RE: [GBlist] Environmentalists Are Wrong: Sustainability, Global warming, Economic analyses

["Ralph Bicknese" <ralph.bicknese@christnerinc.com>]

Lomborg is saying worse than "do nothing".  He is saying that development is the cure all. The logic is perplexing if not obscene. Use more (more, more, more) to save more.  Lets see, make the undeveloped world more like the wasteful industrialized "developed" world and they will have more money to think about how to improve what they just ruined. 

 

True, the impoverished do not have the luxury to think about how to not to pollute, the way the affluent do. They have to think about how to survive day-to-day.

 

The role of leadership has always fallen on those with the ability to lead.  It greatly handicaps ones ability if they do not have  the where-with-all. Not incidentally the affluent, through consumption, have been the most destructive of  the environment and have the most to with the inequality of wealth in the world. This means the affluent have a responsibility to eliminate rampant poverty for they have the greatest ability and impact.  The triple bottom line philosophy of sustainability recognizes that a solution cannot be sustainable if it does not balance and mesh the needs of  people, planet, and prosperity.

 

Cheers,

Ralph Bicknese

-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Cascio [mailto:rcascio@beachin.net]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 8:32 AM
To: Steve
Cc: GreenBuilding@crest.org
Subject: Re: [GBlist] Environmentalists Are Wrong: Sustainability, Global warming, Economic analyses

   Bjorn Lomborg continues to be the epitome of the planet`s latest species of homonid, Homo Consumptus. The problem is, they want to take every other species down with them. 
   There is a major move afoot by many in the earth sciences to discredit this individual for the clown he is, I can`t wait. But then again he does serve a purpose in showing how rediculous the argument to "DO NOTHING" is.

                                                                                                            

Steve wrote:

August 26, 2002

The Environmentalists Are Wrong

By BJORN LOMBORG

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/26/opinion/26LOMB.html?pagewanted=print&position=top There is no doubt that pumping out carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has increased the global temperature. Yet too much of the debate is fixated on reducing emissions without regard to cost... Even with renewable sources of energy taking over, the United Nations Climate Panel still estimates a temperature increase of four degrees to five degrees fahrenheit by the year 2100. Such a rise is projected to have less impact in the industrialized world than in the developing world, which tends to be in warmer regions and has an infrastructure less able to withstand the inevitable problems... ...Despite our intuition that we need to do something drastic about global warming, economic analyses show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adapting to the increased temperatures. Moreover, all current models show that the Kyoto Protocol will have surprisingly little impact on the climate: temperature levels projected for 2100 will be postponed for all of six years.Yet the cost of the Kyoto Protocol will be $150 billion to $350 billion annually (compared to $50 billion in global annual development aid). With global warming disproportionately affecting third world countries, we have to ask if Kyoto is the best way to help them. The answer is no. For the cost of Kyoto for just one year we could solve the world's biggest problem: we could provide every person in the world with clean water. This alone would save two million lives each year and prevent 500 million from severe disease. In fact, for the same amount Kyoto would have cost just the United States every year, the United Nations estimates that we could provide every person in the world with access to basic health, education, family planning and water and sanitation services. Isn't this a better way of serving the world?

The focus should be on development, not sustainability. Development is not simply valuable in itself, but in the long run it will lead the third world to become more concerned about the environment. Only when people are rich enough to feed themselves do they begin to think about the effect of their actions on the world around them and on future generations. With its focus on sustainability, the developed world ends up prioritizing the future at the expense of the present. This is backward. In contrast, a focus on development helps people today while creating the foundation for an even better tomorrow...