Kyoto: might make you feel good, but its not going to stop global warming

‘Skeptical Environmentalist’ Bjorn Lomborg calls for rediscovery of the middle ground in “Chill Out”. The debate over climate change has devolved into a screaming match of equally improbable claims: one side claiming we face looming catastrophe and the other side claiming it’s all a hoax. Lomborg says “It’s wrong to deny the obvious: The Earth is warming, and we’re causing it. But that’s not the whole story and predictions of impending disaster just don’t stack up.”

Environmentalists say the only way to deal with Global Warming is to cut carbon emissions. But the Kyoto protocol alone would cost $180 billion annually and only delay the predicted catastrophes by a few months or years. Lomborg suggests mitigating the detrimental effects of warming would be a more efficient policy than cutting emissions. Levees and waterways can protect against rising tides; hunting restrictions will save more polar bears than Kyoto; parks, fountains and less asphalt can lower temperatures in cities; and nets and medications could cut malaria 50% within a decade, Kyoto would only reduce malaria risk by 0.2%.

He advocates addressing the long term causes of global warming through expanded research on low carbon energy. But he points out that emission reduction promises made in 1992 and 1997 have resulted in emissions increases of 12 and 25 percent respectively. Does calling for even bigger cuts which would cost the world billions at the expense of other global priorities like disease prevention and clean water make sense?