<snip>
> Jim here: again, for the sake of argument, let us simply grant that
> Gillott interprets the gist of Lomborg's *policy* argument here
> correctly.  E.g. Lomborg argues that "it would benefit people in
> developing countries a great deal more if the USA were to ignore
> calls to stabilise emissions of carbon dioxide and instead gave them
> the money it would lose doing so (or cancelled the equivalent amount
> of debt), and carried on regardless."  That's a fairly
> straightforward argument, and one that merits consideration whether
> Lomborg makes the argument or someone else makes it.

This is really a 'spurious' type of argument. I don't think the US gives a
hoot about benefitting any persons in the 'developing world'. It cannot even
pay it's UN dues, so why would it want to ante up with the 'wretched of the
earth'? I was quite impressed by the decision of the South African
government to begin production of drugs which prolong the life and health of
persons afflicted with AIDS. The government is going to allow and encourage
the production of cheaper generic drugs rather than rely on imported and
very expensive drugs. These drugs are effective in preventing unborn and
babies from becoming infected with the virus that causes AIDS.

The argument is rather spurious because it shows that we (the developed and
rich nations) of the world are admitting that we do not do enough about
third world debts which are crippling many economies. The initial premise
discloses that it us, the rich, that are causing the problems in the
developing world in the first place. Therefore, maybe, to alleviate the
distress we should then forgo attempts to reduce GHG emissions, destruction
of the ozone layer, and widespread effects of rapid climate change simply to
find time to help 'debtor nations'.

When the US became involved in Afghanistan some time ago it gave the country
about $90 million to be used to rewrite the school text books. What they did
was then put into those texts a great deal of information on various topics
related directly to war and killing. Those texts are still being used today
by Afghanistani teachers to teach children. The children go to school and
read about how to operate sub-machine guns, and how to fight a bloody
'proxy' war against the ideological nemesis of the US government which used
to be the USSR, but now is the 'militant muslim' who survived the 'carpet
bombs' and 'tomahawk' and cruise missiles.

> It seems to me that various aspects of Lomborg's *policy* arguments
> deserve to be taken seriously.  For example, if the UN
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did indeed make a political
> decision not to take a cost-benefit approach to climate change, then
> that deserves philosophical analysis.  Essentially it sounds to me as
> if the IPCC adopted a "precautionary principle" approach as regards
> climate change.  Whether reported by Lomborg or someone else, that
> *decision* is worth examining.

There have been many 'cost benefit' analysis done on climate change. One of
the best was done by insurance companies. They are predicting that insurance
premiums may become so expensive in the southern US as to make owning
insurance almost impossible except for the very 'well to do'. Insurance
companies have a pretty good track record at predicting the 'probable' costs
of disasters, et cetera.

One of the problems with climate change induced by increased GHG emissions
is that the normal pattern of tropical hurricane production is tied up with
temperature. It takes a temperature of at least 80 degrees F. to generate a
storm of hurricane force. Thus what is happening, and is expected to
continue to happen is a expansion of the area where hurricanes can be
expected to occur. Not only that but the frequency of the hurricane is
expected to increase.

The main argument concerning the contrarian position is that they are only
contradicting what the science is teaching. They say on the one hand that
the records are faulty, and on the other hand they are saying that 'global
warming' is going to be good for the planet: trees will grow faster, and
there will be the opportunity to grow crops further north. They even cite
the loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean as a very great benefit for shipping
since it will undoubtedly cut off thousands of kilometers of travel. Instead
of using the Suez Canal or the Panama Canal, it will be possible to simply
go north of Canada.

The 'no-regrets' policy of many countries is to reduce GHG emissions as a
means to improve air, and water quality. Decreasing a dependence on imported
oil and gas also improves the national accounts substantially. Look what is
happening with the US. It is in a constant stage of crisis now that it
cannot meet it's own energy demand. It has to employ a vast technological
and sophisticated army with up to 1.5 personnel in an attempt to defend it's
strategic material needs. To maintain that kind of standing armed forces
requires incredible levels of taxation, which on a per capita basis amounts
to at least $1000 per year per working person. That amount exceeds perhaps
the per capita incomes of at least 20% of the nations in the rest of the
world.

At what cost does the price of 'energy security' come? Well that is the only
cost that some will consider, but it is a really high cost. However, that is
not the only strategy that works. Look at Denmark. It has not constructed
any new fossil fueled electric utilities for many years. Instead it has
built up a renewable energy source with wind. It is now predicting that
within the next 20 years wind generated power will supply 50% of domestic
needs. Denmark could become an exporter of energy.

Certainly new business will be looking very carefully before they locate
their plants in just any nation. Businesses are looking for self-sufficient
energy sources. That means a reliance on producing energy, even if it costs
a bit more, from renewable energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal and
biomass.

The nation that refuses to cooperate on the issue of climate change, a
nation which proposes to ignore compelling evidence of the harm caused by
global climate change will not be competitive for long in attracting capital
investments. The last thing that any body wants is a disruption of supply in
energy. And where can we expect that to happen at any time? Well of course
it is in the US. For instance last summer Montanna had energy shortages, the
winter before it was California, and the summer before that it was New York.

The interesting thing about 'cost benefit analysis' is that this type of
analysis is not an ethical analysis where you trade values, but rather where
you learn to assign monetary prices to each and every input and output so as
to come up with assessment about which 'values' can be traded off. Economic
values are not ethical values, and economics has got so far away from values
that it has become almost impossible to economize unless every value is
assigned a price. A price is the only quantitative thing of value in
economics, but it should not be that way at all. There can be no 'trading
off' of environmental quality. I don't even understand how economics could
be classified as a 'social science' if it lacks any basis in 'moral
sciences' which is what it originally set out to do.

Molly coddling the giant energy companies, protectionist foreign policies,
and failure to invest in de-centralized (cooperatively owned renewable
energy sources) ultimately will prevent effective and positive long-lasting
change.

In my opinion they have never done any 'cost benefit' analysis on the
existing form of energy production which is dependent on centralized
planning, government regulation, sicking foreign policies and acts of
terrorism, murder and mayhem, and fear. Big business needs big government to
protect it's assets in the middle east, and elsewhere. It seems that luxury
consumption, one of the three sins of capitalism, is having a perverse
effect on the markets. World production of oil and gas will peak in 2005,
and after this the price of oil and gas will rise consistently until the
poorest nations are faced with huge deficits. This will exacerbate the
worlds balance of trade and result in a real wide and general decline in
spending, or rather in growth. There will a scarcity induced economic
depression due to much lower consumption. The worst nightmare that a
capitalist can have is to wake up to a world of 'underconsumption' or
'overproduction' because that means that the capitalist has too much
inventory.

If the aggregate demand world wide falls in a given year, then there will be
increased layoffs, and these layoffs will act as a negative feedback fueling
even lower consumption. Once enough people have been forced 'out of the
market' you get an economic depression, that is the willingness to pay is
much lower than the willingness to sell simply because of the average 'debt
load' of the seller which in a depression cannot be eliminated by selling
off the assets which the seller is in debt for.

If we don't replace and find substitutes for that dirty fossil fuel (in many
ways it is causing war - especially where it is found in the developing
world), then as a civilization we are certainly doomed, and possibly the
planet is doomed. No cost benefit analysis can justify what we are already
doing by relying almost exclusively on dirty fossil fuels: coal, and crude
oil.


chao

john foster




>
> I have previously expressed (philosophical) reservations on this list
> about the use of the precautionary principle in environmental ethics
> and policy (see e.g.
>
<http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0005&L=enviroethics&P=R2602>
> ).  It sounds to me as if Lomborg is simply expressing similar
> reservations about the use of the precautionary principle by the
> IPCC.  If in fact it would make more sense for the IPCC to assess the
> *likelihood* of different scenarios for the coming century, then
> Lomborg's argument can be seen as a fairly standard call to use more
> probabilistic modes of reasoning in policy (so-called Bayesian
> approaches).  That's not an "anti-environmental" argument: that's
> simply a philosophical argument, and one worth looking at.
>
> Enough for now.  Fire away!    :-)
>
> Jim T.