Sunday, November 18, 2007

Bjorn Lomborg as pariah

I just read an article by someone at the Voice of San Diego Web site, blaming the wildfires on global warming. Nobody disagrees about global warming anymore, he announces, except a few like Bjorn Lomborg, who says the global warming doesn't matter.

I think the reason take so many potshots at Lomborg is that he apostasized. The people at Fox News have always been right wing on all subjects, but Lomborg was once a fairly mainstream environmentalist. He developed doubts, and religions take a much harder line on people who leave the flock than those who never subscribe to their beliefs.

Put very simply, Lomborg doubts that the trend is as well documented as people would like us to believe, but more importantly, we can't do diddly about it. Those who say we must respond seem to avoid the question of whether we can. Since China and India have both indicated that they will take no action that slows their efforts to bring their populations out of poverty, the likelihood that real agreement can be reached is zero. And, as Lomborg further points out, if everything in Kyoto were implemented, we would merely delay slightly the doom which is predicted.

In actuality, modern engineering will solve almost all the problems that realistically may result from global warming (which does not include large proportions of species dying off). In fact, this solution, which will take place, will cost a fraction of what the "solution," actually just a delay, that the global warming worriers propose.

While the US cannot make a major impact on global warming trends, it can through its own policies take itself out of the fossil fuel dependence that is sapping its economy and putting it into an increasingly fragile military situation. This we can do. It won't stop wildfires, which are due primarily to other factors, and we may still get a few degrees warmer. But we won't owe our souls to the Chinese and the Saudis. That's an objective worthwhile on its own.

1 comment:

Joseph Hunkins said...

Much of the debate, I am now convinced, hinges more on an attempt to vindicate/use the 1960's catastrophe talk some of us remember well. Food and energy would dwindle to near zero levels, billions would starve, and a cloud of noxious gas would make surface life uninhabitable. Hmmmm - solutions arrived and I'd argue they were not the product of the hype - they were the product of the engineering and math and innovation that has made human propagation more problematic than human and environmental devastation.