Apples and oranges. Lomborg doesn't know the results of terrorism if we had not spent the money. If Bush had done nothing after 9/11 - surely we would have had more attacks.
CLIMATE CHANGE
There is unequivocal evidence that humans are changing the planet's climate. We are already committed to average temperature increases of about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit, even without further rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.
The world has focused on mitigation -- reducing carbon emissions -- as its response to this challenge. The Kyoto Protocol was an international attempt to cut back on these emissions, and at the end of 2009 politicians will gather in Copenhagen to discuss Kyoto's successor. Although we don't focus on other possible solutions to this challenge, they do exist.
If mitigation -- economic measures like taxes or trading systems -- succeeded in capping industrialized emissions at 2010 levels, then the world would pump out 55 billion tons of carbon emissions in 2100, instead of 67 billion tons.
This is a difference of 18%; but the benefits would remain smaller than 0.5% of the world's GDP for more than 200 years. These benefits simply are not large enough to make the investment worthwhile.
Spending $800 billion (in total present-day terms) over 100 years solely on mitigating emissions would reduce temperature increases by just 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century.
When you add up the benefits of that spending -- from the slightly lower temperatures -- the returns are only $685 billion. For each extra dollar spent, we would get 90 cents of benefits -- and this is even when things like environmental damage are taken into account.
A continued narrow focus on mitigation alone will clearly not solve the climate problem. One problem right now: Although politicians base their decisions on the assumption that low-carbon energy technology is being rapidly developed, that is not the case. These technologies just do not exist. Wind and solar power are available -- at a high expense -- but suffer from intermittency. Researchers need to develop better ways to store electricity when those renewable sources are offline.
If we took that $800 billion and spent it on research and development into clean energy, the results would be remarkably better. In comparison with the 90-cent return from investing solely in mitigation, each dollar spent on research and development would generate $11 of benefits.
(Figures based on research by Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University, and Christopher Green, McGill University.)
This drivel from "the Skeptical Environmentalist"?
The Best Global Warming Videos on the Internet |
“...there have been 67 more deaths, on average, each year...”
That is if you’re only counting from 9/11.
If you start counting from the Olympic Games slaughter of Israeli athletes in Munich during the 60’s - the numbers and nationalities are much, much greater.
Regarding what to do with an extra $10 billion, I would start a bias-free internet-based news service founded on the principle of absolute accuracy and in depth analysis. There would be a daily feature in which the top stories from the day before as reported in high visibility main-stream news sources would be vetted for inaccuracies. I would also set aside a very large prize for the person or company that came up with the best alternative energy approach.
Big Yawn here....thanks for the reminder there are really people out there who continue to think like we have a never-ending capacity and desire to save our world.
Love your suggestions Mr. Lomborg - sorry - I think the USA is pretty much tapped out on giving right now - we have to take care of our own nation which has been hijacked by global warming nuts and half-baked politicians who refuse to develop our own resources in favor of pouring billions into other nations - some of whom are our enemies. Not to mention draining our beautiful young men and women into death and life-long trauma both mental and physical through military service in lands we can’t control or manage in the long term.
Try again in about ten years ummmmmm ok?
This is so full of holes and inaccuracies I don’t know where to begin. An terrorist attack with a nuclear device could eat up that $70B in a heartbeat.
“If Bush had done nothing after 9/11 - surely we would have had more attacks.”
You know this, how?
Hank
I have a plan for the situation of having $10 billion. I might not need the plan, but it is good to have a plan.
Me, I’d spend 5 billion on booze and women and probably waste the rest.
The DARPA grand challenge was a wonderful investment. For a few million in prizes we now have military vehicles that can drive themselves not to mention newly minted engineers with developed robotic design skills. If we need to take on China we're going to need robots to win.