Once again, the casual reader may well go away with the impression that future
vulnerability, exposure, etc., are large, whereas the sentence only states (with high
confidence) that the uncertainties are large.
In a long and detailed critique of such dire environmental prognoses, Bjørn
Lomborg (who describes himself in his Preface as “an old left-wing Greenpeace
member”), also addresses the issues of global warming and climate change
(Lomborg 2001, Chap. 24). On considering all the evidence, Lomborg concludes
that there has been a rise in temperature of some 0.6 °C over the past century, and it
is reasonable to ascribe this partly to an anthropogenic greenhouse effect, “although
the impression of a dramatic divergence from previous centuries is almost surely
misleading” (op. cit., p. 317). He points out the basic weakness of the prognoses,
that still are unable to say with certainty whether a doubling of CO 2 concentrations
will lead to a rise of 1.5 °C or the “dramatic” high estimate of 4.5 °C. The IPCC
models do not deal with other effects (water vapour feedback and clouds, for
example), that may reduce the impact. Lomborg feels that the large number of
“scenarios” presented indicates that the IPCC has “explicitly rejected making
predictions about the future, but instead gives us ‘‘computer-aided storytelling’’,
basing the development of crucial variables on initial choice and depicting normative scenarios ‘‘as one would hope they would emerge” (quoting de Vries et al.
2000, p. 170). Indeed, Lomborg points out that some of the scenarios even suggest
a net gain in incomes in both the developed and developing worlds. Not only is the
quantum of temperature rise uncertain, but the consequences are also not as devastating as people have been led to assume: “Global warming will not decrease food
production, it will probably not increase storminess or the frequency of hurricanes,
…” and so on. However, it will have costs (to the order of $5 trillion), and it will
“hit the developing countries hardest”, “primarily because they are poor—giving
them less adaptive capacity” (Lomborg 2001, pp. 317–318).
As can be expected, such sceptical ideas have not been received kindly, and
there are numerous counters, e.g. the Danish biologist Kåre Fog’s website www.
lomborg-errors.dk, dedicated to debunking Lomborg’s arguments. This paper does
not claim to be a scientific assessment of these arguments and counterarguments,
and concerned readers would do well to delve into the voluminous literature
available. Fog states that it is not sufficient just to read Lomborg’s book and think of
the ideas in it, but one has to go back and check every piece of information to see
whether it is “true” and if “the presentation is balanced” (Fog, op. cit., probably
2004, accessed 31-08-2015). Of course, we would have to state the same of the
climate change prognoses as well, such as are contained in the IPCC documents.
Obviously, every reader cannot undertake such verification, and since the effects are
far out into the future, it becomes a matter of strategic choice how far the arguments
are pursued (especially as regards national actions in response to the prognoses).
It would perhaps be fair to state here that Lomborg himself seems to be not so
much a climate change denier today, as advancing arguments based on strategic
priorities to use the available money, especially international development assistance, in areas that will offer the maximum gains in terms of human welfare: public
Climate Change Strategies and Developing Nations …
29
vulnerability, exposure, etc., are large, whereas the sentence only states (with high
confidence) that the uncertainties are large.
In a long and detailed critique of such dire environmental prognoses, Bjørn
Lomborg (who describes himself in his Preface as “an old left-wing Greenpeace
member”), also addresses the issues of global warming and climate change
(Lomborg 2001, Chap. 24). On considering all the evidence, Lomborg concludes
that there has been a rise in temperature of some 0.6 °C over the past century, and it
is reasonable to ascribe this partly to an anthropogenic greenhouse effect, “although
the impression of a dramatic divergence from previous centuries is almost surely
misleading” (op. cit., p. 317). He points out the basic weakness of the prognoses,
that still are unable to say with certainty whether a doubling of CO 2 concentrations
will lead to a rise of 1.5 °C or the “dramatic” high estimate of 4.5 °C. The IPCC
models do not deal with other effects (water vapour feedback and clouds, for
example), that may reduce the impact. Lomborg feels that the large number of
“scenarios” presented indicates that the IPCC has “explicitly rejected making
predictions about the future, but instead gives us ‘‘computer-aided storytelling’’,
basing the development of crucial variables on initial choice and depicting normative scenarios ‘‘as one would hope they would emerge” (quoting de Vries et al.
2000, p. 170). Indeed, Lomborg points out that some of the scenarios even suggest
a net gain in incomes in both the developed and developing worlds. Not only is the
quantum of temperature rise uncertain, but the consequences are also not as devastating as people have been led to assume: “Global warming will not decrease food
production, it will probably not increase storminess or the frequency of hurricanes,
…” and so on. However, it will have costs (to the order of $5 trillion), and it will
“hit the developing countries hardest”, “primarily because they are poor—giving
them less adaptive capacity” (Lomborg 2001, pp. 317–318).
As can be expected, such sceptical ideas have not been received kindly, and
there are numerous counters, e.g. the Danish biologist Kåre Fog’s website www.
lomborg-errors.dk, dedicated to debunking Lomborg’s arguments. This paper does
not claim to be a scientific assessment of these arguments and counterarguments,
and concerned readers would do well to delve into the voluminous literature
available. Fog states that it is not sufficient just to read Lomborg’s book and think of
the ideas in it, but one has to go back and check every piece of information to see
whether it is “true” and if “the presentation is balanced” (Fog, op. cit., probably
2004, accessed 31-08-2015). Of course, we would have to state the same of the
climate change prognoses as well, such as are contained in the IPCC documents.
Obviously, every reader cannot undertake such verification, and since the effects are
far out into the future, it becomes a matter of strategic choice how far the arguments
are pursued (especially as regards national actions in response to the prognoses).
It would perhaps be fair to state here that Lomborg himself seems to be not so
much a climate change denier today, as advancing arguments based on strategic
priorities to use the available money, especially international development assistance, in areas that will offer the maximum gains in terms of human welfare: public
Climate Change Strategies and Developing Nations …
29