Cool it! A response to Bjorn Lomborg

The West Virginia University (WVU) Festival of Ideas invited Bjorn Lomborg on December 3^rd to speak about global warming and economical solutions to the problem he called real and man-made. Lomborg is thought of as a climate skeptic, and is quite controversial among scientists and the public. His main approach is to put global warming into a statistical context, quantifying the costs and benefits of countering global warming and addressing many other issues facing humans. Lomborg shows, for example, that cooking food in the 3^rd world kills far more people than global warming does, due to the indoor pollution caused by cooking without proper venting. His moral philosophy is utilitarian, to help the most people improve their lives, and he quantifies this through economic arguments, using poverty as a proxy for unhealthful, unhappy living. His approach is also short-sighted on purpose, emphasizing ideas that global leaders and non-profit organizations can implement in the next decade to make people happier. This is attractive – after all, who doesn’t want to be happy in the next ten years – but downplays the likelihood of climate change if changes in energy consumption don’t begin soon.

Lomborg notes that fossil fuels are energy dense, and have made current high living standards possible, and with it happier lives, because affluent people can make choices that make their lives better. And these choices are enabled by technology as simple as a kitchen vent or as complex as a cell phone. Lomborg underemphasizes the alleged side effects of technology and affluence, such as obesity, that kill millions of people, albeit people pushing middle age and beyond. The problems with cars and cell phones relate to the idea of affluenza, that is, the notion that a machine can do all the “heavy lifting”, leaving one with nothing to do than check for social media status updates, drive through mountain passes at high speeds like James Bond, and spend lavishly at night clubs.

The cure for affluenza can also help the planet and make people happier. Such win-win scenarios are hard to model economically, virtually impossible to legislate, and not something fossil-fuel interests care to emphasize. Walking an extra 300 steps instead of driving across a parking lot, taking the stairs instead of the elevator if possible, and putting the cell phone down and going for a bike ride are all things than can make us happier and healthier while modestly reducing carbon emissions.

link to top​

Lomborg reserved most of his criticism for renewables and the Paris climate agreement, which heavily emphasizes the installation of solar and wind farms around the globe. Using computer models, he claimed that the benefits of renewable installations are small whereas the costs are high, funded by subsidies such as the production tax credit (PTC) for wind. He made an effective case that providing family planning including birth control to women worldwide would do more benefit than any feasible amount of renewable energy generation. However, his message was most appropriate to policy and law makers, not individual people who care about the environment. Indeed, he showed efficiency improvements such as a transition to light emitting diode (LED) lighting and weatherproofing provided three dollars of benefit for each dollar of investment. This is an incentive for personal action, which former Vice President Dick Cheney referred to when he said in April 2001, “conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." I believe personal action, be it conservation, efficiency, or using better technology, is not just a personal virtue, but a virtue in general. And we know we need virtue now!

This letter to the editor meant to say that the budget would "effectively kill" EPA cleanup job and why. The paper left out the word "effectively". The letter rambles just a bit, and then comes to a sardonic conclusion:

The article in "Earth Watch", with the headline "Trump's budget would kill 7-year cleanup job" is inaccurate in an important way. The article says the EPA "returns the responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to state and local entities ..." It then says that the EPA can then focus on national priorities.

  

I have heard the word "priority" quite a bit recently in relationship to the EPA. I don't quite understand what this word means, nor do I understand fully the word "local" in the context of the article. Given that the Great Lakes borders many states, and that it and the Chesapeake Bay provide recreation for millions of people, I do think these water bodies are a priority and that they are not simply local.  Indeed, it will be very challenging for states to come together and put together the money and the administrative capability, not to mention mutual good will, necessary to continue the clean up of these major water bodies.

Nevertheless, I believe it is best to take the EPA statement seriously, and expect that enough funds will be retained by the states to continue this important environmental remediation. Otherwise, the following headline will be true -- "Trump's budget effectively killed 7-year cleanup job."