[Vision2020] Off List Response Made Public Re: Lomborg & Stern Report On Climate Change

[Ted Moffett]

I sent a private response, as forwarded at the bottom here, to a private
e-mail, that referred to one of my Vision2020 posts, regarding a TED video
that is discussed below.  Given that my private response was publicly posted
and discussed on the Internet without my permission, despite the fact I
honored the request to not post this individuals private communication to
Vision2020, I am now posting this private exchange to Vision2020, and
answering the Internet discussion of my private response.  I will still
honor the request to not present the e-mail address or name of this
correspondent, though other clues may reveal the identity.

I wonder who the pastor is referred to below by the individual who requested
to not post his identity to Vision2020?

The public posting of my private response and ensuing discussion is at the
URL below.  I answer various points raised in the discussion after each
point:

http://halfpastnoon.com/2008/08/i-just-sent-ted-moffett-an-email-i-cou/

I just sent Ted Moffett an email. I couldn't help myself. He's big on
defending the Urgency of Anthropomorphic Global Climate Change (and All It
Entails), and recently linked to TED Talks on Vision2020.

Seeing as one of my favorite TED finds (thanks to Austin) is Bjorn Lomborg's
assertion that fighting Global Warming doesn't make sense in terms of
ROI,<http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html>I
sent
Ted a link and asked for his comments:
 C <http://halfpastnoon.com/> 4:41 pm on August 28, 2008 |
#<http://halfpastnoon.com/2008/08/i-just-sent-ted-moffett-an-email-i-cou/#comment-255>

Some basic research has yielded:

1. Richard Tol, the lead author for the IPCC (which is mentioned in Ted's
response), had this
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6295021.stm>to say about
the Stern Review:

(***My response:  Richard Tol is not "the lead author" for the IPCC but one
of a group of lead authors.)

"If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis,
perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a 'D' for diligence; but
more likely I would give him an 'F' for fail.

"There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who
claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make.

"Stern consistently picks the most pessimistic for every choice that one can
make. He overestimates through cherry-picking, he double counts particularly
the risks and he underestimates what development and adaptation will do to
impacts."

(***My response:  Richard Tol's criticism of the Stern Report should be
placed in the context of these positive comments from Nobel Prize economists
on the Stern Report, even if the Stern Report contains errors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
"If the world is waiting for a calm, reasonable, carefully argued approach
to climate change, Nick Stern and his team have produced one. They outline a
feasible adjustment policy at tolerable cost beginning now. Sooner is much
better." Robert M. Solow <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Solow>,
Nobel Prize economist
1987[26]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review#cite_note-Stern-Response-25>
"The Stern report shows us, with utmost clarity, while allowing fully for
all the uncertainties, what global warming is going to mean; and what can
and should be done to reduce it. It provides numbers for the economic
impact, and for the necessary economic policies. It deserves the widest
circulation. I wish it the greatest possible impact. Governments have a
clear and immediate duty to accept the challenge it represents." James
Mirrlees <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mirrlees>, Nobel Prize
economist 1996[26]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review#cite_note-Stern-Response-25>
"The stark prospects of climate change and its mounting economic and human
costs are clearly brought out in this searching investigation. What is
particularly striking is the identification of ways and means of sharply
minimizing these penalties through acting right now, rather than waiting for
our lives to be overrun by rapidly advancing adversities. The world would be
foolish to neglect this strong but strictly time-bound practical
message." Amartya
Sen <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amartya_Sen>, Nobel Prize economist 1998
[26] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review#cite_note-Stern-Response-25>
"The Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change provides the most
thorough and rigorous analysis to date of the costs and risks of climate
change, and the costs and risks of reducing emissions. It makes clear that
the question is not whether we can afford to act, but whether we can afford
not to act. To be sure, there are uncertainties, but what it makes clear is
that the downside uncertainties—aggravated by the complex dynamics of long
delays, complex interactions, and strong non-linearities—make a compelling
case for action. And it provides a comprehensive agenda—one which is
economically and politically feasible—behind which the entire world can
unite in addressing this most important threat to our future well
being." Joseph
Stiglitz <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz>, Nobel Prize
economist 2001[26]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review#cite_note-Stern-Response-25>)

2. The rest of this BBC article says that Stern underestimated Cost to Cure
and overestimated global temperature increases, basically overinflating both
the urgency and the impact of action. Were his predictions to be revised,
the CCC statement may be closer than Ted suggests.

3. Bjorn Lomborg has actually
responded<http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182>to the
report, so we at least know that he is aware of it and there is a
dissenting view from the CCC.

Anyways, if you want your Global Warming fix, there you have it. If anybody
cares, I'll bump this to the front page.
 A 1:06 am on August 29, 2008 |
#<http://halfpastnoon.com/2008/08/i-just-sent-ted-moffett-an-email-i-cou/#comment-263>

Cool that you're interacting with Ted Moffett. Alas! He does not have the
know-how to send you down the rabbit-hole. I'm really clinging to the idea
that Bjorn Lomborg knows his stuff. I like to think that he's such a nerdy
economics guy that the left/right politics of global warming aren't a factor
to him.
(*** My response: What you are apparently "clinging to" is not doing careful
research into all the peer reviewed published literature on the potential
economic impacts and risks of anthropogenic climate change.  Bjorn Lomborg
is only one source.

Of course there are uncertainties on these issues. But assuming the impacts
of anthropogenic climate change will be so minimal that the economic costs
of taking action now to mitigate climate change are not worth prioritizing
the investment, is to take very serious risks given the scientific consensus
among climate scientists of the probability of profound impacts, not only
for this century, but for centuries in the future:

*2008 National Academy of Sciences Climate Change Report*
**
*http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf*

 *Science Academies Statement On Climate Protection*

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Energy_07_May.pdf

---------------------

Lomborg argues the money that might be spent on climate change mitigation
would offer better outcomes if spent on other problems, and that climate
change mitigation offers only a small mitigation effect, even if large sums
are spent to address it.  But just the impacts of a rise in global ocean
level, will impose large costs on the global economy, that Lomborg
apparently minimizes, impacts that should be considered in a time frame of
centuries.  Lowering emissions in the next few decades should be considered
an effort to reduce the potential for catastrophic outcomes beyond 2100.

Consider the Delta Report from the Netherlands, stating that "Great urgency
attaches to the implementation of this advice." regarding predictions of .65
to 1.3 meter sea level rise by 2100, and 2 to 4 meters by 2200, from climate
change, with costs estimates of 40 plus billion in euros to implement a plan
for flood protection through 2050.  This report is prescient in indicating
clearly that choices we are making now to mitigate climate change will have
impacts for centuries, a time frame human economic and political planning
rarely addresses:

http://www.deltacommissie.com/en/advies

http://www.deltacommissie.com/doc/summary.pdf

http://www.deltacommissie.com/doc/twelve_recommendations.pdf

------------
The Dutch can afford this flood protection investment, but many poor nations
cannot, even if flood protection were feasible.  But consider the costs of
flood protection for all ports and coastal communities worldwide, given
one to four meters in sea level rise.  Here in the richest nation on Earth,
we left a major city, New Orleans, vulnerable to catastrophic flooding, in
part due to cost considerations.  It might be cheaper to abandon coastal
cities and communities and move to higher ground, rebuilding ports, given
business as usual regarding human emissions inducing climate change.  Such
an outcome is unthinkable, and the costs enormous, whether for large scale
global coastal flood protection or relocating coastal habitation, commerce,
agriculture and industry, not only economic, but ecological, cultural and
otherwise.

Note estimates of impacts of one meter of sea level rise globally offered
below.  And if there are two to four meters sea level rise by 2200?

 Population, area and economy affected by a 1 m sea level rise (global and
regional estimates, based on today's situation)

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/population-area-and-economy-affected-by-a-1-m-sea-level-rise-global-and-regional-estimates-based-on
-

--------------------
A recent discussion from climate scientists on the latest reseach into sea
level rise is at this URL from Realclimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/how-much-will-sea-level-rise/
--------------------
To quote Lomborg on why addressing climate change is not cost efffective:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182

"Last weekend in New York, I asked 24 U.N. ambassadors--from nations
including China, India and the U.S.--to prioritize the best solutions for
the world's greatest challenges, in a project known as Copenhagen Consensus.
They looked at what spending money to combat climate change and other major
problems could achieve. They found that the world should prioritize the need
for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before
we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning."

--------------

All these issues, including climate change, should be addressed. Climate
change is linked critically to the future viability of agriculture and water
resources, given increasing drought and losses of snow pack and glacier fed
rivers both effecting water supplies for irrigation and other human uses.
With business as usual emission rates, there will be impacts on food
production and GDP for many nations that are significantly negative,
according to this source:

http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/14090#Chpt

Regarding "Global Warming and Agriculture" by William R. Cline:

Temperatures in developing countries, which are predominantly located in
lower latitudes, are already close to or beyond the thresholds at which
further warming will reduce rather than increase agriculture potential, and
these countries tend to have less capacity to adapt. Moreover, agriculture
constitutes a much larger fraction of GDP in developing countries than in
industrial countries, so a decrease in productivity will impose larger
income loss in developing countries.

Chapter Five, Country-Level Agricultural Impact Estimates:

http://www.cgdev.org/doc/books/Cline%20global%20warming/Chapter%205.pdf
------------------------
My approach to this subject is simply to research the credible evidence
without bias, to discover if there is or is not a reasonable consensus among
those who devote their professional lives as scientists (or economists) to
this subject, a task anyone with even just a high school education should be
prepared for.  This does not require a PhD; and some with PhD's have
emotional, religious, political or professional biases that filter evidence
that does not fit their beliefs.

Intelligence and/or professional qualifications are no absolute guarantee of
a mindset intent on the objective pursuit of truth.  You can find PhD.'s who
will state skeptical, outlandish, views on many issues, at odds with most of
their colleagues and the consensus of the scientific community.  But a
community of scientists and/or economists who question each others work
offers a check against distorting bias, which is not to say that minority
opinions are not sometimes vindicated.  But I think the statements from the
National Academy of Science, The American Meteorological Association, The
American Geophysical Union, The Union of Concerned Scientists, The American
Association for the Advancement of Science, et. al., that anthropogenic
climate change is a major problem that indicates the need for
rapid mitigation, are credible.

Below is info on a well researched and exhaustive analysis on the economics
of climate change in the Northeast US involving more than 50 economists and
scientists, that you might want to consider:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/global-warming-to-hit-0044.html

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (July 11, 2007)—If heat-trapping emissions are not
significantly curtailed, global warming will substantially change critical
aspects of the Northeast's character and economy, according to a new report
by the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA), a two-year
collaboration between the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and a team of
more than 50 scientists and economists. Near-term choices about energy,
transportation, and land-use will largely determine the extent and severity
of climate change.

"Global warming represents an enormous challenge, but we can meet it if we
act swiftly," said Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy at UCS and
chair of the NECIA team. "Our response to global warming in the next few
years will shape the climate our children and grandchildren inherit."

The peer-reviewed report, "Confronting Climate Change in the U.S.
Northeast," incorporates and builds on NECIA's 2006 study that described how
the climate of the nine Northeast states will change under two scenarios:
one that assumes an increase in global warming emissions from continued
heavy reliance on fossil fuels, and another that assumes substantially lower
emissions due to an increased reliance on clean energy sources. The report
documents the projected consequences of each emissions path. It also details
what individuals, businesses, and governments can do today to reduce
emissions to levels below the lower-emissions scenario and to adapt to the
unavoidable changes already set in motion by emissions over the past several
decades.
The new report and a complete list of collaborating scientists and
economists are available at

www.climatechoices.org/ne/resources_ne/nereport.html
---------------
Also, consider the discussions of and reports on climate change mitigation
economics from the Pew Center:

http://www.pewclimate.org/economics



On 8/28/08, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  While some of the ideas presented in this lecture are interesting, and
> certainly solving problems must be prioritized, given all problems cannot be
> solved given financial and other realities, his analysis of the costs of
> climate change relative to the costs of solving the problem is very flawed.
> He clearly has not studied the latest climate science regarding impacts from
> human greenhouse gas emissions and when these problems will begin to be very
> serious, and he misstates what the IPCC predicts regarding climate change
> in this century.  Nor does he reference, that I heard, the Stern Report on
> the economics of climate change, an exhaustive analysis that clearly spells
> out that solving climate change in the next few decades will cost less than
> allowing it to continue and inflict the damages due to climate change over
> the next century and beyond.
>
> I agree that Kyoto is not the path to solve climate change.  A very
> different solution is required..
>
> Ted
>


   Hi Ted,
>>
>> Longtime lurker; I don't do offlist much either.
>>
>> You linked to TED. One of my favorite TED videos is:
>>
>>
>> http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html
>>
>> and I won't spoil the surprise for you, but I'm curious about your
>> thoughts on the topic. If you post any part of this to the Viz, I'd
>> appreciate you leaving my name out of it. Local politics get a bit sticky at
>> times and I'd rather keep my name out of it for the sake of my boss, pastor,
>> *et cetera*.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20081019/43b2a743/attachment-0001.html