Economist Bjorn Lomborg: Global warming is not a priority
BackEconomist Bjorn Lomborg makes a persuasive case for prioritizing the world's biggest problems, asking "If we had $50 billion to spend over the next four years to do good in the world, where should we spend it?" His recommendations - based on the findings of the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus - controversially place global warming at the bottom of the list (and AIDS prevention at the top). Lomborg was named one of the 100 Most Influential People by Time magazine after the publication of his controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist which challenged widely-held beliefs that the environment is getting worse. Now the Danish economist is taking on the world's biggest problems with his Copenhagen Consensus. (Recorded February 2005 in Monterey, CA. Duration: 17:27)
Channel: News & Politics
Uploaded: January 12, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Author: TEDtalksDirector
Length: 00:17:27
Rating: 4.35
Views: 87890
Tags: TEDTalks TED "Bjorn Lomborg" environment "global warming"
Video Comments:
srinsriram (November 18, 2008 at 6:56 pm)
"What we can do about (the supposed causes) of Global warming is VERY LITTLE and VERY HIGH COST"
And the benefits are not tangible. Its not worth it. 1000 years ago, Greenland was warm enough for the Vikings to settle. Today, its not very livable due to the cold. Theres nothing disastrous with the earth's temperature going up a degree. A lot of the frozen and cold regions could become cultivable. Many scientists think we are entering a new cooler period due to reduced solar activity.
And the benefits are not tangible. Its not worth it. 1000 years ago, Greenland was warm enough for the Vikings to settle. Today, its not very livable due to the cold. Theres nothing disastrous with the earth's temperature going up a degree. A lot of the frozen and cold regions could become cultivable. Many scientists think we are entering a new cooler period due to reduced solar activity.
srinsriram (November 18, 2008 at 6:44 pm)
Why are global warming alarmists getting so worked up about Bjorn's line of argumentation? Environmental conservation and reducing dependence on fossil fuels is desirable, regardless of whether or not global climate is human driven. But remedies like the Kyoto protocol and carbon taxes can hurt growth of world economies and slow down reduction of poverty and disease. We should be as or more worried about a small rock hitting the earth from outer space (a 500 meter rock would be pretty bad).
JanLauGe (November 18, 2008 at 4:53 pm)
"The evidence that global warming is co2 driven is weak, solar activity is more plausible."
Ahh yea. And where exactly does this information come from? If you make a statement like this, you need to make clear that this is your personal opinion (which, by the way, is contrary to the international science community. But of course, you are a much more qualified person than they are, right?)
Ahh yea. And where exactly does this information come from? If you make a statement like this, you need to make clear that this is your personal opinion (which, by the way, is contrary to the international science community. But of course, you are a much more qualified person than they are, right?)
JanLauGe (November 18, 2008 at 4:46 pm)
It is a question of North-South justice. Afrika, Southamerika and Southwest India are victims of climate change, a problem that we, the northern countries and western civilisation set in motion. So it is not exactly a good excuse to say, that some people or countries will benefit from CC.
srinsriram (November 17, 2008 at 4:03 am)
1. First of all, this is not one person's conclusions. Its based on the analysis of over 30 world class economists on the major problems.
2. co2 emissions directly correlate with standard of living. This relationship wont change much in the next 100 years or maybe even longer. So no matter what protocols are setup for co2 regulation, the majority of the world will increase their co2 emissions.
3. The evidence that global warming is co2 driven is weak, solar activity is more plausible.
2. co2 emissions directly correlate with standard of living. This relationship wont change much in the next 100 years or maybe even longer. So no matter what protocols are setup for co2 regulation, the majority of the world will increase their co2 emissions.
3. The evidence that global warming is co2 driven is weak, solar activity is more plausible.
ThePissedOffAtheist (November 16, 2008 at 10:47 am)
QI may not be the best source of information (two moons?) but Stephen Fry said on one episode that 50% of Homo sapiens who have ever existed died of malaria.
Animalll2003lll (November 14, 2008 at 7:33 am)
to focus on these issues,even if they kill more people on the short term. We need to change our consumption patterns;thats what matters the most.
So conclusion,this video looks pretty interesting at first,but after reflexion,it appears Lomborg should rethink his priorities for the long run,and include fighting global warming—and also peak oil,which he just didnt even mention.Because btw: we need to reduce oil consumption also because were going to deplete oil very soon if we dont save it.
So conclusion,this video looks pretty interesting at first,but after reflexion,it appears Lomborg should rethink his priorities for the long run,and include fighting global warming—and also peak oil,which he just didnt even mention.Because btw: we need to reduce oil consumption also because were going to deplete oil very soon if we dont save it.
Animalll2003lll (November 14, 2008 at 7:31 am)
Lomborg gets the 'confirmation' of his list of priorities by asking people in the developing world what their priorities are--sure enough they'll talk about disease and starvation more than westerners. Sure. But hey what about our spaceship? They had decades to fix these problems and they didn't, still no free market, some are still into dictatorship, corruption and bad culture. That sucks, but now that the spaceship is endangered because of mass consumption, we dont have the time / energy
Animalll2003lll (November 14, 2008 at 7:27 am)
Basically what Lomborg is telling us, is that saving the titanic is too costly so we better instead invest our time and money in giving the poor passengers better seats. So--- thats just dodgy. I mean sure we can save more lives with less money, elsewhere. Sure on the short term it's better, but what about our spaceship?
-
Menu
World Defense industry Files -
Tags:
wdif military tsk silah sanayi jet figters Tank JSF Lockheed weapons Attack Helicopters Predator navy Airforce Armed forces Army Missile su37 f16 Airshow dogfight f18 Cobra aselsan uav red flag fighter aviation patriot missile s 300 navy ships nato longbow havoc rooivalk KA-50 iraq war mangusta a129 merkava abrams t-90 submarine u209 exocet zubr kornet drone sparrow uav dasault rafale trmilitary Manuevers Northrop Grumman Raytheon BAE Systems L-3 Communications General Dynamics V-22 Osprey Textron EADS Defense Thales defence Saab Defense Otokar Russian Submarine
But on the long term, we still need to stop climate change to keep this planet liveable.
--
This goal isnt realistic. Climate has always been changing.. There have been epochs where the co2 content was much much greater than it is now. There have been warmer periods, and there have been ice ages. And there will be such warm periods and ice ages in the future as well.