Though the possible set of inconvenient puns has been utterly exhausted in the last few days, if you haven’t seen it yet, Bjørn Lomborg’s commentary on the subject of Al Gore’s Peace Prize is worth reading. Notably:

The number of hungry people depends much less on climate than on demographics and income. Extremely expensive cuts in carbon emissions could mean more malnourished people. If our goal is to fight malnutrition, policies like getting nutrients to those who need them are 5,000 times more effective at saving lives than spending billions of dollars cutting carbon emissions.

Likewise, global warming will probably slightly increase malaria, but CO2 reductions will be far less effective at fighting this disease than mosquito nets and medication, which can cheaply save 850,000 lives every year. By contrast, the expensive Kyoto Protocol will prevent just 1,400 deaths from malaria each year.

While we worry about the far-off effects of climate change, we do nothing to deal with issues facing the planet today. This year, malnutrition will kill almost 4 million people. About 3 million lives will be lost to HIV/AIDS, and 2 ½ million people will die because of indoor and outdoor air pollution. A lack of micronutrients and clean drinking water will claim 2 million lives each.

With attention and money in scarce supply, we should first tackle the problems with the best solutions, doing the most good throughout the century. If we focus on solving today’s problems, we will leave communities strengthened, economies more vibrant, and infrastructures more robust. This will enable these societies to deal much better with future problems - including global warming. Committing to massive cuts in carbon emissions will leave future generations poorer and less able to adapt to challenges.

In Michael Crichton’s memorable metaphor of environmentalism as religion, Gore is the high priest, preaching fire and brimstone unless we repent our sins. We are the chanting supplicants, and in our fear and panic we are regressing to human sacrifice to appease an angry Gaia.

Here’s what happens when the government runs the healthcare system. If this is what it’s like in a rich country like the UK, imagine what we’ll get when the government succeeds in insuring everyone, for identical benefits, at identical prices. Doctors won’t compete for patients, and as with any price controls, both supply and quality will dry up.

We’re already seeing it with pharmacies. How many in your area have gone out of business because they cannot afford to stock expensive drugs, or cannot compete while markups are capped — in rand terms, not even in percentage terms — the way the government insists?

Better stock up on pliers and superglue. Before hardware stores get the government treatment too.

In a previous post, I lauded the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize award:

Last year, the choice was inspired, selecting Muhammad Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank, which has done Bangladesh in particular and the Indian subcontinent in general a great service by proving that wealth can be created among the world’s poor through peaceful trade, without pouring billions down bureaucratic black holes. Today’s award exactly contradicts the philosophical basis and spirit of last year’s prize.

Having thought about it, in the light of Darren’s intelligent analysis over at commentary.co.za, I fear I have to change my mind on this. If Al Gore’s prize has nothing to do with the original charter of the prize, then to be consistent I’d have to say neither does the award to Mohammad Yunus. He may be an inspiring person who has done great things, and he’s a shining example of exactly the kind of economic theory I support, but, like Al Gore (and a whole lot of other recipients in the last few decades), one can’t exactly describe him as “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”