Do Liberals KNOW the Cost of What They Push?

Co2 Gases versus Aids/HIV & Malaria

Global Warming

February 19, 2007

STERN WARNING SHOULD BE IGNORED

Sir Nicholas Stern's controversial October 2006 report -- sponsored by British Chancellor Gordon Brown -- which purported to show the future harm from human-induced global warming has received a great deal of attention and criticism from economists, says H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

Among the discrepancies pointed out by economists:

• The report assumed a 60 percent higher growth rate in global population than expected by international demographers.

• It also assumed income growth rates that would be less than half the present rate.

• Stern used inconsistent and arguably absurd discount rates that substantially underestimate the costs of cutting carbon emissions while simultaneously using a higher discount rate when calculating the benefits of immediate action.

In addition, the report ignores measures that would help people adapt to warmer temperatures, says Burnett. In an NCPA report, Indur Goklany exposed flaws in assertions by Stern and others:

• Goklany pointed out that absent any efforts to tackle malaria in other ways, global warming is projected to increase global malaria rates by 3 percent.

• By contrast, investing $1.5 billion annually -- just a minuscule fraction of the costs of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the extent required by the Kyoto Protocol -- in malaria prevention and treatment today would cut the annual malaria toll in half.

• Concerning hunger, Goklany observed, while the Kyoto Protocol would likely reduce the number of people facing hunger by less than 2 percent, investing an additional $5 billion annually to solve agricultural problems would cut by 50 percent the number of people at risk of hunger.

Source: H. Sterling Burnett, "Climate Alarmist Quits British Government," Environmental News, Heartland Institute, March 1, 2007.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20634

This reminds me of another article where an environmentalist speaks to where we can make a stronger impact:

Yet the experience left Mr. Lomborg with a taste for challenging conventional wisdom. In 2004, he invited eight of the world's top economists--including four Nobel Laureates--to Copenhagen, where they were asked to evaluate the world's problems, think of the costs and efficiencies attached to solving each, and then produce a prioritized list of those most deserving of money. The well-publicized results (and let it be said here that Mr. Lomborg is no slouch when it comes to promoting himself and his work) were stunning. While the economists were from varying political stripes, they largely agreed. The numbers were just so compelling: $1 spent preventing HIV/AIDS would result in about $40 of social benefits, so the economists put it at the top of the list (followed by malnutrition, free trade and malaria). In contrast, $1 spent to abate global warming would result in only about two cents to 25 cents worth of good; so that project dropped to the bottom.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008626

In another article we find that while Liberals may have the best for mankind in mind when they want us to sign the Kyoto Treaty, they are just wrong in how to help mankind… that’s all:

The question is wrongly put. Imagine if our forefathers 100 years ago had known about global warming. Would we have thanked them for not using fossil fuels even if it left us much poorer, able to do less, having say, 4 billion people living on $1-a-day rather than 1 billion? I certainly don't think so. The refrigerator, for example, has saved us from eating bad, rotten food. So stomach cancer has dropped from being the most prevalent form of cancer in 1900 to the lowest today.

The question doesn't hold today. Yes, global warming is (partially) man-made, but that doesn't mean cutting CO2 is the best thing we can do for the future.

If we cut carbon emissions with Kyoto, it will cost $180 billion annually, but only postpone warming for about five years in 2100. We have to ask:

Is that what the future really wants?

Take malaria for example. People point out that the spread of the disease will increase with global warming. This is partly true. If we conform to Kyoto Protocols, we will at best cut the total incidences of malaria by 70 million over the century. But if we really care about the future, we could do so much better. If we spend just $3 billion annually (less than 2% of Kyoto’s cost) on mosquito nets, sprays and medication we could save 28 billion people from malaria. Isn't that better?

Many people would undoubtedly say this only shows we should cut more CO2. But even if stopped global warming right now (very unrealistic) at a cost of much more than $85 trillion, this would only help reduce malaria by one billion cases over the century.

Many would say we should do both. Yes, we should do all good things, but until we do them all, I think we should do the best things first. At the Copenhagen Consensus, some of the world's top economists (including four Nobel Laureates) showed us which solutions do amazing good for our investments (HIV/AIDS prevention does $40 dollars worth of good for each dollar spent, malnutrition $30 for each dollar) whereas Kyoto does only perhaps 25 cents worth of good for a dollar. And cutting CO2 dramatically is even worse (about 2 cents). So the malaria argument, although just one instance, is emblematic of the larger case.

This does not mean we shouldn’t deal with climate change over the long-term, but we shouldn't make big, expensive, ineffective cuts now (which many politicians promise but inevitably fail to produce). Dealing with global warming is a century long process spanning parties, continents and generations. We need a smart plan. That is not Kyoto. That is investment in R&D for non-carbon emitting energy technologies. I have suggested spending 0.05% of GDP on this -- $25 billion annually. This won't solve global warming overnight, but it will be low-cost and doable. It will solve global warming within a century timescale.

To finally answer the question, let me repeat a story told by Nobel Laureate Thomas Schelling. The UN climate panel expects that the average person in the developing world will be much richer in 2100 than the rich world is today (just like a hundred years ago, Denmark was a poor, peasant state.)

So, imagine an average Chinese, Congolese or Columbian in 2100 thinking back on 2007. Maybe he will be amazed we cared so much about him that we were willing to spend vast sums of money to curb global warming, helping him out just a little bit. But he will likely also think:

“How odd that they cared so much for me, who is now rich, but cared so little for my grandfather and my great-grandfather, whom they could have helped so much more, at so much lower a cost. These were the men who needed help most desperately.”

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/bjorn_lomborg/2007/02/get_your_priorities_straight.html