So I think we’re all agreed that there is indeed something going on with the climate? I myself take roughly the Lomborg position, that it is, that we are at least partially responsible for it and then the real arguments start. What, exactly, should we do about it?
Kyoto, as we know, is extraordinarily expensive, hundreds of billions over the next century in order to delay the warming by 6 years. As the Copenhagen Consensus pointed out, there are other, better, things we could do with that money that would alleviate more human suffering. It might well be better to pay for the adaptation required rather than to try and stop the warming.
But let’s open up the argument a little more. Say we would, should be, willing to pay $500 billion to reduce the warming by 1.7o Kelvin (this is more than Kyoto will provide and cheaper too). Would emissions reductions be the best way of doing that?
According to these guys, no it wouldn’t. Note that this is a technological solution that gets us more reduction in temperature change for less money than Kyoto. So, if it really is important that there not be such change, and that we ought to be doing anything and everything necessary to make sure ofthe outcome, why do we not have demonstrations, anguished editorials in The Guardian, pushing this scheme?
Is it because this would be a technological fix?
h/t EU Rota. You might also want to look at that link for his pondering on why on earth would Turkey want to join the failure that is the EU?
Leave a Reply