Warm Feelings

George Will has a great Newsweek column that, taking after Bjorn Lomborg, suggests that global warming, far from being a disaster, might result in a net gain. The big one:

The warming that is reasonably projected might be problematic, although not devastating, for the much-fretted-about polar bears, but it will be beneficial for other species. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment anticipates increasing species richness.

Global warming was blamed for 35,000 deaths in Europe‘s August 2003 heat wave. Cold, however, has caused 25,000 deaths a year recently in England and Wales—47,000 in each winter from 1998 to 2000. In Europe, cold kills more than seven times as many as heat does. Worldwide, moderate warming will, on balance, save more lives than it will cost—by a 9-to-1 ratio in China and India. So, if substantially cutting carbon dioxide reverses warming, that will mean a large net loss of life globally.

That’s right: According to Will’s figures (and his warming-effects data comes from the IPCC), it’s not just that "fighting" global warming would be foolhardy; it’s that there’s a moral imperative not to.

I do want to take minor issue with one thing in his column. In responding to those who say that climate change will result in a malaria epidemic in the U.S., Will notes that:

…malaria is “related strongly to economic development and weakly to changing climate.” Increasing prosperity and low-tech methods like mosquito nets, not controlling climate change, is the key to preventing 85 million malaria deaths by 2100.

But the best way to combat malaria deaths isn’t with nets. It’s with DDT, a pesticide that was banned as a result of moral crusades by one of the earliest environmental activists, Rachel Carson (you can read more about the damage she did here). Deaths from malaria have reached such epic heights that DDT has become more popular (the World Health Organization recommended its use in 2006), but its use is still banned or discouraged in many regions. Some estimates suggest that the DDT ban results in an additional 1.8 million cases of malaria each year, and with negligible impact on the environment.

Other helpful reads from the climate change front:

• Heritage’s Ben Lieberman and William Beach provide a helpful overview of current global warming legislation. “One thing that they all have in common is that they will not be cheap. Each tries to force down emissions associated with the fossil fuel use that is the backbone of the U.S. economy.”
• NTU informs us that 234 economists have written a letter to Congress with warning about the dangers of poorly-considered energy legislation. “Arguing that ‘Congress … ought to reduce government interference in the markets that are capable of delivering innovative energy solutions to consumers,” the economists contend that current energy legislation falls short because it ‘distribute[s] funding based on political concerns rather than sound science or economics.'”
• The always wonderful Iain Murray, seen most recently as a villain in a Paul Krugman column (why you gotta be a hater, Krug?), explains why America has stayed out of Kyoto, and why the European approach to the treaty wouldn’t have worked here. “When a leading climate skeptic said at a fringe meeting at the Conservative Party Conference this year (I paraphrase), “If President Bush had had an ounce of sense, he would have ratified Kyoto and then done what Europe did and ignored it,” he was completely wrong. There is no way that Kyoto, once ratified, could be ignored.”