The Green Files > Marginal Revolution: Bjorn Lomborg supports a climate change treaty

[Marginal Revolution] It'd be more appropriate to call Lomborg a "climate change optimist", in that he thinks that most proposals to deal with global warming will be more economically damaging and less helpful in dealing with the problem than focusing on maximizing growth in income and gdp (since generally only the well-to-do have the luxury of focusing on environmental concerns, and there's enormous potential for environmentally sound technologies).

Previous [Previous] Climate Change Fraud - Because the debate is not over - Rea...

Next [Next] Climate Change Fraud - Because the debate is not over - Home...

Some related posts from Technorati and Google.

[No Hot Air] No Hot Air: Carbon Change Skeptic Ends: Skepticism is one of our core values, so we always had time to listen to Bjorn Lomborg who wrote "The Skeptical Environmentalist". But in the FT today: Bjorn Lomborg, an influential figure among climate change sceptics, has thrown his weight.

[Climate Community] Copenhagen Climate Council: Months before Ramsdorf's press conference, the world-famous Danish political scientist and "skeptical environmentalist" Bjørn Lomborg attempted to draw the sting of oceanographers' alarming message in a series of articles published in the leading British daily, The Guardian.

[RealClearPolitics] RealClearPolitics - Al Gore and Friends Create Climate of McCarthyism: Is it unreasonable to point out that the inevitable creation of trade barriers that will ensue from Waxman-Markey could eventually cost the world 10 times more than the damage climate change could ever have wrought?

[Legal Research Plus] Geoengineering Reports from Copenhagen Consensus « Legal Research Plus: In their Assessment Paper, “The Potential Benefits and Costs of Climate Engineering: A Case for Research,” Bickel and Lane have provided a deterministic case for funding a long-term,intensiveresearchanddevelopment(R&D)programforgeoengineering.Becausetheir estimate of the requisite R&D budget is about 0.1% of their deterministic estimates of the net benefits of using geoengineering, they argue that it is unlikely any of the uncertainties they did not analyze would affect the case for performing the R&D. This Perspectives Paper overlays a consideration of potential unintended consequences from geoengineering onto theiranalysis and extends it with calculations of value of information from the R&D.

[Climate Progress] Lomborg's main argument has collapsed « Climate Progress: As Climate Progress regulars will know, Lomborg has been remarkably successful in persuading people that tackling climate change is a low priority. His Copenhagen Consensus was a study paid for by The Economist and took as its starting point the challenge “If we had $50 billion dollars to spend, how could we achieve the greatest possible global good?” The study concluded that, from a list of thirty priorities, tackling climate change was the lowest.

[Seth's posterous] Bjorn Lomborg Switch Tack on Climate Change - Seth's posterous: Having questioned asp-ects of climate change science in the past, Mr Lomborg now says "the basic scientific questions [on climate change] have been answered pretty unequivocally". The question moves on from not whether to try to tackle climate change but how to do so most cheaply and effectively.

[Jo Abbess] Bjørn Lomborg Concedes Defeat @ Jo Abbess: “Lomborg calls for a carbon tax : June 17, 2009 : Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish business school professor and author who has riled environmentalists by arguing that addressing climate change should be a lesser priority than global health and nutrition initiatives, is calling for a $7 per ton tax on carbon dioxide emissions, reports the Wall Street Journal. According to the paper, Lomborg says a carbon tax “could address what he calls a ‘market failure’

[Climate Feedback - Blog Posts with Comments] Climate Feedback: Lindau09: It's a wrap: But the issue that got more attention Friday was the question of whether economic growth can be aligned with mitigating climate change. Lomborg argues that if we concentrate on getting development right - by actually reaching the Millennium Development Goals, for example - then we’d not only alleviate suffering in the here and now, we’d also help to out developing nations in much better position to adapt to the changes that lie ahead.

[Greg Clark's Energy and Climate Change Blog] Friday, 7 August « Greg Clark's Energy and Climate Change Blog: If these difficulties are merely swept under the carpet at Copenhagen then that would be sure sign of a fake deal, one which would fall to pieces as soon as the signatories encountered the reality of unresolved tensions.

[The Oil Drum - Discussions about Energy and Our Future] The Oil Drum | Drumbeat: August 7, 2009: I have come late to the climate change game, but the more I learn about the interlinking of issues the more interesting and ominous things look. Population is a case in point.

[Breakthrough] Breakthrough: Bjorn Lomborg Wants to Make Clean Energy Cheap ...: For climate advocates who've seen far too many arguments from the likes of Lomborg and the Bush Administration that we should delay action while we wait for cheaper, more convenient technologies to emerge from labs, it's hard to embrace the energy innovation imperative. Acknowledging the clear need for greatly accelerated energy innovation is assumed to be a political weakness.

[Climate Progress] Did Time magazine's Bryan Walsh cut-and-paste a faulty critique of ...: Walsh’s rip-off is really a secondary issue, and I’m glad Time is finally highlighting the need for far more U.S. investment on clean energy, which I’ve been writing about for two decades.  Also, I fully understand that with a tough economy, slightly dropping poll numbers, and intransigent Republicans who have slowed down congressional action on Obama’s top priorities, the media packs smells blood and is looking for every angle with which to trash him.

[This Side of the Pond] This Side of the Pond | Bjørn Lomborg: Stop Scaring the Kids!: …But the worst cost of exaggeration, I believe, is the unnecessary alarm that it causes - particularly among children. Recently, I discussed climate change with a group of Danish teenagers.

[Sustainablog] Bjorn Lomborg on Who the Environmentalists Forgot : Sustainablog: “Lomborg argues that 18 years could be too short for a robust trend comparison because of decadal variations in trend - but the 42-year period analysed by IPCC yields the same result. And it is telling that he then goes on to draw an “inescapable” conclusion about a slow-down of sea level rise from just four years of data.

[Global Climate Scam] Global Climate Scam » Blog Archive » Scared Silly About Global Warming: Even though he believes in AGW, he recognizes the fear tacticts used by many of the supporters of AGW. And I agree with him that there are many things that are not focused upon because of all the alarmism.

[P2P Foundation] P2P Foundation » Blog Archive » Michael Hardt: for a politics of ...: Gradgrind, Lomborg’s strategy is to rationalize the question by calculating the values involved in order to set priorities. The estimated value of the destruction expected by global warming, he concludes with impeccable logic, does not merit the costs to combat it.

Reflected tags on Technorati: Blog, , ,