4 ms·
His TED talk gives an interesting perspective on Global Warming, and how we should be thinking about it. ~17mins, worth the time. http://www.ted.com/talks/bjo
by bigmac 16y ago
His TED talk gives an interesting perspective on Global Warming, and how we should be thinking about it. ~17mins, worth the time.
http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_prioritie...
I watched it awhile ago. The argument I remember is something along these lines. The worst case scenario of global warming is that sea levels rise some level by 2100. The most pessimistic financial projections for the people living in the affected areas in 2100 is that they will be equivalent to middle-class Americans once the sea levels rise. Thus, we should consider the fact that global warming efforts right now are essentially going toward helping middle class Americans, whereas there are other far more pressing issues facing the poorest of the poor in the world right now. Since we have limited resources in the world and we aren't going to work on every issue, we need to set priorities on what we will work on. Long story short, global warming doesn't make the cut.
- anthonyb 16y agoWhich is crap. Most of Bangladesh is only a few metres above sea level, ditto for some of India and Pakistan, the South Pacific islands, etc. Most human settlement is either near a river or the ocean.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoI think you failed to grasp the argument. Most of Bangladesh may be only a few meters above sea level, but by the time that Bangladesh faces serious problems from rising sea levels they will almost assuredly be a first world nation in terms of affluence. What level of economic misery should we impose on the entire world both rich and poor, including Bangladesh, today to save affluent future Bangladeshis from dealing with a problem which the Dutch have already solved today?
- anthonyb 16y agoI'm familiar with the argument. If Bangladesh and India have levels of affluence comparable to western nations, then the increased CO2 emissions will make sea levels rise faster, surely? And that's assuming that a) they'll have that level of affluence and b) that sea levels aren't going to rise more quickly. I don't think either of these things are assured at this point. Another point to note is that he's an economist, not a climate scientist. Most of the criticism directed towards him and the Copenhagen Consensus is that they underplay the level of potential global warming while overplaying the part that economics has to play. In other words, his risk to reward ratio is well out of whack. ps. "Economic misery" is a loaded term. IIRC, mitigating CO2 was estimated to be at most a couple of percent of GDP.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- anthonyb 16y agoThe issue is not with the science that he's quoting - the bulk of the criticism comes from what he's quoting, ie. it's pretty selective, and that in some cases he's been found to be quoting the lower edge of a range, rather than giving an accurate indication of the science.
- Devilboy 16y ago"a) they'll have that level of affluence and b) that sea levels aren't going to rise more quickly. I don't think either of these things are assured at this point." Look again. Even the most pessimistic predictions shows that Lomborg is probably correct. Lomborg's significant body of research trumps your 'I don't think' unless you can show us some real evidence.
- anthonyb 16y agoA lot of climate scientists have serious misgivings about Lomborg's body of research, including selective quoting - it's hardly cut and dried. Also, if you're going to try and tar me with the 'real evidence' brush, you should probably include a link to the predictions that you're talking about. Just looking at Google Maps, Bangladesh and India have a couple of hundred kilometers of low lying coastline - a couple of orders of magnitude bigger than Holland's problem. Given the issues that the US has with it's sea wall, how much do you think they'll need to spend to keep the sea out?
- jacoblyles 16y agoI am sure Mr. Lomborg was aware of the elevation of Bangladesh when he did his studies. It's generally considered polite to read/listen to someone's argument before you criticize it.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- me_again 16y agoThe worst case scenario according to James Hansen is a permanent phase change in the Earth's atmospheric composition to something more like that of Venus. A prospect which ought to worry even the most prosperous middle-class American.