Skeptical of the skeptical environmentalist

The Washington Post Sunday Outlook section ran a lengthy piece form “skeptical environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg (based on his new book), arguing that we need to avoid the “extremes” in the climate change debate – those who deny that human-caused climate change exists on one hand and those who see it as an extremely serious and potentially catastrophic problem on the other. Lomborg concedes that it’s happening, but says that policies aimed at drastically cutting carbon emissions are inferior, in terms of their cost-benefit ratios, to policies directly targeting the problems that global warming threatens to exacerbate. For instance, deaths from malaria could be more effectively reduced by providing mosquito nets than by reducing carbon emissions. And more polar bears could be saved by banning hunting than by halting the melting of the polar ice cap. In other words, rising global temperatures may be a problem, but it’s a less serious problems than many others we face, and those problems can be tackled more effectively at less cost.

Liberal blogger Ezra Klein takes issue with some of Lomborg’s numbers here, particularly his claim that global warming will actually save lives by reducing the number of deaths from cold. Bill McKibben reviews Lomborg’s book here. McKibben spends a good deal of his review taking apart Lomborg’s numbers, and in particular his claim (contradicted by a recent IPCC panel) that halting and reducing CO2 emissions can only be done at a prohibitive cost to the world’s economies.

McKibben also makes this telling point against Lomborg’s claim that scarce resources should be redirected from addressing climate change to allegedly more pressing problems:

Why has Lomborg decided to compare the efficacy of (largely theoretical) funding to stop global warming with his other priorities, like fighting malaria or ensuring clean water? If fighting malaria was his real goal, he could as easily have asked the question: Why don’t we divert to it some of the (large and nontheoretical) sums spent on, say, the military? The answer he gave when I asked this question at our dialogue was that he thought military spending was bad and that therefore it made more sense to compare global warming dollars with other “good” spending. But of course this makes less sense. If he thought that money spent for the military was doing damage, then he could kill two birds with one stone by diverting some of it to his other projects. Proposing that, though, would lose him much of the right-wing support that made his earlier book a best seller — he’d no longer be able to count on even The Wall Street Journal editorial page.