Bjorn Lomborg

IPCC says debate over, further delay fatal, action not costly

In its definitive scientific synthesis report (PDF), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) today issued its strongest call for immediate action to save humanity from the deadly consequences of unrestrained greenhouse gas emissions.

This report -- signed off by 130 nations including the U.S. and China -- slams the door on any argument for delay and makes clear we must under no circumstances listen to those who urge that we wait (who knows how long) to develop as yet non-existent technology [this means you President Bush, Newt Gingrich, Bjorn Lomborg]. As The New York Times put it:

Members of the panel said their review of the data led them to conclude as a group and individually that reductions in greenhouse gasses had to start immediately to avert a global climate disaster that could leave island states submerged and abandoned, African crop yields decreased by 50 percent, and cause over a 5 percent decrease in global gross domestic product.

... this summary was the first to acknowledge that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet from rising temperature [which would raise the oceans 23 feet] could result in sea-level rise over centuries rather than millennia.

Readers of this blog know the IPCC almost certainly underestimates the timing and severity of likely impacts because it ignores or downplays key amplifying feedbacks in the carbon cycle (see "Are scientists overestimating or underestimating climate change," especially Part II and Part III). Indeed, IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri -- a scientist and economist -- admitted as much:

He said that since the panel began its work five years ago, scientists have recorded "much stronger trends in climate change," like a recent melting of polar ice that had not been predicted. "That means you better start with intervention much earlier."

How much earlier? The normally understated Pachauri warns:

"If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."

In short: time's up! America, we better pick the right President in 2008.

To balance the bad news, the IPCC and its member governments agree on the good news -- action is affordable:

George Will’s latest column tests the limits of self parody

George Will pulls off a real triple axel of hackery in his latest column, taking the Stepford flimflam of Bjorn Lomborg and ladling on a glutinous serving of his own pinkie-raised pomposity. Rarely has such a poor grasp of the facts been presented with such preening self-regard … at least since the last George Will […]

Stabilizing climate means embracing technology, public investment, and global economic development

The following is a guest essay by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, the latest in the ongoing conversation about their new book Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility. —– This week saw a watershed moment for those of us committed to moving environmentalism from a politics of limits to […]

Authors of recent climate books tell us not to worry so much about global warming

Proving conclusively that we have a long, long way to go before the mainstream media stops promoting climate misinformation disinformation, the Washington Post gave global-warming delayer Bjorn Lomborg a front-page opinion piece in its Outlook section.

Lomborg repeats his nonsense about polar bears, sea-level rise, and why global warming (at least on Planet Lomborg) is no big deal, which I have previously debunked here, here, and here, respectively. He also claims Greenland's "Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing," which is the opposite of what experts say here and here (if anyone has a source for Lomborg's claim, I'd love to see it -- not that Lomborg is a stickler for facts).

The reason for this post is not to debunk Lomborg again, but to answer the question posed in the headline. S&N don't like being linked to Lomborg -- who can blame them? -- but I think the link is legitimate. Read Lomborg's article. The similarities are scary. Like S&N, Lomborg acknowledges the reality of human-caused climate change. And like S&N, Lomborg attacks the climate strategy endorsed by most environmental groups:

Why bother criticizing S&N?

The question has been raised: Why spend time "debunking" S&N when they seem to be well-meaning folks struggling for a genuine solution to global warming, unlike, say, Bjorn Lomborg? Aside from the fact that they are adding great confusion and misinformation to a critical debate, the answer is simple -- they aren't well-meaning.

S&N spend far more time attacking the environmental community (and Al Gore and even Rachel Carson) than they do proposing a viable solution. Worse, they don't even attack the real environmental community -- they spend their time creating a strawman that is mostly a right-wing stereotype of environmentalists.

S&N's core argument is that environmentalists only preach doom and gloom and sacrifice, and that solving global warming ...

... will require a more optimistic narrative from the environmental community. Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, like Silent Spring, was considered powerful because it marshaled the facts into an effective (read: apocalyptic) story ...

In promoting the inconvenient truth that humans must limit their consumption and sacrifice their way of life to prevent the world from ending, environmentalists are not only promoting a solution that won't work, they've discouraged Americans from seeing the big solutions at all. For Americans to be future-oriented, generous, and expansive in their thinking, they must feel secure, wealthy, and strong.

Gore has never promoted such an inconvenient truth -- they should read his book or listen to his speeches -- and indeed I don't know any major environmentalist or environmental group that has promoted such a message. Just spend some time on the climate websites for NRDC, Environmental Defense, the Sierra Club, and Greenpeace. They all support (most of) the same big solutions S&N do, they just don't think you get those solutions the way S&N do (i.e., a massive government spending program).

The threat from climate deniers

People forget that Margaret Mead's overused quote about small groups being able to change the world doesn't necessarily imply "in a good way."

Here's an interesting interview to think about when you next read something from folks like the National Assn. of Manufacturers, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or Bjorn Lomborg:

The death of ‘The Death of Environmentalism’

What do Michael Crichton, Bjorn Lomborg, Frank Luntz, George W. Bush (and his climate/energy advisors) have in common with Michael Shellenberger & Ted Nordhaus? They all believe that (1) new "breakthrough" technologies are needed to solve the global warming problem and (2) investing in such technology is far more important than regulating carbon.

In fairness to President Bush -- he doesn't really believe those two things (as evidenced by the fact that he has actually cut funding for key carbon-reducing technologies), he just says them because conservative strategist Frank Luntz says it's the best way to sound like you care about global warming without doing anything about it.

The "breakthrough technology" message is certainly the cleverest one the deniers and delayers have invented -- who wouldn't rather have a techno-fix than higher energy prices? That's why Lomborg endorses it so much in his book, Cool It -- but it is certainly wrong and dangerously so, as I argue at length in my book.

Why two people who say they care about the environment -- Shellenberger & Nordhaus (S&N) -- embrace it, I don't understand. I won't waste time reading their new instant bestseller, unhelpfully titled Break Through, and you shouldn't either (Roger Pielke, Jr., and Gregg Easterbrook endorse it -- 'nuff said). I've read more than enough misinformation from them in their landmark essay,"The Death of Environmentalism," and recent articles in The New Republic (subs. req'd) and Gristmill (here and here).

S&N simply don't know what they're talking about. Worse, their message plays right into the hands of those who counsel delay. For that reason, I will spend some time debunking them. Here is the most dangerous S&N falsehood, from TNR:

Yesterday

We had a lot of great stuff on the blog yesterday — so much that it was difficult to keep up. If you have time, go back and check out: Bill McKibben’s review of two new books on climate change politics, one by Bjorn Lomborg, on from Shellenberger & Nordhaus. Sierra Club head honcho Carl […]

Lomborg misrepresents possible sea-level rise

Lomborg is a champion cherry-picker when he isn’t just getting his facts wrong, as I argued in Part I. He has a deceptively misleading — and outright erroneous — discussion of sea-level-rise projections in Cool It. Let’s start with a few all-too-typical howlers: Antarctica is generally soaking up more water than Greenland is shedding, as […]