Friday, November 03, 2006
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Climate Non-Conformity Saving lives versus saving planet Earth.
Thursday, November 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
Two scientific events of note occurred this week, but only one got any media coverage. Therein lies a story about modern politics and scientific priorities.
The report that received the headlines was Monday's 700-page jeremiad out of London on fighting climate change. Commissioned by the British government and overseen by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, the report made the intentionally shocking prediction that global warming could eliminate from 5% to 20% of world economic output "forever." Meanwhile, doing the supposedly virtuous thing and trying to forestall this catastrophe would cost merely an estimated 1% of world GDP. Thus we must act urgently and with new taxes and policies that go well beyond anything in the failed Kyoto Protocol.
The other event was a meeting at the United Nations organized by economist Bjørn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center. Ambassadors from 24 countries--including Australia, China, India and the U.S.--mulled which problems to address if the world suddenly found an extra $50 billion lying around. Mr. Lomborg's point is that, in a world with scarce resources, you need priorities. The consensus was that communicable diseases, sanitation and water, malnutrition and hunger, and education were all higher priorities than climate change.
We invited Mr. Lomborg to address the Stern report, and he takes apart its analysis brick-by-brick here. To our reading, there isn't much left of this politicized edifice. But we'd stress a couple of points ourselves.
The first is that the Stern review almost surely understates the real costs of combating climate change. The International Energy Agency has estimated that the world must spend $16 trillion on infrastructure from 2001 to 2030 just to meet growing energy demand. That by itself would be 1% of GDP over that period. And that doesn't include the cost of moving to carbon-free power from fossil fuels, or the financial "incentives"--i.e., global subsidies from Western taxpayers--that China and India would need if the Stern report's policies were to have any chance of being implemented. The Stern review also calls for substantially increasing taxes, which we know from experience would also reduce global GDP and thus leave fewer resources to fight the consequences of any warming.
The second point is that the Stern report barely mentions the potential benefits from warming in the world's cold-weather regions. Al Gore and others warn about the damage from coastal flooding and changing weather patterns, among other horror scenarios. But the world is large and its climate diverse, and a longer growing season in Siberia or Canada is at least one possible benefit of warming. The Stern report also dismisses any chance of moderate warming (meaning temperatures in 2100 only two to three degrees Celsius higher than in 1900), even though many climate models say this is in fact the most likely outcome.
Unlike the Stern report and its patrons, those of us who take a skeptical approach to these doomsday climate scenarios aren't trying to end the discussion. The Earth is warmer now than it was in the recent past, and this may be partly attributable to human behavior. But everything else--from how much warmer, to the extent of mankind's contribution, to the cost of doing something about it--remains very much in dispute.
Some of the Stern review's recommendations, such as carbon trading rights, are also worth debating. But most of its proposals are merely openings for government to expand its role in allocating investment, raising taxes and otherwise controlling economic decisions. Socialism was supposed to have died with the Soviet Union, but it is making a comeback under the guise of coping with global warming.
Meanwhile, there are far more urgent, and far less speculative, problems that we know how to solve with the right policies. That message may not get scary headlines, but it would improve the lives of more human beings around the world.
Thursday, November 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
Two scientific events of note occurred this week, but only one got any media coverage. Therein lies a story about modern politics and scientific priorities.
The report that received the headlines was Monday's 700-page jeremiad out of London on fighting climate change. Commissioned by the British government and overseen by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, the report made the intentionally shocking prediction that global warming could eliminate from 5% to 20% of world economic output "forever." Meanwhile, doing the supposedly virtuous thing and trying to forestall this catastrophe would cost merely an estimated 1% of world GDP. Thus we must act urgently and with new taxes and policies that go well beyond anything in the failed Kyoto Protocol.
The other event was a meeting at the United Nations organized by economist Bjørn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center. Ambassadors from 24 countries--including Australia, China, India and the U.S.--mulled which problems to address if the world suddenly found an extra $50 billion lying around. Mr. Lomborg's point is that, in a world with scarce resources, you need priorities. The consensus was that communicable diseases, sanitation and water, malnutrition and hunger, and education were all higher priorities than climate change.
We invited Mr. Lomborg to address the Stern report, and he takes apart its analysis brick-by-brick here. To our reading, there isn't much left of this politicized edifice. But we'd stress a couple of points ourselves.
The first is that the Stern review almost surely understates the real costs of combating climate change. The International Energy Agency has estimated that the world must spend $16 trillion on infrastructure from 2001 to 2030 just to meet growing energy demand. That by itself would be 1% of GDP over that period. And that doesn't include the cost of moving to carbon-free power from fossil fuels, or the financial "incentives"--i.e., global subsidies from Western taxpayers--that China and India would need if the Stern report's policies were to have any chance of being implemented. The Stern review also calls for substantially increasing taxes, which we know from experience would also reduce global GDP and thus leave fewer resources to fight the consequences of any warming.
The second point is that the Stern report barely mentions the potential benefits from warming in the world's cold-weather regions. Al Gore and others warn about the damage from coastal flooding and changing weather patterns, among other horror scenarios. But the world is large and its climate diverse, and a longer growing season in Siberia or Canada is at least one possible benefit of warming. The Stern report also dismisses any chance of moderate warming (meaning temperatures in 2100 only two to three degrees Celsius higher than in 1900), even though many climate models say this is in fact the most likely outcome.
Unlike the Stern report and its patrons, those of us who take a skeptical approach to these doomsday climate scenarios aren't trying to end the discussion. The Earth is warmer now than it was in the recent past, and this may be partly attributable to human behavior. But everything else--from how much warmer, to the extent of mankind's contribution, to the cost of doing something about it--remains very much in dispute.
Some of the Stern review's recommendations, such as carbon trading rights, are also worth debating. But most of its proposals are merely openings for government to expand its role in allocating investment, raising taxes and otherwise controlling economic decisions. Socialism was supposed to have died with the Soviet Union, but it is making a comeback under the guise of coping with global warming.
Meanwhile, there are far more urgent, and far less speculative, problems that we know how to solve with the right policies. That message may not get scary headlines, but it would improve the lives of more human beings around the world.
This will be a disaster
The new Muslim prime minister of Thailand, installed by military coup, has apologized to Muslims in the south.
And he’s urging the “limited use” of shari’a law.
PATTANI, Thailand - Thailand’s interim prime minister publicly apologized Thursday for the former government’s hard-line policies against an Islamic insurgency, promising an investigation into allegations of human rights abuses by the administration deposed in a recent coup.
In an unexpected initiative, Chulanont Surayud also said he would urge the limited use of Islamic law in Thailand’s Muslim-majority south to settle some disputes, especially over inheritance and family affairs, he said.
Surayud was accompanied by army chief Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratkalin, a practicing Muslim who led the Sept. 19 coup. Previous governments have shown little acceptance of Muslim culture.
An “unexpected initiative?”
Not unexpected at LGF:
Thailand Coup Installs Muslim Prime Minister
The Real Subtext of the Thai Coup
And he’s urging the “limited use” of shari’a law.
PATTANI, Thailand - Thailand’s interim prime minister publicly apologized Thursday for the former government’s hard-line policies against an Islamic insurgency, promising an investigation into allegations of human rights abuses by the administration deposed in a recent coup.
In an unexpected initiative, Chulanont Surayud also said he would urge the limited use of Islamic law in Thailand’s Muslim-majority south to settle some disputes, especially over inheritance and family affairs, he said.
Surayud was accompanied by army chief Gen. Sondhi Boonyaratkalin, a practicing Muslim who led the Sept. 19 coup. Previous governments have shown little acceptance of Muslim culture.
An “unexpected initiative?”
Not unexpected at LGF:
Thailand Coup Installs Muslim Prime Minister
The Real Subtext of the Thai Coup
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Portland Trail Blazers Get Hint After Being Left Off 2006-07 NBA Schedule
PORTLAND, OR—Claiming that it would "just make an awkward situation even worse," Portland Trail Blazers head coach Nate McMillan said in a press conference last Sunday that he and his team "got the hint" after noticing his team's conspicuous absence on the 2006-07 NBA schedule, and will not make any attempt to play a basketball game this year. "At first we thought that they were giving us the first week off, but after looking at the schedule for the rest of the year, we understood what was going on," said McMillan, adding that after last year's league-worst 21-62 record, he thought this might be coming. "I feel we deserved to find out differently, maybe a phone call, but if they don't want us there, fine. We'll just have to find something else to do." League officials said in a statement yesterday that they appreciated the way the Trail Blazers were handling this, adding that the Atlanta Hawks and the New York Knicks have "been acting like a bunch of babies about the whole thing."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
On Francisco Franco
On Francisco Franco written by Charles Few Americans know much about Francisco Franco, leader of the winning side in the Spanish C...
