Cool It Cool It How we should tackle global warming How we should - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Cool It Cool It How we should tackle global warming How we should tackle global warming and do good in the world and do good in the world Bjø ørn rn Lomborg Lomborg Bj www.lomborg.com

Two important points Two important points � Need sense of proportion Need sense of proportion � – Doomsday is not nigh Doomsday is not nigh – – We don We don’ ’t have to act in desperation t have to act in desperation – – If we only hear one If we only hear one – – and exaggerated and exaggerated – – – side, we’ ’re unlike to make good policies re unlike to make good policies side, we � Many problems Many problems � – Not enough money Not enough money – – Prioritization Prioritization –

Global warming Global warming What to do? What to do?

1 1 Global warming is real Global warming is real and man- -made made and man

Climate change is real Climate change is real � On the agenda, thanks to Al Gore On the agenda, thanks to Al Gore � � The best information from the UN The best information from the UN � Climate Panel, IPCC Climate Panel, IPCC � Likely temperature rise by 2100 Likely temperature rise by 2100 � O C O F) – 2.6 2.6 O C (4.7 (4.7 O F) – � Total cost of $15 trillion Total cost of $15 trillion � st century $3,000 trillion – 0.5% of 21 0.5% of 21 st century $3,000 trillion – � Need Need smart smart strategy strategy �

2 2 Consequences vastly exaggerated Consequences vastly exaggerated Leading to bad judgment Leading to bad judgment

Al Gore and the standard story Al Gore and the standard story � Gore and many others tell us Gore and many others tell us � – Planetary emergency Planetary emergency – � “ “we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe � that could send our entire planet into a tail- -spin of epic spin of epic that could send our entire planet into a tail destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.” ” have ever experienced. � Four central issues Four central issues � – Heat deaths Heat deaths – – Sea level rise Sea level rise – – Hurricanes Hurricanes – – Malaria Malaria –

1 Higher mortality with heat? 1 Higher mortality with heat? � Heat and cold deaths Heat and cold deaths � – In the UK In the UK – � 2,000 more heat deaths by 2050 2,000 more heat deaths by 2050 � – But fewer cold deaths But fewer cold deaths – � 20,000 fewer 20,000 fewer � – This also holds true globally This also holds true globally – � Net more than 1.4 million Net more than 1.4 million fewer fewer deaths by deaths by � 2050 2050 Bosello, Roson, & Tol, 2006; Keatinge & Donaldson, 2004; Keatinge et al., 2000 e et al., 2000 Bosello, Roson, & Tol, 2006; Keatinge & Donaldson, 2004; Keating

1 Higher mortality with heat? 1 Higher mortality with heat? � Should we not Should we not � help people the help people the 45 best possible '60 best possible 40 way? way? ber of daily d 35 – Kyoto? Kyoto? – '70 Average num 30 '80 – Airconditioning Airconditioning – '90 in Philadelphia in Philadelphia 25 20 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 4P M apparent temperature (oF ) Davis et al., 2002 Davis et al., 2002

2 Sea level rise 2 Sea level rise � Sea levels will rise Sea levels will rise � � But not a catastrophe But not a catastrophe � – 1 foot (30 1 foot (30cm cm) ) over the next 100 years over the next 100 years – � Not Al Gores Not Al Gores’ ’ 20 feet (6 20 feet (6 meters meters) ) � – 1 foot 1 foot the last 150 years the last 150 years – � Did we worry? Did we worry? �

2 Impact of sea level rise 2 Impact of sea level rise � Getting flooded now Getting flooded now � – 10 million people 10 million people – � 1 foot sea level rise in 2100 (no change) 1 foot sea level rise in 2100 (no change) � – 100 million people 100 million people – � 1 foot sea level rise in 2100 (richer) 1 foot sea level rise in 2100 (richer) � – 1 million people 1 million people – Nicholls, 2004; Nicholls & Tol Tol, 2006 , 2006 Nicholls, 2004; Nicholls &

2 Saving the Maldives 2 Saving the Maldives � If we just look at 1 foot increase If we just look at 1 foot increase � – Flood 77% of the Maldives at 121% GDP Flood 77% of the Maldives at 121% GDP – – Yet at 0.04% of GDP they can safeguard Yet at 0.04% of GDP they can safeguard – everything but 0.0015% of dry land 0.0015% of dry land everything but � At lower emissions At lower emissions � – Lower sea level rise but also lower wealth Lower sea level rise but also lower wealth – – About three times more dry land loss About three times more dry land loss – Nicholls, 2004; Nicholls & Tol Tol, 2006 , 2006 Nicholls, 2004; Nicholls &

3 Hurricanes: 3 Hurricanes: ever costlier in the US ever costlier in the US � Damage costs from hurricanes in the US Damage costs from hurricanes in the US � 160 140 Damage costs, billion 2005$ 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Pielke et al. 2007 et al. 2007 Pielke

More people with more goods More people with more goods in exposed areas in exposed areas � Damage costs if all hurricanes had hit the US in Damage costs if all hurricanes had hit the US in � 2007 2007 160 Adjusted damage costs, billion 2005$ 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Pielke et al. 2007 et al. 2007 Pielke

Hurricanes: Hurricanes: Fix climate or social vulnerability Fix climate or social vulnerability � If we stop climate If we stop climate � 500% change change 450% 400% – Prevent 10% damage Prevent 10% damage – Increase in hurricane losses till 2050 350% increase increase 300% � If we end social If we end social � 250% vulnerability vulnerability 200% – Prevent 480% damage Prevent 480% damage – 150% increase increase 100% � Which knob should Which knob should � 50% we focus on? we focus on? 0% climate change social vulnerability Pielke 2005 2005 Pielke

More malaria from heat? More malaria from heat? � Malaria is weakly connected to heat Malaria is weakly connected to heat � – But much more dependent on wealth and But much more dependent on wealth and – treatment treatment � Malaria endemic in Europe & US in little ice age Malaria endemic in Europe & US in little ice age � – Even malaria in the Arctic circle – Even malaria in the Arctic circle – 20% malaria in Moscow in the 1940s 20% malaria in Moscow in the 1940s – � As we got richer, we dealt with malaria As we got richer, we dealt with malaria � – Even as temperatures increased – Even as temperatures increased � Thus, richer people will not have malaria Thus, richer people will not have malaria � � Is climate the right knob to turn? Is climate the right knob to turn? �

Which knob to tackle malaria? Which knob to tackle malaria? 900,000 850,000 � Deaths avoided Deaths avoided � 800,000 per year per year 700,000 – Kyoto $180b Kyoto $180b – 600,000 – Malaria $3b Malaria $3b – 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 1,400 0 Ky oto M alaria-specific policy

3 3 Smarter options needed: Smarter options needed: Kyoto or EU 20% high cost- -no gain no gain Kyoto or EU 20% high cost

Kyoto: Kyoto: Postpone warming by 5 years Postpone warming by 5 years � Cost of Kyoto Cost of Kyoto � 2.6 Busines-as-usual Kyoto 2.4 – $180 billion per $180 billion per – 2.2 2.0 Temperature change, o C year year 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 Wigley 1998 1998 Wigley

All peer reviewed cost- -benefit benefit All peer reviewed cost show little effort now show little effort now � Only Stern review Only Stern review Peer-reviewed Stern Review � 5 Damages Costs Damages Costs shows otherwise shows otherwise 0 Percent GDP – Easily end up Easily end up – -5 making policies making policies -10 that do more harm that do more harm -15 than climate than climate -20 change change Tol and and Yohe Yohe 2006 2006 Tol

Lack of smart solutions Lack of smart solutions � Take polar bears Take polar bears � – Yes, less Arctic ice means fewer polar bears Yes, less Arctic ice means fewer polar bears – � 1960: about 5,000 1960: about 5,000 � � Now: about 22,000 Now: about 22,000 � – But what can we do? But what can we do? – – If we implement the Kyoto Protocol If we implement the Kyoto Protocol – � Save 1 polar bear each year Save 1 polar bear each year � – But each year we shoot polar bears But each year we shoot polar bears – � About a 1,000 each year About a 1,000 each year �