Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria -- Interview with Bjorn

[mographzach]

Bjorn also presents the fallacy that helping people through aid and solving global warming are mutually exclusive, that we have to choose between one or the other. Also, the IPCC report leaves out many uncertainties (which would be enough to scare any rational person) including many tipping points that could begin some pretty horrifying positive feedback loops. If these happened, it wouldn't matter if we stopped emitting CO2 completely, we'd be screwed.

[mographzach]

Also, Kyoto Protocol was meant as a starting point to solving global warming, it wasn't meant to solve it by itself. It was going to pave the way for more agreements/treaties in the future. But Bjorn conveniently ignores this when he says that Kyoto by itself would have done nothing to fix global warming (duh). Kyoto was a first step of many we have to take to fix this problem.

[Elariuz]

I hope that people start listening to this guy instead of the pop-polititians like Al Gore.. Its about our future, not about what looks/sounds good right now

[MrSeekerofjustice]

Euro trash!

[anthonynease]

Yeah he was found not guilty for scientific dishonesty,they realized the court was being used politically to silence him.And the journal of information ethics said other then a few really minor errors his book was accurate.The only person who mislead people was Al Gore who the ipcc has discounted.If you want to "go read the science"read what the ipcc says because lomborg was right about the New york theory.

[Hetlund72]

Bjørn Lomborg.... the man with the master plan.... looooooove him ;O)

[fmilluminatus]

Fareed makes it sound like "preventing AIDS" is somehow evil... what a loser.

[McFat91]

@fmilluminatus I'm sorry but what is abundantly clear is that Fareed Zakaria was nothing but unbiased. He did what a responsible and unbiased reporter would have done, which was give Lomborg the opportunity to fully spell out his position - if anything, he yielded to Lomborg's cost-benefit analysis of global priorities. Your clearly unfamiliar with Fareed Zakaria, you should watch his show he gets the best interviews (like this one). Try seeing people like Lomborg on primetime cable news.

[Jules1414]

Simple question:

If you are experimenting symptoms, do take medicine for the symptoms or their cause?

[rytmen]

Is it just me or does this guy remind u of indiana jones :D?

[schnacker77]

Against desinformation:

1. Just google: lomborgs errors / info-pollution

2.1 Lomborg deconstructed by Michael Pawlyn:

watch?v=w_c5g6tXvK8

The high-cost-thesis has lost all credibility!

2.2 Pawlyn also criticizes Lomborgs biased selection of scientists and their reputation in the community/peer-review!

[wikichris]

Google for lomborg errors? Google for sites telling you about god existing! How about you discuss what's actually in the video. His arguments are strong. Yours are not.

[kprasad]

@wikichris hey, how did you come to believe that his arguments are strong? because of his presentation skill? his book has been deemed by the DCSD as scientifically misleading and guilty of presenting leading to outright false conclusion. he escaped scientific dishonesty upon his plea that he was not an expert.

continue getting impressed by televised nonsense. i'll go read the science.

[muzvit]

You are stupid as fuck...

Michael Pawlyn is known as a fraud, AND Bjorn Lomborg is not lying.. he is telling facts... i mean..listen to what he says...!

[sefjaguar]

@muzvit if pawlyn is known as a fraud then why is your comment the only result i get when i google 'Pawlyn fraud' out of millions of unrelated articles?

Do you have any evidence of this? If you do please let us know rather than just condemning people you don't like without providing evidence

[BiomimicryArch]

muzvit

Please substantiate your defamatory comment or retract it.

Michael Pawlyn

[RationalEmotive]

Global warming is not even happening. I am the skeptical environmentalist here, folks. It is all a giant conspiracy between Richard Stallman, Tim Berners-Lee and Al Gore and actor Steve Buscemi.

It has turned into a multi-billion industry of enviro-marxist work lazy liberal hippies now.

Jesus is coming back in this century, so what does it matter if it gets a bit warmer these last decades?

[gutosurrex]

I have the impression that even if one focuses in the problem of global warming, the decisions that are being taken now are far from efficient. We are talking about 100 years. Provide education for children in Asia, South America and Africa. Imagine the impact of this within one century. To say few, you get: a big number of activists there, reduction of emissions and preservation of the rain forests. Besides, the cost of this would be smaller.

[VikramRao751]

I agree with Zakaria, I ask Bjorn to go to middle India in the middle of summer and tell me with a straight face that global warming isnt going to be catastrophic. Scientists the world over agree, what has this guy been reading ? Living in NYC, I see a change in climate and weired weather patterns ever year. If we cannot turn the tide, then clean drinking water and good sanitation isnt going to mean shit to 100 million global warming migrants by 2100.

[stealthswimmer]

Scientists the world over agree? Did you even listen? Not even the scientists the UN gets their info from agree that it'd be a catastrophe. Bad? Of course, but not a catastrophe. Not to mention there's nothing bad about "global warming migrants." People move all the time.

The concept that Bjorn is illustrating here is an economic one. Maximizing benefit under a budget constraint.

[VikramRao751]

I heard everyword, and I still do not agree, its june and Im still wearing a sweater here in New York, somethings terribly wrong with the weather and its only going to get weirder. If tracts of Bangladesh go underwater, its India that will have to deal with 20 million people, thats global warming migrants, not the few thousands that move around the world yearly. I still agree with Fareed.

[stealthswimmer]

oh I see what you're saying, lol. By the way, how does a colder summer mean global warming?

Anyways, India wouldn't have to "deal" with 20 million people. IT's really that simple. They don't have to. Anyone who understands economics knows this. They simply have to have enough freedom to be allowed to go to work and keep what they earn.

Hong Kong has about 20 times the population density of India from last I heard and they totally turned around their status as a 3rd world nation. ;-)

[VikramRao751]

No, a cold summer means weird weather, and thats whats been happening for a few years now, around the world, hurricanes have increased with intensity, tornado's have started appearing more often. Talking bout global migrants, go to Calcutta and see why it looks bombed out, close to 4 million refugees settled there illegally 30 years ago because of war, thats a sign of things to come, Calcutta is but a small reminder of refugees in large no's. If we can change our bad habits, now is the time.

[stealthswimmer]

ah I see what you're saying.

Anyways, global climate has always changed. You need to first find a causal relationship between what humans do and the amount by which climate changes before you can prescribe certain actions for us to take.

As far as refugees goes, they're not a problem as long as there's economic freedom, so the problem is that most places don't have enough economic freedom. Also turns out that wealthier people and nations are better able to take care of the environment.

[happymyster]

You realize that your paranoia about the weather is no proof of global warming, right?

[muzvit]

Fareed Zakaria is a interviewer... he dosnt have a stand when is live. And second of all, you should know better than crying about bad weather in NY. The earths lane around the sun is in a flattern elipse.. i hope you got the brain to figure out what that means every 1000 year or so...

[VikramRao75]

first, a different opinion doesn't warrant an insult. And who told you interviewers dont take sides, you need to watch a little more television. All I know is what I see, both in India where Im from and NYC where I live and negative changes in weather is what I see. Good for you if you dont see it my way, but dont try to insult anyone with a different view.

[ChallengeDK]

Fareed Zakaria is an idiot of monumental proportions. Bjørn is everything Fareed is not; intelligent, well-informed and, frankly, gay. The latter, I suppose, doesn't matter. It is good, however, seeing at least one gay person in this world not being a bleeding heart liberal but actually having some common sense.

[yahasifff]

Did Zakaria hear a word the guy said. No.

[mobster19883]

this guy is my hero.

[areonkeggi]

Bjorn is just as skilled at deceit as the litany he espouses. Just try reading his book, the last time I saw thousands of citations was reading the Tale of Genji but those atleast provided the context needed to understand a centuries old story. His are either one line source info or a brief paragraph that could've been included in the main body. In one Lomborg admits he used a false story to prove a point right out if you bothered to look it up in the back.

[etsneroj]

Extensive citation (even without accompanying text) is something to embrace, not critique, because we can only evaluate his arguments by looking to the authorities upon which his arugments rely.

[MikeLtheSoulChild]

When Gore came to Denmark to promote his movie, he was spossed to debate Bjørn, but canceled, then he came again and was spossed to debate Bjørn but canceled, scared???

[bearhere1991]

No, ofc not. Bjørn sees no reason to discuss with gore, since an english judge have ruled that An inconvenient truth is wrong, on 9 major faktors. An inconvenient truth stands for gore, and should therefore be considerered his police, like the books Bjørn have written "the skeptical envirementalist" and "cool it"

[MikeLtheSoulChild]

Well I meant gore canceled twice, Bjørn wanted to debate gore, and was rather disappointed when he didn't get a chance to!

[yahasifff]

I'm sure Gore would never risk debating with anyone who is knowledgeable. Gore is a politician and therefore a trained liar. His motivations for his environmental positions are based more on his megalomania and grandiose self-esteem than any concern for the planet. In addition as long as he has people scared he stands to make billions of dollars. If he debated a someone like Bjorn he would stand to lose politically and financially.

[AlexMoensChannel]

I don't think Bjorn is arguing that we should ignore global warming. There are numerous ways we can cut back and save money while saving the environment.

Bjorn is simply rating which problems, given an equal amount of money, would have the largest impact if changed.

[asdimd]

This guy was on Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" playing out the role of one of the 'experts.' Basically, there's a movement against environmentalists, painting them as know-nothing hippies, with economics and health-care as the victim of ignorance.

[saliwalido]

It's kind of funny that you have completely disregarded Bjorn as "bullshit". But how is this?:

"As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning." - Vaclav Klaus

[asdimd]

"Bullshit" was a television show on HBO. The Hosts wee Penn Jillette and Raymond Teller. I wasn't saying that Bjorn or his opinions (factual statements?) were bullshit. To clarify, not all, but some Republicans, Conservatives, and/or Libertarians say that the environmental movement has disrupted attention that could be given to economic and health problems. It is thought that saving endangered species' habitats gets in the way of building hospitals, power plants, etc. Make more sense?

[Keylimedelight]

Bad as Bojorn, beein' a bad ass.

[boitar]

forexpanda. com

[DK0526]

the person with the windmill actually used the extra energy and didn't have enough left over to sell back. The farmer I know had many windmills and was able to sell back to the electric company and didn't have to worry about zoning laws.

[DK0526]

From a physics standpoint...all energy sources on the planet come from the sun which is a giant nuclear furnace. So until we figure out better solar cells and fusion. Fission reactors are the most efficient means of energy extraction. All other sources on earth are just stored nuclear/solar energy...oil,gas,coal,hydro,wi­nd,bio are all solar/nuclear at thier source.

[blacklance123]

For the amount of money required to invest in building one nuclear power plant, solar power could be made cost efficient compared to nuclear or fossil fuel power. The big drawback on solar power right now is that it is not cost efficient for the initial investment required and the amount of space it takes up. That will soon change however with more advanced nano-technology. This stuff is just very costly to R&D.

[DK0526]

Nuclear does work..don't take it from me...there exists a working template that shows it can be safe, cheap, efficient and the issues of waste are also dealt with in an efficient manner. That template is France the produce over 80% of thier annual energy needs and export some more of it. They prove that it works.

[DK0526]

We already have a much cheaper, more efficient and cleaner source of fuel...Nuclear...developed by the US and proven to work in France but Here it has been regulated to death out of fear by Luddites. All energy is solar...oil is solar in concentrated form. biofuels such as ethonal are also solar but much more labor intensive (as in farming) compared to existing biofuels such as petrochemicals...they are cleaner per unit but less energy per unit...net gain zero!

[DK0526]

The only solution is better solar collection or more nuclear. As for storage better batteries.

[blacklance123]

The problem with Nuclear is that it produces extremely radioactive waste that has to be stored somewhere, not only is that a problem but it costs alot of money. In theory we would eventually run out of places to store it. There are ways to break some of it down, but not all of it, and it takes hundreds of thousands of years to decay on its own. Not to mention what could happen if the waste fell into the wrong hands.

[DK0526]

Nuclear waste can be used again as fuel for different types of reactors.The amount of waste actually shrinks as it get more radio active.There is plenty of room for storage and as with any technology in the wrong hands damage can be done. There already exists very simple means to do damage on a near a-bomb scale with existing chemical products used everyday in america. Saftey is a moot point in this context. Coal fired plants release more radio-active pollutants then any US nuclear reactor.

[blacklance123]

Someone had been doing their homework. Rather than argue with you let me just state that I agree with you on a number of points, but I don't think nuclear is a good option. It's hugely expensive to build and operate nuclear plants. It would be way easier and cheaper to build tidal power plants without the drawbacks of nuclear and they could produce nearly the same energy. Nuclear just seems convenient because we can start tomorrow if necessary but the easy road isnt ways the best.

[DK0526]

Many of the so called greens are not really concerned about clean energy as much as they are anti-capitalists, anarchists. They see tidal or hydro as disturbing habitats of fish ect. They will fight any technology while using it to make thier points. Since all energy is essentially solar/nuclear to start with I say why not cut out the middle man and tap the source..to me it seems more efficient but I would certainly use down stream energy as well.

[DK0526]

We also don't know if we are in fact influencing climate to any real degree. enough energy hits the earth per min to energize civilization for 10 years..The slightest hickup from the sun can cause more damage or weather fluctuation then ever machine ever built by man...to worry about global warming is like being afraid of a garden hose causing a flood in the pacific.

[DK0526]

OK so let me get this right we have had many ice ages and the earth has world wide tropical conditions many times in the past...so why should I give a flying fuck! Is the earth warming based on a 1000 yr trend but realy cooling on a 100,000 yr trend??? Thats what makes the whole thing so meaningless if you examine it logically!

[blacklance123]

The difference between then and now is that the human population was much smaller, less concentrated in coastal areas and was not doing anything to artificially alter or influence these climate cycles. We have no idea what the ultimate consequences will be from introducing new variables into the equation with the greenhouse gasses and polution we emmit into our environment.

[DK0526]

so since we have no idea what the consequences of are actions are...warming, cooling, or nothing. We don't know if we are doing harm, doing good or our activities are benign. This means there is no course of action that can be logically deduced from the data...we can be cautious but not to the detriment of progress which is real and measurable. Like crossing the street we may get hit we may not but we still need to get to the other side.

[blacklance123]

I agree. It is hard to plot a course when you don't know your current position. I think the issue is more about economics on both sides. Progress is a subjective concept, different people have different ideas about what progress is. For some progress is economic expansion whatever the cost, for others it is simply leading a healthier and happier life. I suppose if we make the problem worse either by doing nothing or doing the wrong thing we won't have either.

[DK0526]

I wonder if continuing to use cheap oil energy now will give the country surplus cash now to invest in much more fuel efficient, much cheaper, and cleaner fuels and spin off technologies rather then too quick of a rush to alternate fuels that may in fact be expensive and wasteful. In other words, in stead of letting the market develope better energy gov mandates may force waste that ultimately does more harm then good!

[blacklance123]

I personally think alternative energy is a good idea. Unfortunately our economic model is not very compatible with decentralized power. It scares the energy companies to think people may one day be able to cheaply power their homes with solar panels on their roof or wind generators in their back yard. If people start unplugging from the grid they could start their own micro-economies and that concept frightens many industries. Average everyday people would suddenly have more power.

[DK0526]

I don't really see the energy companies as the bad guy..they deliver our economies life blood POWER. And after all they couldn't be more regulated and we as share holders in our 401k's are the actual owners. Consider that the energy companies have a vested interest in producing cheap energy..because it is more profitable then expensive energy...so it is up to scientists to make the alternatives cheaper...right now even though oil is expensive it is much cheaper then alternatives.

[blacklance123]

People are the economies life blood. Power is a relatively new convenience compared to economics. Sadly I think sometimes we forget that economics are a means to an end, not the end to which all else is a means. Everyone could me more economically productive if they were energy self suffient. What this boils down to is the centralization of wealth which is a hinderance to economic growth more than a boosting factor, in my humble opinion.

[DK0526]

sure with out people we wouldn't have much of an economy at least till the robots take over:) but we will always need power even robots need power:) unless we want to go back to the stone age! I'd like to see backyard nuclear reactors or solar roofs on everyones garage. so I'm with you with the whole decentralization thing!

[blacklance123]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not preaching some covert form of socialism, I truely think energy independance would bring capitalism into reach for everyone and open up huge new creative possibilities not only for new forms of energy but for economic production in all other forms as well. Think of what we all can do with Youtube compared to the limitations of conventional media like television, radio and newspapers. The same principle applies to independant energy.

[DK0526]

Ultimately, I'm on your side here. I'd like to end most oil use..The middle east uses our money agianst us but right now oil is cheap relative to most alternatives but I think new energy is just around the corner...In the mean time I think we should be drilling here in the US and building nuclear plants in droves. Also I'm for competition, decentralize the grid..I'm sure there'd be a fortune for who ever figures out how to do it!

[blacklance123]

Not only a fortune to be made by the inventor, but everyday people could invest in this technology and earn revenue from the power they generate.

[DK0526]

eventually, there would be no one to sell it to as everyone got off the grid there would be no reason for a grid..energy would be local. So there would be a cost for local hardware and software to run your local energy devices..but it would be cheap, clean and efficient.

[blacklance123]

People could also power their own home based businesses or manufacturing like sawmills. I know a guy who works full time as a millwright but has built a pallet manufacturing plant in a small wearhouse he built on his own property and he employs his family and 80 other people. Imagine what industrious and innovative people like him could accomplish if they could generate and store electricity on-site and sell any amount they don't use to the electricity company.

[DK0526]

their is laws on the books right now that allow for this all anyone has to do is lay out the money for the solar panels or wind turbine. The electric companies would eventually be let off the hook as more people produced energy then used it. The electric company would fade from existence. Unless we continued to use more energy then we produced.

[HarpoSpoke]

Don't forget that Lomborg is using the numbers from the IPCC report. It's their predictions. They are the ones that agree with Al Gore. Lomborg uses pure logic and zero emotion. That offends some people who make all their decisions emotionally.

[stevenkongju]

What happened to the coming ice age...how about the population bomb?

Global warming, which is happening, is being blown WAY out of proportion. It is a new religion where if you are a heretic you are demonized as a "rushie neocon" or some other wacko.

[masameus]

I find it interesting that at first it was "No, there is no global warming, it's just an invention of the environmental movement!" but now it's "Well, yes, global warming is real, sort of, but it doesn't matter!" Lomborg's reasoning about the destruction of the polar bears' natural habitat is a classic of idiocy: the polar bears will simply evolve backwards into a previous stage in their evolutionary development and become brown bears!

[erikfofo]

Actually Lomborg has NEVER said that global warming isn't happening. He has just been pointing out that the numbers for how much the world will heat up are highly disputed.

[DK0526]

look at it another way...when chicken little makes big claims rational people demand big evidance and so far there is both no prove global warming exists beyond normal trend and there is also no proof that it will be catastrophic if it does exist...Its not a sliding scale for the skeptics as much as it is 0 for 2 chicken little.

[blacklance123]

I'm not really a fan of Al Gore, but he does have a few good ideas such as the concept of an "Electanet" where anyone with the means to generate electricity can sell it to electricity companies as easily as receiving it. That would create more incentive for people to invest in alternative fuels and generating methods like solar panels on their roof and a wind turbine in their backyard, which are already available to everyone.

[DK0526]

anyone can do that right now..thats not new and it existed long before AL Gore...just like when he claimed to have created the internet.

[blacklance123]

Well not everyone can do that quite yet. The extranet concept is quite a bit more advanced than what we have now. If you have your own private electricity generators in whatever form you can make agrements with the electric companies but with an extranet system you could literally plug directly into the grid for a hook-up fee and any power you feed into the grid beyond what you use would simply be payed out to you or credited to your bill.

[DK0526]

I am not aware of anywhere in the US that does not allow anyone with a electric source not to pump back into the grid after paying for such source and reverse hook up! Although I confess that I am only going on what I have been told by the 2 people who I know who have done so. One person had to remove his windmill due to zoning laws. Unless we develope much more efficient local energy sources I don't see private producers able to compete with the big dogs baring a farm owner.

[blacklance123]

It's possible to do today, but it is not a very streamlined process. Zoning laws, permits, a patchwork of regulations to follow depending on your jurisdiction and infrastructure differences in different areas make it very hard for just anyone to do this. The area where I live is still serviced by a government owned power system but they are quickly moving towards facilitating private energy projects. The government owned utility is actually banned from building its own generators now.

[BjornJohansen]

His points are valid.

[gasoline]

well there are alot of problems in this world and global warming should be a big concern... as the planet gets warmer alot of viral insects can live off other places of the world... as can be bad for the whole ecosystem itself... his views were based off of human life you also have to think about the animals as well... even though global warming is an inevitable we are greatly increasing it

[katzenjammerkid]

and doesn't global warming make these other problems worse? you've got to address the fundamental core issues(i.e. GLOBAL WARMING!)BEFORE THESE OTHER PROBLEMS!!!

[wikichris]

Yes, it does make them worse but that doesn't take anything away from Bjorn's points.

[katzenjammerkid]

uh...what a load of junk. 75 billion to solve all the worlds problems? and who's going to organize that kind of effort? why aren't we doing it already? it doesn't happen that way, it's not human nature. keep up the little smirk that you know it all buddy...i'm sure you have vested interest in here, besides solving all the worlds problems...like pandering to what big polluters want to hear.

[nealcaldwell]

If you listen to what he says, he says that the UN estimate is that 75 billion EACH YEAR FOR 100 YEARS would address most of the major problems in the world vs 150 billion EACH YEAR FOR 100 YEARS would do very little to change global warming. If you reject Gore's hype, as the IPPC report effectivly does, then the economic panel's comments makes great sense.

[DK0526]

or pandering to what Big Government wants you to believe...your tax dollars, freedoms, and votes help feed the crooks in gov who pay off scientists/propagandists with grant money. ignorance of true climate science is big money...unlike oil companies who have to produce a product..big government just has to produce a lie...much less over head, with the existing tax system its also much more profitable...fear sells and suckers are born every day!

[sthilaa]

More people need to see this. Thanks for posting it!

[kateannajemison]

1 of 4

Firstly I am responding to an interview with Bjorn Lomborg I know nothing more about Copenhagen consensus but feel what he and the organisation represents is not necessarily right.

Bjorn and the organisation are living in denial anybody who says there is no point making an effort to prevent global warming because it will only delay it 6 years, and thinks its more important to improve other issues is not seeing the bigger picture, what use is anything else without the planet??

[wikichris]

If you study Bjorn for just a few more minutes you'll see he answers your question.

[reclusivefool]

Nice, Kateannajemison. You don't like the science so you attack the scientist. And then you lie and say there wont be a planet, despite the UN panel saying the exact opposite. I guess you would have done well as an inquisitor back in the day.

[DK0526]

Scientists are selling fear and it is paid for by bias government grants that line their pockets. The government gains by telling the populace to surrender more freedoms, money and vote for us big gov eco-saviors. The public out of fear obeys and turns over more. The result more scare tactics, more fear, more loss of liberty! The real problems of pollution don't get solved..they are way to valuable as propaganda tools to actually solve real problems. This is what Bjorn is warning you of...!

[purpleoscar]

"As things get better and better people will say it's getting worse and worse." Amen. Your book made me sane and scattered the cobwebs of media fear and showed me the economics of scientific studies and of environmental charity organizations. Follow the self-interest at the expense of others is what I conclude will get you closer to the truth.