Print 116 comment(s) - last by Mitch101.. on Sep 3 at 12:31 PM

Bjorn Lomborg  (Source:
Copenhagen Consensus Project makes Bjorn Lomborg see importance of cutting carbon

A well-known climate change skeptic has changed his mind regarding the importance of global warming, and in his new book, he is urging the spending of over $100 billion annually to help fight warming.

Bjorn Lomborg, an academic and environmental author, has held a strong opposing opinion against global warming for some time now, writing books such as "The Skeptical Environmentalist." In this book, he argues against claims regarding certain aspects of global warming, species loss, water shortages, etc. It was a controversial book when it was first published in Danish in 1998, then in English (2001).

In addition, Lomborg has campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol, which is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that fights global warming. He has stated that humans should adapt to short-term climate rises, since they are inevitable, instead of trying to cut carbon emissions in the short-term. 

After making so many controversial statements and making his opinion against the importance of global warming known, Lomborg has now switched teams and makes this new vision clear in his upcoming book, "Smart Solutions to Climate Change," which will be published next month. 

Lomborg never denied the human role in global warming, but always argued that trying to counter climate change should be a "low priority" when it comes to government spending. Now, in his new book, Lomborg says fighting climate change is a priority and that over $100 billion should be spent annually to address the issue. 

"The point I've always been making is it's not the end of the world," said Lomborg. "That's why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well."

So what made him change his mind? According to Lomborg, the Copenhagen Consensus project, which is where a group of economists are asked to consider the best way to spend $50 billion, made him reconsider global warming's importance. He noted that in 2004, global warming was put near the bottom of the list, and in 2008, new ideas for fighting global warming made it about halfway up the list. Lomborg then stated that he "decided to consider a much wider variety of policies to reduce global warming, so it wouldn't end up at the bottom." 

Lomborg now proposes a global carbon tax to raise $250 billion annually, where $100 billion will be spent on clean energy research and development, $50 billion on climate change adaptation and $1 billion on low-cost geo-engineering solutions. He wants the rest to be spent on better healthcare in poor countries and cleaner water. 

"Lomborg has acknowledged the need for public spending on man-made climate change," said Mike Childs, Friends of the Earth climate campaigner. "He is right that wind, wave and solar are the energy industries in the future and need much greater support from governments. A carbon tax to raise funds is undoubtedly part of the solution, but regulation and public spending also have their place.

"But he is still dangerously attracted to pursuing the cheapest, more risky geo-engineering solutions, is putting too much faith in future technologies and R&D, and is not giving enough support to the urgent need to reduce current emissions through rapid deployment of existing solutions and behavioral changes."

A Greenpeace spokesperson noted that while Lomborg's cross to the other side is welcomed, it's about two decade too late, and it's hard for some groups to take him seriously. According to the Guardian, some have dismissed Lomborg as "politically naive." Lomborg was an anchor in the climate change skeptic community, and his change of mind is sure to rock the boat. 

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Hmm...
By Tony Swash on 9/1/2010 6:26:07 AM , Rating: 1
He wants the rest to be spent on better healthcare in poor countries and cleaner water.

Sounds like a liberal fucked the brains right out of his head.

5000 children die everyday from diarrhoea. Iy would seem simple decency if humanity decided to make stopping this slaughter a priority. Its technically simply and pretty cheap compared to lots of other stuff.

One of the reasons I detest the green political agenda is because it detracts from real issues like this, people end up fretting about non-existant threats to a minor large mammal (ie polar bears) and ignore the deaths of thousands of children.

RE: Hmm...
By jimbojimbo on 9/1/2010 1:40:26 PM , Rating: 3
5000 children die everyday
If they quit having so many damn babies there wouldn't be so many damn babies dying.

RE: Hmm...
By clovell on 9/1/2010 2:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
Which would do nothing to affect the rate of infant mortality due to diarhhea. Shens.

RE: Hmm...
By diggernash on 9/1/2010 6:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
I get it now! We let 32,850,000 more people reach adulthood so that their 164,250,000 children die from starvation. Hooray clean water!!!

People in socioeconomic conditions that do not sustain life will die. That is a given and it can not be fixed by splashing clean water on them. They'll either stand on their own and change the situation or continue to die at earlier ages than the developed world. Our money does NOTHING except enable the continuance of their situation.

People do not have the right to have ANY standard of life given to them. They have a right to work to have the standard of life they desire. In some countries that means getting an education, in others it means going to war and dying fighting for freedom.

RE: Hmm...
By SPOOFE on 9/1/2010 8:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
Iy would seem simple decency if humanity decided to make stopping this slaughter a priority.

Which, in many cases, means war. It sucks that's the case, but if you just dump food, water, medicine, and money in some countries in need of aid, those materials go straight to crazed warlords and corrupt government "officials".

If you can figure out a way to make it work, you'll be hailed as a hero. Good luck.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki