Climate change: are we overreacting? | GZERO World with Ian Bremmer

[@toyotaprius79]

JustHaveAThink is a lot more effective and forthright for this topic than this video tries to be

[@davidstanosz1434]

Wheat can not be grown in 50 mph winds. One only needs to study the Dust Bowl of the 1930s as documented by Dorthea Lange in "An American Exodus" to understand that even with mitigation there will be much human suffering going forward.

[@blindfaith8777]

Lomborg is my favorite voice in Climate discussion not because I agree with his conclusions, but because of how valuable his criticisms are. Thank you for having him on.

[@peterdollins3610]

B S.

[@jmhorange]

Seen his kind before, just because you can articulate your ideas, doesn't mean they are good ideas. First they deny climate change. Now it's, they admit it's happening, but there's benefits to it, and even there are downsides, it's not being approached in the most efficient way... the more people like that try to slow down progress on addressing climate change, the more extreme and wasteful our solutions will probably be because we don't have their side at the table. I wish Climate skeptics and deniers in the second half of the 20th century just got on board and said, "I acknowledge climate change is happening, let's do this the most cost effective way." And yet we still have people like this guy who tries to say in the most pleasing articulate way, we should do nothing to solve climate change. "Let's teach kids on tablets instead of spending money on climate change!" Like we can't and aren't addressing any other issues in the world than climate change right now...

[@ĐoànĐạiDương-f1n]

I live in Scandinavia, and clearly people die much much more here in the winter than the summer!

[@mrrecluse7002]

Give it time. Nature has more than you do.

[@cmiksee1932]

Hopefully innovation will bail us out, but we should also embrace modern nuclear energy for base load needs - the myths and fear in this space are astoundingly ignorant, almost religious. Costs also drop a lot when more than one plant is built. Small modular plants will also help around the world. Finally, we rightly discuss entrenched fossil fuel grifters, but let’s also call out the green grifters (NGOs, asset managers, etc.) so we get the facts on the table.

[@magellannh645]

I agree about the promise of SMRs as a huge part of the solution, but you're confused one thing. There is no such thing as "baseload needs." Baseload was a concept created in the 20th century to help deal with the inherent inflexibility of coal and nuclear thermal generation plants and their inability to follow the ebbs and flows of everchanging load. Baseload is a response to a bug, not a feature. Back then, so-called baseload plants had the lowest marginal cost of generation so it made economic sense to run them as much as possible then layer in more flexible, but more expensive generation sources. Today though, the marginal cost of generation of coal and nuclear is much higher than other options and it no longer makes sense to run them 24/7 like we used to because for many hours of the day, there are cheaper ways to make power. Instead, grid operators use something called merit order scheduling, where for each time slice, the mix of generation resources with the lowest marginal cost gets scheduled.

[@cmiksee1932]

@@magellannh645 thanks for the correction! We need facts.

[@1964mcqueen]

Overreacting? Seriously? Greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase, and global temperature are accelerating beyond anything the climate models predicted. None of the technology they went on about is being implemented at scale. Regardless of the cost of renewables, we aren't implementing them fast enough, and we continue to subsidize fossil fuels as we have for decades. Not only are vast areas of the planet becoming unlivable, but our ability to grow the food we need is being impacted now. Drought has caused rivers and canals to dry up to the point that trade is being effected now. There are ships lined up waiting to enter the Panama Canal because they don't have the water to allow ships through. The same is happening in Europe as the rivers dry up. Fresh water shortages, food shortages, conflict over migration... are all happening now, decades before the worst effects are expected, and any mitigation efforts are small scale, experimental and in most cases symbolic.

[@lieshtmeiser5542]

"Not only are vast areas of the planet becoming unlivable,.." Eh?

[@koopaquest6432]

I agree people are not overreacting. Climate change is the biggest threat to humanity.

[@philwilson609]

Lomborg is on the take from the oil industry. Exxon/Shell/Chevron don't want anyone to panic, so they slip a nice paycheck to Bjorn to represent their cause - profits.

[@lieshtmeiser5542]

@@philwilson609 The implication of your comment is that you think people SHOULD panic. What is wrong with your life that you seriously believe that?

[@thomassenbart]

Are you kidding? Global temperatures are gaged by global medians, which is a very poor metric. This average is based upon weak data and a very short term, since 1870, a blink when we speak of climate. It also ignores so much, some of which Lomborg mentioned. I would guess you have not done any objective research on this subject but merely swallow everything you are being fed. The fossil fuel industry is not being subsidized. Your use of this word is inappropriate. A subsidy is when a govt. gives money to a person or industry, company it is not a company using the tax code to keep more of its own money.

[@abekawser4908]

Water polution, air polution, plastic polution and soil polution should be reduced

[@lieshtmeiser5542]

Great. At what cost?

[@thomassenbart]

Who disagrees? No one. However this is not what is being debated above. They are talking about a non pollution, CO2.

[@davids2218]

Why isn't nuclear power part of the discussion? Maybe interview someone from the Gates Foundation.

[@magellannh645]

Nuclear power is very much part of the conversation and Lomborg has pretty sensible views on the technology. If we only used older technology like the AP1000 design, nuclear power is too expensive to be cost competitive with other zero emissions tech. OTOH, SMRs and other advanced nuclear designs have a lot of promise and will hopefully be a huge part of the solution in the future. The problem is that the (hopefully) cheaper advanced technology isn't ready to build out en masse yet and won't be for at least a decade or more. Really, nuclear power is promising tech that needs more innovation just like carbon capture, advanced geothermal, and hydrogen. Which of these advanced technologies wins is anyone's guess. In any case, we are now generously funding both research and pilot builds for advanced nuclear thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act (this doesn't get talked about much, but IRA rightly has huge nuclear subsidies).

[@mozzermt]

@@magellannh645 Very informative comment, thank you. I'll have to read up on all this stuff.

[@wheel-man5319]

Actually lomborg could go into that. But the interview didn't go there.

[@nunofoo8620]

When are you going to have a flat-earther on the show? Remember we have to hear both sides of the argument! s/

[@thomassenbart]

Make an argument and if you disagree with Lomborg, explain why exactly and give a counter case.

[@wheel-man5319]

​@@thomassenbartit can't. The only arguments I've heard are from 'authority'.

[@CharlesWT-TX]

*Topic:* Climate Change, Renewable Energy, Resource Allocation, Sustainable Development Goals *Summary:* In a discussion with Bjorn Lomborg on "GZERO World with Ian Bremmer," several key topics related to climate change, renewable energy, resource allocation, and sustainable development goals are addressed: *1. Climate Change Perspective:* • Bjorn Lomborg emphasizes that climate change is a real problem but not an existential threat, challenging the notion that it is the end of the world. • He argues that this perspective is crucial because it allows for a more pragmatic approach to addressing climate issues. *2. Renewable Energy Technology:* • Lomborg notes significant advancements in renewable energy technologies like solar power, wind turbines, and battery storage over the past decade. • He highlights that the costs of these technologies have significantly decreased, making them more economically viable. *3. Scaling Renewable Energy:* • Lomborg points out that to address climate change effectively, there needs to be a massive increase in renewable energy capabilities, not just a modest increase. • He argues that the scale required is currently beyond reach, especially in poorer countries. *4. Resource Allocation:* • Lomborg expresses concerns that policy priorities may be misplaced, with billions of dollars being spent on incremental climate mitigation efforts when resources could be used more effectively in addressing urgent global issues like education and maternal mortality. *5. Climate Optimism:* • Ian Bremmer presents a more optimistic perspective on climate change, emphasizing that technological advancements are making clean energy sources cheaper and more accessible. • He believes that there is no longer a trade-off between economic growth and decarbonization due to these advancements. *6. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):* • Lomborg discusses his book "Best Things First," which focuses on the efficient allocation of resources to achieve the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. • He highlights the importance of prioritizing initiatives that offer the most significant impact for the resources invested, such as improving education and maternal and newborn health. *7. Economic Benefits of Climate Action:* • Bremmer argues that addressing climate change can lead to economic benefits and increased productivity, contrary to the belief that it necessitates economic sacrifice. *8. Adaptation and Mitigation:* • The conversation touches on the importance of adaptation measures, such as addressing extreme weather events, while simultaneously working on mitigation efforts to reduce emissions. *9. Importance of Informed Decision-Making:* • Lomborg emphasizes the role of economists in providing data and analysis to inform decision-makers about the costs and benefits of various policy options. Overall, the discussion highlights the need for a balanced and informed approach to addressing climate change and underscores the potential for renewable energy and efficient resource allocation to play critical roles in mitigating its impact. -OpenAI ChatGPT 3.5

[@peterdollins3610]

It is going to the end of the world while for many peoples their world has ended plus in my 81 years on earth species extinction is between 97%--for insects--to 80 to 90% for others. So you lie, sir. The world is also ending far quicker for those in the poor south. It's already a misery to live in many of those countries--soon all. A little later, our turn. What fossil fuel company pays you by the word?

[@jimgaston9863]

In 81 years you never learned that CO2 is not pollution but actually an essential building block of all life. The planet is greener now than it was a 100 years ago.

[@volkerengels5298]

Oh a Poor Exxon Bot@@jimgaston9863

[@jimgaston9863]

Thank you for having the other side on for a change,it was refreshing. World leaders lead in division and FEAR PORN it was nice to hear decent proposals instead of moronic statements like a BOILING PLANET 🌎 😂😂😂

[@thewolfofswingthat2035]

the things he propose does not solve climate change... why is he even mentioning those..

[@joseph2664]

He is explaining that if you want to help the most people with the moneys available, there are many things that would save more lives quicker than climate projects . So that is the smart , ethical move.

[@volkerengels5298]

He explains his short-term-thinking... ...one could think. But indeed Lomborg is just downplaying climate change risk in a nice wordy way.@@joseph2664

[@robgeach8105]

@@joseph2664 climate projects are not about dollar spent per person. that's just a oil industry lie to squeeze a little more juice out of their orange. climate projects are just basic environmentalism on steroids, trying to slow or prevent climate change enough that indigenous species are granted enough life-cycles to adapt to the changes that they won't go extinct. also his costs about dollar spent per person only work if you ignore oil industry externalities as applied on the back end to insurance policy changes. oh, and he absolutely knows all of this and says it anyway.

[@mrrecluse7002]

Lend me your rose colored glasses gentlemen, so I can decide which one to purchase.

[@briancolwell2274]

Famous last words……….

[@ricoman7981]

The world is in no more trouble today than it always has been. Mankind has always swung intermittently between periods of territorial peace and conflict, has constantly been displaced by acts of mankind and acts of god (insert nature if you are secular), has faced regional periods of feast and famine, has weathered various periods of global warming and cooling (pun intended) and has successfully spread its wings across the globe and beyond our solar system. Warts and all, not only have we survived but we thrived through all that came our way. I don’t accept climate change existential alarmism and I don’t agree with climate change denialism. I accept that mankind has been flawed from day one and I believe that we will survive no matter what mankind or nature throws our way.

[@mrrecluse7002]

You are better off thinking that way, as long as possible, until the shit hits the fan.

[@ricoman7981]

@@mrrecluse7002 If the shit ever truly hits the fan it is highly likely that you and I and everyone living today are all long gone.

[@BrianMcInnis87]

4:22 *Naughts*. Means nothing. Zero. Hence it being the name of the decade of the zeros. Aught means any. Not complicated.

[@philelectrique1]

10x deaths in India from cold? What utter nonsense. I like hearing differing views, but be careful when giving credibility to people who make up their "facts".

[@lieshtmeiser5542]

the first google result claims 7.8, not 10, so you are probably correct. Although perhaps not "nonsense".

[@suv2w]

Google the claim and read any of many studies. Counter to your intuition is not the same as utter nonsense.

[@MrHARRYGOODNIGHT]

The Climate Dogma runs strongly in Ian (apologies to Dianne Feinstein)

[@thanasis.zantrimas]

Well, the world is full of complexities. Climate change is one mega-complex issue. Yes, renewables are not the answer for the time being. There has to be a backup. It seems to me that politicians find it really hard to deal with reality.

[@golfscienceguru]

It can be assumed that people without kids, and grandchildren will have a much short-term view. It can also be assumed that the super-rich oil barons have less concerns, as they have the means to survive hot house Earth, as they wait to outlast the masses.

[@thomassenbart]

No, your children are not going to die or be crushed by AGCC. All things remaining equal, in the most extreme scenario, it will be hundreds of years before anything dire would happen. When the Maldives sink beneath the waves, rather than continue to build luxury Honeymoon suites on the Ocean side, then we can begin to talk.

[@golfscienceguru]

​@@thomassenbart Recently, scientists begin to talk about the slowing and even the shutting down of the AMOC north-south circulating current off of the East Coast of the United States, and Canada. While understanding of this event is still early, the estimates range between 2025 to 2095 to have a 90 percent chance of happening. As this current is right at the doorstep of the US, further data gathering will be less expensive. Already, it can be imagined that the US Government has been gathering data for navigation and defense purposes with a lot of ocean sensor equipment developed. The AMOC flows north from the Gulf of Mexico and Florida along the east coast of the US up to around Greenland, then it sinks down to flow back south under its northward part of the stream. The AMOC does not cross over to Europe like its companion the Gulfstream; however, the northward flow of the AMOC boost the northward flow of the Gulfstream to flow further north before the Gulfstream crosses eastward to Northern Europe. It is projected if the AMOC were to drastically slow down, or stopped flowing, the companion Gulfstream will flow less further north before crossing over to Northern Europe. Thus, Northern Europe may experience perhaps about 3 to 5 degrees lower average temperatures, while Southern Europe may experience a couple to 3 degrees increased temperatures. This is not exactly beneficial to agriculture there.

[@KJSvitko]

Population needs to be in balance with jobs, resources, nature and the environment. Having a bigger population in any country than the country can support makes no sense. Access to food, water, shelter, energy and jobs should guide population levels. The worlds population is still expected to add another billion people to feed, clothe and produce pollution. Humans are crowding out all other species of plants and animals. Education and birth control are key to reducing poverty and hunger. Having a child that you can not provide for yourself is cruel and irresponsible. We need solutions not just sympathy. Endless population growth is not sustainable on a finite planet. Every country needs to "TRY" to be more self sufficient. When there are not enough resources to sustain a population something has to give. Countries need to focus on quality of life for their citizens and not just quantity of life for cheap labor. Why import fossil fuels when wind and solar energy can be produced locally and solar energy can power electric vehicles. We need solutions not just sympathy.

[@tdyfqdb]

I didn't see the (logical) question to Mr Lomborg. And this is not speaking very well about your objectivity, Ian, which is a shame, sorry to say: "Hey Mr Lomborg, how much financing have you been receiving from the oil and gas industry? - Easy and simple, Ian. And you didn't.

[@stevecoley8365]

X-Files Humans vs. Alien Vampires For a rich man to solve the climate crisis...is like trying to drive a camel through the eye of a needle...because vampires (greed) are blind and cannot see the ignorance of destroying the planet. Indigenous earthling human beings aren't sucking the joy out of life and devouring the planet like a ravenous cancer. The bloodthirsty alien vampires (greed) are. Economic growth measures the rapid rate at which vampires (greed) are sucking the joy out of life and devouring the planet. Not progress. Profits measure the amount of darkness (greed) that a vampire's giant black hole in space called "ego" posseses. Not brilliance. Lots of expensive things measure the pride and imagination of a vampire's ego. Not intelligence. Unlike earthling poets, artists, musicians, mystics, human beings and creators of joy...the counting corpses (corporations) that rule US can't create harmony (real intelligence) because vampires (greed) are far worse than stupid. The loveless, lifeless parasites are ignorant (dead). Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children. Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.

[@volkerengels5298]

"Immortal Idiots" is less poetic.

[@DrDude-fp6mr]

"Never just listen to The Economist!" 🤣

[@douginorlando6260]

I’m still waiting to go water skiing at the North Pole. It was supposed to be ready years ago but turns out Al Gore was a C minus student from a C minus university who knows only two things, JAck and Siht. and Jack left town.

[@false_binary]

Isn't Bjorn Lomborg a Political Scientist and not trained in the natural sciences? He is associate professor of stats and while I super enjoyed that side of the SOCIAL science earning my BA in PoliSci why on Earth would we care what he says on this issue? I learned in political analysis stats can be used to tell any story...OR sell books and stay relevant as an academic (which I am sympathetic to, it is a very competitive job space). He shifted the story to sad stats that have positive real world solutions which is commendable, but this is not a remotely germane voice on the topic of climate change.

[@raireva4689]

...like for example Bill Gates...law college dropout 🤣

[@thomassenbart]

If you know how to study and understand statistics and can read, you can have an informed opinion on the subject. This strange penchant mostly Leftists have for bowing before titles and authority, is telling and troubling. Your analysis based upon this authority metric is a standard logical flaw, which any good Poly Sci major should know and avoid. Deal with the actual arguments and facts, not the titles of those making them.

[@joseph2664]

Ian , I have seen Bjorn in other interviews and an interview that really wanted to get to the facts could easily go over an hour. Very disappointed in how short this was. How much did you cut out because it did not fit the narrative?

[@tylerlormand5644]

if you not gonna edit why even have a camera

[@joseph2664]

when you edit out the facts you don't like that is the opposite of journalism. @@tylerlormand5644

[@bjoshiv]

Bjorn L arguments are at the same level as a random person at a bar😂. He takes a headline and spins it to fit his argument. Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion according to the IMF. Also Renewables account for only 20% of global fuel subsidies. Cold does not kill more people in India, it’s caused by a lot of issues including homelessness, increased pollutions levels due to smog in winter.

[@Joe44944]

@bjoshiv, l like your argument at the same time l think as I watched Bjorn's take on global affairs I'm like this guy doesn't make much sense so is he talking mumbo jumbo or what?😂 C'mon everyone knows India is a very hot place so 10x more ppl there die from cold exposure than from excess heat? Ok, now...

[@thomassenbart]

The word subsidy is misunderstood and misused. The fossil fuel industry is heavily taxed and regulated and in advanced countries is not subsidized at all, especially in the USA. Often people mistake energy companies using the tax code to keep more of their own money as a subsidy. This is a fundamental incorrect application of the word. Cold absolutely kills vastly more people than heat, not only in India but worldwide. It has been estimated that about 5.1 million excess deaths per year are associated with non-optimal temperatures. Of those, 4.6 million are associated with colder than optimum temperatures, and 0.5 million are associated with hotter than optimum temperatures. Patrick Brown, "Human Deaths from Hot and Cold Temperatures and Implications for Climate Change", Given the large number of deaths affected by temperature, there is significant public and scientific interest in the impact of global warming on human mortality, The Breath through Institute, December 2022.

[@ceemann6208]

So to answer the question of how serious climate change is, Ian Bremmer decided we should first get the perspective of...a political scientist.

[@Northern-Don]

You would call him a political scientist? Your very generous

[@jbisping]

Sounds like a dress rehearsal for Halloween this month: Bjorn Lomborg, the Human Strawman!

[@kshen7485]

In 2017 I saw the taxi in a middle scale city (Taiyuan) of China have been all BYD EV cars.

[@owengg17]

Great perspective to have on your show. Thanks Ian!

[@eduardofranz]

Why interview a propagandist?

[@jimgaston9863]

Bjorne’s not interviewing Ian?

[@ArturoPolska]

🤡

[@gene4094]

@eduardofranz are you a fossil fuel billionaire?

[@magellannh645]

Great interview. I disagree with Lomborg's pessimism about the role that solar, wind, and batteries can play, even at current prices (which are still declining). When growing a grid or starting from scratch, especially in much of the developing world, this combination will get them most of the way there for by far the lowest cost. Ian is right to be optimistic about this. All power systems regularly rely on things like gas peaker plants that only run for dozens of days each year. Their low capacity factor is built into their cost structure (low construction cost/high fuel cost). These peaking plants can handle sustained periods of low wind and solar production just fine and don't break the bank. This approach has been used for decades to handle seasonal demand peaks. Now it'll be repurposed to handle periods of low solar and wind production. For much of the world, the current low-cost solution for electricity is about 80% wind and solar with batteries and the other 20% coming from some combination of hydro (if available), gas, or coal (coupled with sensible use of peak shaving Virtual power plant technologies like demand response and managed EV charging). If you look at grid connection queues in both the developed and developing world, it's very clear that this is where we're headed over the next decade. It's already a done deal and I don't understand why Lomborg is playing this down.

[@gr8bkset-524]

"The world isn't going to end." Try telling that to all the species in the Amazon and coral reefs that will go extinct and the poor people in the world that won't be able to deal with climate change.

[@KJSvitko]

Every home and business should install a rain water collection and storage system along with solar panels. Even in areas where rain is infrequent it is crazy to waste the little rain that does fall and waste it. We need to stop planting green lawns and switch to local native plantings around homes. It is crazy to plant lawns and build golf courses in dry desert areas. We waste too much water and electricity.

[@GregorVDub]

Facts my man.

[@volkerengels5298]

Nice DownPlayer! Lomborg like to claim "Climate Change is not THAT serious" He just say it - godlike :)))

[@terryschumacher463]

I expected Ian could refute the exaggerations, & distortions better.

[@tylerlormand5644]

if you don't live on a coastline you wont understand

[@wheel-man5319]

If you live on a coastline, and you believe that the oceans are rising, move.

[@unclepete100]

Oh goodness, nuclear energy doesn’t get a look-in . Without an enormous increase in that carbon-free power there’s no chance of genuine large-scale decarbonisation. Oh, and overpopulation of course is not considered either. Not impressed gentlemen.

[@wheel-man5319]

Just as there is no climate change crisis, there's no over population crisis. Indeed all the indicators I can find lead me to believe by 2050 we will have reached peak human population.

[@marcodebrabander5751]

A lot of wishfull thinking going on here

[@dn00189]

All thanks to China, solar, wind and batteries. Unless, US decided geopolitics are more and looks to undermine the progress.

[@thomassenbart]

China is the greatest emitter of greenhouse gasses on the planet. The US has reduced its emissions by more than any other, mostly due to the great switch to natural gas v. coal.