Global Warming Skeptic Says Kyoto Money a Waste

Reuters ^ | Tue, Jun 22, 2004

[presidio9]

MAINZ, Germany (Reuters) - One of the world's leading environmentalists and a renowned skeptic went face-to-face on Monday to put their case on the merits of fighting global warming.

On the home territory of Klaus Toepfer, head of the United Nations (news - web sites) Environment Program, controversial author Bjorn Lomborg argued money spent on slowing global warming would be much better spent fighting more immediate human misery.

In a high-spirited exchange, the two warmed up by putting their cases to journalists before continuing their battle in front of a curious audience of some 300 at the University of Mainz in western Germany.

"Global warming (news - web sites) is something that we can do very little about at very high cost a long time from now," said Lomborg, whose influential 1998 book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" made him a darling of the right wing.

He said the hundreds of billions of dollars the U.N.'s Kyoto pact aimed at curbing global warming would cost, would be better spent on fighting AIDS (news - web sites), hunger or illiteracy, and would buy just six years of delay to climate change by the year 2100.

"A farmer in Bangladesh may have to leave his home six years later but is that what we really want to spend our money on?" asked Lomborg, a Danish statistician and former Greenpeace member who now runs a government-sponsored think tank.

Former German environment minister Toepfer retorted: "I don't want the farmers to move six years later. I want to change the world so that they don't have to move at all."

Lomborg, citing increased average global calorie intake and reduced pollution in cities such as London, argued: "Things are getting better, not worse."

But many of the audience in environmentally conscious Germany, where the Green Party is junior coalition party in the government, were unconvinced.

"It was very good to have the discussion between the two opponents, but you can't just say: 'Let's spend less money on wind power and more on malaria'," said engineering student Alexander Gasel. "That's too simplistic."

A 61-year-old doctor added: "My opinions weren't changed. In my view, we should spend money on environmental protection."

And Ariane Rief, a 14-year-old school girl, said: "It's true that you can spend more money on other things, but we shouldn't lose sight of the big question of global warming."

[vpintheak]

Loony lefties! It has been Mid 80's to 90's up here in Fairbanks the past week, Oh no Global warming! Then again, thinking rationally, I can't remember when it reached 80 at all last summer. I guess the temperature fluctuates, huh?

[narby]

Reuters bias forced them to only include audience comments that were pro-envirowhako.

And this in reporting a balanced debate.

[JohnnyZ]

you can't just say: 'Let's spend less money on wind power and more on malaria'," said engineering student Alexander Gasel. "That's too simplistic."

Clearly, the answer is to spend more money on BOTH!

[presidio9]

And Ariane Rief, a 14-year-old school girl, said: "It's true that you can spend more money on other things, but we shouldn't lose sight of the big question of global warming."

I can't tell you how glad I am that we got to hear from Ariane on this subject.

[presidio9]

Now wait just a minute:

We are clearly not spending enough on AIDS research, and it's still Mr. Reagan's fault!

[leadpencil1]

"The Skeptical Environmentalist" is an excellent book. Highly recommended. I even picked up my copy in a college bookstore (Vassar College) . Imagine that!

[ricks_place]

KYOTO has Not been Useless

The Kyoto Treaty has been interesting in its political and economic consequences. However, the law of unintended consequences has been followed in unexpected ways. The Euros have aided creation of wealth in America by using less oil. The US has taken the brunt of criticism and other nations have been protected from harshness. But America's foes and some allies have pressed ahead with the noble goals of Kyoto. Slower economic growth and a socialized world.

But something strange occurred. America did not not sign nor implement the treaty. Yet, many Euros signed and started actions to conform to the treaty. Kyoto has been a boon to America during this current oil crisis. World stocks of oil would be greatly strained, had the Euros not self imposed the elements demanded by Kyoto. The world price of oil would be horrific.

Thank you France, Germany, Europe for using less oil so that America may use more.

[Yo-Yo]

You had a very mild winter, too. Didn't the 2004 Iditarod get rained on?

[Dead Dog]

I'm calling this NPS, NPR Pinhead Syndrome. It is the belief that slow, condescending speech trumps fact and reality.

Here's a quick test. Find a global warming advocate, and ask them why Ice Core samples show that CO2 rises every 100K-125K years...and lags global warming by as much as a year.

ie, the raw data show the cause-effect relationship is reversed. If you get slow, well annunciated BS as a response..you know you are dealing with a victim, and carrier, of NPS. Euthanasia might be the only cure.

[Dead Dog]

Make that "lags global warming by as much as 1000 years"

[Reeses]

noble goals of Kyoto

Luddite goals are never noble, they are cowardly and anti-mankind. A noble cause would be developing the technology to control the climate to be anything we want. We did this with the world's fresh water, taming a massive wild resource with new technology. Now we must tame Earth's wild weather.

This used to be a funny Mark Twain line: "Everyone complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it." It's not so funny now because we do have some means to manage the weather. Instead of doing this we're expending our limited resources selfishly on short-term social welfare programs, only making the longer-term problem worse.

[B Knotts]

But many of the audience in environmentally conscious Germany, where the Green Party is junior coalition party in the government, were unconvinced.

Well, that's not surprising. Envirokookism has become their religion.

[Dead Dog]

Actually, the earth's weather is a wonderful mechanism for regulating heat. It's one really big heat pump. Nature should be harnessed and used, but don't try controling it. Like Economics, nature is best left to regulate itself. In fact, I would argue that Economics is just nature on a macro level.

[coloradan]

Wow! Three quotes from lefties, and not one from someone who agrees with Lomborg. That's "fair and balanced," Reuters-style.

[Reeses]

nature is best left to regulate itself.

I respectfully disagree. Some things must be actively managed to provide a better quality of life. Could 6 billion people live on Earth today if we didn't use lakes and reservoirs for fresh water management? Almost all the worlds fresh water is now actively managed and controlled, to the point that Earth wobbles slightly differently and spins slightly slower from all the water mass held up unnaturally high in reservoirs.

Humans are not wild animals. We aren't limited to live only were it's warm and there are rivers. To be human is to control our environment, and manage it properly. We've reached the point in our history where we must now start managing the climate. It's either that or becoming a Kyoto Luddite and letting the wild control us.

[Dilbert56]

Remember the "nuclear winter" scenarios. A nuclear weapons exchange would throw so much dust into the air that the earth would plunge into another ice age. It follows then that, if global warming gets out of hand, we can just resume above ground testing of nukes and everything will even out.

[Dead Dog]

You respectfully missed the point. I said used. Screw with weather, and you get worse weather. Were not talking about daming rivers, were talking about redirrecting MASSIVE amounts of thermal energy.

Yah, like we "control" the water system. Buy a house in a flood zone, and tell us all about it.

And like the economic system, command weather wouldn't be good. Harness it yes, command, you've got to be kidding.

[Reeses]

Were not talking about daming rivers, were talking about redirrecting MASSIVE amounts of thermal energy.

Controlling massive amounts of climate generated fresh water, telling it where to go and when, is not that much different than controlling the source in the sky. Air is a fluid, just thinner. We don't control 100% of the fresh water, but I would guess maybe 90% of it does what we tell it to. Similarly, we need to develop technology to manage 90% of the climate, not let it manage us. Like road building, or building Hoover Dam, this is one of the few things government is good for.