This is a video that was recorded back in 2005. It features Professor Bjørn Lomborg and his views on problems faced by societies today. Given the limited time and limited financial resources that we have, Professor Lomborg feels that we have to prioritise our solutions to these problems and the process of prioritization (or making such decisions) is left to the economists (rather than the experts within the individual fields). This is because economists are believed to be proficient at cost-benefit analyses and making optimal decisions for everybody.
Although he does not refute the fact that climate change and global warming is a problem for society, he proposes that resources should first be channeled towards other more pressing issues such as improving the treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS or preventing the spread of Malaria.
The situation might have changed since 2005 and Professor Lomborg has also given many talks with regards to managing global warming. Just today, Professor Lomborg gave a similar presentation in UCL! I managed to catch hold of him after the session and spoke to him at large about managing abrupt climate change (more details will be given in a separate post).
But what do you think of the (low) prioritisation of climate change?
I feel that the example given in the presentation of how future generations in a century will judge decisions made today is unfair to future generations and policy-makers today. If the worst case scenario predicted by the IPCC comes true, climate change will have massive impacts on the standards of living for future generation (if the Earth is still habitable!). Faced with this possibility, should we still prioritise climate change as less important than poverty eradication or improving health?
Let me know what you think!
I do agree with you that his view cannot be the whole story. The basis of his argument is based upon costs related to the technology/capabilities available now and not on the magnitude of impact in the future. And like you said, it is likely that climate change would have great impacts more so in the future than now and it will be unfair to future generations. But I do see his point about the millions who are left unhelped. What seems logical to me then is perhaps to work within the economic constraints of this world with regard to climate change by implementing policies that do not require as much cost. Thereafter, when technologies are more developed (e.g. alternative energies, through persistent investment in R&D), we can then implement these technologies that will help us more effectively tackle climate change when they more advanced & mature than they are now(hence lower cost). This is in a way good allocation of resources as it maximizes efficiency too I guess. For example, lifestyle changes would require the least cost e.g. Cycling in the Netherlands (with its benefits too!, better insulation, eating less meat and getting people to cherish nature by helping them see the value in it (e.g. ecosystem services).
ReplyDeleteHi Joy! I agree with what you say about working within the economic constraints and implementing policies that do not require as much costs. However, if I may point you in the direction of abrupt climate change and the concept of tipping points, it would be likely that scenarios and figures that Bjørn Lomborg presented would turn towards prioritising climate change instead of other problems. For example, if there were to be an abrupt change in the world's climate (i.e. shut down of the thermohaline circulation), this would bring about a severe cooling effect in the northern hemisphere and especially in NW Europe and North America. Lomborg presents that there are more people dying from the cold than from higher temperatures. With an abrupt change in the world's climate, this would worsen the current statistics on cold deaths (which then points towards prioritising climate change now).
DeleteHowever, I do recognise that tipping points and abrupt climate change (i.e. the shut down of the thermohaline circulation) are issues/ events that are hotly debated. I would be exploring the topic of risk and uncertainties in the coming weeks so stay tuned for more!
I'd really like to know where Bjorn gets his statistics! Just tried to look up the numbers he quoted in the video/in his recent lecture and I can't seem to find many that agree...
ReplyDeleteHi Ali! I've recently acquired Bjørn Lomborg's book (Cool It). Most of the key statistics that he presented are found in the book with the many references. Let me know if you want to have a look at it!
DeleteDefinitely do, the internet proved pretty useless in my search
DeleteI wished I had seen the Lomborg talk. But great to see this dialogue being critical of the data, in a positive way.
ReplyDeleteI think human beings by their nature (in fact all organisms) will always think of the here and now, and find it very difficult to look to the future. With the issue of climate change I think just because loads of different people from around the world rate climate change as at the bottom of the ranking doesn't justify it being placed there. Of course we are going to think what happens in our own lifetime is more important.
ReplyDeleteAlso how will everyone in the world be as rich as he says they will be in 100 years? Surely if climate change and population growth continues then there will still be a huge number of poverty stricken people in future. Even more thanks to the reduction in arable land that will ensue from droughts and flooding.
It seems to me he is just trying to find excuses and isn't looking at the actual quantity of people affected by problems NOW compared to the those affected by problems in the FUTURE.