Bjorn Lomborg, leading global warming skeptic, changes his mind
Having questioned aspects of climate change science in the past, Mr Lomborg now says "the basic scientific questions [on climate change] have been answered pretty unequivocally".
Therefore the question moves on from not whether to try to tackle climate change but how to do so most cheaply and effectively.
But he still thinks the consensus focus on curbing carbon emissions is wrong, and that we should look at alternative courses of action:
He is concerned that the United Nations-led consensus that a climate treaty must focus on cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from rich countries is mistaken.
"It's a costly way to achieve very little," he said.
Instead, Mr Lomborg argues, there are cheaper ways of halting temperature rises.
These include tackling sources of climate change other than carbon dioxide, such as methane and soot; investing in new technologies; adapting to the effects of climate change; planting more forests; and weighing up whether emissions cuts are cheaper to do now or later.
Governments hope to thrash out a treaty at the crucial conference in Copenhagen this December.
"Getting a deal will undoubtedly be very hard, but if we get better ideas on the table that are cheaper and more efficient [than emissions cuts for the rich] then there is a greater chance that we will succeed," he said.
So he has gone from obstruction to foot-dragging. A step in the right direction, sort of.
He will join up with amelioration folks, looking for cheap fixes. Those ideas will come in handy when the foot-dragging makes it too late to do anything else.
Methane is indeed more powerful but also it is not persistent, since it combines with oxidants fairly quickly. CO2 is inert by comparison. The real threat of methane is not what is produced now, but what warming will release soon, from thawed tundras and peat bogs, and from melted clathrates on the ocean bottom. That could yield a huge pulse of added warming.
Likely we will see huge battles over risky but necessary ventures like lofting aerosols into the stratosphere to block sunlight. The hope of increasing algal CO2 uptake by fertilizing the ocean with iron didn't yield much result in recent tests, as I recall. We may see a solar-orbiting shield eventually.
August 9, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that Tom. You know a lot more about this than I do. I take that his focus on methane isn't about figuring out what to do with the Siberian time bomb, but more the laid-back James Baker it's-all-just-cow-farts line.
But given that his general tack is to point to the shaky understanding of the environment among scientists, it's simply disingenious to turn around and argue for science-fictional techy surgical strikes on the causes of climate change. Anyway, that's more my issue with him...
August 9, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6788630.ece
August 9, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What could possibly go wrong...?!
August 9, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And great for the environment, too!
August 9, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post. I haven't liked Lumberg for awhile too. He occasionally makes some good points but his egregious cherry picking more often served as cover for flat earth denialists.
BTW, I wanted to share this Atlantic article on the allure of geoengineering>=
August 9, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for the link Sal. Bkmk'ed. This is insane, in five years we've gone from handwringing about the fundamental uncertainty in our understanding of the mechanisms involved in climate change to crazy sci-fi solutions which seem to suppose we know how to tinker with it like it was a quaint antique clock. Insanity, hubris, or just a good excuse to make a buck, god knows...
August 10, 2009 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
This guy is a fraud, a hack, and so bought and paid for, he ought to have "will say anything for money" tattooed on his forehead.
I suppose it's a good thing he's backing off, but it sounds to me like he's getting paid by new task-masters now.
Ack! I'm so not surprised!
=D
August 9, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same task-masters, different task, imo. Before the memo was "who knows whether things are getting hotter", then" who knows whether we're contributing", then "who knows whether we should spend money on it", and now "who knows whether there might in future be a better way to spend money on it". Same conclusion: please don't fuck with the fossil-fuel industry and its dependents...
August 9, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, just maybe, and I only have this thought after looking at the issue for one minute, so I might have another one later, the money-men have figured out how to make money on the issue. First, they screamed the Left just wanted to make money and had to be stopped. Now they figured out how to make money so they will agree with the agenda.
It's kind of like GE. First they opposed the science of global warming, then they figured out how to make huge wind turbines, so now green energy is okay! They will sell power companies wind turbines. Too bad they are not keen on selling everyone a wind turbine for their personal use rather then creating a massive, corporate owned, easier to control the masses product.
August 10, 2009 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gregor, polluting industries have actually already won this fight. The policy discussion is no longer how much to make them pay in order to internalize the cost of pollution, but how much to bribe them to incite them to pollute less. A revenue neutral carbon tax is off the table. And the agenda Lomborg has been pushing over the last ten years plays a pretty important role in moving the goal-posts. He is really one of the few people where one could say the planet would be a lot better off without.
August 10, 2009 5:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lomborg has never challenged the broad principles underlying our understanding of climate change, but rather those approaches heavily based on curtailing CO2 emissions. I'm therefore not sure he has changed much.
Within science itself, the imperative to reduce the rate of CO2 emissions is not seriously disputed. Methane contributes about 20 percent of the warming potential of CO2 because of its short amospheric residence time (a few decades, compared with millennia for the slowest part of the CO2 decay curve). The greater danger from methane, as Tom states, would result from its release from oceanic and terrestrial sources due to further CO2-mediated warming.
The various geoengineering schemes that have been proposed - high altitude shields, sulfate aerosols, or ocean spray aerosols, are seriously limited by practicality, or in the case of aerosols by their very temporary effects. In addition, rising CO2, in addition to warming the climate, is acidifying the oceans, with a consequent danger to corals and the marine food chain. Even if its warming effect could be temporarily mitigated by geoengineering, the acidification would continue and would represent a severe global threat in its own right.
August 9, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, not sure what you mean by 'principles'. But he first challenged the conclusions that global warming was occuring on grounds of insufficient evidence. Then he used the consensus estimates of the rise in temperature and mitigating measures to argue for spending on other priorities. Now he has decided it is urgent to deal with GW, but not urgent enough to do anything upsetting for industry incumbents.
I don't know what to call that evolution in thought other than 'change'. And each time the movement is to stay just within the norms of what is acceptable for someone to say on TV without being laughed off the set. It's just hackery of the highest order.
August 9, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey - He has certainly argued consistently that climate mitigation deserved a lower priority than it was given, but I have been reading his views for a long time, and if he ever expressed doubts about the reality of global warming, I think it must have been long ago. Neither his recent book nor speeches in recent years have challenged the reality of significant anthropogenic global warming as far as I know. I haven't read every word, but that is certainly the impression I've come away with.
He has challenged the severity of global warming consequences - e.g., the harm from projected sea level rise - but in the material I've seen, he's done that by accepting the IPCC projections for the extent of that rise, and then arguing it wouldn't do much harm. There's much evidence he's wrong, but I would put him more in the category of skeptical about priorities and consequences than about the basic scientific principles. It's probably true that his position has evolved over the years, but what troubles me is that his resistance to CO2 mitigation seems as intransigent as ever.
August 9, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the Skeptical Environmentalist he attacks the data and models undelying climate change research. But more generally the book, by cherry-picking, falsifying, and distorting evidence, mainstreamed the notion that environmental science was a pack of lies, and there's a short step from that idea to justifying mistrust and blithe ignorance of what the science was saying. It's his general thesis that's done most of the damage.
August 9, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
American arrogance knows no bounds. The WORLD knows that our industries are vcreating a toxic environment and our leaders insist it is pure theory, leaders with no scientific background whatsoever. Leaders who give profits greater value then their own survival.
August 10, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Using 'the slowest part of the CO2 decay' is misleading, as it refers to the absorption into ocean sediments. This study:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
and numerous others, put CO2 atmospheric residence at 5 to 7 years, and is a major torpedo into the AGW theory.
August 10, 2009 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bulldog - You're confusing two concepts. One is the mean atmospheric residence time of CO2 molecules, which is relatively short because of exchange with oceanic and terrestrial reservoirs. The other is the rate at which an elevated CO2 concentration returns to baseline. Because of multiple disposal mechanisms, this isn't characterized by a single exponential decay curve, but rather by a family of curves. The more rapid declines occur over a scale of a few decades, but there is a large "tail" - perhaps 30 percent or more of the total excess - that descends towards baseline over many millennia. This is one reason why CO2 is such a potent forcer of warming over the long term, and why CO2 emissions now impose hazards for many centuries.
August 10, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
We probably don't disagree that much. His later book was more receptive to the data, but many knowledgeable individuals, including climate scientists, express skepticism about the accuracy of models and specific datasets, while accepting the basic principle of greenhouse-gas driven warming. Almost none of the latter group challenges the conclusion that the warming is a significant threat that must be addressed.
At least in recent years, Lomborg has insisted that we should invest in activities responding to warming, including alternative energy development, adaptive strategies, and the like.
Finally, I'm intrigued that Lomborg is such a darling of the conservative movement. Oh well - a left wing homosexual socialist - what's for them not to like?
August 9, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
TomW: He will join up with amelioration folks, looking for cheap fixes.
I cannot say it better than Tom. Obey, this is a good blog. Because it hits the real issue here.
The dems will fight over 'how do we fix this'. Good and bad forces will still be at work.
But the gd repubs will just sit back and say: WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
The repubs will just ignore the entire problem.
If 18% really believe the sun goes around the earth, why get into issues concerning problem solving at all if it alienates your base?
August 9, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dick, I saw a panel discussion on the issue on CNN a while back, with experts talking about policy recommendations and political obstacles, moral imperatives etc. And there was James Baker representing the 'reasonable republican' constituency. When asked, he just shrugged, laughed and talked about cow-farts. Then Amanpour asked him to get serious. And he kept on laughing about cow-farts. When the party is led by a bunch of juvenile idiots, what are you gonna do...?
August 10, 2009 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good blog pug, but IMO you need to give it a sexier title so our new and unheralded recommenders know it's worthy of a rec, (I think most of them never bother to read beyond the title or first paragraph at best). Perhaps something like, "Bjorn Lomborg, leading conservative enviro-porn star, has sex change operation: Takes liberal Dems to task on role of hormone therapy in controlling Global Hot-Flashes".
August 9, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
hhahahahaha.
Expert Opts for Farts over just plain gas: WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
August 9, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL :)
August 9, 2009 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lol. Miguel, you and Ripper are on a roll here. Jeebuz, I got nuttin from our new TPM rec'ing crew! My salesmanship does have shortcomings. Shall work on it...
August 10, 2009 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, Obey! What a world we live in!
August 9, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for stopping by OT!
August 10, 2009 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink