Bjorn Lomborg: Why Do We Fixate on Climate Rather Helping the World's Poor?
The 'Skeptical Environmentalist' offers 12 low-cost, proven policies that he says would save 4.2 million lives and generate $1.1 trillion in new wealth every year.
HD DownloadIn 2001, Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg burst onto the international scene with his bestselling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist. The onetime member of Greenpeace said that climate change is real and that human activity is clearly contributing to it, but he said the best science didn't support the apocalyptic visions put forth by people like Earth in the Balance author and former Vice President Al Gore.
Lomborg went on to create the Copenhagen Consensus, a think tank that applies cost-benefit analysis to problems facing the global poor and works with Nobel laureates, policymakers, philanthropists, and researchers to develop pragmatic, relatively low-cost solutions to issues such as tuberculosis, malaria, lack of education, and access to food.
His new book is called Best Things First and it presents what Lomborg says are "the 12 most efficient solutions for the world's poorest people." He argues that for about $35 billion a year—a little more than half of what the US spends annually on humanitarian aid—these policies would save 4.2 million lives and generate an extra $1.1 trillion in value every year.
Nick Gillespie caught up with Lomborg in New York City during the latest meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. We talked about Best Things First, his view of the current environmentalist movement, and why politicians and the media continue to fixate on the possibility of future climate apocalypse rather than helping the global poor in the here and now.
Photo Credits: World Travel & Tourism Council, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Mark Reinstein/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; James Colburn - Pool via CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated; Dominika Zarzycka/Sipa USA/Newscom; elmar/Newscom; U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Gabriel R. Piper, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Basil D Soufi, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Tyler Anderson/Naitonal Post/ZUMApress/Newscom; New America, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; JOHN ANGELILLO/UPI/Newscom; Karla Ann Cote/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; BONNIE CASH/UPI/Newscom; Chris Kleponis/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Gerardo Romo/Newscom; Jeremy Miller/AusAID, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Christian M. Mericle, CC BY 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Carlos Sanchez/Polaris/Newscom; imageBROKER/alimdi / Arterra/Newscom; Dstringer71, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Music Credits: "Let's Get Itm" by Captain Joe via Artlist.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The whole thing about Climate Change®™ is not about making the Earth colder. It is about making people suffer.
The purpose is to kill the world's poor. It is overpopulation anxiety.
Selling a response to a phantom menace is a great way to back door Marxist policy that otherwise wouldn’t work.
Climate Week at the UN is about as much fun as Trick Or Treat for Unicef.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2023/09/just-when-we-thought-global-boiling-was.html
Stop pimping you fake website.
Are you afraid of what they can read there?
You are afraid of something, or you wouldn’t be imitating a real website.
Is Twitter a fake website because there's no X in the URL?
I don't mind your vvendetta against The Climate Wars, as it's aimed at literate folk, not humorless URL obsessives. The decade old joke was and remains compulsive censorship at WUWT
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2013/06/keeping-up-with-orwells.html
"Is Twitter a fake website because there’s no X in the URL?"
Is this supposed to be a justification for your bullshit? Fuck off and die.
As its sidebar says :
"The Climate Wars curates scientific and cultural atrocities perpetrated by climate deniers, activists, inactivists, ideologues, social entrepreneurs, propagandists , United Nations functionaries ,lobbyists and cranks of all persuasions"
That last category certainly includes you.
Don't like being called on your bullshit? Quit bullshitting.
"Are you afraid of what they can read there?"
No, I'm tired of trolls lying about what they offer. Fuck off and die.
It is not clear that 4.2 million more mouths to feed is a good thing.
Be that as it may, the point of the global climate warming change religion is to enslave the general population, not save the planet.
A key indicator of a lying political weasel is they claim global climate warming change is a problem and fly on a private jet.
Rush Limbaugh had it right when he said environmentalists are like watermelons, green on the outside and red in the middle.
He also told his audience that he had scientific proof that global warming was the fault of burping bacteria rather than the Industrial Revolution.:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/02/a-hard-act-for-mark-steyn-to-follow.html
It transpired that his science guy had told him his evidence was a hoax, and CO2 warming was real, but 'ol Rushbo got this wires crossed.
Be that as it may, he still wasn't wrong about environmentalists generally.
Or averse to a little innocent plagiarism— the 'watermelons' riff was the invention of journalist Warren Brookes, who died in 1991.
I really don't give a shit if some radio host reuses a joke.
The onetime member of Greenpeace said that climate change is real and that human activity is clearly contributing to it, but he said the best science didn't support the apocalyptic visions put forth by people
I'm pretty sure that that's not allowed. If you say climate change is real and human activity is contributing to it, then you're a leftist. Plain and simple. And if you're a leftist then you support all things leftist. The only way to prove you're not a leftist is to say climate change is a hoax.
So this idea that someone can accept climate change as real and human activity as a contributing factor, but not want to use it as an excuse for government to control every aspect of our lives, goes completely against the narrative so it cannot be true.
At least that's what I've been told whenever I state that as my position.
I’m pretty sure that that’s not allowed. If you say climate change is real and human activity is contributing to it, then you’re a leftist.
What's REALLY not allowed is to say, "I don't think whatever is happening in the climate is being seriously influenced by human activity".
Everyone, even Lomborg needs to preface every statement with, "Racism is a major problem".
"The only way to prove you’re not a leftist is to say climate change is a hoax."
Well, there's also saying that vaccines are micro-chip-laden implements of EVIL from the Lizard People, who ALSO stole The Donald's erections... These items, too, these days, are REQUIRED to show that one is NOT a leftist!
The complete and repetitious idiocy is strong in this one.
Sarc is telling us what other people are thinking without them saying anything.
"Those People" racism. Let's not forget that many prog elites view the poor as subhuman.
FYI…
According to the new book “Best Things First: The 12 most efficient solutions for the world’s poorest and our global SDG promises” by Bjørn Lomborg, the 12 best things to do to improve the world are:
Fix tuberculosis, malaria, and chronic disease. Tackle malnutrition. Improve education. Increase trade. Implement e-procurement. Secure land tenure. Invest in family planning. Reduce air pollution. Adapt to climate change. Invest in research and development. Promote good governance. Reduce corruption.
"Secure land tenure." I imagine that is about regularizing property ownership for "squatters" who have been living on "their" land for up to 40 years sometimes... This is a problem in 3d-world nations. Why invest in "your" property or try to get a loan, when it isn't really "yours"?
I notice “adapt to climate change “ rather than “stop (or reverse) climate change”. Since, regardless of what Europe and North America do, the increase in emissions from China, India, Latin America, the rest of Asia, and Africa, will overwhelm any reduction, and adaptation will be the only way to go.
Agreed and good point! Dump a bunch of iron oxides in the oceans would also be a good way to go, IMHO... I am too lazy to find it, but I read that when humans killed a LOT of whales a while back, we reduced whale poop vastly, around Antarctica. Whale poop WAS circulating the iron oxides, but that is now vastly reduced. So we'd just be fixing what we broke. But like I say, I am too lazy to chase it down right now.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/iron-sulfate-slow-global-warming.htm
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/01/iron-fertilization-of-the-ocean-is-as-natural-as-whale-poop-and-it-can-save-the-planet.html
Home » Science » Iron fertilization of the ocean is as natural as whale poop and it can save the planet
and why politicians and the media continue to fixate on the possibility of future climate apocalypse rather than helping the global poor in the here and now.
Don't pretend the hysteria is limited to these groups. The supposed scientists, for example Michael Mann but including essentially everyone who comments publicly, fully participates in the propaganda effort because that's what drives their income and justifies demonizing anyone who doesn't support them.
That’s true of playbook driven think tanks in general, Heartland, CFACT, and Lomborg’s included :
Lobbying happens.
"Bjorn Lomborg: Why Do We Fixate on Climate Rather Helping the World's Poor?"
There's no reason not to do both, as fixating on the poor, ensuring female literacy, access to drinking water, will cost a small fraction of the trillions involved in dealing with climate. But to answer the question, climate involves rich, poor, animal, vegetable. Hence the fixation.
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it's my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart
This Website➤---------------➤newyorktimebank
Oh look, the one who spews nonsense is here.
Absolutely true.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
It's still an enormous amount of money to pour into solutions that probably won't work. Carbon control programs are a joke, as are most "green"/"renewable" subsidies and incentives, serving mostly to funnel money to favored and well connected industries.
"Carbon control programs are a joke, as are most “green”/”renewable” subsidies and incentives, serving mostly to funnel money to favored and well connected industries."
They are worse than that, and not at all funny. They force indigenous population transfers from their forested habitats to urban slums, for example. Solutions have to be democratic and benefit more than the wealthy to be effective.
Controlling carbon emissions has no bearing on anything. It’s 100% a delivery system for socialist, anti capitalist policies that would otherwise never sell.
"that would otherwise never sell."
Never is a long time. We'll find out what the future holds. You may be in for a surprise. Especially if you think that the capitalist formula for the apportioning of wealth will never be set aside in favor of an alternative.
Wealth is not apportioned, claiming so is propaganda targeted at economic illiterates. Leftists promote this image of the privileged few deciding how much each person gets because their own desire is to corrupt the political process to do exactly that, with themselves in charge of course.
"Wealth is not apportioned"
I didn't mean to suggest there was a cabal of shady people in smoky rooms dividing up wealth. In any society, there is a way wealth is apportioned. In capitalism it's done by owning property. Instead of apportioned, perhaps I should have written 'the rules and practices that determine the flow of wealth in society.' Perhaps still to leftist for you? No conspiracy, just how the rules play out.
In capitalism it’s done by owning property
Completely wrong. In "capitalism" it's done by increasing value.
"it’s done by increasing value.,,"
... of the property (capital) you own. Again, there's no rule to say capitalism will last forever. All things must pass.
… of the property (capital) you own
Again, incorrect. It is just as true of labor. Once we recognize this we see that property is neither required nor sufficient to create wealth. Thus people droning on about property are doing so solely because it leads to the political outcomes they prefer even though their assertions are clearly contradicted by reality.
there’s no rule to say capitalism will last forever.
Not sure where this strawman came from, but whatever.
"Not sure where this strawman came from, but whatever."
It might help to read through the comments carefully. I tried to be as clear and succinct as I could.
"...I tried to be as clear and succinct as I could."
Which explains a lot.
But we are doing neither, have been doing neither, and are not planning on doing either.
Ah, yes, mtrueman is articulating the White Man's Burden again.
Because I'm a racist.
At least you finally admit it.
I've never denied it. And racism is only the beginning of my many many faults and shortcomings.
Spouting nonsense among them. Fuck off and die.
The purpose isn't to help the N poor, the poor are a tool of emotional manipulation for the purpose of conning/stealing from the well off. The con stops working if they actually help them.
Saving the planet from imminent doom is sexy and only requires sloganeering. Helping the poor is gross and requires work.
Crusading squirrels should head to Lampedusa, where 15,000 stranded souls are in dire need of Brunswick stew.
I try not to feed trolls, but on this one I just have to ask.
What does this response even mean?
Helping the poor is gross and requires work.
Laughing at your attempts to make sense is no effort at all, asshole
Are you really this stupid or is sarcasm just not something you understand? I’m literally making fun of people like you and you're walking right into it.
Because Western corporations and politicians can make a lot more money and power by fixating on the climate crisis.
Specifically, politicians and corporations can sell the fiction that "green energy" in developed countries will "end the climate crisis" to their gullible voters.
Helping the world's poor doesn't lend itself to instituting authoritarianism in liberal democracies or giving trillions in handouts to corporations.
Why do we do it? It’s called Corporate Fascism that’s why. You will own nothing and you will be rationed and censored by leftist inherited wealth marching morons, like John Kerry, Fetterman, Melendez, Taylor Lorenz and Hunter Biden. Every square footage of living space, every calorie, everything you consume, every appliance, every gram of protein and fiber, no private transportation, no home owning nothing. You shall pay rent to a global rationing government.
Today on real civil libertarian news Glen Greenwald is on a roll.
Does the roll come with coleslaw and a Greenwaldorf salad?
Every gram of protein and fiber counts.
Is this intended to be clever repartee', asshole?
"It’s called Corporate Fascism that’s why."
You give the fascists too much credit. They don't have the ability to do or ensure those things. Look at the farcically inept response to covid, orchestrated by the best international consultants money can buy, with politicians, privates, and academics cheering them on. Real social control comes from activating the 'policeman inside your head,' or 'the big Other' if you don't mind me going Lacanian on you.
It's an interesting formulation: this won't work with certainty and therefore they aren't doing it. Maybe it makes more sense in Italian.
" this won’t work with certainty"
Any attempt to do what you fear will end in failure.
" like John Kerry, Fetterman, Melendez, Taylor Lorenz and Hunter Biden."
They are not competent. They are corrupt. Paper tigers, all. You are in thrall to their wealth and celebrity. Get over it.
Any attempt to do what you fear will end in failure.
Apparently everyone but you understands that just because something will fail does not prove people didn't try. Try with specifics to understand:
There was no path to victory for the Japanese over America, therefore Pearl Harbor didn't happen.
"therefore Pearl Harbor didn’t happen."
Pearl Harbor did happen. It was an unpleasant day but we can thank the Japanese for their incompetence and chide them for their unwillingness to confront reality.
"that just because something will fail does not prove people didn’t try."
Their failure is my success. That apparently is not enough for you.
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Is 'gov-guns' out ROBBING everyone helping the 'poor'?
Or just making MORE of them?
It's not about climate change or environmentalism, and it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): "Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, made the revealing admission in a meeting with Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate director in May. A Washington Post reporter accompanied Chakrabarti to the meeting for a magazine profile published Wednesday: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all...Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.
Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Monika Kopacz, atmospheric scientist: "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty."
Researcher Robert Phalen's 2010 testimony to the California Air Resources Board: "It benefits us personally to have the public be afraid, even if these risks are trivial."
Patrick Brown is a PhD climate scientist:
The paper I just published—“Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California”—focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.
This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.
To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.
Sacrifice your labors and assets for the Gov-Gods in the sky.... /s
“It’s not about climate change or environmentalism, and it really hasn’t been for a long time…it’s about socialist economic policy–redistribution of wealth.”
It’s about both. The switch from fossil fuels will necessitate wealth redistribution. There’s no way around this. You want nuclear power? Government is and has been involved at every step. Chicago in the 1940s, USSR, England, France, Canada, government was involved from the get go. The two most enthusiastic nations for nuclear today, France and China, the government is deeply involved. They take money from one group of people and give it to others to use. In this case it's building and maintaining nuclear reactors, but it works the same in other areas.
I don't want to substitute the expert for another expert.
Why are we subsidizing the production of EV's AND the purchase too? Is that not the opposite ofa market?
So, stupid Bill Gates seems at odds with what is still another stupid idea : Biden admin awards $1 billion to improve 'tree equity,' expand access to green spaces.
Just like EV's but worse. Megabucks destroys the environment to save the planet and President Stupid places trees over people
Neither "fixing climate change" nor "helping the world's poor" are legitimate Constitutional agenda items for our country.
The climate is fine and doesn't need fixing. The best way for us to help the world's poor is to continue to be a world leader in Liberty and innovation, lifting all boats together.
If Bjorn were normal his message would have taken the world by now. I do blame him , not in a moral sense but in a PR sense.
He comes off as a radical anti-everything guy.
Did he really say "I tentatively believe in a god. I was brought up in a fairly religious home. I think the world is compatible with reincarnation, karma, all that stuff." I don't know but would not be surprised.
My neighbors, drinkng buddies, work acquaintances -- all would buy his message if he himself didn't interfere with it.
Not a criticism, an observation
I'm making more than $75k by just doing very easy and simple online job from home.Last month my friend sis received $94280 from this work by just giving only 2 to 3 hrs a day.Everybody start earning money online. visit for more details...
See...........>> https://supercashstore1.pages.dev