'It's a concern - not a catastrophe!' Bjorn Lomborg on climate alarmism & empty energy policies

This week, The Spectator's cover piece looks at Ed Miliband's empty promises, and whether Britain can (and should) prioritise decarbonising by 2030. But do Labour's plans stand up to scrutiny? The Spectator's Michael Simmons speaks to Bjorn Lomborg about the climate alarmism spilling into poor policy-making, and why governments should focus on innovation and green jobs.
// SUBSCRIBE TO THE SPECTATOR
Get 12 issues for £12, plus a free £20 John Lewis/Waitrose voucher
www.spectator....
// FREE PODCASTS FROM THE SPECTATOR
Hear more from The Spectator's journalists on their podcasts, covering everything from the politics of the UK, US and China, to religion, literature, lifestyle and more.
www.spectator....
// FOLLOW US
/ spectator
/ officialspectator
/ the-spectator
/ spectator1828
/ thespectatormagazine

[@lesliecarter4295]

Miliband is too incompetent to understand what this sensible guy is talking about…!

[@brutter602]

Miliband should be nowhere near politics. He’s a career politician who has ever had a real job in his life. He’s suckled on the teat of the taxpayer all his working life. Whatever mess he creates , he won’t be affected and will be able to walk away unaffected.

[@ChrisBNisbet]

He does understand. He's inflicting this insanity on us anyway.

[@pistonburner6448]

Miliband is being paid to push policies counter to this sensible message.

[@SimonGardiner-bj3pq]

ONLY corruption can explain Milliband's madness.

[@lesliecarter4295]

@@SimonGardiner-bj3pq yes it has been suggested that certain companies have there tentacles in his department…

[@steveb3060]

As a pensioner who has lost his winter fuel allowance, I'll play this video again this winter as I sit freezing in my home. If I get too cold I'll go out and see if I can find this global warming they keep talking about.⛄

[@geoffnewman3109]

Have you applied for all the government grants to help insulate and draft proof your home?

[@steveb3060]

@@geoffnewman3109 I've insulated my home as much as I can, but insulation doesn't heat my house. Thanks for asking, I'll get though the winter ok. I've got a lot of warm clothing.

[@6teeth318]

@@steveb3060 And you still have to ventilate, no matter how much you insulate or you get mold.

[@mortenthorsen8994]

@@steveb3060 spear some thoughts for Al Gore and Saint Greta

[@jedjones9047]

Man made co2 is going to have no affect on the climate' lombok is part of the problem pushing this man made global warming crap.

[@matthewkeith8605]

It’s a religion. Intolerance and fanaticism goes with the territory.

[@constantinosschinas4503]

It is 1000% a religion that focuses on power money and control, like all of them in history. Zero science. Earth used to have 7.5 times the present CO2 levels. I guess because amoebas were not driving teslas.

[@Durnyful]

That could be a bit of a generalisation!

[@hezkyden]

@@Durnyful More likely that it's the truth.

[@Durnyful]

@@hezkyden No, it's just lazy thinking

[@SimonGardiner-bj3pq]

A RELIGION called Paganism. (exactly as with the deliberately generated Covid hysteria - we have become so gullable as to BELIEVE in anything put out by the media)

[@theant9821]

Question climate crisis ideology and you're branded a heretic, even if you have an alternative plan to achieve the same ultimate goal. There's so much ignorance amongst climate ideologues, its their cause, they're emotionally devoted to it. Emotions are usually irrational.

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

Religiously* devoted.

[@mstach1]

Hi. Could you elaborate on maybe a couple of points of ignorance? I'm interested in hearing your arguments. Thanks.

[@stevesmith3990]

Their fantasy energy policy will be a disaster. Thanks Bjorn.

[@jdg9999]

"What abput green jobs?" What green jobs lol, importing Chinese wind turbines?

[@markg3683]

Can't make them in the UK - that would increase our carbon footprint!

[@robinkleinsteuber5217]

Bjorn Lomborg, as well as some others, are correct. Stop the cataclysmic "crisis" nonsense that strangles common sense in every way!

[@FC-PeakVersatility]

When I was a child the science, and its vacuous practitioners, said that we were heading for an imminent ice age. Yeah, like that happened! But what it/they did do was stir up fear. Same idiots, same issue. The difference then though, the reason why it didn't bring the world to near collapse then, no mobile phones & no internet 🤷

[@kevinjones6020]

With the increased need for electricity closing nuclear and coal power stations and increasing wind and solar farms is completely idiotic.

[@paulmcgreevy3011]

Yes but we all know the bureaucrats are notoriously idiotic and corrupt.

[@fredo1070]

Ed Miliband's dad hated Britain.

[@Jo-sp5cp]

It would appear the entire party h8 the British people. From children to pensioners.

[@Uppernorwood976]

Communists hate many things

[@nickscott6139]

Mst Labour party members and MP's hate Britain.

[@allangriffiths9555]

True - but so what!

[@johnenglish929]

The country similarly hates his dad’s son !

[@Jo-sp5cp]

Climate is changing. CO² is an indicator not causal. Carbon neutral means no new people. I doubt that will apply to tge private jet set though 😉

[@user-pj5ub5cp9k]

CO2 levels have gone from 280 ppm to 420 ppm in the Industrial Era due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. CO2 is a potent Greenhouse Gas. The validity of the Greenhouse Effect Theory is scientifically undisputed. The planet is warming rapidly due anthropogenic CO2 emissions, far too rapidly.

[@MelvynRutter-q7s]

and each of us exhale 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. Maybe we should stop breathing a couple of days a week

[@Jo-sp5cp]

@@MelvynRutter-q7s exactly. We are the carbon they are reducing👍

[@cognitivedissidents4642]

The Washington Post on July 10, 2019 quoted Saikat Chakrabarti (then Chief Of Staff for Alexandra Ocasio Cortez) that the Green New Deal was about Socialism, not climate change.

[@brookeandheather1023]

Engineers will find solutions unless politicians get in the way. At the moment, politicians and activists are getting in the way.

[@Hickalum]

Solutions to precisely what exactly ???

[@constantinosschinas4503]

Solutions to what? Earth used to have 7.5 times the levels of CO2 that is has now and there was not a problem. Some historical education on pure facts is needed before any charlatan assumptions.

[@theholloway7]

Again... WE NEED THE BLOODY CO2!!!

[@brutter602]

The gas of LIFE!!! They are lying to us. They look like complete idiots for believing that they can fool us.

[@FC-PeakVersatility]

We also need to replace the trees that process said co2 and strip pollution out of the atmosphere.

[@Lurch685]

@@FC-PeakVersatilitythere are more trees today than there were 200 years ago

[@FC-PeakVersatility]

@@Lurch685 There are more trees on earth now than in 1982 but 46 percent less than there before humans started chopping them down for firewood, for fields or simply for fun. But it's not just the number, it's the quality, the variety and the age. Unlike water filters, the older and bigger they are, trees can clean more pollution out of the atmosphere than they could when brand spanking new. A 2020 Yale report notes "Deforestation, land-use change, and forest management are responsible for a gross loss of over 15 billion trees each year.". Sadly the 16 trees I planted in my garden aren't going to fix that.

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

@@FC-PeakVersatility- Pollution in the atmosphere may actually be helping. Look up “Global dimming”.

[@johnbatson8779]

Milliband is not competent for this important position in the GB Government

[@cliffwillson3643]

So, in summary, Milliband is misguided (again).

[@w.stubbs9174]

Well you could say misguided but I would say is a complete moron.

[@klimatbluffen]

During fifty million years, the co2 levels have fallen from 7000 ppm to today's level of 420 ppm co2 and when we reach 150 ppm co2, all life on earth is gone.We haven't even recovered from the Little Ice Age that started in the 14th century.Before the Little Ice Age hit, you could make a living from agriculture in Greenland, which is completely impossible today.I think it is a little strange that the political parties that want a greener world want to reduce the conditions for a greener planet.

[@miraculixxs]

💯

[@stevefrompolaca2403]

it's a eugenics programm, they want rid of us useless eaters... we live in inverted times

[@williamtaylor2784]

In the UK Milliband is a clown that's beyond doubt. With a mandate from only 20 percent of those eligible to vote they punish pensioners without a second thought. Punishing everyone with stupid climate policies is therefore easy

[@IainFrame]

Most politicians secretly know all of this to be true but they are scared to say anything. Cowards.

[@allangriffiths9555]

It's very refreshing to listen to somebody who just speaks the truth and is not pursuing a political agenda. Several facts are becoming apparent: It's clear that, despite all the government efforts to bribe / cajole motorists and all of the propaganda, there is no broad appetite for electric vehicles. Many car manufacturers are now scaling back EV production because they can't sell them: New AI data centres require huge amounts of cheap, reliable, energy which renewables are incapable of providing, now or ever. American developers of such facilities such as Kevin O'Leary, are eschewing States which pursue green policies because they are uneconomic: The Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has been measuring atmospheric CO2 since 1959 and has recorded an exponentially increasing trend every single year despite all of the COPs, WEFs, climate accords, etc. None of it has made the slightest difference. Surely it's time to recognise that to keep doing the same thing whilst expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity. I find it infuriating that we already have the technology to have an entirely carbon free energy system within a few years but we lack the political will to do it. I'm referring to the installation of small modular reactors (SMRs, which Bjorn mentioned) coupled with gravity batteries, both pumped hydro and weight driven. the SMRs will provide a constant supply and the gravity batteries will balance the variation in demand. It's not happening because of the political and corporate obsession with wind and solar which can never be an entire solution to our energy requirements. I wonder what Bjorn thinks about this idea. You might find this clip interesting: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h2eplYaVqZ2YntU It focuses on storing renewable energy but would be even more efficient if the power source was constant, e.g. a SMR.

[@markhutton6055]

By closing down our industries emissions have reduced in the UK BUT we still buy the results of those industries. Our ACTUAL emissions have actually gone up, as we use goods built using dirtier energy and which require shipping across the world. Our share of emissions have actually gone up.

[@paulmcgreevy3011]

Exactly! The brain dead know this but they don’t care as long as they’re doing their bit they can say they’ve been good. Reality is irrelevant

[@FC-PeakVersatility]

We just shipped the problem elsewhere and then called out the new producers for their pollution damage.

[@sleepyazureeye4969]

Yes but have you considered that NIMBY-ists get to feel good and virtuous about themselves?

[@tedspiller6274]

Bjorn Lomborg has nailed it.

[@Spacedog79]

Go look at the emissions of France vs Germany. We know exactly how to cut out fossil fuels, we knew it in the 1960s and it works spectacularly well. Build humongous amounts of boring old nuclear, innovate later.

[@sleepyazureeye4969]

We actually have advanced nuclear technology to the point we can recycle our old nuclear waste to power the world for decades, and it would make said waste decompose quicker by an order of magnitude and be less dangerous to the environment during that time. I found that if you posit it in the context of "recycling" the current nuclear waste, people seem to be more open to the idea (possibly because opposing recycling is terrible for optics, and they've been trained for years that recycling is virtuous).

[@guylachlan1736]

Another conspiracy theory slowly becomes accepted fact.

[@sarahmacvicar98]

Thank goodness for Bjorn Lomborg!

[@BinnyBongBaron_AoE]

This interview should've happened years ago.

[@geoffnewman3109]

Right there have always been disbelieving experts since the iron age.

[@BinnyBongBaron_AoE]

@@geoffnewman3109?

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

Björn’s been doing essentially the same interview for about ten years. There must be about fifty such on youtube!

[@BinnyBongBaron_AoE]

@@sirrathersplendid4825 Referring to the Spectator.

[@standTrueNorthStrongandFree]

While I agree with much of Bjorn's position.. IF one grants him the claim that 'climate change' IS "a concern", but wish at least one interviewer would ask him how he derives this predication (of all else he covers here), and to show us the data that supports it, because NOT EVEN the POLITICALLY BIASED IPCC reports say as much; IF ANY BLUSTERING same would just take the time to read them, even the latest; the 6th. There is NO reason to fear or spend on climate change IN OUR or OUR'S (children's children's...) LIFETIMES, which has been characteristic of Earth for a (proxy estimated) half billion+ years! regards

[@briankepner7569]

The problem is the difference between the political climate change emergency and the scientific base climate change emergency

[@Jo-sp5cp]

@@briankepner7569 scientists not financed by the ipcc will confirm we are at the end of an interglacial with all that entails.

[@tonyclack5901]

non government paid scientists and paid government scientists. The same scam over mask wearing.

[@constantinosschinas4503]

There is no scientific climate emergency. Earth used to have 7.5 times the present levels of CO2 and temps were not much higher. Everyone who says else is 100% illiterate, because the above is written in every historical climate literature and has never been proven false. Zero science in CO2 scam.

[@stevesmith3990]

Where I live is meant to be underwater by 2030, I see no sign of it.

[@FC-PeakVersatility]

In 540 a.d. great swaths of the east and south coasts were flood plains or under water. Climate changed and we built upon them. Climate gives and climate takes away 🤷 once upon a time the plains around York were flooded, now they're not, but they can be.

[@grahambetteridge1441]

Could you please talk to Milipeed

[@keithrobinson7201]

This climate alarmism is not new, in 1954 at my school a man gave us a lecture in the assembly hall, on the coming Ice Age, and the horrors to befall us in the not too distant future.I was ten years old and was very concerned. I told my father all about this coming Ice Age, he simply said "Poppycock"! Now 70 years on, and asked by my grandchildren about 'Global Warming'.....you guessed it, I repeated what my father said "Poppycock!". 😂

[@theother1343]

I'm puzzled that everyone thinks batteries are the solution! Why does nobody talk about the environmental impact they have on the environment? Why does nobody talk about the windfarms and the impact the production of the turbines has? None of that is green and hardly recyclable. We are creating new problems at a monumental scale. Current fossil fuel solutions are much "cleaner" when you look at everything with scrutiny. Our problem is governemnt funding which creates products nobody needs or wants.

[@johnduggan8656]

Of all the IPCC’s 33 climate impact drivers there are only 5 in which they have high confidence that they have already occurred in the historical period. See the first column of Table 12.12 in Chapter 12 AR6 page 1856 “Already Emerged in Historical Period”. Three of these relate to temperature and one to CO2 (which of course we know). The fifth relates to a decrease in Arctic sea ice. There is no discernible trend in extreme weather events in the last 20 years. There is no increase in storms, floods, droughts etc.

[@FC-PeakVersatility]

When I first moved to where I live now, 45 years ago, the village spent two thirds of the year surrounded by mist, fog or low flying cloud. It was a guarantee that any sunny day would be followed by four in which we'd not be able to see a hand in front of our face. Now fog is definitely the rarity. There's definitely not as much snow 🤔 plus I'd be inclined to say that the winds ain't what they used to be either but I don't want to tempt fate. Climate change is as natural as the changing tide and that wind blowing. Back in the 70s they were forecasting an imminent Ice Age. In 540 a.d. the landward area surrounding the Wash was floodplain or underwater, as were other parts of the east and south coasts. There was a time when the York plains were under water, not just occasionally flooded. There are inland towns that used to be ports 🤷 Climate is what it is.

[@Lurch685]

@@FC-PeakVersatilityancient roman piers occasionally pop up in the middle of fields!

[@sleepyazureeye4969]

There is no trend whatsoever in mean, maximum or minimum arctic sea ice extent since records began. I recommend giving Tony Heller's videos a watch on the topic. The IPCC is fraudulent.

[@user-pd7dz3op1d]

I think the extra 10% fuel bills, going up in October, is going to Ed’s silly dream

[@mancowdogpig]

Thank you for pushing this truthful and sensible narrative. You are a great voice.

[@hehheh382]

it's a luxury belief. do you have enough warming to offset a Sun going into a colder cycle?

[@markhutton6055]

No green jobs in the UK.

[@jandavis5592]

The industry will require about 37,000 installers by 2030, compared with about 3,000 today, meaning between 4,000 and 6,000 new installers will need to be trained up every year, to install heat pumps says the Nesta report, written by training consultant Nathan Gambling and heat pump business IMS Heat Pumps. An example of Green jobs.

[@SkullBanker-68]

Recycling Solar panels and Wind Turbines.

[@markhutton6055]

@@jandavis5592 we will also need 40,000 electrical engineers and about three times that in electricians for electrification. Heating engineers will cancel out existing gas fitters, they don't represent an increase in work force. The electrical engineers do, but we aren't training them. The bulk of those required will only be required for the transition. A much smaller number being required for day to day maintenance. Utilities, particularly domestic utilities are NOT wealth creators. They are taking resources away from industries which do create wealth. Wind and solar do employ more people, many more people, to do the same amount of work. This will represent a massive drip in productivity. At a time when we will be importing more, our ability to purchase those imports will be shrinking.

[@markhutton6055]

@@SkullBanker-68 very difficult and expensive to recycle any of the components. Turbine blades are just buried.

[@mindyerownbusiness-p7t]

Good shout getting Bjorn in to provide context to Labour's crazy plan to make Dale Vince even richer.

[@CUMBICA1970]

The bottom line is nothing that's gonna happen after you're dead is of any concern. Keynes knew our nature best.

[@JosephStealin]

They mock conspiracy theorists whilst they talk about the end of the world

[@Peteruspl]

About reducing consumption - until private jets are outlawed (no taxes, no offsets, illegal to fly private), demanding even the smallest concessions from poor or middle class is obscene.

[@jamesvdv0]

I have one question to ask anyone who thinks that we can de-carbonise the UK electricity grid by 2030: Where is the necessary energy storage coming from? 🤔

[@colinu9209]

Climate change is the least of our problems at the present time 😂

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@colinu9209 The single-greatest threat to future generations is *_energy-conservation._*

[@j...bro.]

Government loves auditing.. hates being audited.

[@fillipo1972]

This level of common sense is almost taboo in mainstream media and politics.

[@anthonymorris5084]

The 44 year foundational climate argument - "Just you wait, it's going to be bad, you'll see". Repeat decade after decade in perpetuity.

[@TheDoctor394]

Is it my imagination, or is it people like Lomborg who are called "controversial" with their views, but those who push the "catastrophe" view are not, even though there's plenty of controversy with them as well?

[@custossecretus5737]

Net zero is a con. The U.K. is responsible for a negligible amount of emissions. Net zero is like an overflowing bath, the plug is removing the same amount of water as the taps are pouring in. The result is the bath remains overflowing. Net zero even allows the tap to be turned up so even more water flows into the bath as offsetting and green projects to increase the size of the plug hole, will take time to work. Our food chain is already fragile, crop failures have seen prices soar when people are already being fleeced by energy prices. Droughts, floods and other climate change effects will cause famines, price hikes and shortages. Better to prepare for what is coming, because getting everyone to work together is not going to happen.

[@bradleystokes-bennett2688]

I find Engineers who work in Government mistake spending gobs of money for little impact as somehow leading to innovation. The efficiency demanded from capital for results the greater the innovation

[@dscotia]

And what if the CO2 stance is actually wrong and we are doing more damage to the planet going down this route?

[@Durnyful]

A cost/benefit analysis is not driving this debate. Politicians & the media are driving it along regardless of rational arguments and actual analysis.

[@timcarpenter2441]

Growing vast mats of algae relies on shipping not “accidentally” ploughing through it on a regular basis.

[@tonysherwood9619]

The height of fascisim for jonty&cressida - because only they can afford to!

[@paulchurch5894]

“3 months of energy backup” required is just complete nonsense.

[@GimpSlayerGeneral]

I personally know a scientist who for 3 months of the year works in the antarctic as part of the Chilean survey team (Chilean national). "the world is facing a bigger threat from plastics and land runoff than cyclical warming and the ruse of CO2". I have have it from the horse's chops, so I just look on with despair.. I recently noted that the British Antarctic survey team are looking to 'team up' with the Chilean survey team. No doubt with ambitions from the University of East Anglia..

[@davidbuderim2395]

Green energy will be cheaper and needs more people - does not compute

[@chrissenior11]

Bjorn's views hold a lot of value and are realistic in my view. Unfortunately governments are too weak to manage sensibly and they have shown a marked tendency to use fear to get people to put up with their plans and not question their more stupid and poorly thought through ideas. The current approach to climate change is not fully thought through and lacks any sensible base. There are targets thrown out but without realistic plans to achieve them. So the targets will be missed and there will be more panic. We don't need more targets without plans - we need a sensible strategy to identify where to focus research and investment and - whilst I think the internal combustion engine is a horribly complicated solution for getting wheels to turn - I don't think the current crop of electric vehicles are a likely success story.

[@stephfoxwell4620]

Masfe climate change is a masdive exaggeration. Especially in respect of the UK. China is building 150 airports in the next decade.

[@fredericdodin3015]

Can someone explain me why a higher temperature in the UK is a bad thing? Are people aware that life is possible in Spain?

[@therainbowgulag.]

STILL WAITING FOR THE ICE AGE🥶🥶

[@Oscarphone]

Laurinburg is 110% correct the problem is nobody is listening to him. It's pretty simple really, wind solar and battery cannot scale up to power a society no matter how much we wish it. For example, for wind power to equal the megawatt output of a 96 acre gas plant would have to be thousands of acres in size. And not to forget that wind power is only reliable 48% of the time so they would have to be another thousands of April wind farm somewhere to back up when that one isn't working. It's not a big mystery it's just numbers. I do certainly wish that people would get curious and simply pull out of pocket calculator to figure this out. This has to be the biggest scam ever perpetrated on mankind

[@davidlees6887]

Bjorn Lomborg he is really quite smart you know .

[@jandavis5592]

At the end of the century Lomberg says WE will be in a better place than at present partially due to the continued growth in inequality.

[@thisisnumber0]

If co2 is halved, all plant life will die. Think about that.

[@boessle2963]

Bjorn is a lighthouse for climate "matter of fact"- thinking Thanks! Another aspect: The depopulation of the rich world and China (50% less by 2100) must be taken into consideration in a climate forecast. But have you seen that anywhere?

[@rabbitisrich]

Ah, innovation! All we have to do is keep going as we are…and technology will save the day!

[@felawes]

150 ppm CO2 life on Earth ends.

[@mstach1]

With all due respect, what's your point? Levels of CO2 have been remarkably stable until the industrial revolution, fluctuating between about 170-350ppm over the past 800,000 years. Why are you scared of low CO2 levels when there's no evidence that we're heading in that direction? Indeed, this is the first time ever that homo sapiens has experienced concentrations of CO2 this high. Apologies if I am missing something here but I do not understand your point in this context.

[@musicsnob4226]

Bottom line its bog buisness the be woke green.

[@user-dy4qj4pz8k]

What about the very near mini ice age, probably within the next 20 years

[@therainbowgulag.]

It's neither

[@TrogART]

I must admit Tucker can be one one had insightful and sometimes hilarious, but on the other hand he can be very easily dragged down the conspiracy rabbit hole! The slow destruction of our history however I do find it disturbing.

[@tonyheron3228]

Exactly get the big three to decarbonise then I might listen to Bs thats going in Aust

[@militarymodellerpaul5932]

I thinking they have something invested it green energy😢

[@TobiasStarling]

American funded by big oil wants us to carry on using oil despite it being more expensive than renewables. What a surprise?!

[@anthonymorris5084]

Nowhere, anywhere in the world are renewables cheaper than fossil fuels. Exactly what price do fossil fuels have to be at for renewables to be cheaper? You have no clue. If they were cheaper we wouldn't need mandates and subsidies and they'd be replacing fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use is still growing globally. There is no such thing as renewable energy. It's pure language manipulation. "renewables" are unreliable and require back up from coal, nat gas or nuclear.

[@TobiasStarling]

@@anthonymorris5084 you need to check your facts. google - are fossil fuels or renewables more expensive. Renewables have been cheaper for many years and is pretty much accepted by everyone. I literally just googled it to check. Please tell me if you’re receiving alternative facts from google because that would be very interesting.

[@TobiasStarling]

@@anthonymorris5084 also fossil fuels are actually incredibly heavily subsidised. In the uk we subsidise them by £13 bn per year in the uk. Since 2015 oil recieved £20 bn more subsidies compared to renewables.

[@anthonymorris5084]

@@TobiasStarling You can google all you want. Anybody who is making this claim is willfully leaving out important facts for the purpose of propagating this myth. Once again, they are subsidized. Remove the subsidy and they wouldn't survive the free market. Why are they mandated if they are cheaper? Who needs to force someone to purchase a cheaper superior product? Nobody is factoring in the cost of unreliability. They will *never* be cheaper because you require the infrastructure of other energy sources to back them up. Everywhere wind and solar are embraced energy costs skyrocket. This is well documented. You are still unable to even answer as to what price oil, coal and gas have to be to become more expensive. Canadian oil today is selling at only $55.00a barrel and Nat gas is almost the same price as it was 30 years ago. Fossil fuels are not subsidized in the same manner. Wind and solar are subsidized because they wouldn't survive the free market. The products are expensive, inferior, unreliable and inefficient. Governments subsidize fossil fuels in the form of land leases and government loans. All governments receive billions of dollars in royalties from every extraction industry, so the subsidies act as an investment providing governments with billions of dollars in revenue. Subsidies on wind and solar are on the backs of tax payers. Profits ensure good ideas succeed. Subsidies ensure bad ideas are adopted.

[@pizaliasta8369]

Bjorn is such a common sense genius, I wish he called all the shots for some major global organization that determined what money would be spent on regarding climate change.

[@anabolicamaranth7140]

That’s true, agriculture is only a few % points of the economy. When it goes to zero we’ll be just fine.

[@thesmallnotesduo]

7:50 Wind farms can produce too much energy? WTF are you on?

[@ogo2l]

Why can you discuss, debate, any other part of science except climate change? Odd that may be it paper thin?

[@johntaylor9899]

WOW, it is Harrison Ford?

[@zorot3876]

CO2 is greatly improving crop yeilds. We need more of it. Net zero madness will ruin our already poor economy.

[@mstach1]

This would be true (up to a point) if the only variable was CO2 concentration. However, CO2 concentration affects other parameters for plant growth including temperature and water availability. Very high levels of CO2 actually damage plants (Long et al. 2004, Megha Poudel, Bruce Dunn 2023)

[@zorot3876]

@@mstach1 What do you mean by very high? Plants flourished for millions of years with CO2 in the thousands of parts per million not the hundreds we have now.

[@mstach1]

@@zorot3876 Sorry, I thought I had replied but I can't see that I have so will try again! You are correct that plants thrived with high CO2 levels but they were not present-day plant species. As climate change has, in the past, occurred over many thousands of years, things had the chance to evolve and adapt to new climates and conditions. If you look at the research I mentioned above, you will see what that research has found using present-day plants (C3 and C4 plants). If you can't find those studies, you can also search for "Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Methods", there is another paper that actually states the levels of CO2 where present-day plants fare less well and also states the levels where humans start to suffer. I didn't see the reference in this paper but I believe the graph they use is from the 2023 paper. Present-day plants have evolved over the past hundreds of thousands of years to live in a climate where CO2 levels have been very stable at between 170ppm-350ppm (from memory), as has homo sapiens. This is the first time in the history of homo sapiens that CO2 levels have been this high.

[@mstach1]

@@zorot3876 Mmm. My reply still doesn't seem to appear here. I'll try again. You are correct that plants thrived with high CO2 levels but they were not present-day plant species. As climate change has in the past occurred over thousands of years, things had the chance to evolve and adapt to new climates. If you look at the research I mentioned above, you will see what that research has found using present-day plants (C3 and C4 plants). If you can't find those studies, you can also search for "Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Methods", there is another paper that actually states the levels of CO2 where present-day plants fare less well and also states the levels where humans start to suffer. I didn't see the reference in this paper but I believe the graph they use is from the 2023 paper.

[@mstach1]

Looks like I can't reply to your question so posting here as a reply to your first post. Sorry if this later appears 4 times! You are correct that plants thrived with high CO2 levels but they were not present-day plant species. As climate change has in the past occurred over thousands of years, things had the chance to evolve and adapt to new climates. If you look at the research I mentioned above, you will see what that research has found using present-day plants (C3 and C4 plants). If you can't find those studies, you can also search for "Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Methods", there is another paper that actually states the levels of CO2 where present-day plants fare less well and also states the levels where humans start to suffer. I didn't see the reference in this paper but I believe the graph they use is from the 2023 paper.

[@davetaylor812]

if we went nuclear that wld mean we can stop using gas to generate electric ( a trans fer process which inevitably is in efficient) and keep the gas for domest use and industries that need it for particular processes.

[@woodrow60]

Climate change gives the irreligious the thrill of fundamentalism. That’s why it’s so popular.

[@GeoffHinsby-sv8jd]

Can we try to advance aqua farms to feed us y isn’t it getting the money like renewable energy ..?

[@yscol1313]

The idea that the whole of all US electricity grids would require 3 months of backup is just ridiculous. It doesn't even pass the common sense test.

[@kychpal6236]

As a resident in the Dartmouth Pk area, the councils Camden and Islington, are trying to implement a Traffic Management Area, this has local opposition. If implemented my road would have loads of traffic funnelled up it. Therefore more pollution, poorer air quality and increased noise. Not healthier for us then, as it is being sold to residents. By contrast Ed Miliband's road near by will be closed to lots of traffic. So, eco for the elites only it would seem. My road is mostly housing association so we can put up with this crap then, clean air only for the middle classes and labour politicians.

[@christinebakewell3475]

Co2 reduction doesn’t affect the temperature at all-stop with this madness wake UP.

[@jamiejames6952]

Go back and watch his earlier stuff, it is an eye opener, he is even admired by Jordan Peterson.

[@johnmoncrieff3034]

Bjorn talks about a 0.1+ degree increase over the next 75 years as the most likely rise in global temperature, according to the latest calculations. Which is well within the margin of error over that period of time! Which means there is no GLOBAL WARMING! Other than in 2003 when there was a freek heatwave in the UK and over Europe we have not had any increase in overall temperatures from the mid 1980's to the present! The MSM are at pains to splash any miniscule increase as headline news but most of their readings have been proven to be spurious, if not down right fraud! It is all part of the global conspiticy by the UN!

[@anabolicamaranth7140]

It wasn’t warm at all in Europe this summer and it’s cool as a cucumber down in Brazil as we speak.

[@alanrobbo6980]

The average human Inhaled air has about 0.04% of carbon dioxide. This is also the amount of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere. The exhaled air contains all the carbon dioxide that is a by-product of the cellular metabolic processes. Hence, the percentage of carbon dioxide in the exhaled air is 4.4%, of cause if one Exercises or pushes their body, they will Produce far more CO2, Therefore Cycling & Exasize COULD be considered as Polluting. The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day, this of course does not include the Methane one leaks. And on the Subject of Net-Zero : So to Achieve Net-Zero we must STOP BREATHING.😱‼️ Perhaps it may Help if we Reduced the Human Population of this planet.

[@paulus1011]

I'm pleased the CO2 is higher because it has caused the earth to be 14% greener over the last 30 years. NASA images confirmed this, an area the size of North America !

[@anabolicamaranth7140]

It’s especially green down in Brazil right now.

[@Redorbluepill66]

Going green in the uk means going cold and getting poor. electric going up again this month then being told it’s going up again in January.WHOS PULLING THE STRING BEHIND SCENES.🙏🫶✌️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

[@bilgeconcerto-eh4yi]

At the height of the last ice age (wall of ice covering much of North America) the global average temperature was about 6 degrees Celsius cooler than today. Why would the climate not change significantly as the global average temperature increases by a third of that between the ice age and now?

[@MrBallynally2]

Bjorn is a stepping stone. He still thinks there is a 'problem' to solve. He is NOT an idiot but extremely useful to get luke warmers to move. A nice guy. Btw, his argument about gdp at the end of the century is the weak point. It assumes a linearity undisrupted by political events.

[@johnnywarbo]

Wind and solar will never be the cheapest energy even if it grew out of the ground by itself as you have to connect to it, if it were we would have cheap energy and we don't and it will become even more expensive the more we build. If it is so cheap then remove the investor government rebates.

[@TobiasStarling]

This speaker was convicted of academic fraud and scientific dishonesty. The fact you're platforming him and his lies is depressing.

[@anthonymorris5084]

When you have no argument, invalidate the messenger. Climate tactics 101.

[@johnnyworzel3741]

Net zero, brought to you directly from Jim Henson’s workshop.

[@robwealer5416]

There are economic concerns and political concerns. Global politics will likely upend and conflicts escalate. The French Revolution was spawned by a lengthy drought as were many historic conflicts (ie. the Sea Peoples, decline of empires) . And the water supply in certain areas will be seriously threatened. Are these taken into consideration in this analysis?

[@clivemarriott7749]

Yes its a concern, sea levels are rising, about 1.5mm per year. Thats scary stuff because in ten years thats an inch, in a 100 years thats nearly a foot. 🤣🤣

[@gadget348]

@@clivemarriott7749 it's also a fiction, the 'detected' level of sea rise is well within the margins of error for the equipment doing the measuring, or indistinguishable from the noise. CDN, the Climate Change Nexus channel on KZbin has a load of videos challenging the data presented for climate change by real climate scientists.

[@johnfeaaccount3639]

I don't see any incentive for energy companies to sell us electric cheaply? It seems to me that even if the energy companies could generate electricity for next to nothing..the unit price of the said electric would not decrease. In fact it would probably increase due to the investment made in the infrastructure, and maintenance of that infrastructure along with the fact that shareholders etc would still need dividends from these companies. All Milliband and Labour are doing by creating GB Energy is channelling public money into these private companies by providing investment into risky forms of renewables which energy companies do not want to fund themselves. If government truly cared about people and the planet they would channel investment into incentivising people to insulate their properties, install heat pumps and solar panels with battery back up. Unfortunately, governments care more about energy companies and their profits....

[@DaveSmith-s6e]

If it is really windy in Denmark, and the turbines are at peak output which is exceeding the energy usage at that moment in time in Denmark, the Denmark energy company has 3 options, send the oversupply to battery storage (very expensive), turn a few of the turbines off (assets become unused), or the new third options, sell the electricity to the United Kingdom down the Viking link cable at a price below the current market price in the UK based on their real time energy sector conditions. This work both ways, and as more countries build out HVDC, less energy from wind and solar is wasted due to the difference in multiples of average and peak power. In fact this big difference becomes the feature that allows the international electricity market to come into existence. By reducing this waste, you take energy generation that is already at the low end of the LCOE, and make it more efficient as well as creating international competitive markets. That is how the price of electricity is going to come down, and more significantly than I think people believe.

[@theant9821]

@@johnfeaaccount3639 gb energy is a propaganda tool, not a public service its being sold as. Its not even likely to make enough money to reduce the tax burden by having a profitable state owned business earning money for government spending not just taxation.

[@MelvynRutter-q7s]

of course half air pollution comes from vehicles. The other half is from City Buildings, all using heating, kicking out Carbon monoxide. And air pollution depends on weather and heat. An empty city will have high levels of pollutants in the air, on hot days, than normal ambient temps with a good air flow. So lets see how city centre buildings are, when their heating is reduced to only 20% of present. More will work from their cold homes. This would be difficult for train drivers, tho

[@allangriffiths9555]

If buildings really "kicked out Carbon Monoxide" we'd all be dead! If you want to be taken seriously, you need to be precise - otherwise, you'll just be ignored.

[@jandavis5592]

Decarbonising the UK doesn’t move the emissions elsewhere as energy consumption is reduced by increased efficiency

[@alanak3210]

Where do you think your electric car is coming from - thin air ?

[@jandavis5592]

@@alanak3210Ellesmere port