Re: [asa] New Solutions to Global Warming article from Esquire Mag

I am not an AGW proponent , but I do believe that the AGW proponents
have a strong case which is not weakened by this article, which to me
reads as a smokescreen, something that is meant to distract attention
from the important thing. The author argues that the present carbon
footprint has benefits that justify its present cost, but he ignores the
future costs.Sure, if one has spare money to spend then there are a
number of good ways to spend it. But when future costs are taken into
account, has one really got any spare money?
Don

John Walley wrote:
> I am curious what the AGW proponents on the list think about this article. I find it to be very reasonable and practical.
>
> Here is an excerpt below.
>
> John
>
> The Copenhagen Consensus Center, which we started in 2004, put my conclusion about the Gore solution to the severest test. First, we commissioned independent research on solutions to ten of the planet's biggest challenges: problems like hunger, conflict, global warming, and barriers to education. World experts were asked to identify the best ways to spend $50 billion in their field. The findings, published in academic papers, were reviewed by a second team of specialists.
>
> The point of the project wasn't simply to identify good ways to spend money — it was to promote prioritization between competing options. We gathered a team of the best economists in the world, including several Nobel laureates. We asked this group to consider, test, and debate all the research and identify the best and worst ways that a limited pool of money could be spent.
> Economists are experts in prioritization. The massive media hype about certain problems is irrelevant to them; they focus simply on where limited funds could achieve the most good.
>
> In 2004 — and again last year, when we repeated the global project — the world's top minds did not select CO2 emission cuts as the best use of money. In fact, both times, CO2 emission reductions came out at the bottom of their lists. In 2008, the top priority the Nobel-laureate economists identified was providing micronutrients to developing countries.
>
> Three billion people — about half the world's population — lack one or more micronutrients, such as vitamin A, iron, iodine, or zinc. About two billion — or almost one third of the world's population — lack iron, a deficiency that causes physical and mental impairment. On average, a person with iron deficiency is 17 percent weaker and loses 8 IQ points.
>
> We could so easily right this wrong. At a cost of less than $400 million a year, we could permanently help almost half the world get stronger and smarter. In monetary terms, for every dollar we spend, we could do more than twenty dollars' worth of good in the world.
>
> Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/new-solutions-to-global-warming-0809-5#ixzz0VN3gURQ0
>
>
>
>
>
>
> T

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Oct 29 20:12:59 2009