Bjorn Lomborg & The Copenhagen Consensus: What's the best way to live with global warming?

What's the best way for humanity to reduce suffering from man-made global warming? No individual has been a stronger voice for rational cost-benefit analysis on this issue than Bjorn Lomborg, the head of Copenhagen Consensus Center, and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It! On Thursday, September 3, 2009, Lomborg stopped by Reason's DC HQ to discuss the latest iteration of his ongoing project with Reason magazine science correspondent Ronald Bailey.

The Copenhagen Consensus Center's expert panel of five top economists, including three Nobel laureates, has concluded that greater resources should be spent on research into climate engineering and green energy. They also concluded that the least cost-effective way to deal with climate change is carbon taxes. Such carbon taxes are the economic equivalent of cap-and-trade carbon rationing schemes like the Waxman-Markey bill being considered by Congress and which are being negotiated by the U.N.

The expert panel consisted of Nobel laureate economists Thomas Schelling, Vernon Smith, and Finn Kydland. They were joined by University of Chicago economist Nancy Stokey and Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwati. The panel considered and ranked 21 ground-breaking research proposals by top climate economists on the basis their benefits and costs in dealing with global warming.

Approximatley four minutes. Shot by Dan Hayes and Meredith Bragg; edited by Dan Hayes .

Next week, Reason.tv will run a longer version of Bailey's interview with Lomborg.

Go to Reason.tv for more videos and a 2008 presentation by Lomborg at Reason's 40th anniversary event.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• bjorn lomborg
• ronald bailey
• copenhagen consensus
• global warming
• al gore
• cool it
• environmentalism
• reason.tv

[felpaluche]

Thanks for providing us the way.

[manco82]

The AGWists want to bankrupt Western societies out of spite.

[TheMessianicManic]

@DoomHippie I didn't even use any of those words, so I'm not claiming it was either. All I'm saying is that people are currently being exposed to unhealthy amounts of radiation.

[DoomHippie]

@TheMessianicManic

Look. I'm guessing you don't even understand the difference betwixt a "meltdown" and a "leak". Can you even provide the definition of a meltdown without googling it?

[TheMessianicManic]

@DoomHippie Oh, yes, I forgot, no danger has been posed to anyone whatsoever. Those hazmat suits the guys cleaning it up are wearing are just 'cause it's chilly outside.

[DoomHippie]

@TheMessianicManic

Lol, dude. Think for a second. The plants were hit by a 9.0 Earthquake, and have not yet melted down. Even if they do meltdown, that does not mean that they cannot be contained.

If a 9.0 Earthquake can /almost/ cause a huge failure, I'd say that's pretty safe.

[TheMessianicManic]

@DoomHippie Well, it's safe except in Communist countries and, also, it turns out, earthquake prone ones.

[33noa33]

Make mighty power of nature an ally

TO IMPROVE CLIMATE OF CONTINENT

In the northwestern Australia, we have huge tides,

huge evaporation and huge dry rivers and lakes.

Tides are up to 12m. Evaporation is up to 4m per year and can be increased.

Huge 12m tidal erosion can revive old dry paleo dormant once mighty rivers, creeks and lakes,

desalinate the country and change deserts to rain forests to provide more rain across Australia.

see: Mitic CLIMATE ENGINEERING

[dduff442]

Howard Friel devoted an entire book to Lomborg's heavy-handed sophistry -- it's called The Lomborg Deception. Newsweek analysed the claims in the book and verified each allegation examined.

Kare Fog summed it up nicely when he said he'd no information proving Lomborg worked for the fossil fuel industry "but he always acts as if he does". Don't take my word for it -- whatever your politics, examine his record for yourself and you'll avoid getting suckered by a charlatan.

[dduff442]

Lomborg is notorious for distortion and outright lies. He hand-picks the people who arrive at his 'consensus' and designs the scenarios to be examined in such a way as to ensure greenhouse gas emissions reduction is made to look uneconomical.

After a spat with Gary Yohe of Wesleyan Uni, Lomborg was forced to acknowledge that the "failure" of his emission reduction plans "could be traced to faulty design" -- Lomborg's design, specifically chosen to fail.