Table of Contents
Fred: Ok Ok, so maybe man made global warming isn't a big problem. If by chance its true then we have to do what ever it takes to fix it.
"Its a good argument"
Fred: It is?
"Yes, but not valid. There are other issues what we know will happen. Its certain the Earth will be struck by a meteor, a super volcano will erupt and a killer title wave will strike. There are many other catastrophic events that are guaranteed to occur. The real question is what is the most important thing to spend our scare resources on."
How to Think About the World's Problems by Bjorn Lomborg May 22, 2008 Research for the Copenhagen Consensus, in which Nobel laureate economists analyze new research about the costs and benefits of different solutions to world problems, shows that
just $60 million spent on providing Vitamin A capsules and therapeutic Zinc supplements for under-2-year-olds would reach 80% of the infants in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, with annual economic benefits (from lower mortality and improved health) of more than $1 billion. That means doing $17 worth of good for each dollar spent. Spending $1 billion on tuberculosis would avert an astonishing one million deaths, with annual benefits adding up to $30 billion. This gives $30 back on the dollar.
Heart disease represents more than a quarter of the death toll in poor countries. Developed nations treat acute heart attacks with inexpensive drugs. Spending $200 million getting these cheap drugs to poor countries would avert 300,000 deaths in a year.
A dollar spent on heart disease in a developing nation will achieve $25 worth of good. Contrast that to Operation Enduring Freedom, which Copenhagen Consensus research found in the two years after 2001 returned 9 cents for each dollar spent. Or with the 90 cents Copenhagen Consensus research shows is returned for every $1 spent on carbon mitigation policies.
Poor water or sanitation affects more than two billion people and will claim millions of lives this year. One targeted solution would be to build large, multipurpose dams in Africa.
Four new civil wars are expected to break out in the next decade in low-income nations. Compared with no deployment, spending $850 million on a peacekeeping initiative reduces the 10-year risk of conflict re-emerging to 7% from around 38%, according to Copenhagen Consensus research by Oxford University's Paul Collier. Link
Coming to a Consensus at the National Review
June 03, 2008
If
you had $75 billion on hand to solve some of the world’s biggest problems, how
would you spend the money? Would you seek to eradicate life-threatening disease
or to combat malnutrition? Enhance access to drinking water and sanitation or
clamp down on greenhouse gases in an effort to forestall global warming? Where
would an additional $75 billion, or any other amount, do the most good?
This was the question considered by the
Copenhagen Consensus,
a project of Skeptical
Environmentalist author
Bjørn Lomborg
based at the Copenhagen Business School. Lomborg gathered several dozen
economists to analyze and consider the world’s greatest challenges and assess
the cost-effectiveness of various solutions. In the end a panel of eight,
including five Nobel laureates, produced a
prioritized list
of potential policy measures.
Combating malnutrition, increasing childhood immunization, and liberalizing
trade topped the list. More politically fashionable priorities, such as global
warming, air pollution, and tobacco control, did not measure up. The
distribution of vitamin A and zinc supplements to malnourished infants in
sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia can generate an estimated $1 billion in
benefits for a modest $60 million investment, and devoting $1 billion to
tuberculosis control could save one million lives valued, for the purpose of
calculation, at approximately $30 billion. Such expenditures have benefit-cost
ratios of 17-to-1 and 30-to-1, respectively, and produce immediate results for
real people living today. Investments in low-carbon energy technologies, on the
other hand, have a hard time returning a dollar for every dollar spent and don’t
produce meaningful benefits for years. Even accounting for the risks of global
warming, climate control is a poor investment compared to more pressing
alternatives.
Link
Constructive Thinking about Climate Change, Part II by Pete Geddes September 8, 2008 It is a common perception that economic growth exacerbates environmental problems. In fact, however, economic progress is a prerequisite for improving environmental quality. Research shows that as countries begin to industrialize, their environmental quality initially declines. However, once income and economic development reach a certain level, countries devote increasingly larger portions of their resources to environmental protection. As a result, environmental quality improves as per capita gross domestic product (GDP) rises. [See the figure.]
Thus, policies that prevent developing countries from acquiring efficient energy resources and infrastructure limit poor nations' ability to improve the environment. Research has shown that this holds true across time and cultures. For instance:
In the United States, environmental quality has significantly improved as a direct consequence of enormous and sustained investments that only a rich nation can afford. As a result of this wealth and investment, U.S. air quality has improved remarkably. The Environmental Protection Agency reports that from 1970 to 2004:
Eight crazy e-mail hoaxes millions have fallen for by Nick Mediati and Anne B. McDonald, IDG News Service August 22, 2008
Sign a Petition to Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide E-mail alerts outlining the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide swept the Internet in the late 1990s and still pop up today. Many ask that you sign and forward a petition to ban the chemical, which contributes to global warming, is a major ingredient in acid rain, causes metals to rust more quickly, and has been found in cancerous tumors. The chemical also contributes to the greenhouse effect and to erosion of our natural landscapes. It's even in food. Sounds pretty dangerous. You're ready to sign right now, aren't you?
Well, let us tell you one more thing about dihydrogen monoxide: It's more commonly known as water. You know, the substance that every single living being relies on to survive? The origins of this item are multifold, from flyers circulated at the University of California at Santa Cruz in 1989 (so 20th century!) to a junior high school student who surveyed 50 classmates in 1997 and got 43 of them to sign his petition to ban the chemical. He then won a prize at his science fair for his project, called "How Gullible Are We?" Several Web pages touting the chemical's dangers are still live. Don't feel too bad if you've ever fallen victim to this hoax; even a government official in New Zealand took the bait last. Link
Frequently Asked Questions About Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:
Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and benzene), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.