Thought du Jour

Today, as negotiations on climate change begin, the Financial Times publishes a strongly-worded, lead editorial. The editorial begins and ends with the following two paragraphs.

As the biggest environmental meeting in history opens in Copenhagen, the scientific case for a global agreement to fight man-made climate change remains overwhelming. The furore over alleged data manipulation, following the theft of e-mails from the University of East Anglia , has stirred up the sceptics (and shaken some scientists) but Climategate does not alter the real issue – that, despite many uncertainties, the risks of catastrophic change justify decisive global action to cut carbon emissions. ….

The forces of negativity and scepticism, whether self-interested or naive, must not prevail if we are to reduce the threat to the planet’s future without sacrificing future economic growth.

“Copenhagen: we can’t risk failure”, Financial Times, 7 December 2009.

The middle paragraphs are equally sensible and well-written.

One of these climate sceptics the editorialist worries about is Regent University economist Doug Walker, a close friend and former colleague. He might be self-interested (Aren’t we all?), but is certainly not naive. Douglas is very articulate and writes, in part:

The United Nations Climate Change Conference is scheduled to begin tomorrow, 7 December, in Copenhagen, Denmark, for two weeks of talks aimed at concluding an agreement that would enter into force after the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.  The meeting will bring together 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, 1,200 limos and 140 private jets.  The extraordinary carbon footprint of the meeting (roughly, Morocco’s annual carbon emissions) is likely to be its most lasting legacy to the world.

In his most foolish promise, President Obama has said he will pledge the United States to lower its emissions of carbon to a level 85 per cent below those of 2005.  This would bring the level of American emissions to those of 1910, which, given the much higher expected level of population in 2050, means the per capita U.S. emissions would be about those of 1875.

Douglas O. Walker, “A fable for Copenhagen”, group email message circulated on 6 December 2009.

If Douglas posts the entire e-mail to his blog – as he often does – I will provide the link in an update. It is important to read all views, even those of sceptics.

Has Jared Diamond sold out, or has he become enlightened? You be the judge, after reading this essay, which begins

There is a widespread view, particularly among environmentalists and liberals, that big businesses are environmentally destructive, greedy, evil and driven by short-term profits. I know — because I used to share that view.

But today I have more nuanced feelings. Over the years I’ve joined the boards of two environmental groups, the World Wildlife Fund and Conservation International, serving alongside many business executives.

As part of my board work, I have been asked to assess the environments in oil fields, and have had frank discussions with oil company employees at all levels. I’ve also worked with executives of mining, retail, logging and financial services companies. I’ve discovered that while some businesses are indeed as destructive as many suspect, others are among the world’s strongest positive forces for environmental sustainability.

Jared Diamond, “Will Big Business Save the Earth?”, New York Times, 6 December 2009.

Professor Diamond goes on to cite positive examples from the work of Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Chevron – three companies “that many critics of business love to hate, in my opinion, unjustly”.

Jared Diamond is an environmental activist who teaches in UCLA’s geography department. He is author of Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (W.W. Norton, 1997) and Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed (Viking Books, 2005). For a critical review of these books, see the essay written by journalist Gregg Easterbrook and noted by Thought du Jour back in January, 2005:

They are magnificent books: extraordinary in erudition and originality, compelling in their ability to relate the digitized pandemonium of the present to the hushed agrarian sunrises of the far past. I read both thinking what literature might be like if every author knew so much, wrote so clearly and formed arguments with such care. All of which makes the two books exasperating, because both come to conclusions that are probably wrong.

Gregg Easterbrook, “‘Collapse’: How the World Ends”, New York Times, 30 Janaury 2005.

What is important is that Jared Diamond continues to think clearly about important issues, and is willing to change his mind when necessary. Jared Diamond’s words are always worth reading, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the conclusions he reaches. Indeed, I find his work to be most valuable – because it causes me to question my own beliefs – when I disagree.