Monday, May 21, 2012


date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 09:15:49 +0100
from: "Neil Adger" <>
subject: Fw: CC or HIV?
to: "Jonathan Koehler" <>, "Emma Tompkins" <>, "Mike Hulme" <>, "Suraje Dessai" <>, "'Marisa Goulden'" <>, "Katharine Vincent" <>, "Karen O'Brien" <>

I see that Lomborg got the answer he was looking for in his Coepnhagen
Consensus - see below. i.e. climate change mitigation is lowest priority
over everything else. No doubt we will hear him on the radio about this.

A sucinct answer on the Tyndall website might be a good idea, though I'm not
looking for things to do , particularly media appearances.



It is in fact quite easy to argue against. The costs of climate change
mitigation are negative not positive - it is the distribution of the
benefits of both climate change mitigation (and of HIV research, cheap
etc etc) that ensure the costless steps aren't taken. Its political economy
not economics.!

Look forward to seeing this in the press.


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Jordan" <>
> To: <N.ADGERatXYZxyz.AC.UK>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 8:55 AM
> Subject: CC or HIV?
> Have you seen this? Its difficult to argue against, other than perhaps
> we should spend money on all these things and not weaponry etc etc.?
> Cheers
> Andy
> -------------------------
> Early greenhouse gas cuts "poor value for money"
> Environment Daily 1677, 01/06/04
> -------------------------
> Eight leading international economists have suggested that climate change
> the least urgent of ten major challenges facing the world and that the
> of early action to cut greenhouse gas emissions will outweigh the
> The results of the week-long Copenhagen Consensus will fan the flames of a
> simmering row over both immediate and longer term EU climate change
> The week-long Copenhagen Consensus was organised by Denmark's Institute
> environmental assessment, headed by "sceptical environmentalist" Bj�rn
> Lomborg, and supported by The Economist magazine. The academics' remit
> to recommend how best US$50bn could be spent to improve the world.
> The group ranked 17 policies aimed at tackling ten major global
> Three policies aimed at combatting climate change are ranked in 15th to
> places. All three were judged to have costs "likely to exceed the
> benefits".
> According to the initiative's final results statement the panel
> that global warming must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on
> too abrupt a shift towards lower emissions of carbon are needlessly
> expensive".
> Based on a research paper prepared for the initiative, the first climate
> policy examined is the Kyoto protocol. The second is a global "optimum"
> carbon tax of around US$150 per tonne applied over the next decade rising
> US$600 by 2100. Third was a more risk averse global carbon tax starting
> the range US$450 per tonne. The panel expressed interest in but did not
> rank a fourth climate change policy based on introducing a much lower
> carbon tax, to be raised gradually in later years.
> The economists' top priority is spending to control HIV/Aids. Given
> to play with, they conclude, spending US$27bn of it on this would yield
> benefits 40 times as large. Second comes a policy of providing poor people
> with micro-nutrients to combat malnutrition, for which the economists
> US$12bn. Number three on the list is actions to reduce barriers to
> international trade.
> Overall, three alternative policies to combat disease were ranked in 1st,
> 4th and 13th place. Four anti-malnutrition policies came in at 2nd, 5th,
> 11th and 12th. Three ways to improve sanitation and access to clean
> drinking water were ranked 6th, 7th and 8th. A single policy aimed at
> improving governance was ranked 9th; Two policies aimed at liberalising
> international migration came 10th and 14th.
> Follow-up: Copenhagen consensus, a
> release
> .pdf
> and final results
> sus_result_FINAL.pdf.
> Article Index: climate, general
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Dr Andrew J. Jordan
> Lecturer in Environmental Politics;
> and Editor, Environment and Planning C
> School of Environmental Sciences
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich
> NR4 7TJ
> United Kingdom
> Tel: (00) (44) (0)1603 592552
> Fax: (00) (44) (0)1603 593739
> CSERGE website:
> Personal website:
> Environment and Planning C website:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No comments:

Post a Comment