Curing the Illness
The quickest route to notoriety these days is to position yourself as an enlightened skeptic. A rash of books of this genre has made celebrities of formerly obscure economists. This angle works well in the global warming debate too, where the messianic zeal of environmentalists and their celebrity friends makes the climate change movement an easy target for more reasoned critics. The latest book to receive a disproportionate share of attention is the provocatively named “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming.” The Skeptical Environmentalist is Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish writer who rose to fame in 2001 by questioning the apocalyptic claims of global warming alarmists. His latest book takes aim at the proposed policies for limiting climate change, including efforts to limit worldwide carbon emissions. Lomborg, who doesn’t dispute the prevailing evidence of mankind’s contributions to global warming, claims that efforts to reduce carbon emissions may only have limited impact and will divert resources away from addressing the true impact of climate change, which is likely to be famine, disease and economic dislocation in the developing world. Preventing a relatively minor rise in sea levels raises should be of minor concern to us, according to Lomborg, and certainly not worth the disruption in the growth of the global economy caused by forcing a premature shift away from fossil fuels. Lomborg’s views have received a stamp of approval from New York Times writer John Tierney, who fancies himself somewhat of contrarian as well. Tierney famously questioned the wisdom of recycling in a 1996 article for the New York Times Magazine. For this latest article, Tierney uses the plainly unscientific method of visiting an undisturbed 18th century building on the southern tip of Manhattan with Lomborg to illustrate the inconsequential impact of rising sea levels on Manhattan.
Lomborg’s argument reflects the black and white nature of the debate over not just global warming but also policies to reduce carbon emitting activities. The transition from fossil fuels to more sustainable energy sources has its rationale in more than simply environmental concerns. Even if you choose to ignore the perils of a warming planet, a global economy less dependent on oil and coal may be essential, not destructive, to the march to world prosperity. This is the fallacy of conceptual arguments; reality is always inconveniently complicated and better suited to practical solutions. Arlington, Texas has been firmly opposed to offering public transit throughout its history and is now the largest city in the U.S. without any form of alternative transport. The city, however, may be ready for change, and the reversal has not come about because of some high-minded concern for the environment but because the city realizes that its low income residents can no longer afford to drive to work. With gas prices eating up increasing amounts of disposable income, achieving the American dream suddenly depends on using less not more oil.
Lomborg also falls prey to the myopia that affects most climate change skeptics: we can manage through the projected change in world temperatures over the next century. But what about the changes over the next 200 years? Or 500 years? Just because the most destructive change may happen over a period of time beyond our comprehension, does that mean we have the right to underrate its impact? We also don’t know about the potential for accelerated warming as levels of carbon in the atmosphere continue to increase. The skeptics love to cite the unknowns as a reason to do nothing, or in Lomborg’s case, simply treat the symptoms. However, our conscience should tell us to address the causes as well. Our ongoing complicity in activities that contribute to global warming because we can’t be certain of the timing and scale of damage to the earth represents a particularly disturbing form of human hubris.
In the end, I’m not really sure why we need to make a choice between reducing our impact on the environment and preparing to address the most harmful impacts of global warming. They aren’t mutually exclusive objectives and each are independently worthy of global cooperation. I realize this view isn’t very fashionable, but since I don’t have a book to sell, I'm quite content in my bland optimism.