Menu
Categories
Silly Bjorn
December 8, 2009 Environment

The problem with Bjorn Lomborg is that he somehow thinks that the global warming debate is about how to take care of people and to mitigate the damage that people might suffer if the planet continues to warm. He is wrong. I used to think Global Warming policy was about people. Now I know better – it is simply the latest religious fad to eliminate private property and free enterprise. Until an “alarmist” convinces me otherwise by taking any of this stuff seriously, I will remain unconvinced.

Roger A. Pielke Jr. noted in a 2005 paper for Environmental Science and Policy that if everything else stays the same but we halt global warming, there would still be a 500% increase in hurricane damage in 50 years time. If global warming continues but we halt the number of people moving into harms’ way, the increase in hurricane damage would be less than 10%. If the entire world had signed up to the Kyoto Protocol, and its binding restrictions were to last all the way until 2050, the predicted reduction in global warming could cut hurricane damage by half a percentage point.

In other words, many of us in the “skeptic” community are not denying that the planet is getting warmer, or that it might not have adverse impacts, what we “deny” is the ability and intention of “planners” to govern our way out of this mess – particularly when economics can teach us that there are far more efficient ways to handle the problems created by a warmer planet – and that these things would be the policy choices we made if, in fact, the planet was warming due to natural causes.

"3" Comments
  1. >> “I used to think Global Warming policy was about people. Now I know better – it is simply the latest religious fad to eliminate private property and free enterprise.”

    Bingo! 😉

  2. It always amazed me how much “environmental economists” can totally ignore basic economics. In most of my classes, the story goes: Global warming is manmade and a problem, and here are some ways to solve it. But the answer misses the most interesting questions; for the sake of argument assume global warming is manmade and represents a cost in the future. Should we do anything about it? What are the opportunity costs; how are the costs discounted for time? Not to mention anything about the variability in future damage cost estimates.

  3. It was never an issue of actually stopping warming, it will always be about seizing power

Leave a Reply
*