Lomborg argues that we should spend relatively small amounts of money now on measures which improve global standards of living and the environment rather than commit larger amounts to reducing carbon emissions to reduce future global warming. He is also doubtful that people are willing to sacrifice now for the good of future generations, a theme which Ruddiman echoes in his book when he speaks of draconian sacrifices that almost everyone would find intolerable. In his review Ruddiman claims that Lomborg’s recommendations dovetail with most economic models, which indicate that the most cost-effective way of dealing with global warming is to spend modest amounts reducing carbon emissions now and then ramp up expenditures later, when global wealth is greater.

I am unimpressed by the kind of economic reasoning Lomborg represents. It doesn’t face up to the full seriousness of global warming but atttempts to subsume it under an overarching economic theory. The matter is too serious for that. We are under a moral obligation to do whatever it costs to address the problem while it may still be manageable, and this doesn’t mean ignoring other pressing environmental matters. In any case the costs of action now may be nowhere near as large as some claim. Economist Jeffrey Sachs in his book Commonwealth, for example, seems to me to be a much more reliable guide than Lomborg. In his view modest investments will do what is required – he estimates well under one percent of annual world income to convert to a sustainable energy system, less than one tenth of one percent of the annual income of rich countries to slow the runaway population growth in the poorest countries, and less than one percent to finance the crucial investments needed in the poorest countries to extricate them from the poverty trap. He sees a huge imbalance between the modest costs of action and the huge costs of inaction.

I remain interested in the science that Ruddiman proposes in his book, but at variance with his final chapters.

At first blush, it looks like EcoWorld is designed to appeal to businesspeople who want to feel green, but it certainly has the strangest mix of ads I’ve seen in one place.

Bryan:
You might want to reread PPP Chapters 18 and 19. The book’s focus is *not* on future climate change issues and current politics: he avoided mentioning anybody on any side, although he certainly knows some personally. He mentioned a few specific issues (without names), but I think it’s pretty clear which extreme he thinks is causing the real trouble. Like many scientists, his primary focus is *not* fighting the PR battles. [You can argue whether or not more scientists should, but I'd just observe that most scientists do science to do science, and the Little Ice Age is about as close to the present as Ruddiman's research has gotten.]

Many scientists I’ve met:
a) Think we have Real Big Problems and
b) That the exaggerations that have popped up, often via the popular press (or at least one movie), simply make it harder for scientists to communicate their best understandings, and offer openings for denialists to cast doubt. You should hear Stephen Schneider talk wryly about the way the somewhat-speculative paper by him & Rasool turned into “imminent ice age” in the popular press.

Of course, even pretty reasonable people make mistakes. For instance, “Beating the Heat”, by John J. Berger, 2000, is generally good, but it opens with a description of flying around the Arctic in 2100, including:
“You search in vain for the seals, walrus, and penguins that used to live there in large numbers.”

*penguins*?
Here’s a book written by a smart, good guy, with blurbs from John Adams (NRDC), Lester Brown (Worldwatch Institute) for example. It’s really painful to see something where you basically agree with almost everything, and then you see a careless exaggeration that damages credibility.

I don’t think Ruddiman is *unconcerned* about climate change, but again, that wasn’t the focus of the book. He is certainly worried about the *other* problems (chapter 19) that he thinks are more immediate, and that is a reasonable view, and I even agree with it, in the following sense:

- Peak Oil, topsoil depletion, and water problems are like a heart attack that will weaken you badly in 30 years, and any children will inherit the weakness.

- Global warming is like lung cancer that will kill you slowly over the centuries after the heart attack, also exacerbating the heart problems. Your descendants will inherit this one for many generations.

Fortunately, at least part of the common solution is to STOP SMOKING, but the complexity of the issue is that we have to solve *all* these issues. The water issue is already bad enough *without* AGW, for example, but I can’t think of water solutions that don’t involve energy&AGW solutions as well in the long term.

FYI it had about a half dozen links including several “nofollow”s, which I belatedly notice aren’t listed as acceptable.

[Rescued. It was the number of links that did it - not the "no follow" term. I have the spam filter set to three max. I'll increase that, because now that I'm using registration the spam's almost non-existent. For now. - GR]