Global warming hysteria is collapsing of its own hubris and ideological machinations. Whether or not carbon and other emissions are causing some warming, the movement was always more about politics–the establishment of an international governing technocracy, allowing favored insider to feast at the sumptuous table of grants and handouts, and frankly, taking the USA down a peg through radical wealth redistribution–as much as it was about the climate.
But now, in the resulting vacuum, voices are being heard that present a far more common sense approach to transitioning our economies to greater earth friendliness without the wrenching dislocations–economical and political–that the Copenhagen Crowd seeks. From a column by global warming believer Bjorn Lomborg, author of Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming:
It is important to understand the two key reasons why the Copenhagen summit broke down. First, developing nations have no intention of letting the developed world force them to stop using carbon-emitting fuels… Second, even for developed economies such as Canada, trying to force drastic cuts in carbon emissions makes no economic sense. All the major climate economic models show that, to achieve the much discussed goal of keeping temperature increases under two degrees, we would need a global tax on carbon emissions that would start at $106 per ton (or about 25 cents per litre of gasoline) – and increase to $4,200 per ton (or $9.83 per litre of gasoline) by the end of the century. In all, this would cost the world $42-trillion a year. Most mainstream calculations conclude that, all in all, this spending would be 50 times more expensive than the climate damage it seeks to prevent.
If these figures are accurate, Kyoto/Copenhagen is terminal. But which way forward? Invest a lot more money in new technologies.
A significant increase in research and development investments a year is needed to produce a real technological revolution. Spending 0.2 per cent of global GDP product – roughly $100-billion a year – on green energy R&D would produce the kind of game-changing breakthroughs needed to fuel a carbon-free future. Economists Chris Green and Isabel Galiana of McGill University calculated the benefits – from reduced warming and greater prosperity – of this sort of investment, and conservatively concluded that each dollar spent on this approach would avoid about $11 of climate damage…Not only would this be a much less expensive policy than trying to cut carbon emissions, it would also reduce global warming far more quickly.
Governments have a role to play:
Public funds are needed because we cannot rely on private enterprise alone. As with medical research, early innovations will not reap significant financial rewards, so there is no strong incentive for private investment today. Carbon taxes could play an important supplementary role in funding research and development, but they are not the primary fix. Indeed, putting a high price on carbon first, then hoping that alternative technology will catch up, is not a sound policy. Until the technology is ready to compete on its merits, carbon taxes will simply bleed the economy, while providing no real benefit to the climate.
This transition will take decades. And to accomplish it, we will need strong economies. That means “drill baby drill,” as we help gestate alternative energy to birth so that we can eventually cap the wells. Not impoverishing ourselves will also provide the resources to mitigate damage caused by AGW–if it exists, and if they occur. The time has come to fire the discredited IPCC, ignore Al–the debate is over–Gore, and begin to listen to the Bjorn Lomborg’s of the world.
February 8th, 2010 | 11:55 am
[...] Global Warming Hysteria: Common Sense Beginning to Grow Out of the … Tags: ashes, build, clinic-on-february, common-sense, does-require, global-warming, hair-faster, strong-recovery, warming, warming-hysteria Cardboard Junkie: When I grow up….Lowe's Build and Grow Clinic: Build a Jewelry Organizer on 2/13 …• 12 Ways to Grow Hair Faster and Longer | Hairstyles for youMathrubhumi – English News – Govt estimates GDP to grow at 7.2 pc …Latin America's Banks Poised To Grow With Economies -Fitch …Indian economy to grow 7.2%Global Warming Makes Trees Grow Faster | Humanitarian NewsGreat Blog Giveaways: Enter to win a $25 Build a Bear gift card …WSJ op ed – IPCC “Omitted: The bright side of Global Warming …Aaronovitch Watch: Bright Ideas View the Contact Powered by Information [...]
February 8th, 2010 | 12:04 pm
Wesley,
copy edit alert: I believe you meant to say invest “more” (not “less”) in new technologies.
I hope Bjorn Lomberg, and thinkers like him, will get more of a hearing. I am always cautious about relying solely on technological fixes to solve major problems. It can drift into a type of “expert” driven utilitarianism. But, energy production and consumption are both by their nature areas where a technological fix can move things along in a positive direction.
February 8th, 2010 | 12:10 pm
Thanks Peter S. Correction made.
February 8th, 2010 | 2:18 pm
Imagine if Smith and other Americans spent as much time advocating research funding for basic science in energy as they did bemoaning Al Gore (not a scientist), Kyoto (which few scientists support)/Copenhagen (a pr stunt), and decrying the IPCC (not peer-reviewed science). Yes, this means either paying higher taxes or stop spending $100 million/day in Afghanistan to track down about 100 terrorists, many of whom are illiterate, separated from us by thousands of miles over the oceans. (hard to throw a grenade that far, isn’t it?)
Heck, imagine if Americans actually knew something about science and read peer-reviewed research.
Al Gore is right – the debate is over – the temperature is on average rapidly warmer. It’s a fact. Bjorn agrees. Of course, in America lots of people think the Earth is a few thousand years old and all the animals survived a global flood on a magical boat for a year. But scientists with direct temperature measurements, pH readings, and CO2 measurementsare just plain crazy.
Further, who are the real “hysterics”?
Those who are actually afraid of legislation to hopefully curtail global warming – legislation from a government lead by Heckel and Jeckel that can’t even pass health care reform with significant majorities – or those who recognize we have one Earth to live on and grandchildren?
“Human Exceptionalism” should recognize global warming and embrace it. It shows how exceptional we are. What other species could change the climate so quickly through its utilization of tools? Indeed, we are exceptional.
February 8th, 2010 | 2:21 pm
BTW, common sense isn’t growing out of the ashes. It sprouted a long time ago. Lomborg has been around a long, long time. I admire his work and agree with much of what he says. (he gave a talk at TED for those who are interested)
Why are people just now talking about him? How slow are we?
February 8th, 2010 | 2:47 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith, HotInHur, GlobalWarming, Zara and others. Zara said: Global Warming Hysteria: Common Sense Beginning to Grow Out of the …: Global warming hysteria is collapsing of i… http://bit.ly/9tPPfh [...]
February 8th, 2010 | 3:34 pm
Another week, another prediction that the “hoax has been exposed”!
You wingnuts are funny….
February 8th, 2010 | 3:57 pm
People who disagree with you are wingnuts. Very compelling rebuttal.
February 8th, 2010 | 6:01 pm
David, with so many of the data going the other way, are you really certain you wish to take such a strident approach?
February 8th, 2010 | 6:53 pm
This article is marginally encouraging, in that it reports that the most extremist and draconian efforts to “solve” the “problem” of global warming are probably off the table, at least for the time being. It’s encouraging that some realistic economic assessments are beginning to enter into the babble on this issue.
What is really disturbing about the article, though, is its easy acceptance of the assumption that global warming is 1) real and continuing; 2) influenced by man; 3) a problem. Until we have better indications on these three questions–not the propaganda of the now-discredited global-warming advocacy movement–it will be a waste to spend any public money on “remedies.”
For example, the assertion that a dollar spent on such and such new energy technology will save 11 dollars of global-warming-related costs, still assumes that we can assess these “costs” out decades into the future. On what basis are these assessments made, now that we know the climate models are rigged?
February 8th, 2010 | 8:27 pm
Heck, imagine if david ended up on a flight with one of these ” illiterate” terrorists that are “separated from us by thousands of miles” that know how to smuggle bombs on board airplanes and actually detonate them.
David, you must be exceptional to have been able to make your comment post without any fossil fuels to accompany your belief.
Mr. Lomborg has a very balanced approach to this particular subject, and has a way to include everyone involved for its potential attempted management.
February 8th, 2010 | 10:35 pm
Joe the whole idea of stewardship is in being conscientious with the given resources. It does not matter that the climate models that were rigged for the present political strategy failed. What really matters is the way that we steward the resources we do have for the future generations. This means eco as well as economic.
February 9th, 2010 | 9:43 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by CO2HOG: SHS: Global Warming Hysteria: Common Sense Beginning to Grow Out of the Ashes http://bit.ly/cIHxWi #tcot…
February 9th, 2010 | 11:10 am
In discussions that I have had with friends regarding various problems in the world and particularly in our country the phrase ” virtuous citizenry” has made frequent visits to our conversation.It usually has been spoken of as the essential ingredient of a free people.It’s lack invites more and more government intrusion into our lives because of the desultry effect a non-virtuous citizenry has on the common good.But alas in a country that is quickly loosing it’s common moral language it is a hard sell to say that virtue can save us. However I would say that a good dose of Prudence, Temperance, Justice and Fortitude not to mention Chastity could go a long way towards cooling our politicaland cultural contratemps while making us, as “Wils” indicates, better stewards of our world.
February 10th, 2010 | 11:32 am
wils–my commentary was based on the very principle you state. Yes, we are stewards of the environment–as I read Scriptures, this duty was given mankind by the very Creator. My point is this: since resources, economic as well as ecological, are limited, our stewardship must involve the use of prudence.
If we waste our resources in pursuing non-solutions to non-problems, such as what the global-warming enthusiasts would have us do, we will be left with a shortage of resources with which to address the real issues of ecology–as well as the real needs of needy people. There have been a large number of similar ecology hoaxes, always very costly to address, over my lifetime. We need to be grownups and stand against the false prophets of ecology.
One way to exercise stewardship, which you seem to imply, is to willy-nilly limit our use of all resources regardless. The best way to accomplish this, of course, is to cease to exist. A number of eco-enthusiasts have dared to recommend this out loud, as we know, and I’ll bet for every one who says it, another 100 think it. However, again as I read scripture, the One to whom we must ultimately render an accounting of our stewardship would rate this option as a non-starter!
February 10th, 2010 | 7:51 pm
Oh baloney and you don’t believe that anyway. And you are not confused.
February 10th, 2010 | 8:23 pm
Joe ,
No disrespect intended to you. I understand the extreme end of the willy-nilly. This is not where I am coming from or going to. However, if you cut down trees then it would be important to plant trees, especially if you rely on trees to live…savvy? I read scripture too, and history. What I do understand by reading is that the globe was warmer at one point in history than it is right now. Sooo….. if it is warming is that a bad thing? If it is why? If it is not is that a good thing? If it is cooling why is that a good thing? Etc…
Prudence , yes I agree. Joe I am a consumer and because of that I have to be conscientious. I have children and want to be sure that our resources will either last or be capable of replenishment. It is a big responsibility to be sure. I am new to this whole game and young(er). Soooo. …..my awareness of our resource usage/sustainability issues are just one point on the horizon. One of the others is feeding my family.
Presently all of the questions do not have satisfactory answers that can be verified empirically. If they do then the people deserve the answers. Until that happens there will not be a solution that will work for the puposes claimed.
February 10th, 2010 | 11:44 pm
Since AGW is a hoax why would we bother taking any action? Wouldn’t the level headed approach be to let the invisible hand work its magic. As fossil fuels become scarce the price will increase awakening entrepreneurs to develop and market other high-tech energy sources. Why is government support needed? Sounds like socialism to me.
February 10th, 2010 | 11:55 pm
I wouldn’t call it a hoax. I would call it overblown for political reasons and unsure. But switching to renewable energy is good public policy. This country has always encouraged industry through government action, for example, commercial flight by granting air mail hauling contracts to the first commercial airliners. That way, we will be more green and we won’t destroy our economies–already in trouble–nor turn our freedom and sovereignty over to the international bureaucrats. That’s the point for some, of course. But most of the people, at least in the USA, won’t buy it.
Ya gotta be a little flexible, Jeffrey.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact