Published in The Globe and Mail (Canada) 28 November 2007
Putting the brakes on climate change; A low-carbon, highincome world is possible. What we need is smart innovation By BJORN LOMBORG Man-made climate change is real and it will cause significant problems. We could avoid much of its effects by making immediate and drastic cuts in carbon emissions. But doing so would be one of the worst things we could do.
To get a handle on such a seemingly paradoxical position, step away from the vicious political debate on global warming and consider the more simple matter of traffic accidents.
Every year, 50 million people are injured on the roads. More than a million die. Nine in 10 fatalities occur in the Third World. The cost from all this carnage is a staggering $500-billion each year.
And the problem is getting worse. Traffic is increasing, especially in developing countries. In India, for example, Tata Motors is launching an ultra-budget four-door car that will cost less than $3,000. The company aims to sell more than a million automobiles a year.
Due in part to the extra cars on the road, traffic accidents will be the planet's second-leading cause of death by 2020, right after heart disease.
Yet, we have the know-how to solve this problem overnight. We could save a million lives and eliminate $500-billion of damage, and we would especially help the Third World, because that's where most deaths occur.
How? We simply lower the speed limit everywhere to five miles an hour.
At such a slow speed, the number of injuries or fatalities would drastically tumble. We wouldn't just save human lives: Each year, 57 million birds are hit by cars in the United States alone.
COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS CENTER COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL • SOLBJERG PLADS 3 • 2000 FREDERIKSBERG • DENMARK +45 3815 2255 • INFO.CCC@CBS.DK • WWW.COPENHAGENCONSENSUS.COM
Of course, this is a “solution” the world will never embrace. The benefits from our higher speed limits vastly outweigh the costs. Relatively fast-moving vehicles play a crucial role in every aspect of modern life. A world creeping along at 5 mph would be a world gone medieval.
This is not meant to be flip. We really could solve one of the world's top problems if we wanted. We know traffic deaths are almost entirely caused by man and we have the technology to reduce it to zero, yet we seem to persist in exacerbating the problem each year, pushing traffic deaths to become the No. 2 killer in the world by 2020.
We also know that global warming is strongly caused by man and we have the technology to reduce it to zero, yet we seem to persist in using fossil fuels, exacerbating the problem each year and causing the temperature to increase to new heights in 2020. Why? Because the benefits from moderately using fossil fuels vastly outweigh the costs.
Global warming will cause problems on the order of half a per cent of global GDP, although it is often irresponsibly oversold as a catastrophe. Compare this to how fossil fuels provide low-cost light, heat, food, communication and travel. We can access fruit and vegetables year-round, reducing cancer by at least 25 per cent. Air conditioning has stopped Americans from dying in droves during heat waves. Cheaper fuels could have saved many of the 150,000 people killed by cold winters in Britain since 2000.
Improving access to fossil fuels is vital for the Third World. Two and a half billion of the world's poorest people rely on wood, waste and dung to cook and to keep themselves warm. This is a major cause of indoor pollution, which kills more than a million people – mainly women and children – each year. So, improving access to fossil fuels could save a million lives and dramatically improve the lives of billions. Thinking of a world without fossil fuels in the short or medium term is a lot like a world gone medieval.
Basically, early and drastic cuts in fossil fuel use would hurt humanity, especially those least able to cope. But we should not ignore global warming.
Look again at the traffic problem. Most countries have strict speed limits; if they didn't, fatalities would be even higher. Yet, we also make tradeoffs – lowering the average speed limit in Western Europe by just 2
a few miles an hour would save 10,000 lives each year, but we don't do it. In democracies, we have a reasoned discussion where we debate the merits of faster travel versus those of fewer deaths.
When it comes to climate change, we can have a similarly constructive talk about setting a carbon tax at, say, $2, or even $14 dollars, a ton. But while a $100 or $150 tax is technically doable, it is simply unreasonable.
As we realize that there is little opportunity to lower speed limits, we think about other and smarter ways to lessen the road toll. We promote airbags, seat belts and motorcycle helmets. We build better highways and safer streets.
The debate on global warming has become fixated on drastic reductions in carbon emissions. We've forgotten that our primary objective is to improve humans' quality of life and the environment.
We have other and smarter options. The best option is for governments to commit to spending 0.05 per cent of GDP on researching non-carbon-emitting energy technologies such as solar, wind, clean fossil fuels and energy conservation. Such spending would be a tenfold increase on today's global research budget, yet would only cost a tiny fraction of the costly and ineffective Kyoto Protocol. Each country could play its part, with richer ones paying the larger share.
Some campaigners advocate effectively halting economic development and progress to combat climate change. The opposite is true. A low-carbon, high-income world is possible. What we need is smart innovation.
3