Proving conclusively that we have a long, long way to go before the mainstream media stops promoting climate misinformation disinformation, the Washington Post gave global-warming delayer Bjorn Lomborg a front-page opinion piece in its Outlook section.
Lomborg repeats his nonsense about polar bears, sea-level rise, and why global warming (at least on Planet Lomborg) is no big deal, which I have previously debunked here, here, and here, respectively. He also claims Greenland's "Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing," which is the opposite of what experts say here and here (if anyone has a source for Lomborg's claim, I'd love to see it -- not that Lomborg is a stickler for facts).
The reason for this post is not to debunk Lomborg again, but to answer the question posed in the headline. S&N don't like being linked to Lomborg -- who can blame them? -- but I think the link is legitimate. Read Lomborg's article. The similarities are scary. Like S&N, Lomborg acknowledges the reality of human-caused climate change. And like S&N, Lomborg attacks the climate strategy endorsed by most environmental groups:
Environmental groups say that the only way to deal with the effects of global warming is to make drastic cuts in carbon emissions -- a project that will cost the world trillions.
Like S&N, Lomborg is "frustrated at our blinkered focus on policies that won't achieve it" arguing at length that environmentalists have little to show for their efforts so far and "Proponents of pacts such as Kyoto want us to spend enormous sums of money doing very little good for the planet a hundred years from now."
Lomborg and S&N are convinced environmentalists have failed because they have the wrong strategy -- neither appear willing to accept the possibility that a key reason environmentalists have failed is that the deniers and delayers have launched such an effective disinformation campaign, a campaign only now being (somewhat) effectively combated -- notwithstanding Lomborg's best efforts.
Like S&N, Lomborg believes that instead of focusing on raising the price of carbon, "We need to reduce the cost of cutting emissions from $20 a ton to, say, $2." Like S&N, Lomborg brings up China as a key reason for focusing on lowering costs. Finally, exactly like S&N, Lomborg argues:
The way to achieve this is to dramatically increase spending on research and development of low-carbon energy. Ideally, every nation should commit to spending 0.05 percent of its gross domestic product exploring non-carbon-emitting energy technologies, be they wind, wave or solar power, or capturing CO2 emissions from power plants. This spending could add up to about $25 billion per year but would still be seven times cheaper than the Kyoto Protocol.
Lomborg and S&N would seem a marriage made in heaven. To hold their views you must believe both (1) existing technology just can't make a big dent in emissions at an affordable price, and (2) there is "no looming apocalypse" (as Lomborg argues and as seems implicit in S&N's repeated critiques of Gore's supposedly apocalyptic vision -- if S&N disagree, I'd love to hear it).
I strongly disagree with both statements -- but I go further than simple disagreement, which is why I have spilled so much ink debunking both Lomborg and S&N. As long as Lomborg and S&N keep repeating their core positions and beliefs, they help undermine the consensus needed to achieve the urgent steps that could avoid apocalypse. In that sense, their disdain for the beliefs and the strategies of environmentalists is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Lomborg's explicit message is -- don't worry so much about global warming. Unintentionally or not, S&N's implicit message is the same.
Want to read more debunking of S&N? Here are Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets
If REDD can’t save this….
Climate-news poem: Tck, tck, tck edition
Comments
View as Flat
trock Posted 10:25 am
08 Oct 2007
Not to far off the mark for what is going on between S&N and other environmentalists. Pres. Bush and company will love S&N you but they don't really buy your environmental stance. You will be hated by environmentalists because you will be under cutting their arguments for what they want to do.
Sure sometimes spending government money is easier than increasing taxes.
Just look at National Defense. A little less than 500 billion for regular defense and 190 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Some Democrats tried to introduce a tax increase to help pay for the wars, but that was quickly shot down. My opinion is if you are for the wars, but against paying for them, you are nothing but a `phony patriot,' but we don't want that discussion here. My point is it's easier to spend tens of billions than a new tax even a little.
Maybe S&N have a point, but they should be talking about Government spending and taxing and politics and not against environmentalists.
Well, how much harder is it to get non-carbon energy subsidized compared to getting carbon taxed?
Figure out a way to get people to think they are entitled to free or low cost, fully subsidized renewable electricity from non-carbon sources. For war, like World War II, it was accepted that going farther into dept was okay because the benefits would last for generations and could be paid for by future generations. Right now the US puts up about 5 billion a year in Wind Turbines as I've read. If we could just convince enough people that we could put up 200 billion a year in wind turbines, nuclear and CSP and let future generations pay for it. Because what better reason for deficit spending could there be than preventing future Global Warming.
Would investing in non-carbon research be enough to lower the cost below carbon sources? I would guess not. Will we convince people to spend wildly on non-carbon energy sources without a reason to spend on non-carbon energy sources? I don't think so either.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:59 am
08 Oct 2007
By the end of 2007, an initial group of 100 schools will undergo a mapping of their energy consumption to see where significant improvements can be made. In 2008, contractors will make upgrades and install energy-efficient products, which may include changes to the heating and cooling systems, ventilation, lighting fixtures and other infrastructure. These improvements - called retrofits - will be financially supported by the money the city will save from the reduced energy costs.
Mon Dieu! The government did something, and it was direct spending!
Joe, please do everybody a favor and spend a few posts talking about positive examples of government spending, and stop obsessing about people who criticize. ThinkProgress does enough of that as it is, we need solutions. Thank You.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:16 pm
08 Oct 2007
Isn't because of their "solutions", but because of their perception of the problem at hand.
In that same way Lomborg figures that we shouldn't be that concerned with dealing with global warming except only in the long term.
And thats what puts Lomborg and S&N in the same category. They want to delay action. Which is frankly exactly what the GOP/Exxon strategy has been all along.
_
First the denial was
"It's not happening."
Then the denial was
"It is happening, but it's not us."
We are now moving into the next brick of the stonewall
"It is happening, it is us, but it's not gonna be that bad! So we don't need to get too hasty about doing anything. Infact it might actually be a good thing!"
Permalink
dobermanmacleod Posted 4:02 pm
08 Oct 2007
It is very unlikely that mankind will cut their greenhouse gas emissions so fast and drastically that abrupt climate change or runaway global warming will be avoided.
Rather than give you loads of reasons why, I suggest you read my blog at http://www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod and this quote from the Oct. 1st NY Times:
But getting billions of humans to make serious cuts in CO2 emissions anytime soon may be even less realistic politically. As Dr. Lovelock and Dr. Rapley write:
Processes that would normally regulate climate are being driven to amplify warming. Such feedbacks, as well as the inertia of the Earth system -- and that of our response -- make it doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will restore the status quo. What is needed is a fundamental cure.
Is there any difference between Dr Lomberg (or S&N), and those who advocate an unfeasible scheme to beat global warming? In my opinion, those who advocate cutting emissions as THE scheme will get the same result as Dr Lomberg's scheme (or S&N's).
I suggest the low cost method of removing the CO2 from the air called "biosequestration." Dr Hansen of NASA says that any feasible planetary rescue plan must include a method of removing the excess carbon from the air.
I suggest seeding an extensively tested GMO into the ocean, to remove tremendous quantities of carbon from the air and add it to the earth (sea bottom) where it came from.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:47 pm
08 Oct 2007
Especially one which is supposed to grow like a cancer.
And you don't expect it to have ANY negative effects on other marine life as it's sucking up all these nutrients?
And if it really does work, then how do we tell it to stop, before we head towards an ice age?
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:00 am
09 Oct 2007
Permalink
marshall Posted 12:44 am
09 Oct 2007
Problem is, 2007 is not 2004. In that short time, the movement HAS changed. Maybe we listened to their article, or maybe we just recognized on our own that climate change requires a different kind of politics. The climate movement today is the movement S&N claimed they wanted in "The Death of Environmentalism."
S&N, like so many critics, want to continue to be edgy and controversial. And, of course, they want to be famous and make money. They don't want to wake up and find themselves in the new mainstream. That would require building something, as opposed to just tearing things down. So instead of welcoming the changes that have occurred (and pushing further), they are continuing to insist everything is wrong. And in so doing, they play into the hands of people like Lomborg.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:20 am
09 Oct 2007
http://www.sensibleenvironmentalist.com/
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.03/moore.html
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:09 pm
09 Oct 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink