Lomborg vs. Lomborg

The world's most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.

…But in a new book to be published next month, Lomborg will call for tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change. "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century," the book concludes.

…In an interview with the Guardian, he said he would finance this investment through a tax on carbon emissions that would also raise $50bn to mitigate the effects of climate change, for example by building better sea defences, and $100bn for global healthcare.

The full story is here.


I wonder how much of that green subsidy money was sticking out of his pockets when they quoted him ...

Lomborg converted a while back. This isn't news; it's publicity for his book.

At least Martin Weitzman is consistent.

U-turn? What U-turn?

I've actually read his books (The skeptical environmentalist, How to spend $50 billion to make the world a better place, and Cool it: the skeptical environmentalist's guide to global warming), and in all three accepts that:

1) Climate change is real, with the overall trend being that of warming and
2) At least some of that is man-made

What he has also said--consistently--is that climate change is a problem, but it must also be placed into context next to the various other problems humanity must deal with. He also points out that global warming may have some benefits, and that not enough effort is being made to fairly asses the costs and benefits of climate change.

We're not talking about a climate change denier here. Instead, we're talking about someone who is trying to think hard about the issues and weigh the available evidence, and who has apparently decided to change a few of his stated policy priorities. I'll take that any day over the chicken littles on the left and the idiotic, head in the stand deniers on the right.

@Patrick Matthews: my feelings too.

I'm with Patrick Matthews.

Tyler should read Lomborg's book before calling out his 'inconsistencies.'

This is not the full story: those who have fought environmental degradation by not breeding should not have to participate in the misery brought upon us by the breeders. First, because they made no brood to pollute and second, because they have no brood that stands to gain by their sacrifices in the form of higher carbon taxes.

The article is a bit confusing. Is he answering the question "If the world is going to spend hundreds of millions to treat climate, where could you get the most bang for your buck?", or is he answering that and then saying that we should spend 100 billion dollars in that manner? Because merely answering the question seems a reasonable enough exercise, but the latter seems to go against the various Copenhagen consensuses. Should we spend 100 billion on climate change? Not right now, when that money could go to fighting malaria and malnutrition.

Lomborg is right, but he is going about it the wrong way. The only way to stop global warming is to unify the nations of the world under a totalitarian yet benevolent government. I nominate the United States of America as ruling principality.

Gear up some ICBM disarming, space borne particle beam weapons, then hit Beijing and Moscow with some MRVS. Universal conscription for males under 30, steamroll europe, asia. Then once we are all under the same government, with nothing to fear, we dial back the carbon emission. Problem solved.

some context. people like Brand, they out front state that the last 10,000 years when we developed agriculture, et al, have been the anamoly, with or without human intervention, change is the rule, and has been so through the ages. loin cloth documentary in a evaporating big breakfast swamp.

I never understood the numbers people play with when it comes to the cost of reducing global warming. It's all very simple: Go nuclear! Trade one sh!t for another sh!t.

That's also a prediction on my part.

The same person who called him Hitler later endorsed his book. Everyone should be a skeptic.

I'll be interested to see what Lomborg actually has to say, but the fact that The Guardian grossly misstates his oft-repeated views in the very first sentence of the article doesn't give me much faith that the rest of the piece is accurate about his current thinking.

You were someone's "brood", and past generations sacrificed collectively to make your existence possible. It's too late to retroactively correct this if you feel it was a mistake, but there is certainly an obvious step for you to take to definitively mitigate your own footprint going forward.

Shorter Andrew: Oceania was always at war with Eurasia.


Here is even shorter:

Is Lomborg correct about $100B/yr?

Another short version:

$100B/yr from 'defense' to energy?

Comments for this post are closed