated in less costly ways.
‘These sickening “cost-effective?” arguments remind me of a paper I found once, arguing that making planes less noisy wasn’t really worth it, because the increase in property prices would not offset the research costs to the industry. Nowhere was it mentioned what a living hell it is to be next to an airport.’
Why would the living hell of being next to an airport not be fully reflected in property prices, given that hellishness detracts from the stream of housing services yield by a property?
jeremiah, as I mention in the post, loss of biodiversity is an inevitable result of climate change. Changes in climate that are exceptionally rapid by evolutionary standards will, like other human disturbances, lead to the extinction of species with localised adaptions and favor the expansion of a small number of highly adaptable species. As the IPCC analysis indicates, this is one of the safest predictions that can be made on this topic
More generally, we’re talking about a tiny proportion of our income, and a similar proportion of our attention, which makes talk about obsession seems strange to me. I’ve probably written as much about Kyoto as anyone in the blogosphere [there are a handful of specialised environmental and anti-environmental blogs that might have more], but if you look at my list of posts, I doubt it would account for even 10 per cent of them.
Asked, if developing countries should not set different priorities than reducing their CO2 emissions (a thing that would be necessary to really stabilize climate later in this century) and rather invest their limited resources in education, healthcare or sanitation, Philippe Roch, director of the Swiss environmetal agency and member of the Council of the Global Environment Facility said:
«Environmental protection should have top priority in developing nations in particular. First of all, the environment doesn’t cost anything, it’s a gift of creation. It’s destruction that costs something, or rather the measures that are taken to ensure the environment is not totally destroyed. Secondly, this gift is especially important for developing nations: most people in these countries are directly dependent on natural products – either from the forests or from a type of agriculture that is very close to nature. And if this environment is destroyed by climate change or by the elimination of vegetative cover, then these people will simply have nothing to eat. Nature is the only capital they have.»
Cost-benefit analysis is a very difficult task in this context because:
- it’s not quite clear what exactly is the capital - is it the money you’re willing or not willing to spend or is it nature itself?
- you have to consider, how you gonna distribute the benefits that are going to compensate those who incur the costs of environmental destruction.
Certainly this list could easily be continued.
Such a big fuss is made about climate change because it’s so damn serious. Judging from geological, ice core and fossil records, if the carbon concentration goes above around 600ppm, then you get locked into a very fast tempearature escalation that has resulted in two mass extinctions destroying the vast majority of life on earth. Even if we humans can protect ourselves in ecospheres or whatever, most of the earth’s lifeforms will disappear for thousands of years until the system corrects itself. This is clearly something worth spending inordinate amounts of money to avoid. Now this scenario is not likely to happen for 100 years, even if carbon emissions increase slightly or stay stable (which given the inevitable disappearance of oil is fairly likely in the long run), but eventually it will happen until we drastically cut carbon emissions. It could happen even sooner if we have a “methane burp” from the ocean floor, or a CO2 dump from the rainforests. Given that this is the most extreme possible scenario of global warming, and it is apparently inevitable on current trends, I’d say we were right to give climate change a high priority.
Lomborg’s problem is that he fails to realise (or at least deemphasises) the fact that the human costs of global warming are going to be borne by the people least able to bear the financial costs - countries like Bangladesh and India, the Pacific islands, East African nations like Mozambique, and Central Asian countries. The west needs to make an enormous commitment to combat climate change. If they are unwilling to do it in a way that will allegedly harm their economies (although I disagree with Lomborg on this as well), they should do it through Marshall plan scale investment in clean energy and industry in developing countries, so that the latter don’t become part of the problem while they are emerging into the modern world.
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