Cool It Cool It How we should tackle global warming How we should - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Cool It Cool It

How we should tackle global warming How we should tackle global warming and do good in the world and do good in the world

Bj Bjø ørn rn Lomborg Lomborg

www.lomborg.com

Two important points Two important points

• Need sense of proportion

Need sense of proportion

– – Doomsday is not nigh Doomsday is not nigh – – We don We don’ ’t have to act in desperation t have to act in desperation – – If we only hear one If we only hear one – – and exaggerated and exaggerated – – side, we side, we’ ’re unlike to make good policies re unlike to make good policies

• Many problems

Many problems

– – Not enough money Not enough money – – Prioritization Prioritization

Global warming Global warming

What to do? What to do?

1 1

Global warming is real Global warming is real and man and man-

• made

made

Climate change is real Climate change is real

• On the agenda, thanks to Al Gore

On the agenda, thanks to Al Gore

• The best information from the UN

The best information from the UN Climate Panel, IPCC Climate Panel, IPCC

• Likely temperature rise by 2100

Likely temperature rise by 2100

– – 2.6 2.6O

OC

C (4.7 (4.7O

OF)

F)

• Total cost of $15 trillion

Total cost of $15 trillion

– – 0.5% of 21 0.5% of 21st

st century $3,000 trillion

century $3,000 trillion

• Need

Need smart smart strategy strategy

2 2

Consequences vastly exaggerated Consequences vastly exaggerated Leading to bad judgment Leading to bad judgment

Al Gore and the standard story Al Gore and the standard story

• Gore and many others tell us

Gore and many others tell us

– – Planetary emergency Planetary emergency

• “

“we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail that could send our entire planet into a tail-

• spin of epic

spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced. have ever experienced.” ”

• Four central issues

Four central issues

– – Heat deaths Heat deaths – – Sea level rise Sea level rise – – Hurricanes Hurricanes – – Malaria Malaria

1 Higher mortality with heat? 1 Higher mortality with heat?

• Heat and cold deaths

Heat and cold deaths

– – In the UK In the UK

• 2,000 more heat deaths by 2050

2,000 more heat deaths by 2050

– – But fewer cold deaths But fewer cold deaths

• 20,000 fewer

20,000 fewer

Bosello, Roson, & Tol, 2006; Keatinge & Donaldson, 2004; Keating Bosello, Roson, & Tol, 2006; Keatinge & Donaldson, 2004; Keatinge et al., 2000 e et al., 2000

– – This also holds true globally This also holds true globally

• Net more than 1.4 million

Net more than 1.4 million fewer fewer deaths by deaths by 2050 2050

1 Higher mortality with heat? 1 Higher mortality with heat?

• Should we not

Should we not help people the help people the best possible best possible way? way?

– – Kyoto? Kyoto? – – Airconditioning Airconditioning in Philadelphia in Philadelphia

Davis et al., 2002 Davis et al., 2002

20 25 30 35 40 45 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 4P M apparent temperature (oF ) Average num ber of daily d '60 '70 '80 '90

2 Sea level rise 2 Sea level rise

• Sea levels will rise

Sea levels will rise

• But not a catastrophe

But not a catastrophe

– – 1 foot (30 1 foot (30cm cm) ) over the next 100 years

• ver the next 100 years
• Not Al Gores

Not Al Gores’ ’ 20 feet (6 20 feet (6 meters meters) )

– – 1 foot 1 foot the last 150 years the last 150 years

• Did we worry?

Did we worry?

2 Impact of sea level rise 2 Impact of sea level rise

• Getting flooded now

Getting flooded now

– – 10 million people 10 million people

• 1 foot sea level rise in 2100 (no change)

1 foot sea level rise in 2100 (no change)

– – 100 million people 100 million people

• 1 foot sea level rise in 2100 (richer)

1 foot sea level rise in 2100 (richer)

– – 1 million people 1 million people

Nicholls, 2004; Nicholls & Nicholls, 2004; Nicholls & Tol Tol, 2006 , 2006

2 Saving the Maldives 2 Saving the Maldives

• If we just look at 1 foot increase

If we just look at 1 foot increase

– – Flood 77% of the Maldives at 121% GDP Flood 77% of the Maldives at 121% GDP – – Yet at 0.04% of GDP they can safeguard Yet at 0.04% of GDP they can safeguard everything but everything but 0.0015% of dry land 0.0015% of dry land

• At lower emissions

At lower emissions

– – Lower sea level rise but also lower wealth Lower sea level rise but also lower wealth – – About three times more dry land loss About three times more dry land loss

Nicholls, 2004; Nicholls & Nicholls, 2004; Nicholls & Tol Tol, 2006 , 2006

3 Hurricanes: 3 Hurricanes: ever costlier in the US ever costlier in the US

Pielke Pielke et al. 2007 et al. 2007

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Damage costs, billion 2005$

• Damage costs from hurricanes in the US

Damage costs from hurricanes in the US

More people with more goods More people with more goods in exposed areas in exposed areas

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Adjusted damage costs, billion 2005$

Pielke Pielke et al. 2007 et al. 2007

• Damage costs if all hurricanes had hit the US in

Damage costs if all hurricanes had hit the US in 2007 2007

Hurricanes: Hurricanes: Fix climate or social vulnerability Fix climate or social vulnerability

• If we stop climate

If we stop climate change change

– – Prevent 10% damage Prevent 10% damage increase increase

• If we end social

If we end social vulnerability vulnerability

– – Prevent 480% damage Prevent 480% damage increase increase

• Which knob should

Which knob should we focus on? we focus on?

Pielke Pielke 2005 2005

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350% 400% 450% 500% climate change social vulnerability Increase in hurricane losses till 2050

More malaria from heat? More malaria from heat?

• Malaria is weakly connected to heat

Malaria is weakly connected to heat

– – But much more dependent on wealth and But much more dependent on wealth and treatment treatment

• Malaria endemic in Europe & US in little ice age

Malaria endemic in Europe & US in little ice age

– – Even malaria in the Arctic circle Even malaria in the Arctic circle – – 20% malaria in Moscow in the 1940s 20% malaria in Moscow in the 1940s

• As we got richer, we dealt with malaria

As we got richer, we dealt with malaria

– – Even as temperatures increased Even as temperatures increased

• Thus, richer people will not have malaria

Thus, richer people will not have malaria

• Is climate the right knob to turn?

Is climate the right knob to turn?

Which knob to tackle malaria? Which knob to tackle malaria?

• Deaths avoided

Deaths avoided per year per year

– – Kyoto $180b Kyoto $180b – – Malaria $3b Malaria $3b

1,400 850,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 Ky

• to

M alaria-specific policy

3 3

Smarter options needed: Smarter options needed: Kyoto or EU 20% high cost Kyoto or EU 20% high cost-

• no gain

no gain

• Cost of Kyoto

Cost of Kyoto

– – $180 billion per $180 billion per year year

Wigley Wigley 1998 1998

Kyoto: Kyoto: Postpone warming by 5 years Postpone warming by 5 years

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 Temperature change, oC Busines-as-usual Kyoto

• Only Stern review

Only Stern review shows otherwise shows otherwise

– – Easily end up Easily end up making policies making policies that do more harm that do more harm than climate than climate change change

Tol Tol and and Yohe Yohe 2006 2006

All peer reviewed cost All peer reviewed cost-

• benefit

benefit show little effort now show little effort now

Stern Review

• 20
• 15
• 10
• 5

5 Percent GDP

Costs Damages Costs Damages

Peer-reviewed

Lack of smart solutions Lack of smart solutions

• Take polar bears

Take polar bears

– – Yes, less Arctic ice means fewer polar bears Yes, less Arctic ice means fewer polar bears

• 1960: about 5,000

1960: about 5,000

• Now: about 22,000

Now: about 22,000

– – But what can we do? But what can we do? – – If we implement the Kyoto Protocol If we implement the Kyoto Protocol

• Save 1 polar bear each year

Save 1 polar bear each year

– – But each year we shoot polar bears But each year we shoot polar bears

• About a 1,000 each year

About a 1,000 each year

Smarter way forward Smarter way forward

• Cost of cutting CO

Cost of cutting CO2

2 is $20/ton

is $20/ton

• Benefit of cutting CO

Benefit of cutting CO2

2 is $2/ton

is $2/ton

– – Maybe we need a better way forward? Maybe we need a better way forward?

Smarter way forward Smarter way forward

• Long term problem, long term solution

Long term problem, long term solution

– – Invest 0.05% of GDP in RD&D of non Invest 0.05% of GDP in RD&D of non-

• carbon emitting energy technologies

carbon emitting energy technologies – – $25 billion/year $25 billion/year – – a ten a ten-

• fold increase

fold increase – – Let each country focus on its own future Let each country focus on its own future

• renewables

renewables, fission, fusion, conservation, , fission, fusion, conservation, carbon storage carbon storage

– – Will solve global warming in the medium Will solve global warming in the medium term term

4 4

Many other problems where we can Many other problems where we can do much more good do much more good

Gore: Gore:

• ur generational mission
• ur generational mission
• How do we want to be remembered?

How do we want to be remembered?

– – Spending $180 billion/year doing virtually no good Spending $180 billion/year doing virtually no good a hundred years from now? (Kyoto etc.) a hundred years from now? (Kyoto etc.)

• Compare this to

Compare this to

– – For $75 billion/year the UN estimate we can solve For $75 billion/year the UN estimate we can solve all major basic problems all major basic problems

• Clean drinking water

Clean drinking water

• Sanitation

Sanitation

• Basic healthcare

Basic healthcare

• Education

Education

Copenhagen Consensus Copenhagen Consensus

Top economists: Most bang for the buck Top economists: Most bang for the buck 1 1 Prevent HIV/AIDS Prevent HIV/AIDS 2 2 Micronutrient malnutrition Micronutrient malnutrition 3 3 Ensure free trade Ensure free trade 4 4 Prevent malaria Prevent malaria ... ... ... ...

Very good Very good investments investments Bad Bad investments investments

16 16 Kyoto Protocol Kyoto Protocol

Copenhagen Consensus Copenhagen Consensus

Social payback for each dollar

$40 $40 $30 $30 $15 $15 $10 $10 ... ... ... ... ¢ ¢30 30

Summary: Summary: Getting our priorities right Getting our priorities right

• Global warming is real

Global warming is real

• But not top priority

But not top priority

– – Fix global warming in the long run Fix global warming in the long run

• CO

CO2

2 tax of $2/ton

tax of $2/ton

• Dramatically increased R&D

Dramatically increased R&D

• Focus on smart solutions

Focus on smart solutions

• Our generational mission?

Our generational mission?

– – Do a little good at high cost Do a little good at high cost – – Make a massive difference at half the cost Make a massive difference at half the cost