Global Warning
Who’s Afraid of Climate Change?
Bjørn Lomborg
|
|
|
|
COPENHAGEN – Imagine that over the next 70 or 80 years, a giant port city – say, Tokyo – found itself engulfed by sea levels rising as much as 15 feet or more. Millions of inhabitants would be imperiled, along with trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure.
This awful prospect is exactly the sort of thing global-warming evangelists like Al Gore have in mind when they warn that we must take “large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.” The rhetoric may sound extreme, but with so much hanging in the balance, surely it’s justified. Without a vast, highly coordinated global effort, how could we possibly cope with sea-level rises on that order of magnitude?
Well, we already have. In fact, we’re doing it right now. Since 1930, excessive groundwater withdrawal has caused Tokyo to subside by as much as 15 feet, with some of the lowest parts of the downtown area dropping almost a foot per year in some years. Similar subsidence has occurred over the past century in a wide range of cities, including Tianjin, Shanghai, Osaka, Bangkok, and Jakarta. In each case, the city has managed to protect itself from such large sea-level rises and thrive.
The point isn’t that we can or should ignore global warming. The point is that we should be wary of hyperbolic predictions. More often than not, what sound like horrific changes in climate and geography actually turn out to be manageable – and in some cases even benign.
Consider, for example, the findings of climate scientists Robert J. Nicholls, Richard S.J. Tol, and Athanasios T. Vafeidis. In research funded by the European Union, they studied what the global economic impact would be if global warming were to result in a collapse of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet. An event of this magnitude would likely cause the oceans to rise by perhaps 20 feet over the next hundred years – precisely the sort of thing that environmental activists have in mind when they warn about potential end-of-the-world calamities. But would it really be all that calamitous?
Not according to Nicholls, Tol, and Vafeidis. Here are the facts. A 20-foot rise in sea levels (which, not incidentally, is about ten times more than the United Nations climate panel’s worst-case expectations) would inundate about 16,000 square miles of coastline, where more than 400 million people currently live. That’s a lot of people, to be sure, but hardly all of mankind. In fact, it amounts to less than 6% of the world’s population – which is to say that 94% of the population would not be inundated. And most of those who do live in the flood areas would never even get their feet wet.
That’s because the vast majority of those 400 million people reside within cities, where they could be protected relatively easily, as in Tokyo. As a result, only about 15 million people would have to be relocated. And that is over the course of a century. In all, according to Nicholls, Tol, and Vafeidis, the total cost of managing this “catastrophe” – if politicians do not dither and pursue smart, coordinated policies – would be about $600 billion a year, or less than 1% of global GDP.
This figure may seem surprisingly low, but that is only because so many of us have accepted the widespread view that we lack the capacity to adapt to large rises in sea levels. Not only do we have this capacity, but we have demonstrated it many times in the past.
Like it or not, global warming is real, it is man-made, and we need to do something about it. But we are not facing the end of the world.
Climate science is a subtle and fiendishly convoluted discipline that rarely yields unambiguous forecasts or straightforward prescriptions. And after 20 years of much talk but precious little action on global warming, a certain amount of frustration is to be expected. There is an understandable desire to want to cut through the verbiage and shake people by the shoulders.
Unfortunately, trying to scare the socks off of people doesn’t help matters. Yes, a startling statistic, combined with some hyperbolic prose, will make us sit up and pay attention. But we quickly become desensitized, requiring ever more outrageous scenarios to move us. As the scare stories become more inflated, so, too, does the likelihood that they will be exposed for the exaggerations that they are – and the public will end up tuning the whole thing out.
This may explain recent polling data showing that public concern about global warming has declined precipitously in the last three years. In the United States, for example, the Pew Institute reported that the number of Americans who regard global warming as a very serious problem had declined from 44% in April 2008 to only 35% last October. More recently, a BBC study found that only 26% of Britons believe that man-made “climate change is happening,” down from 41% in November 2009. And in Germany, Der Spiegel magazine reported survey results showing that only 42% feared global warming, compared with 62% in 2006.
Fear may be a great motivator in the short term, but it is a terrible basis for making smart decisions about a complicated problem that demands our full intelligence for a long period.
Bjørn Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, and adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
www.project-syndicate.org
For a podcast of this commentary in English, please use this link:
http://media.blubrry.com/ps/media.libsyn.com/media/ps/lomborg63.mp3
You might also like to read more from Bjørn Lomborg or return to our home page.
|
|
SeoKungFu 12:47 12 Aug 10
Here is a link I received on twitter minutes after this article was posted there :
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2912358.htm - "The Lomborg Deception" and I'm bringing it here for the sake of discussion, it doesn't represent opinion.
tolgus 11:14 13 Aug 10
Another argument about global warming consequences is that the world will get dryer and therefore there will be more issues with freshwater supplies.
Climate is ofcourse complex but it still makes me wonder why warmer oceans, rising water levels, warmer air temperature (all this equals greater evaporation) would mean less rainfall? Even if some areas will get less rainfalls its still weird to claim, that the world in general will get dryer.
(just a note) An average 15 feet rise in seawater does not mean equal 15 feet rise in everywhere as it will be greater water rise near the equator and less towards the poles.
JoseMSousa 04:28 17 Aug 10
Since when is Richard Tol a climate scientist?
JoseMSousa 04:37 17 Aug 10
Richard Tol is an economist. Lomborg is a fraud. He deceives people with half truths, distorting the scientific literature and he himself has no scientific authority nor credentials on none of the scientific fields related to climate change causes and consequences, not even in economics! It amazes me that project syndicate which considers itself to portray "A World of Ideas - the highest quality ..." gives voice to such an impostor, who has been sistematically debunked by prominent scientists.
DaiViet 12:17 21 Aug 10
This is another welcome display of rational optimism to debunk the apocalyptic doom and gloom peddled by misguided environmetal false prophets.
JoseMSousa 08:42 21 Aug 10
«misguided environmetal false prophets.» Oh, really?
You mean such as these?: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
http://ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
and many more as the mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Academies_of_Science ?
DaiViet 12:39 22 Aug 10
Yes really JoseMSousa. Climate has been changing, human impact or not. And we human have been quite good at coping thank you very much. The Dutch have been living and thriving in a land area below sea level for quite a while in case you have forgotten.
JoseMSousa 10:22 22 Aug 10
Oh, yes of course. We´re are talking here about a global phenomenon, not just sea level which in any case can´t be dealt with if it continues rising indefinitely, not even for the Dutch, and the cost is surely bigger than reducing emissions, anyway.
But the Dutch or anyone else for that matter don´t live in isolation from the rest of the world and the systemic consequence of climate change. Anyway the links above are all from science academies and science associations. Certainly they know were the Dutch live.
DaiViet 12:14 22 Aug 10
The business case for spending $45 trillion to reduce emission does not stack up.
JoseMSousa 01:20 22 Aug 10
Who says? You? What´s the meaning of that number? Have you any idea of the costs that more 2º C on average global temperature or 4º C would bring to the global economy? There would be no global economy or even any economy at all. Perhaps you live in an artificial world and have forgotten that modern civilization still depends on nature.
masudako 07:13 22 Aug 10
It is true (as I confirmed with a document of Japanese government) that a certain location in eastern Tokyo experienced 4.5 m of land subsidence since 1918 (till 1970s), mainly due to extraction of groundwater. But the pattern of subsidence is heterogeneous. I think that the amount of subsidence at that location is larger than the areal average of the bay side of Tokyo, though the average is not negligible either.
Also, the fact that Tokyo has adapted to this relative sea level rise has a history with various factors which may or may not valid in the future.
There were massive efforts of re-building involving relocation of people twice, after the earthquake in 1923 and after the World War 2, which was designed mainly to reduce vulnerability to fire, and coincidentally helped reduce vulnerability to floods somewhat.
Since 1960s, strong, software-oriented measure of mitigation (of subsidence, not of climate change, by banning groundwater use) is taken in parallel to hardware-oriented measure of adaptation (construction of enhanced levees, water gates, etc.).
Also it should be mentioned that massive construction was possible because Tokyo has attracted wealth from a large area of its economic influence. If it successfully continue to do so, it will deprive ability to adapt from poorer communities.
hsteele18 04:52 23 Aug 10
Am I missing something? Tokyo is sinking or subsiding and this is called sea level rising? That's like being on an escalator going down and then remarking that the building just went up 10 feet!!! And some of you continue to argue about climate change? The last paragraph comments about fear being a great motivator. How about stupidity causing a situation to become complicated.
Nels Moerner(sp?) explained why an island in the pacific was sinking, again, because the Japanese were extracting fresh water to irrigate the pineapple fields.
masudako 06:08 23 Aug 10
(Re: hsteele18's comments)
People at each location experience relative sea level rise which is sum of real sea level rise and local land subsidence. Land subsidence (or uplifting) may be caused by natural tectonic actions, but, in places where groundwater is extracted, it is likely to be the dominant cause of subsidence.
The land subsidence in the lowland part of the Tokyo Metropolis stopped in 1970s thanks to banning of groundwater extraction. On the other hand, the situation is serious in large urban areas in some other Asian countries where the control of groundwater extraction has not be effectively enforced.
Global sea level rise which is increase of the total volume of seawater, due partly to rising temperature and partly to melting of ice on land (mountain glaciers, plus possibly ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica) is a real phenomenon. People living in the areas where land is subsiding must cope with the sum of land subsidence and sea level rise.
I have not followed the story by Nils Moerner. It is possible that relative sea level rise of a certain atoll island in the tropics is mainly caused by pumping of water for agriculture. It is also possible that that practice of agriculture is promoted by a corporation whose capital comes from Japan (though I do not think the case representative of majority of Pacific islands). But, even if it is true, it does not deny that real sea level rise is at work as a minor cause contributing to the relative sea level rise there.
DaiViet 08:13 23 Aug 10
JoseMSousa, George Bush, the american government, the chinese government etc... have said no to the $45 trillion dollar spend. That amount of money can be invested more productively somewhere else.
JoseMSousa 10:51 23 Aug 10
«the $45 trillion dollar spend. That amount of money can be invested more productively somewhere else.»
You really don´t know what you are talking about, do you? Neither Lomborg. That is his typical argument. But of course Lomborg makes a living deceiving people. Don´t know about you. Especially if you are a young person you can be sure that you will feel the pain of climate change, if business as usual keeps on.
hsteele18 11:43 23 Aug 10
If subsiding means diminishing, how does land subsiding mean rising?
Google Dr. Nils Axel Moerner. He was president of a UN panel studying Seal Level.
Of course, he is a denier of sea level therefore, he has been demagogued.
JoseMSousa 12:11 23 Aug 10
Anyway, here are some studies about climate economics:
From Mckinsey Company, those radical environmentalists:
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/Carbon_Productivity/index.asp
«The macroeconomic costs of this carbon revolution are likely to be manageable, being in the order of 0.6–1.4 percent of global GDP by 2030. To put this figure in perspective, if one were to view this spending as a form of insurance against potential damage due to climate change, it might be relevant to compare it to global spending on insurance, which was 3.3 percent of GDP in 2005»
Lord Stern, former chief economist of the Worl Bank, another radical environmentalist:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/26/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange
More here: http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/31/bjorn-lomborg-wsj-duke-dean-bill-chameides/
JoseMSousa 12:34 23 Aug 10
Seems to me this Nils Axel is not a very credible person:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner
http://www.desmogblog.com/nils-axel-morner
He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing..."[2].
professordarkheart 03:55 27 Aug 10
Well, if we're going to spend up to one percent of global GDP and "pursue smart, coordinated policies," wouldn't it make more sense to do so now to forestall the effects of climate change? We can argue about whether climate scientists' predictions are "hyperbolic" or not, but we can't know the future with 100% certainty. Even if you accept Lomborg's scenario, it still seems to me to make a lot more sense to work on preserving the present climate we know rather than taking a chance on the future climate we don't. We could go a long way toward that goal with one percent of global GDP and some smart, coordinated policies.
BlueRock 07:21 28 Aug 10
More of the usual unsabstantiated claims from Lomborg.
As always, when you fact check his claims, they soon crumble. His claim that 16,000 sq. miles would be lost as a result of a 20-foot rise is fantasy. A **2** foot rise would eliminate 10,000 sq. miles! http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coasta...
Also, it is not just an issue of working out how much land would be permanently under the sea, there is also the issue of how much land would be susceptible to storm surges. Lomborg ignores this. Most of the land lost or poisoned by salt water will be fertile deltas, causing massive reductions in food production. Hundreds of millions of people will lose their homes and livelihoods. Where will they all go? Where will they grow their food? Everyone on the planet would be affected by the lost food production.
Similarly, his claim that cities can be easily protected is fantasy. Here's a study that shows the effects on San Francisco for 50cm, 100cm and 150cm (5 feet)- http://cascade.wr.usgs.gov/data/Task2b-SFBay/ The cost to attempt protect cities all around the world would be trillions of $$$.
*Never* trust Bjorn Lomborg.
BlueRock 07:34 02 Sep 10
P.S. Lomborg also ignores the effects of ocean acidification. It's like ignoring the lion gnawing on your leg while assessing how healthy you are.
- Oceans Primed for Mass Extinction? http://www.livescience.com/environment/earth-oceans-mass-extinction-100728.html
jacobb 04:46 11 Aug 10
"This may explain recent polling data showing that public concern about global warming has declined precipitously in the last three years."
More likely effects of the extremely well-funded, dishonest, far-right wing smear campaigning against climate change science that Bjorn Lomborg himself have been an enthusiastic part.
"400 million people currently live. That’s a lot of people, to be sure, but hardly all of mankind."
Oh, ONLY 400 million people. And mostly poor people too! I'm really, really relieved now! The nerve of Lomborg here is incredible. Of those 400 million human beings, all with a full set of rights under the UN declaration, directly affected by sea level rise many will live in poor countries. They will already have dire circumstances. Climate change caused primarily by OTHER PEOPLE will force millions of them away from the land that they own and that their ancestors have lived on for many generations. To Lomborg such violations of millions of innocent persons' right to property and personal security seems to mean nothing, absolutely nothing. It is just a matter of "relocating" them.
The only one that should be relocated is Lomborg himself. He should be put in prison for his dishonest attempts to delay effective climate change mitigation and adaptation. Millions will suffer the consequences from what he and his co-criminals are doing.