(j) Lomborg uses the word ‘risk’ in a proper sense. However, he and other readers still could be interested in Colignatus (2001a) on the definition of risk. (In some respect, this is about how to aggregate risks.)
(k) If we combine the analysis on the environment and the one on poverty, then there is a really powerful statement > dealing with democracy and the structure of decision making.
Lomborg writes: “My point is simply to stress that in important fields of research it can also be difficult to present information which goes against institutional interest.” (page 38). Of course, this should not happen in science. But apparently, it happened in the discussion on the environment > and it happened with my own analysis on unemployment.
Also, Lomborg writes: “In a surprisingly frank statement the UN states that “it is not the resources or the economic solutions that are lacking > it is the political momentum to tackle poverty head>on.”” (page 66).
I noted that Lomborg also has an interest in voting theory himself, and I look forward to his reaction to my analysis here. The whole issue would also be relevant for Lomborg’s colleagues at his political science department.
(l) On taxation, Lomborg discusses the ‘double dividend’ (page 308). He refers, among others, to an AER article by Bovenberg and De Mooij. However, this depends upon the treatment of taxes and for this there are alternative analyses. 18 Thus, also Lomborgs statements on the
‘double dividend’ are seriously flawed. 19
(B) “Cool it”, Knopf 2007
Lomborg (2007) reconsiders the case and deals with the Gore and Stern arguments.
(1) A major point now is that Lomborg no longer is an assistant professor in statistics but engages in policy advice on the future. The point is subtle. Consider two paths, business as usual BAU and sustainability SUS. Tinbergen & Hueting are concerned with calculating the eSNI at the base year using the information on SUS. Lomborg has a different position: (a) sometimes argueing that BAU is socially better than SUS, (b) sometimes questioning whether SUS is really sustainable and whether it should not be SUS*, (c) sometimes wondering whether we should rather target some BAU/SUS* path between BAU and SUS*. Thus, we find a quite different kind of discussion. Naturally, when true sustainability is SUS* rather than SUS, then also the eSNI will be affected. Thus there is a little overlap in these different realms of discussion. But the main focus of Lomborg now is “what are the costs and benefits of a choice ?” while Tinbergen & Hueting are focussed on “where are we ?”.
(2) A major type of argument by Lomborg is that BAU has advantages (e.g. less deaths from a warmer climate) that should also be included in the cost/benefit evaluation of SUS (thus more deaths than BAU due to maintaining the present colder climate). Here I would say: (a) Yes, all reasonable angles should be included. It would be very confusing when calculations would be biased, not only because of the bias but also because of the discussion about the bias. (b) It is necessary to accept that all scenario’s are man>made. Thus it will not do to take BAU as the status>quo scenario and to calculate SUS as the change that needs to show an improvement in welfare. The Tinbergen>Hueting point is that we do not know what is the true basic scenario.
(c) Again, we first must have calculations on eSNI so that we have the proper information,
18 Addendum: See Colignatus (2005) on the dynamic marginal tax rate. Dutch readers can benefit from Colignatus & Hulst (2001:124).
19 Addendum: See also Jaeger (2001, 2003) for a rejection of the analysis along lines of more traditional economics.
$.
before we can start proper discussions about what we would want to choose given that information. (d) It is important to see that the proper discussion is about risk and not about changes in social welfare that can be stated with certainty. Given what already has been calculated on eSNI and given what we know about the risks (i.e. that we don’t know enough) it is not unreasonable to be risk>averse and choose the conservative SUS path – and in the
“where are we ?” discussion the option of sustainability thus should be put in that manner.
(3) Another major point is that Lomborg seems to have taken 2100 AD as a fixed target. But when writing in 2001 on 2100 then writing in 2007 would rather be on 2106, and so on.
Tinbergen & Hueting anyway have a longer horizon. Admittedly, in the next 200 million years the continents are on the move and it may be doubted whether we can retain Amsterdam as it is. But if the sea level would rise by 50 meters in the next 300 years then it seems relatively myopic to stop thinking at 2100 AD. Archer (2009) “The long thaw” considers the next millenia but 300 years might do.
(4) Lomborg’s discussion of the reactions of his opponents (Schneider, Lynas, the IPCC, itself) and the dangers to the climate of discussion, is troubling. In that respect the “cool it” title is well>chosen. Lynas throwing of a cream pie in Lomborg’s face has hopefully been duly penalized. IPCC should control its language. Schneider’s recognition of the “unsolvable ethical dilemma” that a scientist also has a social responsibility is important. Scientists better always clarify what hat they are using when communicating to the general public. Lomborg’s suggestion for much more R&D can be supported and part will have to go to clean, effective and efficient communication.
$:
$$
> )
! 1 #
2012>02>10 > see also the published version 20
Abstract
A paper by Hueting in Ökologisches Wirtschaften 2011/4 can be commented on: (1) calculation of environmentally Sustainable National Income (eSNI) is relatively cheap, (2) it is the best measure compared to alternatives, (3) scientists provide information and society decides, while society tends to be at a loss without the proper information, (4) hence eSNI deserves focus attention.
Introduction
Hueting (2011) proposes a change of method at the national statistical bureau’s and the agencies for the evaluation and forecasting of economic policy. First, the figure of “national income” (NI) can be adapted for asymmetric bookkeeping. Secondly, we can create the figure of “environmentally sustainable national income”(eSNI). The gap between NI>ex>asyms and eSNI indicates whether the world becomes grayer or greener. Colignatus (2008, 2009) discusses Hueting’s intellectual path. Some selected comments put Hueting’s paper in more perspective.