If individuals feel compelled to live "green" they should as long as it doesn't put other citizens in danger.

As for the federal government. Other than educating the populous and encouraging the private sector to strive for new technologies and renewable energy sources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil along with freeing up over regulated areas of the energy sector.

The federal government should stay as far away from this “overblown” issue as possible.

Economists have estimated that any policy intervention that costs more than about one penny per pound of carbon dioxide saved is probably not cost effective.

...are the words "cost effective" even uttered? They have no place in such a discussion.

The government should crack down on industries that cause significant pollution, should fund research into new technologies and products that help minimize our impact.

The individual responsibility is frankly to just do it. When the technologies come out, use them.

I saw Bjorn Lomborg shilling his book Cool It! on TV, and tried to track it down. He seemed to have a different approach. He accepts the IPCC (2007) data. But he is a statistician, and re-interprets some of the consequences. And he has calculated a lot of the economic costs of certain approaches.

Somewhere here, someone expressed that he would be interested in a discussion of government's role or spending, or something like that, and not science. Since this book assumes the IPCC stuff, i thought it might be interesting.

For instance, to make the point narrowly and simply, he notes that one of the consequences of Global Warming is likely to be a spread of tropical diseases, like malaria. So, he would ask, if you want to lessen the suffering from malaria, is it more cost effective to spend money directly on malaria research and treatment, or on anti-global warming measures. And he concludes that Bill Gates should continue funding malaria research rather than putting that money into anti-Global warming measures.

The reason, he said on the TV, is that you don't get much bang for the buck with the Anti-GW approach, it won't help people who have malaria now or in the nearer future, and won't help people who get malaria in 2100, although it might mean fewer cases overall. Research for a vaccine may be more cost effective.

But I'm not here to make a case, nor to push his book. Just to make another point.

I couldn't remember his name or the title, so I started a blind google search. I found it at a bnook site, where every comment on the book was negative. Like, "I'll bet he got a $10,000 check from Exxon-Mobile." or, "His concern for people with AIDS/malaria is so dishonest." Of course, Lomborg also talks about some of the positive effects of global warming, which no one on this book site believed. For instance, he claims that now, in Europe, 200,000 people a year die because of heat, while 1.5 million die from cold. (Of course, i can't vouch for these numbers, which i got second hand, and offer them as illustration only.) He argues that in 2200, even with global warming, more people will still die from cold than heat in Europe. This IS the kind of thing one doesn't often hear.

Turns out, on google there is a positive review by Michael Crichton, which confirms that this book is cited by GW doubters, even though Lomborg is no doubter. (I didn't bother reading this review.) The second review is from the Washington Post, and is not positive. It faults Lomborg for ignoring the most dire of projections, cites his possible (I'd have to see it) misuse of the term "Little Ice Age," and picks on some other stuff. Lomborg, the review notes, takes the "about a foot" rise in sea levels from the IPCC report, but fails to tell us that the IPCC did not estimate ice melting into that number because there were no concensus assessments [latest research says maybe another half a foot]. Lomborg points out that in the past couple of hundred years, the sea level has risen this much, but no one called it a disaster. We adjusted, and he thinks we can in the future for this kind of rise. [A first google site puts the rise in the last 100 years as 10-20 cm, while it estimates the next 100 years at 20 to 100 cm. ]

The reviewer also attacks Lomborg for his negative opinions of The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, a British study tht is probbly worth looking into.

Like i assume the Crichton review to be, this review is partisan, and the reviewer shows his liberal credentials here:

Despite all the supposed benefits global warming will bring, Lomborg acknowledges that some people want to act to reduce it. His solution is to abandon the Kyoto process and devote more dollars to research on technologies to prevent it. Yet we already have the necessary clean technologies: What we need is market penetration for them, and this will only come by getting the polluter to pay, which means adopting a carbon tax much higher than the $14 per ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere that Lomborg is willing to allow.

What, ultimately, is Cool It all about? On the surface, it's a cry from a compassionate conservative not to waste money on combating climate change when that money could be better spent helping the poor. But why climate change rather than military spending? By empathizing with those who are concerned about climate change and poverty, and trying to persuade them to divert their energies, Cool It is a stealth attack on humanity's future.

It is obvious that the question of what the government should do is settled for this reviewer!

Now, I'm not pushing this book nor its conclusions. From the TV interviews, I thought it might be interesting.

But I wanted to relay this little bit of wisdom i found on Amazon, in a reader review, perhaps the only real insightful and unbiased thing I've read in my search for this book. Remembering that Lomborg, like most people writing in this area, bills himself as a non-partisan, unbiased, voice of reason, our reader-reviewer notes:

Since this review is neither sycophantic nor a hatchet job, I should add the disclaimer that I am neither a Christian conservative nor a green liberal. I am in favor of reason and science, and opposed to faith in all forms--including the environmentalist movement.

It's interesting that every reviewer thus far gives this book either the highest or lowest possible rating. This fact points to the book's most serious flaw. Global warming has become a purely political, partisan issue, and while Lomborg is clearly trying to play "moderate," he's fooling neither his conservative admirers nor his liberal detractors.

More broadly, this illustrates the principle that science and government don't mix. This is the brilliant formula that gave the world Lysenkoism. So while we certainly can't take the IPCC data--or more precisely, the media's interpretations of it--at face value (even though Lomborg's own case that man-made global warming exists rests on entirely on this), neither can we trust any popular media on the subject either way--Lomborg included. But he certainly seems more reasonable than the scaremongers.

Those who are truly concerned with this issue are going to have to do some real work to dig up the actual science and critically analyze it themselves, and the greatest virtue of Lomborg's book is that it points out the kinds of questions that need to be asked, which is sadly something that very few people are doing.

And that hits the nail on the head. It absolutely flabumulates me that this issue is become a political issue, with political sides, not on the political questions, but on the science, in service of political sides.

Until we can just see the science for what it is, without accepting or dismissing it in service of our political beliefs, mostly on the role of government and actions to be taken, there will be no rational discussion. One's scientific conclusions should never be predictable from his politics.

Anyone for rational discussion?

I say, assume the range of projections, and ask the kinds of questions this man does, and others.

Kudos to Spiritual Lefty for a start in this direction-->

Despite the honest concern that many people have about this topic and their sincere desire to prevent or ameliorate any projected affects of global climate change, when it comes down to it, it seems that meaningful action is always "somebody else's responsibilty."

For example
> Pay a carbon tax
> Create better electric cars
> Make solar panels easier to use
> Fund more research

But in the end, it is the sum of our own individual demands for and usage of electricity and oil that creates the USA's CO2 levels. To change that means a significant change in our society. And as discussed in a prior diary on this topic ;} I just do not see us as willing to make the type of substantive changes in how we live, work, play, and consume.

Can we make some changes? Sure. But will they matter, and will they matter enough to be worth their costs? And will we even be able to discern that through all the heated rhetoric that surrounds this topic? I doubt it. We will probably just argue about it, and do little. (That's not intended as a slam to anyone; I like my air conditioning, roomy car, and far-away vacations as much as the next person.)

I disagree with Camerer's point that:

yours is a small contribution. Do that, but also read the news, educate your neighbors, crusade, organize, and vote.

First, if there is any morality, then you have an obligation to at least clean up your own mess.

But more importantly, you can't lead unless you are walking the walk. You educate your neighbors by showing them that it is possible, and sharing your own experience. Similarly with "crusading, organizing, and (setting policy)"--all of this requires the knowledge that is gathered from actually doing it.