The Skeptical Environmentalist | Bjorn Lomborg

The world's governments have picked 169 well-meaning targets, promising everything to everyone. But too many targets mean no priorities. The Copenhagen Consensus Centre has looked into the data and found the targets that would do the most good.
While participants at the World Economic Forum just voted the top global risk to be extreme weather, most of the rest of the world wants us to concentrate on the many other problems that cause much more damage than global warming. They point to the immense challenges within health, education, nutrition and corruption - issues, that are much less costly and easier to fix. Dr Lomborg worked with fifty teams of the world’s top economists and several Nobel Laureates to look at where the world can do the most good for every dollar spent.
Bjorn Lomborg presents some of the best investment options for humanity - and discuss how we can avoid some of the worst.
____________________
The Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) promotes free choice and individual liberty, and defends cultural freedom and the open exchange of ideas. CIS encourages debate among leading academics, politicians, media and the public. We aim to make sure good policy ideas are heard and seriously considered so that Australia can continue to prosper into the future.
Check out the CIS at - www.cis.org.au/
Subscribe to CIS mailing list- www.cis.org.au...
Support us with a tax-deductible donation at - www.cis.org.au...
Join the CIS as a member at - www.cis.org.au...
Follow CIS on Socials
Twitter - / cisoz
Facebook - / centreindepe. .
Linkedin - / the-centre-for-indepen...

[@michah321]

This is the guy who makes the most sense to me .

[@alexandrawhitelock6195]

So much 'green' investment is not green...feel good stuff...

[@alexandrawhitelock6195]

Great talk! In places like Haiti...unless top leadership changes to one that CARES about the people, no amount of $ matters. Most foreign spending in countries like Haiti and some african countries is syphoned off into the pockets of military leaders... Top down!

[@markrussell9088]

Trouble is Haiti is poor, who is going to pay?

[@isaiahcampbell9248]

Not sure you get the point of the speech

[@leslielandberg5620]

Check the other side of that same island. The difference? Whites are in charge. These nations have historically been preyed upon and their resources and labor exploited. Yet this doesn't really explain the predicament they find themselves in today - one part of their own making. No one forced them to vote for Baby Doc. They WANTED the strogman. These nations will always choose a strongman. It's how their brains are wired. For things to improve, they would have to vacate leadership to the French, the Chinese or the English. ANYONE else would do a better job, even though, yes, they would undoubtedly be exploited to one degree or another, but never to the extent their own people do to each other.

[@fbcpraise]

It bothers me that so few people have seen this.

[@fungussa]

The problem is that you likely take everything he says at face value. He has qualifications in *political* science and he has no (zero) expertise in climate science. And yet he dismisses vast amounts of scientific evidence. So, why do you accept what he says when he's a fake expert who denies science?

[@fbcpraise]

@@fungussa Well, let's look at some facts. James Hansen, the "Godfather of global warming" said the artic polar ice cap would be gone by now, and it isn't. He said parts of Manhattan would be under water by now and they're not. He said we would all be taping our west-facing windows by now because the storms would be so violent, but we are not. Yet every few months he and others report to the public "We underestimated the severity, it's much worse than we thought. The world is literally hanging by a thread." So you believe in science... do you believe in facts?

[@fungussa]

@@fbcpraise Bob Reis's interviewed James Hansen in 1988, saying "When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window *could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2"* So Hansen responded saying what the likely conditions would be like *if CO2 had doubled in 1988.* So you're knowingly/unknowingly misrepresenting what Hansen said. Further, Hansen's1981 climate model predicted +0.5°C warming by 2015, and actual warming was +0.6°C. And that's further proof of what Hansen's view was about warming. So, you need to question why you're relying on a low quality sources of information!

[@fbcpraise]

@@fungussa June of 2008 AP reporter Seth Borenstein reported: "Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in 5 to 10 years the artic will be free of sea ice in the summer." I'll see if I can get you more, but I do have a day job.

[@zenzelenzula7696]

@@fungussa I actually attended this talk and met him. He didn't deny science. I'm sure I distinctly heard him saying that ending fuel subsidies and investing in green energy R&D would reduce carbon emissions. How's that denying science? The problem with most of you environment hysterialists is that your movement has become a cult. Anyone who doesn't immediately join the hysterical screaming is labelled as denying science

[@121mcvUK]

Intriguing, I would like to see the full extent of this research, not just snap shot. If what he is saying is correct, then our governments have a duty to implement his strategy. How can we hold them accountable?

[@leslielandberg5620]

We can't. We must go AROUND them. Climate change is nothing more than their own personal ATM machine, just like the homeless industrial complex. Just a ploy, a massive cynical cash-grab. Why would they kill the goose that laid the golden egg? Why would they solve the problem in other words the answer is private Enterprise and private investment.

[@markrussell9088]

The thing that bothers me is that we're throwing billions at climate change and it has hardly made any difference to global warming.

[@pomfrittbroccoli]

Very good thinking!

[@davem7847]

The problem in Haiti is the government, as is with most Carribian, Central and South American Countries. They need to get away from one rule, and have checks and balances.

[@cord11ful]

At the very least we should be paying for someone to fix the flat tire on the Rescue Squad vehicle....

[@linmal2242]

Pump up the air!

[@davidthomas7332]

Thanks!

[@CISAus]

Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed the video. If you haven't seen it yet we have created an Energy and Climate Playlist which you may enjoy.

[@peapod8]

We would not have an eco problem whatsoever, save exploding populations in Asia, Africa, & Latin America. And somehow, the only people charged with saving the planet did not significantly increase their numbers.

[@MrBannystar]

@Mastro Geppetto *"our civilisation would still be heading toward environmental breakdown. Why? Because our systems in the developed west are the most fossil fuel dependent and we over-consume the earth’s finite resources far more than any other part of the world"* I have only 3 words: India and China. The fact that you bring "racism" in to this is pathetic as it's objectively true that populations have exponentially increased in developing countries e.g. India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. That these happen to be predominantly non-white countries means precisely fuck all, and in no way contradicts the original statement.

[@MrBannystar]

@Mastro Geppetto *"to combat/survive the advances of western colonialism"* Stopped reading right there. China is surviving the advances of "Western colonialism"....whatever you say, pal. Whatever you say. The "racism" comments were a red flag, and in no way shape or form were relevant to the overall main point, but that was beyond fatuous. Waste of time.

[@PT-cu2fg]

Overshoot is the problem, or rather the predicament we face. I suggest viewing any of William Rees’ presentations. He’s very clear and thorough.

[@dubbyx8490]

Not a climate change nut, couldn't care less about it. However, your statement blaming these regions for eco problems is short-sighted at best. I am a Nigerian in Nigeria but see nothing racist about what you have said. Also short-sighted is the current way of thinking where western nations have to cut back so-called carbon emissions because "they are the problem".

[@dubbyx8490]

​@@mastrogeppetto4995 It's funny how western people are more sensitive to so-called racist statements than the people who the statements are targeted at. I am an African living in Africa and I laughed when I read it. Yes, we are indeed growing at a rapid pace. Whether this rapid population growth is the cause of climate change is debatable, like you have clearly shown with strong arguments. There is nothing racist about stating that developing regions generally have higher rates of population growth - current literature is filled with evidence showing this. You have made very decent points. I would advise you to tone down accusations of bigotry and racism while arguing with people, if your goal is to get them to see the merits of your argument. The moment you call a person a racist, you can never convince her. Rather, you make the person harden her stance on the issue you are trying to debate them on. If you are going to make a person double down on their error, what then is the point of engaging them in the first place?

[@Gericho49]

Climate Alarmism or Realism The whole climate change debate would appear to hinge precariously on an alleged CORRELATION between a dubiously measured 1.0⁰C rise in 'average' global temperature over the past 100 years or so. Alarmists have linked this almost solely to a 0.01% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution. Ignoring the extreme complexity of weather, the allegation of this correlation being proof of CAUSATION. Alarmists claim it has been caused by the burning of fossil fuels (AGW) Rebuttal: * These two assumptions ignore some very important overriding factors. Any number of parameters could be linked to global warming to show an exponential hockey stick rise in temperature. When one cleverly uses divisions of 0.1⁰ on the Y axis, a virtual straight line can be fudged to look like an exponential curve. (Al Gore won a Nobel peace prize in 2007) 1.According to astrophysicist PCW Davies there are 32 parameters that make our very fragile planet, life permitting. 2. A decade long study of 1000s of weather station demographics by Heartland institute, has shown that a large majority of them have become non-compliant. 3. Why would a mere long term 1 degree temperature be significant or unexpected anyway, when extreme worldwide temperatures are -60⁰ to +60⁰C? In some places the daily temperatures can vary by 20⁰. 4. In the past half-century or so, 100s of trillions of tons of concrete and steel have gone into low and high rise buildings worldwide. Moreover, bitumen and concrete highways, bridges and roads have increasingly blanketed the planet. Anyone who steps from grass to bitumen knows the incredible heat absorbing and retaining effects of such structures. 5)these buildings have encroached on many weather stations, adversely affected them, as heat is dissipated for some hours after sundown. 6. Similar 100yr "hockey stick" curves could be plotted of CO2 Vs increase in world population (400%) urbanisation, life expectancy up 50%, wealth and world trade, food crop needs. 8 bill humans exhale 800kg of CO2 every year. 6) adversely, In 2019, WWF reported tropical rain forests (lungs of the earth) are losing close to 30 soccer fields' of trees EVERY single minute. Mainly to cattle grazing and urbanisation. 7 the planet cannot sustain the loss of 420 million acres of 20 ton trees every decade according to WWF. 8) likewise massive land clearing, backburning and wild fires have significantly increased pollution levels contributing to greenhouse effects. 9) IPCC, NASA and NOAA have been shown to manipulate, alter and fudge their data to falsify their claims regarding past temp' records, sea rises, ice caps, flooding, fires etc for an extensive expose, see realsclimatescience.org 10. Lastly but hardly least, governments and politicians are notorious for duping the public:- The whole aim of PRACTICAL POLITICS is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing us with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” - H. L. Mencken References: www.co2 science. org www.climatechangereconsidered.org realclimatescience.com/ www.worldwildlife.org/ www.heartland.org/ www.climate.gov/news-features www.desmog.com/willie-soon/ www skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

[@ScotsmaninUtah]

The UK would need 60% of all the copper in the world to covert its electricity grid to a zero carbon economy.

[@assepa]

It bothers me a bit that for many measures the target seems to be: saving human lives on the short term. I'm not so sure whether that should be the goal. And I realise how harsh that sounds. In the example of Haiti, option 1 (building sanitation) will benefit the people there for many years to come, whereas giving money to trained first responders will save lives on the short term, but that will then only increases problems in the long run, because all those people will be walking around in the open sewers. Unless those saved people would proceed to build sanitation. Not an easy optimisation problem. Spending on contraception I guess everyone can agree is a much better investment, no matter where. It will help on all fronts.

[@brobsonmontey]

Thanks for this video. Do you have a PDF (or other online format) copy of the pamphlet Bjorn is discussing at 16m mark?

[@linmal2242]

Yes, that was what I was looking for. Maybe on a/the Copenhagen Climate Centre website?

[@althe]

Why does anyone think they know the best way to spend money to help someone, even with research? Just give people the money directly and let them make their own decisions. You they buy booze with it, good, that's the highest and best use for them.

[@rafal5863]

4 Billion? That is obscene.

[@badone3009]

WTF is Copenhagen? I am pretty sure most countries have their own way of expense control.

[@danielkempton9659]

Can't see a problem with his type of thinking. Although, climate change is a religion.

[@dougfranco9995]

Dear God ...i was with him on tell he cast analogized Gods 3 law .....note 29 min in

[@drstrangelove4998]

Funny isn’t it, Germans in my experience have always in general had a low tolerance of aberrant behaviour except where those special guests are concerned they remain a little quiet.

[@Uriel-Septim.]

They should use plastic flatware.

[@funnyguyinlondon]

Most if not all of the best bang for your buck solutions are not attractive for private sector consultants to focus on. Instead gravy trains like spending trillions on solar and wind benefits muktiple departments in this private consultants such as KPMG etc (advisory to governments, political parties, charities run by liberal arts idiots, woke financials, project finance, funds; plus audit and accounting services to those types of clients too)

[@montanasam63]

39:06 Wake up!!

[@chrisbrausch7369]

Nicotinamides in meat diets are directly inversely related to Tb prevalence. Check out the Norwegian naval school example.

[@luisvilasboas]

fucking cutlery hitting the plates.

[@billysilver1600]

Interested but this Australian bloke is no good at speaking. Doesn’t help being distracted by people scraping the food off their plates. Zzz.

[@markrussell9088]

He's Danish

[@billysilver1600]

@@markrussell9088 That’s weird. That’s my comment I think, but it’s not to that video. I know and have Lomborgs book. Aswell, I lived inAustralia. - ..

[@dubbyx8490]

@@billysilver1600 You really should lay off the weed man.

[@CedarsMountainsMan]

Just correct your title to be more accurate. Bjorn is not a « skeptical »… simply a « non-alarmist »!

[@pacmanlp8876]

The title is making reference to one of Bjonr´s books, The Scheptical Ecologyst. He titled it himself, so you should not feel offended by the title of this video.