It is often claimed by environmentalists that 'stopping climate change' is an obligation the world's so-called rich and developed nations have to the poorer developing nations.
Thus the Kyoto protocol is all about 'developed nations' reducing carbon emissions, while countries like China and India are exempt.
If the Kyoto Protocol was really about the environment, then surely everyone would be expected to reduced emissions, particularly the really big emitters like China and India.
Yet according to Bjorn Lomborg, the Copenhagen Consensus, and Ambassadors from the United Nations, combating climate change through the Kyoto Protocol is a poor investment for humanity.
Lomborg begins a recent opinion piece in The Observer titled 'Climate Change Can Wait, World Health Can't' by making the point that combating climate change through the Kyoto Protocol has a social value of less than a dollar for each dollar spent.
He goes on to repeat the findings from the Copenhagen Consensus that:
"The economists found that spending $27bn on an HIV/Aids prevention programme would be the best possible investment for humanity. It would save more than 28 million lives within six years and have massive flow-on effects, including increased productivity.
Providing micronutrient-rich dietary supplements to the malnourished was their second-highest priority. More than half the world suffers from deficiencies of iron, iodine, zinc or vitamin A, so cheap solutions such as nutrient fortification have an exceptionally high ratio of benefits to costs.
Third on the list was trade liberalisation. Although this would require politically difficult decisions, it would be remarkably cheap and would benefit the entire world, not least the developing world. A staggering GDP increase of $2,400bn annually would accrue equally to developed and developing countries with free trade."
I understand that neither the European Union nor the United States are showing any real commitment to trade liberalisation at this current final Doha Round of World Trade Organisation negotiations in Geneva.
Lomborg is not a scientist and this argument weaker than his others. If you find this convincing I don't have a whole lot to say about your training.
Before writing off Lomborg on the basis of a few select quotes go and look at his replies to his critics at
http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm
He seems to me to have much the best of teh argument. And it is not absurd that burning dung and other fuels of the poor might be the major environmental hazard in terms of current deaths. This is an issue worth investigating. Just because deaths from indoor smoke are not very visible and do not make good TV does not mean Lomborg is wrong. If you want to convince me show me the evidence that Lomborg's statement is wrong.
rog - ""According to Bev Blum, "the keys to success are a sunny climate and...""
No really? You need sun for a solar cooker? Go on with you rog.
I am with you rog, I would starve or eat cold food rather that use one of these unreliable contraptions.