Bjorn Lomborg has been the vilified scourge of the “warmist”
environmental lobby for some time – ever since he wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist.
His point has been simple – given the uncertainties of climate data and
the dubious value of climate modeling (for more, see Ross McKitrick’s piece here),
why would we risk the economic future of nations on policies focused on CO2
reduction and a dramatic change in the energy economy of the world?
In a relatively new contribution, posted at the Project
Syndicate web site (here), he
looks at the agenda for RO +20 and subsequent events and is very critical (read
here).
His basic point is that CO2 is not at all the largest threat to the environment
and its people – the lack of clean water and air quality are. He puts it simply:
If we made the bizarre assumption that all natural disasters were caused by
climate change (the evidence is that it has no discernible impact on such
disasters), then just 0.06% of all deaths in developing countries are caused by
such disasters. In comparison, 13% of all Third World deaths result from water
and air pollution. For each person dying from a natural disaster, 210 people
die from polluted water and polluted air (remember: CO2 is not a pollutant).
He also makes other points. For example, that a focus on
organic food supplies in Africa is a major cause of death from malnutrition –
what Africa needs to do is shift from small scale organic farming to industrial
scale farming so as to massively increase food supplies.
He makes the same point about energy. The RIO +20 agenda
wanted the developing world to make extensive use of wind and solar energy –
known to be less reliable, more expensive and problematic than fossil fuel
based energy. Why would they promote a more expensive, less reliable energy
source for the poorest nations on the planet? Is it naiveté, ideological
blindness or something more sinister? In terms of air quality, a great many of
the deaths occur from burning dung (an organic commodity). Would those who burn
dung for energy be better served by natural gas based energy (in liquid form)?
A similar set of points are made by Phillip Stott (here).
Noting that the climate change agenda is not well based in science, he suggests
we should be more concerned about the 20,000 people who die each day of
waterborne diseases and the half a billion (with a “b) that go hungry. Indeed,
we have some four billion whose living standards are below what would be
reasonable to expect, given the wealth and resources of the world.
Climate change is normal and will happen. It is something we
need to adapt to. But it is not the major challenge facing those of use
concerned with sustainability. Our ability to provide a meaningful life of
quality for all on our planet is.
For more on these issues, see The Murgatroyd Blog (here).
