But again, it's the boy who cried wolf. Even if they claimed the Earth was going to end 100 times, and 100 times they were incorrect, that doesn't mean time number 101 is incorrect too. So even if Lomborg is right about the environmentalists' motives, the issue still needs to be examined and addressed.
And it's a lot more than just the environmentalists concerned about global warming. It's reached a broad enough consensus among scientists that it's safe to say it's time to do something about it.
Combating it consists mainly of doing things that, in the long term, we should and/or need to do anyway. No matter what you think about fossil fuels in regards to the environment, the one thing we know for certain is that they won't last forever, and with China and India coming online, they probably won't last much longer. Be it in two decades or a century (and even the most optimistic geologists don't foresee us having oil for much longer than that) we will eventually have no choice but to switch to electric cars and renewable energy. And given that both are currently cost-competitive (or nearing that) and will only get cheaper, now is clearly the time to begin the process.
> But again, it's the boy who cried wolf. Even if they claimed the Earth was going to end 100 times, and 100 times they were incorrect, that doesn't mean time number 101 is incorrect too.
The fact that a stopped clock is correct twice a day is no reason to consult it.
It's both efficient and good to scorn and ignore folks who get it wrong consistently.
> And given that both are currently cost-competitive (or nearing that) and will only get cheaper, now is clearly the time to begin the process.
If they're really cost-competitive today and getting cheaper, no govt action is needed.
If govt action is required to make it cost-competitive, it isn't cost-competitive.
But just because a clock is broken doesn't mean it's wrong, especially if non-broken clocks are showing the same time. That's exactly the problem in this case, we're ignoring credible people who don't have a long history of crying wolf for being too close in proximity to those that do.
The fact is, most people can't (or can't be bothered to) tell the difference between a respectable climatologist and a hippie worried about global cooling.
>Combating it consists mainly of doing things that, in the long term, we should and/or need to do anyway.
This is a widespread, but specious, argument. The cost of moving away from fossil fuels is X% of the world's wealth with current technology and Y% of the world's wealth with technology 20 years from now. If we can expect the world to be richer 20 years from now (a reasonable assumption) and technology to be better (again a reasonable assumption) then Y is probably much less than X. It will be a much bigger sacrifice to make the change today than tomorrow.
The point is, although our economy will probably naturally convert away from fossil fuel technology in the long run, forcing the process to accelerate entails significant extra costs on a significantly poorer world. It is NOT costless, as the phrase "things we should and/or need to do anyway" seems to imply. The argument is simplistic and involves a narrow view of the problem.
I see no valid reason to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to other energy sources faster than what is already happening in the market.
There's a serious problem in the market, which is that publicly traded corporations pay the people who run them largely in stock. This gives the people in charge a very short-term view, because their pay is based on the difference in share prices over a short period of time.
What this means is that the market is very poor at long-term thinking and investing (which is why I agree with Andreesen about dual class stock structures). In short (and he sums it up better than I could, so read his article if you want clarification) our market has become very bad at long-term strategizing.
"And it's a lot more than just the environmentalists concerned about global warming. It's reached a broad enough consensus among scientists that it's safe to say it's time to do something about it."
Check out the Oregon Petition to see just how much 'consensus' there is on the issue. Also, the book "The Deniers."
And it's a lot more than just the environmentalists concerned about global warming. It's reached a broad enough consensus among scientists that it's safe to say it's time to do something about it.
Combating it consists mainly of doing things that, in the long term, we should and/or need to do anyway. No matter what you think about fossil fuels in regards to the environment, the one thing we know for certain is that they won't last forever, and with China and India coming online, they probably won't last much longer. Be it in two decades or a century (and even the most optimistic geologists don't foresee us having oil for much longer than that) we will eventually have no choice but to switch to electric cars and renewable energy. And given that both are currently cost-competitive (or nearing that) and will only get cheaper, now is clearly the time to begin the process.