In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Bjørn Lomborg offers a pleasantly rational, non-radical critique of both sides. He doesn't claim global warming is a myth: "There is unequivocal evidence," says the Danish economist, "that humans are changing the planet's climate." Nor does he claim that al-Qaida is a figment of the conspiratorial Right's imagination: he recognizes that "transnational terrorists take, on average, 420 lives each year."
Instead, Lomborg looks at global warming and transnational terrorism and says, with the cool calculation that only an economist could love (but that more of us should embrace), "Don't bother." Based on research by eight of the best economists in the world, Lomborg argues that efforts to reduce carbon emissions and fight terrorists won't produce a sufficient return on investment:
[On reducing carbon emissions] ...Spending $800 billion (in total present-day terms) over 100 years solely on mitigating emissions would reduce temperature increases by just 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century.
When you add up the benefits of that spending -- from the slightly lower temperatures -- the returns are only $685 billion. For each extra dollar spent, we would get 90 cents of benefits -- and this is even when things like environmental damage are taken into account....
[On fighting terrorism] Increasing defensive measures world-wide by 25% would cost at least $75 billion over five years. In the extremely unlikely scenario that attacks dropped by 25%, the world would save about $21 billion. That figure is reached by adding up the economic damage caused by terrorists, and by putting a high economic value on the lives lost.But even in this best-case scenario, the costs will be at least three times higher than the benefits. Put another way, each extra dollar spent increasing defensive measures will generate -- at most -- about 30 cents of return.
We could save about 105 lives a year, globally. There are few areas where we would consider spending so much to do so little. To put this into context, 30,000 lives are lost annually on U.S. highways. [emphasis mine, article by Bjørn Lomborg, "How to Get the Biggest Bang for 10 Billion bucks," Wall Street Journal, 2008.07.28].
So where should we spend our money? Lomborg says we get a better return on investment fighting disease and hunger. Putting $500 million a year toward simple malaria prevention measures like bed nets and subsidies for new treatments "would save 500,000 lives a year—most of them children." In economic terms, Lomborg sees a twenty-fold return on investment from disease prevention (people contribute more to the economy when they don't die at age 2).
Fighting hunger also reduces disease and increases productivity. Lomborg recommends investing a mere $60 million in providing micronutrients like vitamin A and zinc to hungry kids worldwide. That investment would produce over a billion dollars in health savings and productivity gains, a return on investment of 17 to 1. Another $60 million added to ag research (yup, that includes genetic engineering) would produce an ROI of $16 on the dollar.
Lomborg has made arguments about priorities like this before. I heard him on PBS once argue that for the cost of enacting the Kyoto Protocols, we could build water purification plants for all of Africa. His book The Skeptical Environmentalist is a splendid read, complete with 2900+ footnotes (and even some online errors, fully 'fessed up by Lomborg).
Lomborg now heads the Copenhagen Consensus Center to promote the rational prioritization of global problems and sensible policy solutions that do the most good with the resources available. You can read the group's ranked list of solutions for global problems (funny, no mention of abortion bans as a way to save lives).
So how about a deal: let's drop the War on Terror and global warming as rhetorical bludgeons. Better yet, let's cut funding funding for both issues by half and dedicate that money to fighting disease and hunger. Any takers?
Holy Crap! How's Al Gore going to get rich if we don't panic every time we hear "global warming?"
ReplyDeleteDisease and hunger are not issues that appear tangible for the US. I don't see starving third worlders everytime I go walking down the street.
ReplyDeleteSafety; however, is always a concern and hence can be sold to the population at large. Every dollar we invest in "the war on terror" and "fighting global warming" makes us safer regardless of actual outcome. Thank mighty zeus for the placebo effect (or was that Dionysus?).
If you want to sell hunger/disease as something that needs to be fixed, you need to provide a benefit that appears to be tangible. Make something up like hungry people will build A-bombs and become terrorists if we don't give them food. That is what motivates the population at large.
But seriously; CAH, does it really make sense to prop up third world countries that are not self sufficient? Dependence is not a good thing. You just end up with a subserviant underclass permanently.
So, we want to begin nation building? I thought that was bad?
ReplyDeleteIf you can harm the planet by driving your car. Why does it take a 'government' to feed a child on the other side of the planet?
CAH said:
ReplyDelete"little kids vitamin A and zinc, give families mosquito nets so they don't get malaria, and instead of being sick, they'll be able to study and work more, contribute more to their local and national economies, and thus become more independent."
While this makes sense from a let's try to save as many people now as possible point of view, this will not help the long term sustainability of the region. These problems are symptoms of over population and wealth being spread too thinly.
To be frank, the herd there needs to be thinned out a bit. By giving them just enough to survive we are prolonging the problem, not solving it. The population density needs to come down which will concentrate the wealth. That will in turn allow the region to become economically viable again.
You need to read the peer reviews of Lomborg's book. I think that would give you a bit more perspective. Log on to JSTOR and read Brander among others. He makes some very good points concerning Lomborg's methods and assessments. I found Brander's argument about linear extrapolation to be quite compelling. Also it appears that Lomborg way underestimates the population growth crisis. Enjoy!
ReplyDeleteYes, let's fight disease and hunger with some of the money we save by avoiding misguided military adventures and ending corporate welfare.
ReplyDeleteWe can help to end hunger and disease not only abroad, but right here at home. (Aside: Tony, I have seen Third-World-like conditions right here in America, in the form of street people in Miami Beach, one of whom used to leave his calling card every night in my back yard.)
Let's also make sure we get a handle on the world population problem. Not by Orwellian means, but with education and voluntary contraception.
I have heard the cruel reality: More food means more people. But there is a kinder, gentler corollary: Fewer people means more food for all.
Careful, Stan -- Tony might want to thin out our herd, too!
ReplyDeleteSorry, Tony, I can't overcome my romantic attachment to saving lives. I won't resort to "thinning the herd" as a policy choice until things are really bad (complete ecosystem collapse, asteroid strike, etc.). I'd prefer to believe that simple low-tech solutions like bug nets and micronutrient supplements will keep people healthy enough to do the work necessary to improve the sustainability of their regions. If that approach leads us to a Soylent Green world, well, you can tell me "I told you so" then. But I'm not going to eat my neighbors until then.
Good tip, Anon! James Brander's review of Lomborg's book (see Journal of Economic Literature 40:3 Sep 2002) is interesting. I agree: we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking problems will follow linear trends. But if linearity is one of the failings of Lomborg's 2001 book, how does that affect the cost-benefit analysis offered above?
ReplyDeleteI note also that even Brander says that The Skeptical Environmentalist "is a 'must-read' for anyone with serious interests in environmental economics, and I would also recommend much of the associated critical response."
CAH said:
ReplyDelete"Careful, Stan -- Tony might want to thin out our herd, too!
Sorry, Tony, I can't overcome my romantic attachment to saving lives. I won't resort to "thinning the herd" as a policy choice until things are really bad (complete ecosystem collapse, asteroid strike, etc.). I'd prefer to believe that simple low-tech solutions like bug nets and micronutrient supplements will keep people healthy enough to do the work necessary to improve the sustainability of their regions. If that approach leads us to a Soylent Green world, well, you can tell me "I told you so" then. But I'm not going to eat my neighbors until then."
Seriously, how can we call many parts of Africa anything but "really bad". I'm not advocating going around and shooting people. I'm saying that our continued support of the region is artificially extending the suffering. My thoughts may be skewed because of my experiences with Indian reservations here in SD, but I don't think so.
Also, we may be saving lives, but what of the quality of life we are forcing on them? Does it makes sense to send someone a bit of rice so they can continue to live for another month in squalor before dying?
If I have a magic pill that would extend the life of a burn victim for another week but in horrible pain, would you give the pill to the burn victim? Is there a limit in your mind on the value of life?
the value of life is incalculable. However it does not always take precedence over all other values. Otherwise nobody would ever risk their lives for those values. The values of freedom and security being fought for even as more people die on our highways makes perfect sense. Nobody fears their car in spite of the threat. Everyone living in NY on 9-11 were afraid even though more people probably died on the same day from heart attacks and cancer. We wouldn't have gone to war over the loss of life, which was inconsequential from a national view. We went to war because we knew that terrorism could paralyze us and kill our freedom and collapse our economy. It had the potential of ending our way of life.
ReplyDelete(just think Patriot Act x 1000)
Lomborg's book is fascinating, but it isn't correct in it's assessment.
As far as global climate change goes...let me be the right-wing extremist to dismiss it as unfounded hype, a 1990s warming trend that already looks to have turned around.
"paralyze us and kill our freedom and collapse our economy"—holy cow, Phae: you just described life in America under the Bush Administration. (Open mouth, insert foot.)
ReplyDeleteIt is quite obvious that the linear argument concerning cost/benefit is germane to the argument since Lomborg is extrapolating over the course of the century. Geoffrey McNicoll makes the point that the cost/benefit (Lomgorg's favorite tool) analysis is "pure reason in one sense but hedged with contestable and contested assumptions." Lomborg is dismissive of potential catastrophes and societal stresses of additional population. There are too many variables when considering something so complex as climate change, economics and worldwide demographics. That being said, the book would seem to be an interesting and important read, but with certain reservations.
ReplyDeleteAnon, the non-linearity critique still doesn't address the recommendations Lomborg makes in the essay discussed above. Chuck his earlier book if you like, but what about what he's saying now about how we should invest our resources to solve problems? Suppose all four problems discussed above—climate change, terrorism, disease, and hunger—are non-linear. Lomborg's flawed methodology would underestimate all four, but his comparison of their impacts and the return on investment for policy solutions would reamin valid. Even if there are "too many variables," a policy maker still has to make decisions. Lomborg at least looks at a few variables and says, "Spend your money on disease and hunger, save more lives, do more economic good." Would you prefer we follow the Bush method and make policy based on what our gut tells us?
ReplyDeleteA linear equation takes known quantities to arrive at an answer: 1 + 1 = 2. This works very well with known quantities but tends to not work so well with variables that can change exponentially. For instance: George Bush as President + war in Iraq = windfall profits for oil companies. Each step of the way involves many variables to even arrive at that quantification and there is a huge variance (for instance a few hanging chads). The same applies to the topics forwarded by Lomborg. Trying to extrapolate what will happen with the climate over the next 92 years is an inexact undertaking. What happens if by investing in technology there is developed an effective method of sequestering carbon emissions? The same goes for counter terrorism (although here I am more inclined to believe in diminshing returns), there are just too many what ifs? And alas the same is true even with doing what is morally correct in feeding the poor and fighting disease. This results in more people leading to a larger carbon footprint and more competition for dwindling resources. There are very clear models to be found of what happens to weather patterns in Africa with increased CO2 to be found in ice cores. That a leader could make use of statistical analysis is certain but whether he acts on the information or not has more to do with the huge variable of politics than much else. Just some observations...oh and "truthiness" is no way to make policy decisions. I believe that George W. Bush is the worst president in US history.
ReplyDelete