In an amusing way, when thinking of two things, bunnies are likely to run across something illuminating about one when net doodling the other. Today the one is the Lomborgian, "don't do anything about climate change because of the poors" a position adopted by the Bengtsson
Dreams of better worlds have always existed. I remember all the images from long ago at the happy Big Rock Candy Mountain where the cigarettes grow on trees. There were dreams that many poor had in 1700s Germany. That many poor people today in the 3de world can have similar dreams, I can understand, but on the other hand I have a hard time understanding dreams of a worse life and a worse world. For me that is rather perverse and contributes to my extremely negative perception of the green-red ideology. (translation w. help from RayP)Eli has mentioned before there are many reasons for, well, being skeptical about whether this argument is, shall the Rabett say, an argument from convenience, but it has many problems on moral grounds. Stephen Gardiner points out there are issues
The first is the threat of a false dichotomy. Arguments from opportunity cost crucially rely on the idea that if a given project is chosen, then that choice forecloses some other option. But this is not the case in Lomborg's version. Helping the poor and mitigating climate change are not obviously mutually exclusive. . .After all, the poors have always been with us, and there is no evidence that rich countries will step in to eliminate poverty (or, as Gardiner points out to mitigate climate change). To Gardiner and Eli this looks a lot like the first step in a "bait and switch" strategy. Bengtsson and Lomborg are arguing that climate change is a concern of the well off who are morally obligated to do something that would really help the poors, but, as it turns out Gardiner hit the nail on the second point. Not mitigating climate change screws the poors.
Second it is not clear even that the two projects are independent of each other, in the sense that they are fully separable opportunities rather than necessarily linked and perhaps mutually supporting policies. . . .
Third, it is not clear that the opportunity that Lomborg wants to emphasize is really available.
It is here that Eli's pursuit of Tol's demon provided illumination. The Rabett was re-reading Tol (2009), and in particular Table 1, the one where all the mistakes are. The big one is obvious, Plambeck and Hope, and was pointed out in the comments by Julie Nelson in 2009 but she merely noted that +2.5% was from a study that the Stern review was based on and it contradicts the Stern review so something was fishy. Eli, simple bunny that he is, only asks how can the net impact be +2.5% GDP when all the regional impacts range between -0.5 and -11.4? Even Dickie and his Demon should have spotted that through his GWPF blinkers.
Tol himself brings this home in his 2011 position paper for Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus on Human Challenges,
Climate change threatens the developing world more than the developed world according to every economic model and remember in many ways FUND is the most optimistic of the integrated assessment models. Were Eli to believe FUND, or DICE or PAGES it is not only the Pacific islands or Bangladesh that need worry, but the almost every third world, or developing country and seriously so. Read Tol's map bunnies, the Copenhagen Consensus, Lomborg, Tol and Bengtsson are advocating policies (screw mitigating climate change, help the poors with other things) that screw the poors and help the rich.
Eli understands that the Richard and Roger Sr show will be featured at a US House of Representatives hearing in the coming week. Perhaps someone could show him a map? A clue might also be useful.