« August 2007 | Main | October 2007 »
September 26, 2007
Economists (and others) weigh in on The Lomborg
by Sylvia S Tognetti
In a previous post about The Lomborg, in followup to a previous one, I had a bit of a disagreement with Michael Tobis, over whether Lomborg is just adhering to the principles and presumptions of conventional economics, and whether what he believes, or at least says he believes, is wrong - coherently or stupidly. While I fully agree with Tobis that values are embedded in scientific methods, and that there are limitations on cost-benefit analysis (CBA), my point was that Lomborg is misusing CBA. To which also I added: "I hope we will hear from some environmental economists on this" - and also get statements from those experts listed as signing off on his "Copenhagen Consensus." So far, no word that I know of from the latter, but Sir Partha Dasgupta - a well-known and respected environmental economist, backs up my point in a a book review published in Nature - the key quote:
Economics helps us to realize what we are able to say about matters that will reveal themselves only in the distant future. Simultaneously, it helps us to realize the limits of what we are able to say. That, too, is worth knowing, for limits on what we are able to say are not a reason for inaction. Lomborg’s seemingly persuasive economic calculations are a case of muddled concreteness.
I don't have access to the full article but here is a link round up to blogs on which it has been extensively excerpted and commented on:
ResilienceScience/Garry Peterson, Partha Dasgupta on Lomborg's muddled concreteness
Economists View/Mark Thoma, "If The Uncertainties Are Not Small, Standard Cost–Benefit Analysis As Applied To The Economics Of Climate Change Becomes Incoherent"
Also linked to and commented on by Brad de Long, and by Felix Salmon at the Porfolio magazine blog, who rearticulates the argument in plain english, Megan McArdle/The Atlantic, and James Hrynyshyn/Island of Doubt. Unrelated to Dasgupta's review is one by Tyler Cowen/Marginal Revolution, and this one by a law professor Jonathan Adler in the National Review who, though generally favorable to the book, seems to agree with critics on a crucial point: that Lomborg "understates the degree of uncertainty inherent in climate-change policy" and that this "counsel[s] against pretending cost-benefit analyses can be conducted with any degree of precision."
Other noteworthy posts, not necessarily focusing on flawed application of economics, Climate Progress, Richard Littlemore/DeSmog, and Chris Mooney @DeSmog. Then there is this review by ecologist Tim Flannery in the Washington Post who, given Lomborg's assertion that the Stern report was not peer reviewed, wonders whether Lomborg's book was. It is being done now....
It is important to keep hammering away at this not so much to beat up on a dead horse as to take advantage of the opportunity to clarify what is a common misunderstanding and misleading misuse of economics in the policy arena, on both sides, regardless of whether those doing so have good intentions. Even more productive for policy purposes would be to focus on finding agreement on what the trade-offs actually are, and the range of possible outcomes that Lomborg conveniently ignores by using point estimates in the Mythical Middle.
Lastly, now that I am back, I watched the Colbert clip again and as always, he manages to articulate complex issues more concisely than anyone. After Lomborg dodges the question of how often the expected 4.7 rise in temperature happens (if you accept the middle figure from a wider range of possible outcomes), Colbert asks a follow-up: "How can we say it won't be a problem if it has never happened?"
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 10:24 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
September 12, 2007
The Lomborg - nailed
by Sylvia S Tognetti
I had access to a high speed connection today so, in follow-up to the last post, here is the video clip of Stephen Colbert nailing The Lomborg:
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 6:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 11, 2007
The Lomborg continued etc
by Sylvia S Tognetti
I'm blogging from a location where I can't get Comedy Central, and only have a dial-up connection, so I haven't been able to watch Stephen Colbert put The Lomborg in his place yet - but see David Roberts post, or go straight to Comedy Central. I may have more comments after I see it, in follow-up to this previous post. In related news that I can read, Michael Tobis has comments on a New York Times article that ponders whether Lomborg should be taken seriously. No. While it is news to me that he advocates a carbon tax, limiting coastal development and expanding wetlands, those aren't the reasons he has been given a megaphone. Even supposing he were intellectually serious and honest, and has a few of his lines right, if he doesn't understand the complexity, why is he getting the attention? For the moment, I'm not going to go there.
In unrelated news, in Italy (where I came to attend a family wedding etc....), Saturday was "V-day", short for "Vaffanculo Day," when, in response to a call from the comedian Beppe Grillo, using only his blog since he doesn't get on television much anymore, 300,000 people came to selected town squares to sign a petition for a law that would prohibit convicted criminals from being elected to public office, set term limits, and allow people to vote for the actual members of parliament instead of just for the party. Apparently there are about 25 former convicts now in office, cronies of the former prime minister, who also appeared on TV that evening, saying it is imperative that this government fail so there can be another election in the spring... He still has not accepted defeat. From Pisa, this is Sylvia "Not Poggioli" reporting....
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 5:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
September 4, 2007
A lesson learned - by Chris Matthews
by Sylvia S Tognetti
Vanity Fair has an excellent article by Evgenia Peretz that reviews the fiasco that was the media coverage of the 2000 campaign, made possible in part by the meticulous chronicles of Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler, who has tirelessly tracked and documented the fabrication of fairy tales about Al Gore. But it also includes some comments from Al Gore and some of the reporters who took part in this pollution of public discourse. And it features some lessons learned. Chris Matthews has indeed learned something:
The last six years have been a powerful bit of evidence that we have to judge candidates for president on their preparation for the office with the same relish that we assess their personalities.
And he gets paid? If it takes a disaster for the media to figure out what their job is, no telling what it will take to deal with the consequences of this failure. Not that the media is known for being accurate with assessment of personalities:
Maureen Dowd boiled the choice between Gore and Bush down to that between the "pious smarty-pants" and the "amiable idler," and made it perfectly clear which of the presidential candidates had a better chance of getting a date. "Al Gore is desperate to get chicks," she said in her column. "Married chicks. Single chicks. Old chicks. Young chicks. If he doesn't stop turning off women, he'll never be president.""I bet he is in a room somewhere right now playing Barry White CDs and struggling to get mellow," she wrote in another.
Meanwhile, though Dowd certainly questioned Bush's intellect in some columns, she seemed to be charmed by him one of the "bad boys," "rascals," and a "rapscallion." She shared with the world a charged moment between them. "'You're so much more mature now,' I remarked to the Texas Governor. 'So are you,' he replied saucily." And in another column: "You don't often get to see a Presidential candidate bloom right before your eyes."
I'm not laughing. And I hope Bob Somerby is also getting paid.
addendum: This post was picked up by Alternet, adding in the following quotes from Gore that, had I been less rushed, I might have included to begin with - but of course, you should read the whole article.
More from Gore:"Modern politics seems to require and reward some capacities that I don't think I have in abundance," says Gore, "such as a tolerance for ... spin rather than an honest discussion of substance.... Apparently, it comes easily for some people, but not for me."
"The sighs, the sighs, the sighs," says Gore, of the debate coverage. "Within 18 hours, they had turned perception around to where the entire story was about me sighing. And that's scary. That's scary."
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 2:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack