With regard to Lomborg, I have a half-finished essay on him lying around at home; while there is some small merit to some of what he says, and critics are always needed, Lomborg's methods are frequently supported more by assertion than evidence; his figures are often either invented, quoted to a misleading degree of precision or just plain wrong.
'Some economic models find that target impossible to reach without drastic action, like cutting the world population by a third. Other models show that achieving the target by a high CO2 tax would reduce world GDP a staggering 12.9% in 2100—the equivalent of $40 trillion a year.
... Mr. Green's research suggests that investing about $100 billion annually in noncarbon based energy research could result in essentially stopping global warming within a century or so.'
Lomborg sets out the two diametrically-opposed plans: charging for emission which will beggar everyone (cue pantomime boos) and investment in clean technology (which will save everyone and make everyone rich - yay!)
These are cartoon positions (the UNEP estimate cost is 3% - and Lomborg doesn't apparently read the WSJ, despite writing articles for it:
'Despite the global economic slump, total clean-energy investment last year grew 5% to $155 billion.'
- in other words, the required 'solution' for Lomborg is already in place; what he's arguing is essentially the free-market laissez-faire approach.
Which isn't terribly surprising, considering that his ideas expressed in The Skeptical Environmentalist are a partial rehash of Julian Simon's ultimate resource argument.
I've been arguing with disciples of Simon's position since 1995 - neither Simon nor Lomborg are physical scientists, and the assumptions behind the cornucopia theory are a) based upon some very dodgy logic-chopping around the nature of 'infinity' with regard to resources and b) somewhat in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; his argument does not apply in a situation where system entropy always increases.
Finally, there are enough documented examples of system failure in human societies to suggest that humanity is quite capable of stuffing things up bigtime; Jared Diamond's 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed' is a good work on the subject.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-01-06 10:22 pm (UTC)With regard to Lomborg, I have a half-finished essay on him lying around at home; while there is some small merit to some of what he says, and critics are always needed, Lomborg's methods are frequently supported more by assertion than evidence; his figures are often either invented, quoted to a misleading degree of precision or just plain wrong.
(e.g. 'Technology Can Fight Global Warming' - WSJ 28/09/09:
'Some economic models find that target impossible to reach without drastic action, like cutting the world population by a third. Other models show that achieving the target by a high CO2 tax would reduce world GDP a staggering 12.9% in 2100—the equivalent of $40 trillion a year.
... Mr. Green's research suggests that investing about $100 billion annually in noncarbon based energy research could result in essentially stopping global warming within a century or so.'
Lomborg sets out the two diametrically-opposed plans: charging for emission which will beggar everyone (cue pantomime boos) and investment in clean technology (which will save everyone and make everyone rich - yay!)
These are cartoon positions (the UNEP estimate cost is 3% - and Lomborg doesn't apparently read the WSJ, despite writing articles for it:
'Despite the global economic slump, total clean-energy investment last year grew 5% to $155 billion.'
Renewable-Energy Investments Top Traditional Investments, Report Finds
- in other words, the required 'solution' for Lomborg is already in place; what he's arguing is essentially the free-market laissez-faire approach.
Which isn't terribly surprising, considering that his ideas expressed in The Skeptical Environmentalist are a partial rehash of Julian Simon's ultimate resource argument.
I've been arguing with disciples of Simon's position since 1995 - neither Simon nor Lomborg are physical scientists, and the assumptions behind the cornucopia theory are a) based upon some very dodgy logic-chopping around the nature of 'infinity' with regard to resources and b) somewhat in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics; his argument does not apply in a situation where system entropy always increases.
Finally, there are enough documented examples of system failure in human societies to suggest that humanity is quite capable of stuffing things up bigtime; Jared Diamond's 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed' is a good work on the subject.