backtop


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


Bjorn Lomborg  (Source: Dustinkirk.com)
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: Redistribution of Wealth
By LoweredExpectations on 9/1/2010 3:54:27 PM , Rating: 0
quote:
Sounds like redistribution of wealth to me.


I find it ironic that all these good Christian conservatives are so dead set against the "redistribution" of their wealth, while the atheist liberals all want to help out the poor. What a funny old world we live in. :)


RE: Redistribution of Wealth
By FITCamaro on 9/1/2010 5:43:03 PM , Rating: 1
Liberals regardless of religion want "to help the poor". How is making someone dependent on you helping them? The far kinder and ultimately wiser thing to do is to help them help themselves.

Religion also teaches not to steal. Which is exactly what wealth redistribution is. Furthermore, people of the conservative mindset give far more to charity as a percentage of income than those who are liberal.

Any other remarks to make yourself appear superior?

PS - While not an atheist, I am not religious.


RE: Redistribution of Wealth
By diggernash on 9/1/2010 6:10:53 PM , Rating: 2
Or simplified. Liberals find great satisfaction in making charitable contributions using other people's money. I am happy to give MY money to individuals or groups of MY choosing. I am not happy to have MY money taken from me and given to individuals or groups that I do not support.

I would like to know how many of the advocates of redistribution are net contributors to the federal government the end of the tax year.


RE: Redistribution of Wealth
By LoweredExpectations on 9/2/2010 1:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Religion also teaches not to steal. Which is exactly what wealth redistribution is. Furthermore, people of the conservative mindset give far more to charity as a percentage of income than those who are liberal.


Is it realistic to think that every problem faced by mankind can be solved by voluntary charitable donations from concerned individuals? I don't think even the most fanatical conservative with a foot in this world could defend that position. Therefore, some amount of taxation, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering will always be necessary.

I agree that taxation must always be justified, but to claim that all taxation is theft - maybe in a perfect world, but given what human beings are, that remains more a religious devotion to first causes than a practical recipe for managing human affairs.

When one of the Koch bros - 3rd richest (oil-wealth) guys in the States and single largest contributors to the TeaParty and anti-AGW initiatives - David Koch ran for vice president on the Libertarian ticket in 1980, he called for the elimination of Social Security, all regulatory agencies (EPA, FDA, etc.) welfare, the FBI, the CIA, and all public schools. They would also do away with Medicare and Medicaid.

That's the kind of thinking that predominates among free-market fundamentalists. In spite of charitable donations from compassionate conservatives, the US already has the largest rich-poor gap of any country in the 1st world; a greater portion of national wealth is already owned by a smaller percentage of the our population than in any other country in the developed world; what do you think would happen to real wealth distribution if guys like Koch got their way? We might as well bring back the landed aristocracy, because anybody not born rich - like the Koch bros - would be f*****d! Wealth is power is the ability to look after your own interests.

Conservatives go on about meritocracy. Without a level playing field there can be no meritocracy, and without social engineering there can be no level playing field - it's as simple as that. There is no way for a functioning society that cares about freedom and equality to avoid some degree of wealth redistribution. But the Republicans hammer away at their prime agenda of lowering taxes on the rich and doing away with inheritance taxes altogether. What amazes people of the left is how many working people have been hoodwinked into thinking the Republicans care about the common guy. When you vote for the Republicans you're just screwing yourselves.

I would love to live in a world where taxation is unnecessary - wake me in a million years when we've re-engineered our DNA to make that possible.


RE: Redistribution of Wealth
By ekv on 9/2/2010 2:22:55 AM , Rating: 1
you forgot "the vast right-wing conspiracy"

/tinfoil-hat Off


RE: Redistribution of Wealth
By SPOOFE on 9/1/2010 7:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
while the atheist liberals all want to help out the poor.

When tax rates are high, charitable donations go down. Who's helping who, now?


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki