The Falcon's View

I myself tested the waters recently and experienced the same effect. ThinkProgress (a left-wing think tank) is notorious for posting flaming reviews of comments on global warming, always decrying anybody who disagrees with the carbon emissions reduction approach. Apparently cost is irrelevant, as is the actual performance under agreements like Kyoto versus the agreed to performance. To give you an idea of the type of rhetoric that I'm talking about, here's a sampling of stories from a variety of sources over the past week. Notice one uniform sentiment: damn the US to Hades for not immediately falling in line with the rest of the world (aka Europe) on these changes. Ironically, at the same time, countries including Canada and Japan have agreed to reduce carbon emissions, but aren't actually meeting their commitment.

- Gore blames US for blocking progress at UN climate conference in Bali
http://www.startribune.com/12414791.html

- Arctic summers may be ice-free by 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/12/arctic-summers-may-be-ice-free-by-2013/

- Thompson On Whether Global Warming Is A Threat: ‘I’m Not Going To Answer’
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/12/thompson-global-warming-debate/

- Greenpeace slams next-gen consoles
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/12/13/greenpeace_clash_of_the_consoles/

- Gore: US blocking climate talks progress
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071213/ap_on_sc/bali_climate_conference

- Big Stakes In Bali
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/progressreport/2007/12/pr20071206

- Global Warming "Tipping Points" Reached, Scientist Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071214-tipping-points.html

- Climate Plan Looks Beyond Bush’s Tenure
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/world/16climate.html?ref=asia

- Bali breakthrough launches climate talks
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL1412327320071215

- Bali negotiators reach agreement after U.S. ‘U-turn.’
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/15/bali-negotiators-reach-agreement-after-us-u-turn/

- Bolton On Global Warming Conference: ‘If Anyone’s Isolated Here, It’s Al Gore’
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/15/bolton-bali/

Like I said above, you'll recognize the mocking tone that is so common in the press these days when it comes to this issue. As if to say "how can you be so stupid, of course we must reduce carbon emissions, or else we'll die." Intriguing theory, but one that I find to be extremely wrong. I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: humans consistently overestimate their impact on the planet, and it's irrational and unreasonable to believe that our impact will cause the planet to die when these same scientists also argue that the planet has been around for hundreds of millions of years, has survive massive volcanic eruptions and direct hits from asteroids, and that humans are the result of millions of years of evolution. I simply don't buy that global warming means the end of all times.

So, what does Lomborg specifically say about the topic? Some quotes:

"I hope we will cool our conversation, rein in the exaggerations, and start focusing on where we can do the most good. This does not mean doing nothing about climate change, but it does mean having an open dialogue about its effects and solutions, a conversation about what our priorities should be." (p163)

Lomborg asks for that which is not present today: open-minded, rational discussion. It's always struck me as ironic, if not outright hypocritical, how people whine about not being heard, yet drown out differences of opinion because they don't want to hear them. Some here, of course, read the above and think "oh, he's just another global warming denier." Actually, that's not true...

"The argument of this book is simple.
1. Global warming is real and man-made. ...
2. Statements about the strong, ominous, and immediate consequences of global warming are often wildly exaggerated...
3. We need simpler, smarter, and more efficient solutions for global warming...
4. Many other issues are much more important than global warming. We need to get our perspective back." (p8)

As you can see from above, Lomborg recognizes global warming a serious, man-made threat. Where he differs is in the approach and - most importantly - in the lack of any apparent tradeoff analysis. Infosec professionals should be jumping up and down at this point, because the problem is extremely familiar. We often see money thrown at solutions, ad hoc solutions, and poorly engineered solutions, all because people don't sit down and have a rational cost-benefit analysis discussion. Instead, it's"CHARGE!" and folks are off, regardless of it they're heading the right direction or not. I digress... :)

"Kyoto unfortunately has become the symbol of opposition to a United States seemingly uninterested in the opinions of the rest of the world. Thus, Kyoto has received political resuscitation without being seriously questioned for its efficiency or achievability. And this is the real issue: Kyoto is at the same time impossibly ambitious and yet environmentally inconsequential. It attempts to change century-old energy patterns in fifteen years, ending up costing a fortunate and delivering almost nothing." (p117)

Change is hard, and in the case of getting off of fossil fuels in favor of alternatives, we have the added challenge of first developing an alternative. Lomborg argues that every country should commit 0.05% of GDP to R&D on low-carbon solutions for energy, pointing out that this would significantly and dramatically increase research funding. Of course, the US is too busy funding a warm of attrition, but again I digress... the main point here is that there are no quick fix solutions for global warming, but there are some reasonably quick fixes that will make life much better globally, such as addressing communicable diseases, the malnourished, safe drinking water and sanitation, education, and so on. And all this can be ours at a mere fraction of the cost of Kyoto. Unfortunately, these represent major changes in thinking, and they're not nearly as easy to rally a cause around...

"This is the real moral problem of the global-warming argument -- it means well, but by almost expropriating the public agenda, trying to address the hardest problem, with the highest price tag and the least change of success, it leaves little space, attention, and money for smarter and more realistic solutions." (p123)

I find this perhaps the most poignant and scary comment of the book. Global warming is a moral issue, as Gore has been saying all along. However, lacking reasonable discussion on how to address this moral issue leaves us all bankrupt.

"Doing something about global warming has both benefits and costs. How to weigh these correctly is clearly a discussion we need to have. But in the current environment of panic, the climate changes are portrayed as so severe and overwhelming that even talking about the costs simply seems inhumane, unreasonable, and uncaring. We just have to aim for the benefits and not think about the costs.

"But whether we talk about the costs or not, someone still has to pay. Even if we don't debate our priorities, we still end up prioritizing. Even if we end up doing some good, we might easily have done much better. If we are to embark on the potentially most costly global-policy program ever, we might first want to be sure it is the best use of our resources." (p131-132)

Again, an excellent demonstration of tradeoff analysis. Lomborg looks at many of the common worry-based arguments in chapter 3, including:
- Melting Glaciers
- Rising Sea Levels
- Endangered Penguins
- Extreme Weather
- Flooding Rivers
- A New Ice Age
- Malaria in Vermont
- Starvation
- Water Shortages
What's particularly amusing about these chapter is that many of the arguments folks use to beat the drum for global warming and reducing carbon emissions are contradictory (e.g. water shortages and flooding rivers). Personally, I'm still kind of partial to the "new ice age" theory (and, personally, I think it makes sense since we're due for one), but his argument here is really more about the now-proven-false Pentagon paper describing a slowing Atlantic Current (oh, well). In all of these cases, he walks through the arguments and tries to debunk them. Anyway...

In closing: this is absolutely, positively a must-read book. Even if you think that you know everything in the world about global climate change, you should find this book an easy, interesting read. I would guess that the true answers on approaching global warming are somewhere between Lomborg and the hystericals, but it's really hard to know for sure. What I do like is that he argues for "sensible discussion" of solutions, rather than trying to argue against what is obviously true. I'm sure this book did not sit well with those extremists who would rather use their FUD-based arguments. Unfortunately, the majority of the people would rather hold to faith-based beliefs than challenge them and, in the process, possibly expand their minds.