
I do not agree with these arguments, and I still believe that we need to stop fooling ourselves and start to behave as a responsible specie, protecting the natural capital of our planet because of the intrinsic value that earth systems and life have. Not just for future human generations but as an ethical value, because the marvels of this planet up to now only happen in this planet. We need to learn to control ourselves. Poverty is not an issue of unfulfilled development, it is an issue of inequity. But these ideas go against the current canon of thought that occurs in the international affairs stage. The UN states that sustainable development requires to achieve environmental sustainability and poverty alleviation at the same time. China, India, Brazil will not stop their development now that it is their turn to become world superpowers. And I understand it. I don't agree with it, but I guess that I have had to learn to listen to these valid ideas. (Again not the climate skeptics or those that believe that worrying about the environment is childish). I am talking about those that believe that we also need to concentrate on the life fulfillment of humans across the planet. That I agree to discuss...
This post is about those ideas that make me doubt in my conviction that we need to tackle the environmental crisis headstrong. I find the following TED Talk to be instructive and present an argument that made me reconsider my position.
The talk is given by Bjorn Lomborg, he is the author of a very controversial book called "The Environmental Skeptic" and although I am not a tremendous fan of of him, the Ted Talk he gave does make some points I had not considered. He uses the tool of Cost-Benefit Analysis to rank which should be the key problems that humanity should tackle first. His conclusions made quite an impression. From wikipedia:
Bjorn Lomborg argues that when economists use the tool of cost benefit analysis applied to the list of challenges that humanity is facing including elements such as Climate Change, AIDS, Malnutrition, Access to Water, Free Trade limits, Governance and Corruption. The idea is quite interesting, I have gotten myself into very complicated discussions when trying to explain why solving the climatic crisis should be a priority to some of my colleagues who consider that women empowerment, food security, education, social entrepreneurship and poverty alleviation are much more pressing than the uncertain threats caused by the environmental degradation and pollution. These conversations have made me reconsider my position on the importance of the climate challenge. I can even remember in a lecture by one of France's most recognized policy researcher on climate change mitigation a very uncomfortable moment. She mentioned that it's not just about the "climate nerds" and that climate change might be only the hot topic for a while. Indeed if carbon sequestration is possible, it might be that the problem will be rapidly solved. At least that is what one eminent professor in Columbia argues. I have talked with other experts on the subject, who mention that the idea might be feasible, capturing atmospheric CO2 directly from the ambient air, put it underground and solidifying it, but the problem is the scale at which we would have to do it. So apparently there are no clear answers.
When you consider the cost of interventions and the possible benefit, according to his expert panel of economists, climate change is by far the less urgent item on the list. By spending much less money, we could actually start solving issues like the AIDS pandemic in Africa, Malaria in Africa and South Asia, Micronutrient deficiencies all around the world and elimination of subsidies in the developed countries that affect the business activities of poor countries when they can't produce at the distorted prices (think of corn in the USA). It makes a hell of a lot of sense. It doesn't mean we shouldn't work on the environmental agenda but if we can't solve issues like these then what is the future of the climate negotiations. In recent years the Global Fund and PEPFAR have actually started combating AIDS and Malaria in Africa and the results can be seen in the statistics. So we can solve these issues, it's just about the political will. If as Lomborg says these problems can be solved quickly with existing technologies, I have to say: "let's do it".
That justifies my summer in Uganda, in one of the Millenium Villages where proven interventions are being provided in an holistic manner to bring a village cluster out of the poverty trap. I will try to find some answers to my questions.
I found this in an article written in the Copenhagen Consensus Center facebook's page. It is a think-tank in Denmark that publicizes the best ways for governments and philanthropists to spend aid and development money. And was founded by Mr. Lomborg. The article ends with the following ideas:
Lomborg notes that the world still depends on fossil fuels for more than 80% of its energy. “What will developing countries use to power their economies if they can’t burn fossil fuels?” he asks. “Alternative energy technologies like solar, wind, and geothermal power all have great promise, but they are nowhere near ready to shoulder that kind of load.”
“Those who put their hopes in the Copenhagen summit will be bitterly disappointed. But this failure could be a blessing in disguise, if it jolts politicians into recognizing the deep flaws in their current approach, and chart a smarter course”, says Lomborg. “Until now we have put the cart in front of the horse by promising carbon cuts before alternative energy is affordable.”
Lomborg argues that if governments are serious about wanting to solve global warming, they should massively increase spending on green-energy research and development. “We should increase the amount we spend on green energy R&D by a factor of fifty, to $100 billion a year – or 0.2% of global GDP. This would be more than enough to bring about the kind of game-changing technological breakthroughs it will take to make green energy cheaper and fuel our carbon-free future.”
When you consider the cost of interventions and the possible benefit, according to his expert panel of economists, climate change is by far the less urgent item on the list. By spending much less money, we could actually start solving issues like the AIDS pandemic in Africa, Malaria in Africa and South Asia, Micronutrient deficiencies all around the world and elimination of subsidies in the developed countries that affect the business activities of poor countries when they can't produce at the distorted prices (think of corn in the USA). It makes a hell of a lot of sense. It doesn't mean we shouldn't work on the environmental agenda but if we can't solve issues like these then what is the future of the climate negotiations. In recent years the Global Fund and PEPFAR have actually started combating AIDS and Malaria in Africa and the results can be seen in the statistics. So we can solve these issues, it's just about the political will. If as Lomborg says these problems can be solved quickly with existing technologies, I have to say: "let's do it".
That justifies my summer in Uganda, in one of the Millenium Villages where proven interventions are being provided in an holistic manner to bring a village cluster out of the poverty trap. I will try to find some answers to my questions.
I found this in an article written in the Copenhagen Consensus Center facebook's page. It is a think-tank in Denmark that publicizes the best ways for governments and philanthropists to spend aid and development money. And was founded by Mr. Lomborg. The article ends with the following ideas:
Lomborg notes that the world still depends on fossil fuels for more than 80% of its energy. “What will developing countries use to power their economies if they can’t burn fossil fuels?” he asks. “Alternative energy technologies like solar, wind, and geothermal power all have great promise, but they are nowhere near ready to shoulder that kind of load.”
“Those who put their hopes in the Copenhagen summit will be bitterly disappointed. But this failure could be a blessing in disguise, if it jolts politicians into recognizing the deep flaws in their current approach, and chart a smarter course”, says Lomborg. “Until now we have put the cart in front of the horse by promising carbon cuts before alternative energy is affordable.”
Lomborg argues that if governments are serious about wanting to solve global warming, they should massively increase spending on green-energy research and development. “We should increase the amount we spend on green energy R&D by a factor of fifty, to $100 billion a year – or 0.2% of global GDP. This would be more than enough to bring about the kind of game-changing technological breakthroughs it will take to make green energy cheaper and fuel our carbon-free future.”
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario