Copenhagen Consensus

[Mr Sleet]

Interesting article from then BEEB website - cost of implementing the Kyoto protocol would be 80 billion dollars year on year and would only postpone the warming by 6 years by AD 2100;

or a single 14 billion dollar investment could stop HIV/Aids in it's tracks and save 28 million lives by 2010.

It's called the Copenhagem Consensus and puts combating GW at the bottom of the list of priorities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5346734.stm

Edited September 20, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Devonian]

Interesting article from then BEEB website - cost of implementing the Kyoto protocol would be 80 billion dollars year on year and would only postpone the warming by 6 years by AD 2100;

or a single 14 billion dollar investment could stop HIV/Aids in it's tracks and save 28 million lives by 2010.

It's called the Copenhagem Consensus and puts combating GW at the bottom of the list of priorities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5346734.stm

Why no other view? Is this a sign of BBC anti GW bias?

$80 billion/year? I'd like to see how that figure was arrived at.

[Dawlish]

Interesting article from then BEEB website - cost of implementing the Kyoto protocol would be 80 billion dollars year on year and would only postpone the warming by 6 years by AD 2100;

or a single 14 billion dollar investment could stop HIV/Aids in it's tracks and save 28 million lives by 2010.

It's called the Copenhagem Consensus and puts combating GW at the bottom of the list of priorities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5346734.stm

This would be good added to the Global Warming thread. You know, awful as it sounds and for slightly different reasons, I think Mr. Lomborg may be absolutely right.

Paul

[The Penguin]

Why no other view? Is this a sign of BBC anti GW bias?

I think the opening sentence "In this first of two articles arguing for and against radical spending on climate change, . . . ." infers that there will be an opposing view.

[Guest Viking141]

All Mr. Lomborg is suggesting is we could do with a reality check. Our German friends have an excellent word to describe Mr.Lomborgs position "Realpolitik."

We all have favoured projects that we would like to see money spent on, whether it be the environment, the health service, care for the elderly, third world poverty, whatever.

The reality is somewhat different, however, and we have to make compromises and prioritise things. I do realise that some will make the point that if we dont put climate change at the top of our priority list then nothing else will matter (although I disagree with that viewpoint) but Mr.Lomborg makes an excellent point when he suggests that we should tackle poverty first, which puts people at serious risk from the effects of climate change, as this could be done much more cheaply and easily, its a viable, short-term solution to help mitigate the effects first before we consider tackling the cause. We cant do everything at once. We are not the "lord of all we survey" as some people think we are!

The other thing is, climate change on this planet we inhabit is inevitable. OK I accept that at present we, the human race, are influencing and affecting the rate of this change but, in the grand scheme of things is anything we do going to make a substantial difference one way or the other? Whether the human race existed or not, climate change would be an inevitable part of life on this planet.

What if, instead of Global Warming, the planet seemd headed into a new Ice Age, as it is inclined to do from time to time. Knowing the horrendous effects this would have on 21st century human life, is there anything we could realistically do to stop such an event? Should we even try?

I dont disagree that if our CO2 emissions are damaging to the planet then we should rein them in, but lets not run away with the idea that by doing so we could somehow "save the planet" or prevent the inevitable phases of warming and cooling that our planet goes through on a fairly regular basis. Quite simply, we're not big enough or clever enough.

[Devonian]

All Mr. Lomborg is suggesting is we could do with a reality check. Our German friends have an excellent word to describe Mr.Lomborgs position "Realpolitik."

We all have favoured projects that we would like to see money spent on, whether it be the environment, the health service, care for the elderly, third world poverty, whatever.

The reality is somewhat different, however, and we have to make compromises and prioritise things. I do realise that some will make the point that if we dont put climate change at the top of our priority list then nothing else will matter (although I disagree with that viewpoint) but Mr.Lomborg makes an excellent point when he suggests that we should tackle poverty first, which puts people at serious risk from the effects of climate change, as this could be done much more cheaply and easily, its a viable, short-term solution to help mitigate the effects first before we consider tackling the cause. We cant do everything at once. We are not the "lord of all we survey" as some people think we are!

The other thing is, climate change on this planet we inhabit is inevitable. OK I accept that at present we, the human race, are influencing and affecting the rate of this change but, in the grand scheme of things is anything we do going to make a substantial difference one way or the other? Whether the human race existed or not, climate change would be an inevitable part of life on this planet.

What if, instead of Global Warming, the planet seemd headed into a new Ice Age, as it is inclined to do from time to time. Knowing the horrendous effects this would have on 21st century human life, is there anything we could realistically do to stop such an event? Should we even try?

I dont disagree that if our CO2 emissions are damaging to the planet then we should rein them in, but lets not run away with the idea that by doing so we could somehow "save the planet" or prevent the inevitable phases of warming and cooling that our planet goes through on a fairly regular basis. Quite simply, we're not big enough or clever enough.

In some ways I fundamentally disagree.

If a climatologist came along and said (for the first time - so in the 60's?). ' some collegues and me have run a few models and we think by 2100 it will warm by 4C' I'd want to see others do the same before I accepted what they said. Only when a lot of climatologist have run a lot of models (and improved the models over time) did I start to take them seriously. Yet, here we have just Lomborg and co and people lap up what they say? Lets see the output of more economic models before we accept this $80 billion figure?

Now, climate 'modification'. I don't know why I appear to be one of the few on the net that think this way, but it's allways seemed to me that by adding ghg's to the atmosphere we are inadventantly changing the climate and that to stop or reduce the amount of ghg we add to the atmosphere is to REDUCE our influence on climate not to seek to modify climate to how we want it. I want humanity to reduce it's effect on climate, not to go the other way and play god.

[Dawlish]

All Mr. Lomborg is suggesting is we could do with a reality check. Our German friends have an excellent word to describe Mr.Lomborgs position "Realpolitik."

We all have favoured projects that we would like to see money spent on, whether it be the environment, the health service, care for the elderly, third world poverty, whatever.

The reality is somewhat different, however, and we have to make compromises and prioritise things. I do realise that some will make the point that if we dont put climate change at the top of our priority list then nothing else will matter (although I disagree with that viewpoint) but Mr.Lomborg makes an excellent point when he suggests that we should tackle poverty first, which puts people at serious risk from the effects of climate change, as this could be done much more cheaply and easily, its a viable, short-term solution to help mitigate the effects first before we consider tackling the cause. We cant do everything at once. We are not the "lord of all we survey" as some people think we are!

The other thing is, climate change on this planet we inhabit is inevitable. OK I accept that at present we, the human race, are influencing and affecting the rate of this change but, in the grand scheme of things is anything we do going to make a substantial difference one way or the other? Whether the human race existed or not, climate change would be an inevitable part of life on this planet.

What if, instead of Global Warming, the planet seemd headed into a new Ice Age, as it is inclined to do from time to time. Knowing the horrendous effects this would have on 21st century human life, is there anything we could realistically do to stop such an event? Should we even try?

I dont disagree that if our CO2 emissions are damaging to the planet then we should rein them in, but lets not run away with the idea that by doing so we could somehow "save the planet" or prevent the inevitable phases of warming and cooling that our planet goes through on a fairly regular basis. Quite simply, we're not big enough or clever enough.

Lovely clear writing, Viking.

Your views are very similar to my own. I feel we have just got to accept the reality of climate change and cope. There is very little we can do to stop it, even if it is people-made. Tinkering around with CO2 emissions is fine; politically, it can't be ignored, perhaps, largely because of the ignorance of the electorates, fuelled by the hyperbole and deliberate ignorance of the press. I think an awareness of the issue opens our eyes to many other environmental issues, where we can make a real difference, but in the long run: 1) It will simply not be acceptable to the majority of people in the West (seriously, who's changed their car, as a result of knowing about CO2 and the possibilities?); and 2) it may seriously damage the abilities of China and India to develop (which will have awful consequences for world growth and for all your pensions).

Instead, as Viking says, there are other issues which, if tackled properly, would reduce the effects of climate change. Protection of valuable areas (eg London - I know it is not thought of as valuable, by all and sundry!) and abandonment of less valuable areas (eg Sub-Saharan Africa) ought to be more seriously considered, but poverty and high birth rates in the latter are intimately connected with having to use those "at risk" areas for agriculture. Tackling CO2 emissions alone and expecting that to solve climate change issues could actually draw a blind over much bigger global issues that need tackling first and I think that is what the Copenhagan Consensus was all about.

Paul

Edited September 20, 2006 by Dawlish

[Guest Viking141]

. I want humanity to reduce it's effect on climate, not to go the other way and play god.

I couldnt agree more with that sentence. Reduce our impact yes, can we make any significant change? I doubt it very much. We are not, as you rightly say "God", although some seem to think we are. Climate change can and will happen REGARDLESS of what humans do, either now, or in the future. All we can do is try to ensure we have as little impact as we can.

[parmenides3]

Inevitably: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ensus/#more-325

A discussion of the meeting, and of the language of Climate Change. Their conclusion (I am not judging), is that Lomborg has attempted to wrap up a 'GW doesn't matter' message in new clothes.

One thought; it may well be that some changes are inevitable in the next 100-200 years; even if those changes are unexpected (a 'climate reaction'), they are going to affect us all in one way or another. What would happen if we allowed CO2 emissions to treble, or even quadruple, by 2100? What if the CO2 concentration was 800ppm instead of 450? These are important questions.

Much more difficult; how do we best spend our money/use our resources? I am personally happy to believe that there is too much emphasis on CO2 in relation to other climate influences, in Politics and the press, but this on its own does not make the CO2 problem go away. What it might do is divert attention away from real and useful things that governments could/should be doing now to prepare for the near (30-50 years) future.

:blink: P

[Mr Sleet]

Inevitably: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ensus/#more-325

A discussion of the meeting, and of the language of Climate Change. Their conclusion (I am not judging), is that Lomborg has attempted to wrap up a 'GW doesn't matter' message in new clothes.

One thought; it may well be that some changes are inevitable in the next 100-200 years; even if those changes are unexpected (a 'climate reaction'), they are going to affect us all in one way or another. What would happen if we allowed CO2 emissions to treble, or even quadruple, by 2100? What if the CO2 concentration was 800ppm instead of 450? These are important questions.

Much more difficult; how do we best spend our money/use our resources? I am personally happy to believe that there is too much emphasis on CO2 in relation to other climate influences, in Politics and the press, but this on its own does not make the CO2 problem go away. What it might do is divert attention away from real and useful things that governments could/should be doing now to prepare for the near (30-50 years) future.

:blink: P

I think Viking and Dawlish have written excellent responses , which I agree with.

We should be trying to curb emissions;invest more heaviliy in cleaner energy technologies; clearly a "let it rip, it doesn't matter anyway" approach is wrong. But if you think that observing the Kyoto protocol will make a difference , well it will- global depression which will send us all into extreme poverty. Not just a mild recession, a long grinding depression. It will make little difference to the outcome wrt GW.

[parmenides3]

I think Viking and Dawlish have written excellent responses , which I agree with.

We should be trying to curb emissions;invest more heaviliy in cleaner energy technologies; clearly a "let it rip, it doesn't matter anyway" approach is wrong. But if you think that observing the Kyoto protocol will make a difference , well it will- global depression which will send us all into extreme poverty. Not just a mild recession, a long grinding depression. It will make little difference to the outcome wrt GW.

In some ways I find myself agreeing with you, however, it seems to me that, when forced to change its ways by circumstances beyond its control, both industry and human ingenuity generally come up with a decent alternative. If, though, there is no incentive to do so, industry (or government) will not push through that change. Not that Kyoto is necessarily the right mechanism to do this. Not being an economist, I have no clear idea what the large-scale, long-term strategy should be. I will say also that I don't necessarily buy the (largely) American claim that Kyoto would, necessarily, impoverish us all; to me, it sounds more like an excuse not to make an effort, than a genuine reason not to.

:)P

[osmposm]

I think the opening sentence "In this first of two articles arguing for and against radical spending on climate change, . . . ." infers that there will be an opposing view.

Grrrr..... .....one of my pedantic red flags, Penguin: "infer" and "imply" do not mean the same thing. Infer=deduce; imply=suggest.

So it's YOU who infers 'that there will be an opposing view'. The opening sentence implies that there will be one.

OK, I'll go back in my box now.