And my brain turns on for a moment
It was a day of quiet, a day where I felt a little less on the outside of the general consensus and a day where I got to see 2 episodes of CSI (quiet curse to Quebec cable for not carrying Spike, very quiet curse).
For awhile now I've been following the work of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjørn Lomborg. Back when I was writing the sustainable development lesson plans I was blown away at the deluge of doomsday environmental spin out there. Then I discovered his book and I was glad:
In The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg challenges widely held beliefs that the global environment is progressively getting worse. Using statistical information from internationally recognized research institutes, Lomborg systematically examines a range of major environmental issues and documents that the global environment has actually improved. He supports his argument with over 2900 footnotes, allowing discerning readers to check his sources.
Lomborg criticizes the way many environmental organizations make selective and misleading use of scientific data to influence decisions about the allocation of limited resources. The Skeptical Environmentalist is a useful corrective to the more alarmist accounts favored by green activists and the media.
When I first read his stuff, I was so pleased. There were people out there who felt like I felt. Yes, there are a lot of environmental problems in the world, but we don't have anywhere near enough data to be sure that the end is truly nigh and we really have to step back and think about what our priorities should be in trying to remedy them. The environmental movement always struck me as a group of people running about with their hair on fire, not sure which strand to put out first.
It's easy to convince the green movement that the environmental situation is far from good. But up until recently, the only way one could persuade those with the money (and power) that things had to be done was to scream that the sky was falling, and falling right this second. Lomborg makes a good point that we don't always make the most rational decisions when faced with a falling sky. Lomborg also impressed me because he had the wherewithal to put environmental issues in an economic context. Asking important questions like what is the real value in solving these problems for people today.
I had the pleasure of seeing Lomborg in the flesh at the conference. So rarely do I find myself agreeing with speakers at environmental conferences (I've been to two and heard about 20 lectures and spent a lot of time listening to bad rants and straw man arguments... oh and rolling my eyes, a lot.). The focus of his talk was about the rational prioritzation of the issues that are facing the globe today. As he said, "there is only one bag of money, but many good uses" and we have to use rational thinking to determine what we choose to spend that money on.
We also have to demystify a lot of what we read about in the media. Bad news sells and if one were to only read the news and not dig deeper, you'd think that in spite of all the efforts of the past century, there was no hope for environmental progress and everything we've done so far has barely made a dent. And that's just not true. Things are not perfect. There are still some things going on that shouldn't continue, but as the western world has become richer, we've been able to afford to put money into conservation, into sustainability and into research and development. We have fufilled our primary needs (food, shelter, etc) and now we have the luxury of determining the manner in which we sustain our existence. We don't have to worry about where our next meal is coming from, so we have time to worry about pollution.
I think what I like the best about Lomborg's viewpoint is that his hope lies in human ingenuity. We are making things better, have have already come so far because we've been able to solve problems. We don't need to panic about the oil reserves because we are continuing to develop alternative fuels that may one day take over oil, just as oil overtook coal and coal replaced wood. It's a very different approach from the usual schpeel you get from the green movement that actually makes you feel guilty for being a human being. I've always found that offensive.
Lomborg also brought up the not so cuddly, but awfully practical issue of cost/benefit analysis. Something that a lot of people don't want to touch because they don't want to appear as though they are a bad person. For example, the ill conceived Kyoto accord actually gives us less in terms of it's effect on global warming than what we put in in terms of dollars lost to restrictions. It takes a lot of guts to say that you think Kyoto is an futile piece of environmental legislation. In many circles it's like putting an "I hate the planet" sticker on your head. But the reality is, that the accord isn't going to put a dent in the global warming problem (should you choose to accept that there is one), so why are we choking our economies for it? It's going to have dire effects upon the economy, which will effect all of us and I don't think for the better.
One of the things that has really resonated with me was Lomborgs point that we are spending so much of our energy focusing on the wrong things. There are problems out there that we may not be able to fix right now, yet we spend so much time and energy on them in futility. In the meantime there are things that we could have a huge effect upon now.
When I learn that 40% of all adult deaths in South Africa are AIDS related, the problem of the global temperature rising 4 degrees in 50 years doesn't bother me as much. When I learn that in developing countries, many illnesses and deaths are caused by particulate inhalation (meaning people burn anything they can for heat and fuel, inhale the by products from it and get really, really sick), I'm not as troubled by greenhouse gases. I'm not saying they don't matter, but they shouldn't be higher on the priority list.
Find a cure for HIV/AIDS (Go Tash!), find a way to prevent Malaria without using DDT that developing nations can afford or find a way to increase free trade. That's a good use of funds. And that's going to have an impact on the world and on future generations.
Gosh it's nice to come out of a talk with some hope.
HRH
posted by Her Highnessness at 21:39
5 Comments:
"For example, the ill conceived Kyoto accord actually gives us less in terms of it's effect on global warming than what we put in in terms of dollars lost to restrictions."
Just to play devil's advocate for a second: How does one put a dollar value on the value of reducing greenhouse gases in order to even attempt this cost/benefit analysis? That must be an extremely subjective process. I don't believe it will ever be "cost effective" to reduce environmental impact but I still believe we should be doing it. It's funny you mention AIDS in Africa - do you think it makes sense in pure monetary terms for first-world countries to spend billions fighting AIDS in third-world countries? I would argue that these are both areas where more than just economic impact needs to be considered.
I hope you will take some time to look at some of the responses to Bjørn Lomborg's book (Googling his name brings up many).
-Alasdair
2:35 PM
Of course more than economic impact needs to be considered. What I am saying is that economic needs to be considered within the debate. And not as an after thought. I think you missed that in my post. I never said that ecomonics was all that mattered, it just stated that economics does matter.
There are lot of people who don't like Lomborg or what he's suggesting. I've read a lot of it. In fact one of his critics was debating his work with him at the conference. It was quite a thing to see. At the end of the debate, they didn't disagree that much and he conceeded that Lomborg had a lot of good ideas.
The way the greenhouse gas issue was presented was that the Kyoto protocol will only succeed in staving off the effects of global warming by 5 years in 2110. Even Lomborg's detractors admitted that Kyoto will have very little effect on the global warming problem. So why do it? I'd much rather see all the energy and resources that are going into this accord, that will do nothing but make policy makers think "okay we've done that, everything's okay now", and put more of it into R&D. Use the money to do something that will actually make a difference.
As for AIDS, it's not a disease of developing nations. It is an epidemic there, but it is in the interest of the whole world to find a cure for it. People have it everywhere. Also, it is in the interest of developed countries to have developing nations actually do that. Develop. In pure monetary terms, a dead man makes for a very bad consumer in a market economy. In my terms, it matters more to me that people be able to live and grow, all over the world. In forumlating a solution for that, I think you have to add the cost/benefit to the equation. I think you'll do more good with the resources you have that way.
4:17 PM
When it comes to environmental concerns, my concern is less with good or evil and more with economic sustainability and balance. I really dig the idea of getting an understanding of the ecological footprint of a company, and the implications of allowing a company to consume those resources gratis. As Alasdair mentions, setting the exchange rate on the use of environmental resources is a very political and subjective matter, but it's one that IMO needs to be done in order to balance the long-term economic implications. Put another way: there is a finite amount of consumable resources, and a downstream cost associated with the effects of depleting those resources. Presently, there's no economic benefit to behaving in a way which optimizes the use of those resources ... which seems decidedly short-sighted.
I don't see this as an issue of good global citizenship or anything touchy-feely like that. I see it as an issue of sustained economic survival ... R&D costs money, and the only reason any company would spend time on things like alternative fuels and production methods would be if they see a cost benefit. Without any economic cost applied to the use of natural resources, there's no real reason for them to shift their methods.
What I worry about most is that as the rest of the world globalizes and industrializes, the sudden and dramatic increase in resource use will outpace projections and models that are based on historical trend data. This will effect the date at which we hit the "wall" on resources, oil being the early contender.
I share your optimism in the potential of people to develop alternative fuel methods, but presently the economic benefit in funding such research simply doesn't balance the costs. I'm therefore -- generally speaking -- totally behind policy initiatives that encourage companies to develop such alternative technologies.
But yeah ... Kyoto was a dumb way of doing it. I still like the idea of pollution credits that "green" companies can sell to non-green companies, as a way of balancing out the costs of going green in the first place.
</rant>
5:19 PM
I did get the idea from your post that economics is an important factor that shouldn't be overlooked and not the only factor - and I don't even really disagree with that point of view. As devil's advocate, I defend my right to set the cat amongst the pigeons regardless of what I really think. ;) And of course I realize AIDS is a global problem, but I think it frames nicely the problem with letting economic interests guide the responses to these kinds of issues: it's really easy to say 'yes it's a problem, but it's not MY problem' without seeing the '...right now' that needs to be tacked onto the end.
We have a tendency when left unchecked to go for the quick buck now instead of the big buck later, and that applies as much to using fossil fuels unchecked instead of developing viable alternative power as it does to fighting legislated emissions controls on economic grounds. You (and I) may well argue that Kyoto is a poor plan for achieving its intended effect, but the alternatives proposed by the commercial sectors of the major opponents to Kyoto have mostly been along the lines of 'we value the resources so we're inherently compelled to protect them' -- which is just counter to human nature and to a long history of human consumptive history. (Never moreso than when money is involved, which is why I picked on that aspect of your post.)
"In my terms, it matters more to me that people be able to live and grow, all over the world."
I've often had trouble reconciling that emotional desire with the intellectual knowledge that our planet just can't handle that.
-Alasdair
1:24 AM
When I was working on the environmental education programs with other eco-activists, they were all shocked that one of the areas of study I planned to pursue in grad school was economics.
Huh?
Ecology (root OIKOS, meaning house) is basically the biology of the many systems and parts that make up our home.
Economics (root OIKOS, meaning house) is basically the measuring of the many systems and parts that make up our home.
How could a rational human being possibly hope to focus on one without the other?
THAT is a ridiculous notion.
An economist does his job largely to help us determine the most efficient allocation of our resources.
An ecologist does his job largely to help people understand what our natural resources are.
The popular idea that our goals are different is nonsense. We don't really want different things. We have different ideas about how to get all those things that are nearly universally desired.
11:38 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home