|
Most everyone agrees that global warming is a scientific fact. But what no one seems to agree is on how to curb the problem. In Cool It, author Bjorn Lomborg, argues that all of the world's current attempts to curb the problem, and specifically C02, the largest contributor to global warming, are too expensive and insignificant in addressing the problems. In addition, he writes that, "Many other issues are much more important than global warming." He then continues to outline strategies to address some of the world's most critical problems: hunger, poverty and disease.
He admits that people will get riled up and continues by saying, "We need to remind ourselves that our ultimate goal is not to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or global warming per se but to improve the quality of life and the environment…radically reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not necessarily the best way to achieve that. As we go through the data, we will see that it actually is one of the least helpful ways of serving humanity or the environment."
I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I was skeptical (he even subtitled his book the skeptical environmentalists' guide to global warming) not about the truth of global warming, but how by addressing other world concerns, indirectly we would be reducing the effects of global warming. But as I continued to read, I was shocked by how much I agreed with him on certain points.
For instance, he cites that stronger and more frequent hurricanes have become one of the standard exhibits of global-warming concerns but the strength and frequency of recent hurricanes cannot be scientifically linked to global warming. What he points out is that because we have (specially the United States) spent billons of dollars building homes and businesses on the coasts, and on flood planes, our actions are causing more damage than what a hurricane or excessive rain actually does. It brings to mind a fantastic book, Isaac's Storm, by Erik Larson, that tells the tale of one of America's worst hurricanes ever that hit America, landing on the coast of Galveston, TX in 1900. If this storm would have hit the area today, it would have caused more than $100 billion dollars in damage. Lombarg's solution is to build better buildings and stop building in areas that are in the lines of hurricanes and floods and stop making it affordable for people and businesses to do so.
Lomborg mentions other issues that have been the poster children for global warming including polar bears and notes that more than 800 polar bears are killed by hunting each year but less and a dozen can be attributed to the effects of global warming. Do we want to save the polar bears, stop hunting. I wonder what Aldo Leopold would say about that or maybe Charles Darwin. I suppose Aldo would tell us to revaluate the numbers hunted and Charles would tell us to let natural selection and survival of the fittest take over.
As for hunger, Lomborg provides research that demonstrates that the developing world has experienced a 40 percent increase in available calories. In addition the proportion of malnourished has decreased from 50 percent to 17 percent. He goes into detail on the best way to spend less money and have a greater impact on reducing world hunger even more.
Water use is explored - we have enough of it, it just isn't properly allocated - as is the Kyoto treaty - which is too expensive, not achievable, and focuses on the wrong issues. The economics of not only global climate change are addressed, but also hunger, water use, C02 and more. He proposes the strategy of paying billions of dollars to address more pressing issues with the expense still being billions of dollars less than needed to achieve the Kyoto protocol but with greater results. Is it possible? Maybe we should call in Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, the authors of Freakonomics and put then on the case. I bet they could tell us once and for all.
Okay, so what is the solution to reducing the effects of global warming besides ending world hunger, eradicating malaria and returning lands to their natural habits? One solution is investing more research in R&D that focuses on renewable energy and energy efficiency. In America governmental support for research has dropped off significantly since the 1980s. He proposes an increase in R&D by tenfold - almost $25 billion annually — which should enable the world to stabilize climate at a reasonable level.
I can't give away all the secrets found in this book but they are definitely worth exploring. This book is a must read if you want a new, different and insightful perspective on better ways to reduce global climate change.
For more information about the book, or its author, visit:
http://www.lomborg.com/cool_it
|
