Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Donít Waste Time Cutting Emissions
New York Times ^ | April 24, 2009 | Bjorn Lomborg

Posted on 04/25/2009 4:48:50 AM PDT by reaganaut1

WE are often told that tackling global warming should be the defining task of our age — that we must cut emissions immediately and drastically. But people are not buying the idea that, unless we act, the planet is doomed. Several recent polls have revealed Americans’ growing skepticism. Solving global warming has become their lowest policy priority, according to a new Pew survey.

Moreover, strategies to reduce carbon have failed. Meeting in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, politicians from wealthy countries promised to cut emissions by 2000, but did no such thing. In Kyoto in 1997, leaders promised even stricter reductions by 2010, yet emissions have kept increasing unabated. Still, the leaders plan to meet in Copenhagen this December to agree to even more of the same — drastic reductions in emissions that no one will live up to. Another decade will be wasted.

Fortunately, there is a better option: to make low-carbon alternatives like solar and wind energy competitive with old carbon sources. This requires much more spending on research and development of low-carbon energy technology. We might have assumed that investment in this research would have increased when the Kyoto Protocol made fossil fuel use more expensive, but it has not.

Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good. If the Kyoto agreement were fully obeyed through 2099, it would cut temperatures by only 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. Each dollar would do only about 30 cents worth of good.

The Copenhagen agreement should instead call for every country to spend [0.05%] of its gross domestic product on low-carbon energy research and development.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bjornlomborg; capandtrade; energy; globalwarming; lomborg
There are many arguments against cap-and-tax AKA cap-and-trade. One is that Earth has not been getting warmer over the last 10 years, although some scientists say this is an aberration. Another argument against cap-and-trade is that even drastic cuts in emissions would have a negligible effect on climate. Who wants to spend trillions of dollars to prevent "warming" of 0.3 degree Fahrenheit?

I am skeptical of Lomborg's call for massive spending energy R&D. Nuclear energy is ready now. Maybe Lomborg advocates the R&D spending to show that he is in favor of doing something.

1 posted on 04/25/2009 4:48:50 AM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good.

This is just an outright lie. How can they prove this "theory"? It's never been tried.

2 posted on 04/25/2009 4:53:31 AM PDT by raybbr (It's going to get a lot worse now that the anchor babies are voting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good.


Sorry, I call BS on this claim. Big time. These “studies” probably assign blame for every flood, heat wave, or general weather anomaly to global warming.


3 posted on 04/25/2009 4:55:51 AM PDT by rbg81 (DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rbg81
Economic estimates that assign value to the long-term benefits that would come from reducing warming — things like fewer deaths from heat and less flooding — show that every dollar invested in quickly making low-carbon energy cheaper can do $16 worth of good.

For long term differences in climate, there are more cold-related deaths than heat-related deaths anyway. Some would disagree, pointing out the heat wave deaths of recent years in France and even in Chicago. These, though, are acute heat episodes, not a degree or two increase in average global warmth. And the deaths in them would have been preventable if (in the U.S.) people had made use of available public cooling facilities. Of course, under Obama's proposed cap and trade scheme, we're facing a much greater likelihood of increased weather-related deaths due to both heat and cold because of too expensive natural gas and electricity.
4 posted on 04/25/2009 5:06:50 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Several recent polls have revealed Americans’ growing skepticism. Solving global warming has become their lowest policy priority, according to a new Pew survey.
Moreover, strategies to reduce carbon have failed.

Right track - wrong train.

It is patently obvious that lower emissions is not the goal at all - it is pablum for the masses
The goal is control - just like in the movie, The Matrix

Control and taking trillions of dollars from the Western World, and giving it to the Socialist cause & the third world, both of which achieve the goal of making us poorer and legalizing the theft of our hard earned wealth.

To this end they will also camouflage the immediate effects of this impoverishment by printing trillions of dollars, thereby pushing the consequence of this onto a newer, even more dumbed down and controlled, generation.

see tagline.

5 posted on 04/25/2009 5:08:24 AM PDT by bill1952 (Power is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1; FrPR; enough_idiocy; Desdemona; rdl6989; Little Bill; IrishCatholic; Normandy; ...
 




Beam me to Planet Gore !

6 posted on 04/25/2009 5:08:42 AM PDT by steelyourfaith ("The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." -Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The only way to save the planet is to rape taxpayers. Got it.


7 posted on 04/25/2009 5:11:51 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Coal burning provides half of the world’s electricity, and fully 80 percent of it ok? in China and India

Sure, for the NY Times making up statistics is A-ok.

8 posted on 04/25/2009 5:13:14 AM PDT by Reeses (Leftism is powered by the evil force of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Libs should volunteer to live a life of poverty. Al Gore first.


9 posted on 04/25/2009 5:28:31 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Big Ears + Big Spending --> BigEarMarx, the man behind TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
"making up statistics is A-ok. "

86.8% of statistics quoted on the web and in the media are made up.

10 posted on 04/25/2009 5:41:43 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Big Ears + Big Spending --> BigEarMarx, the man behind TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

Of course, under Obama’s proposed cap and trade scheme, we’re facing a much greater likelihood of increased weather-related deaths due to both heat and cold because of too expensive natural gas and electricity.


Excellent point!!


11 posted on 04/25/2009 6:27:16 AM PDT by rbg81 (DRAIN THE SWAMP!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/325633.html


12 posted on 04/25/2009 6:49:58 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Cap-and-trade! China WILL NOT play by the rules, U.S. industry gets SCREWED and Al Gore gets even richer!


13 posted on 04/25/2009 7:16:35 AM PDT by WellyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
This is just an outright lie. How can they prove this "theory"? It's never been tried.

He certainly didn't help himself with that statement.

14 posted on 04/25/2009 2:59:43 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; America_Right; ..
DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Compromise climate bill possible

'World News' Airs Catastrophic Global Warming story for Earth Day

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

15 posted on 04/25/2009 6:55:05 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

This guy Bjorn Lumborg is a middle of the roader who will get run over by both sides.


16 posted on 04/25/2009 7:47:14 PM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (Be prepared for tough times. FReepmail me to learn about our survival thread!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
The argument is specious. He advocates fewer deaths by heat which sounds wonderful until you realize that deaths by cold weather are far more likely to kill.
17 posted on 04/25/2009 10:51:29 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
I think Bjorn Lomberg's strategy makes sense. Rely on the free market to wean us off fossil fuels and improve the quality of life. In contrast, the Algore approach would mandate governmental limits on emissions and increase costs for every one. There's a right way and a wrong way to preserve the environment for future generations. Just don't expect the politicians to listen to Lomberg's sensible advice.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

18 posted on 04/26/2009 3:26:50 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...

The Bum Rap on Biofuels
American Thinker | 5-13-08 | Herbert Meyer
Posted on 05/14/2008 3:59:06 AM PDT by Renfield
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2015711/posts

Campaign to vilify ethanol revealed
ethanol producer Magazine | May 16, 2008 | By Kris Bevill
Posted on 05/17/2008 9:22:13 AM PDT by Kevin J waldroup
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2017389/posts


19 posted on 04/26/2009 7:54:17 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson