3 ms·

Bjørn Lomborg is well known for a bait and switch strategy to climate change. He recognises the problem and often gives reasonable recommendations, but then thr

Bjørn Lomborg is well known for a bait and switch strategy to climate change. He recognises the problem and often gives reasonable recommendations, but then throws in a lot of other problems together with misleading/discredited statistics to explain why we shouldn't actually do anything near term about climate change. For example, he argues that fixing poverty with cheap energy has bigger economic impact than fixing climate change. He then puts up a statistic connecting expansion of coal energy in China with a fall in extreme poverty. However he doesn't mention that the fall in poverty can mostly be attributed to improved agriculture and happened a decade before the coal expansion. Further, if you really wanted to get energy to rural areas far away from the power grid, distributed energy production from subsidised solar would be much cheaper as well as environmentally reasonable. Bjørn is not the worst denier, but he is also not intellectually honest and you get a strong feeling that he intentionally tries to make preventing climate change seem at odds with fighting poverty, when it is really to sides of the same problem.

melling 9y ago
Hey, I'm just reporting back one of the common responses that I get when discussing climate change with people. If you've got something of substance (e.g. a few links) that address why he's wrong, that would help. Btw, I got downvoted because people don't like my comment? I really wish HN readers would get out of their echo chamber and understand the other side. The controlling Republican party really does believe that it's not worth investing the money into fixing climate change because of arguments like Bjorn's. Pick ANY article on the WSJ that discusses solar, climate change, or even Tesla, and it degenerates into bashing subsidizing solar, climate change bashing, etc Here's today's article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/solar-company-sunrun-was-manipulating-sales-data-say-former-managers-1495445402 https://www.wsj.com/articles/solar-company-sunrun-was-manipu... By the way, can you provide references for your claims?
Udik 9y ago
> distributed energy production from subsidised solar would be much cheaper as well as environmentally reasonable How can you claim that energy production subsidised with public money is cheaper than the same energy produced with no subsidies? The Chinese government could spend the money saved from solar subsidies in unemployment salaries or hospitals and free health care.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  What energy source is unsubsidized? It's definitely not fossil fuels.
  - melling 9y ago
    This comment is often made without providing any detail. Can you provide some numbers, with references, for more discussion?
    - rainbowmverse 9y ago
      For the US: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/ https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/ The numbers are a bit out of date. All I could find other than that is a reference to a study in 2015 on Wikipedia, but it links to a page that's missing the data the reference was pointing to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
      - Udik 9y ago
        It's a long and complicated document, but from a quick scan it seems that most of the subsidies listed are directed towards either renewable energies and alternative fuels (ethanol, alcohol) or the distribution grid, so proportionally equal for all sources.
JackFr 9y ago
> Bjørn is not the worst denier Do you believe it's possible for intelligent, informed, people of good will to look at a set of facts and come to different policy proposals? Public policy is informed by science, but it is grounded in values. It seems to me that you call Bjorn Lomborg intellectually dishonest simply because he disagrees with you on policy.
- Gupie 9y ago
  Why do you assume people call Bjorn Lomborg intellectually dishonest simply because he disagrees with them. It is more likley that they are calling him intellectually dishonest because he is intellectually dishonest. Occam's razor applies.
  - JackFr 9y ago
    I assume good faith on the part of Bjorn Lomborg. I also assume good faith on the part of the parent. I am trying to point out that well informed, well intentioned people can disagree without being intellectually dishonest. Also Occam's razor really doesn't apply: a) Bjorn Lomborg makes arguments in good faith and the parent is wrong b) Bjorn Lomborg makes arguments in bad faith and the parent is right To my eye, a & b are equivalently parsimonious in their assumptions.

melling 9y ago

Hey, I'm just reporting back one of the common responses that I get when discussing climate change with people. If you've got something of substance (e.g. a few links) that address why he's wrong, that would help. Btw, I got downvoted because people don't like my comment? I really wish HN readers would get out of their echo chamber and understand the other side. The controlling Republican party really does believe that it's not worth investing the money into fixing climate change because of arguments like Bjorn's. Pick ANY article on the WSJ that discusses solar, climate change, or even Tesla, and it degenerates into bashing subsidizing solar, climate change bashing, etc Here's today's article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/solar-company-sunrun-was-manipulating-sales-data-say-former-managers-1495445402 https://www.wsj.com/articles/solar-company-sunrun-was-manipu... By the way, can you provide references for your claims?

Udik 9y ago

> distributed energy production from subsidised solar would be much cheaper as well as environmentally reasonable How can you claim that energy production subsidised with public money is cheaper than the same energy produced with no subsidies? The Chinese government could spend the money saved from solar subsidies in unemployment salaries or hospitals and free health care.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rainbowmverse 9y ago
What energy source is unsubsidized? It's definitely not fossil fuels.
- melling 9y ago
  This comment is often made without providing any detail. Can you provide some numbers, with references, for more discussion?
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    For the US: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/ https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/ The numbers are a bit out of date. All I could find other than that is a reference to a study in 2015 on Wikipedia, but it links to a page that's missing the data the reference was pointing to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
    - Udik 9y ago
      It's a long and complicated document, but from a quick scan it seems that most of the subsidies listed are directed towards either renewable energies and alternative fuels (ethanol, alcohol) or the distribution grid, so proportionally equal for all sources.

JackFr 9y ago

> Bjørn is not the worst denier Do you believe it's possible for intelligent, informed, people of good will to look at a set of facts and come to different policy proposals? Public policy is informed by science, but it is grounded in values. It seems to me that you call Bjorn Lomborg intellectually dishonest simply because he disagrees with you on policy.

Gupie 9y ago
Why do you assume people call Bjorn Lomborg intellectually dishonest simply because he disagrees with them. It is more likley that they are calling him intellectually dishonest because he is intellectually dishonest. Occam's razor applies.
- JackFr 9y ago
  I assume good faith on the part of Bjorn Lomborg. I also assume good faith on the part of the parent. I am trying to point out that well informed, well intentioned people can disagree without being intellectually dishonest. Also Occam's razor really doesn't apply: a) Bjorn Lomborg makes arguments in good faith and the parent is wrong b) Bjorn Lomborg makes arguments in bad faith and the parent is right To my eye, a & b are equivalently parsimonious in their assumptions.