Bjorn Lomborg: Global priorities bigger than climate change
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 янв 2007
- www.ted.com Given $50 billion to spend, which would you solve first, AIDS or global warming? Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg comes up with surprising answers.
I came here after jordan peterson
Divye Dixit me too
me too
hail lobster.
And my axe! I mean, me too.
Same for me! Great info!
Wow, Gordon Ramsay has really lost weight.
so funny
This is perhaps the most sobering video on climate change I have ever seen. As a stauch environmentalist I must admit that the thought of prioritizing solutions never even entered my mind. Embarresed and enlightened as I feel, this is definately a perspective I will bring with me in the future.
Great talk!
most underrated talk ever
Lots of vitriol here in the comments. It seems some miss that this idea doesn't dismiss climate change as unimportant; it simply views it as insufficiently soluble to be a focus over other large, far more tractable problems.
you can't reason with left green crazies
well said!
don't get so distracted fighting the alligators that you forget to clean the swamp.
He really was ahead of his time.
Bjorn will make a lof enemies from the alarmists, who make their entire career from scary End-Of-World scenarios.
Exactly what a TED presentation should be. Even if you don't agree, it makes you think.
Top talk from a clear-thinking young chap. 9/10. :)
This guy just killed Man-Bear-Pig!
I love TED speaches/debates, i'm surprised i haven't heared about it earlier, it doesn't get the media (main stream) attention it should.
Perhaps the internet algorithms don't want us to see this video. 🤔
@H1PBS You are right and a rethinking of our mindset would enable us to solve most if not all problems, but this is the application of realism on our situation on a global scale.
A lot of TED videos focus on some abstract ideas with perhaps relatively little connection to a real, physical solution. And while that is in no way bad because it often identifies the problems at the core, this video is a refreshing take on very real problems with extremely tangible solutions.
strange that reducing malaria wasn't #1 as it affects roughly a thousand times as many people as hiv/aids per year and costs only half as much to halve the problem in each case.
+richard reeves I think he means one gets more bang for their buck solving HIV rather than malaria. So if the world solves HIV it'd still have money left over to start solving malaria.
Except that the cost to solve HIV/AIDS is quite a bit more than malaria. While both diseases can and should be eradicated, I can't see them as being more important that other aspects. His way of measuring the "worthiness" of a project seems odd. The solutions to HIV/AIDS or malaria are not likely to be extendable to other areas of society or civilization. Solving climate change involves new energy production/storage/etc. technologies, new transportation technologies, new business models for supplying and consuming energy, new materials created, etc. All of those can and will sprout whole new markets and that market will be 10 to 10,000 times the amount expended on solving climate change.
Imagine new airplanes that no longer spew out half-burned jet fuel. What does that mean to air travel? Could we see personalized air travel, flying 20 miles instead of driving? What would that mean to shipping, work, entertainment, living?
because the people who get malaria are poor, and we already know how our corporate overlords feel about the poor.
Don't you know there are too many black and brown people in the world? Oh damn I channeled Klaus Schwab.
A really interesting video that takes a logical view of world problems and potential solutions.
"If we had $50 billion to spend over the next four years to do good in the world, where should we spend it?"
--THIS IS EASY...
speaking for America, which is spending that much in Iraq every 6 months, NOT IN IRAQ!!! GET OUT OF IRAQ AND START TO SAVE THE WORLD THE RIGHT WAY
Thanks for the info.
Excellent ~ Eyeopening presentation !
Awesome talk by Mr. Lomborg. Yes, we ought to prioritize on ideas and not problems, as well as to weigh out all options and not entirely focus ourselves on one issue and neglect the rest. Don't forget that while the world is throwing much money into issues like global warming, starvation and sickness are still happening in other parts of the world, yet many are neglecting this problem that the poor folks are facing. We must do something about it.
Even when the money isn't yours, he helps add a little responsibility atop the shoulders of those trying to avoid it at any personal costl.
Good thinking.
I think that this video teach us solving the problems at low costs
In my opinion, it is always good to ask questions to try to figure out, in an intellectually honest way, what have been the consequences of past decisions and learn to improve our current decision making. For that I can relate to what Bjorn is doing but I think is reasoning is based in lack of understanding of the real big picture...
I always enjoy a well thought out set of thoughts. Cheers to you Bjorn.
Wow one of the best talks, especially since I freak out about climate change.
You should not freak out about it.
Looking forward to Lomborg's visit to our campus next week!
How was it?
Having been binging on the ones that interest me mostly, I can plainly see we need a TEDDY xx or something to update and further expound on the previous subjects vs. the way things have changed in 15+ years since Ted talks began.
#1. Gyrocopter lessons or wingsuit flying.
#2. Convincing my wife it's a cost benifit.
You plebeians are completely missing his point. He is not saying that Climate change is not an issue. In fact it is a big problem, and at no point is he denying that.
He is simply saying that every dollar spent on HIV/AIDS will be much more effective at reducing the incidence of HIV/AIDS than every dollar spent battling climate change will be effective at battling climate change.
So if we only have a limited amount of money to spend solving global issues, then it would make the most sense to spend it where it will be the most effective.
Really. It's that simple.
I was quite surprised by this ranking. I can't imagine curing HIV/AIDS will be more effective (however that is measured) than solving climate change. Solving climate change is a disruption. New technologies that will revolutionize how we live, work, play will arise from this disruption. For example, utilizing green power, which will be distributed, off-grid, and may have net-zero metering will fundamentally change how we access and pay for power. That we no longer have to pay $40/month (per person) for gas and electric changes the whole economy. We will spend that on things we can't even currently envision.
Compare that to having HIV/AIDS cured, which only brings us back to a pre-AIDS society: that is, no substantial fundamental change in society and economy.
This is a year old comment... but I have to note that you completely missed Potato's simplified summary.
Actually, that is NOT what he was saying. He was saying that the obsession with climate change could actually be the cause of FAR GREATER damage to the world by allowing hundreds of millions in 3rd world countries to die by diverting money that could be used to save them to a climate change project that has, at best, minimal effects on the climate itself. Such a focus would also be a factor in destroying or destabilizing the economies of India and China who are highly dependent on fossil fuels. But, yeah, who cares about a couple of billion Asians, right!
He also said that, dollar for dollar, tackling climate change as a project is the LAST thing we should do, because economically speaking - it's a bad project! Can you say reality check? What we can do about it is "very little at a very high cost" and that it would postpone warming by 6 years (which I find it curious since "the golden child" AOC believes the world's going to end at least 70 years before that).
Bravo to you for not putting things into context and ensuring the focus still remains on BAD PROJECTS that kill untold many. I bet that most reading your comment will continue to NOT focus their attention on the causes that could ACTUALLY do more good in the world. In other words, you've done NOTHING in the way of helping humanity with getting its priorities straight, but you probably still feel really good about yourself! As a reminder, here they are the priorities that are FAR more important than "solving" the "problem" of climate change:
1. Investing in curing/solving/diminishing HIV/AIDS.
2. Combating malnutrition.
3. Stimulating free trade by cutting subsidies in the US and Europe.
4. Eradicating or diminishing the incidences of malaria.
Of note is that the list of priorities, when looked at objectively, always comes out the same no matter who you ask the world over (15:00). So climate change is at the bottom, by consensus the world over. Really, the only ones pushing for climate change as THE BIGGEST PROBLEM are the globalist elites, Hollywood, the MSM - NONE of whom practice what they preach, but ALL of whom have financial interests in pushing that agenda, because if they were truly compassionate and interested in the well-being of humanity there would be a number of other projects that are FAR more important that they would support.
12:30 - 13:15 - This is the reality, folks! This goes to show just how out of whack people's priorities are. 13:50 "It's not about making us feel good, it's not about making things that has the most media attention..."
Bottom line, the climate change religionists will NOT like Bjorn Lomborg's proposals.
where do you get your information from? i hope your right and ide love to read it
It's a shame this video only received 231k views when this topic is so important and effects billions of people.
You have to know about Bjorn to search for this. And since he doesn't buy the idea of of man made climate change google won't send you to his talk . Therefore it doesn't get the audience that this thinking deserves.
So we fix malaria and hiv, and suddenly there are millions more people living on the planet, producing millions more people. We fix free trade so all people can consume more and more food/plastic/power than before. So we are effectively cramming more need onto our already overburdened planet.
Then what?
I get that this talk is purely weighing up financial ROI but it doesn't seem like the only factor that should be considered
We also educate those people and now we have way more educated people who can solve more of the world's problems. The world can hold a lot of people I don't think we need to worry about that
The current population in 2019 uses 1.7x the earth's sustainable amount of resources. So if we are going to save millions of people, we better make room for them in our habits of consumption & misuse
@@arambadalyan2469 Unfortunately even today education in general have priorities in wrong order and all the masses of absolvents are "just" qualified for variety of professions but not educated for the future problems complexity and morality 😕
Rational thinking and common sense, to say the least he talks about simple principles of economics
This is the mentality that's destroying the environment - we'll be able to do more later, necessity breeds ingenuity, the technology will be better later. Breaks my heart.
a real eye-opener. everyone should watch this.
Makes sense for an individual organization to put the money where it has the most impact. However if everyone would do this, then nobody would tackle the big problems at all, and this would be the end of humanity in case of climate change.
This is what makes me passionate about economics. Having the guts to make tough decisions in tough problems.
spot on. agreed on all counts.
It is not about the cost of doing something to prevent GW. It is about the cost that will be incurred by GW. This later cost is so great that our present economic model is incapable of expressing it. Lomborg as an economist cannot think outside of the smaller box.
Wait. I want to live as long as I can. And I want my family line to live forever... how much is that gonna cost me?
I love this guy and I totally agree with him!
Thats because you really dont understand WTF YOU are talking about... Not everything is a simple 6 min video lady
I have a hard time labeling the action for preventing the end of humanity as a "bad project".
Costing a lot shouldn't be a factor. The criteria should be "what's making our species survive"
@shazizz I totally agree with you!
Hallelujah, why can't there be more people like you.
He is very smart and well-articulated. But he got one thing clearly wrong:
Day After Tomorrow is NOT a good movie.
He said it looks good, not that it would be good!
I believe the worst disasters come out of the mistaken notion that good answers come from prioritizing budgets. That type of linear thinking is the problem in and of itself. That is to say, the nature isn't one of queuing, but one of optimization. Handing out money in order damages priorities. Rather, we should instead answer the question "How many resources should be given to each problem to maximize the positive effects of all of them." The very act of prioritizing IS the fundamental problem...it leads to never getting at meeting inconvenient needs.
Agreed. Furthermore; the effects are still developing.
Mike Morrison,
I doubt the reason climate change falls so low on his list is due to short term vs long term thinking. I think it is because, as you say, he is doing a cost benefit analysis. That is, he is calculating the return on spending directed to solve the climate change problem. He is not accounting for ways to combat climate change other than with spending, which leaves out a great deal. In fact, a lot of behaviors that would combat climate change are the opposite of spending. Make what you have last, rather than buy new. Commute on a bicycle when possible rather than relying on combustion engines. Cut waste, cut consumption. Turn off your lights when not in use, take shorter showers, eat less, etc.
It is not necessarily an unimportant problem, just not one that lends itself to easy solution by spending.
Jamie Fraser-Bingham there is a billion people without access to energy at all. Using less for those people kills them. You have an anti-human thought process and you likely learned it from the American school system.
@@farlanghn if people who decreases all that will do it, changes can be seen. every person makes a difference.
A decade later and the Earth is still here.
Not all experts agree on whether there is a real solution, but the one thing that is certain is that doing nothing is going to make the situation worse.
You don't need to 'completely stop all economic process' at all. In fact, this is a good opportunity for innovation. We're already seeing the development of more efficient computers, lighting, etc., and these inventions have massive economic benefits as well as environmental ones. But they do need initial funding to get off the ground.
No, that takes work and initiative. You do it.
@chapulinaaa:
And who gets to measure "the real value of things", and more importantly, how? Does a psychic contacts Karl Marx in the afterlife and asks him how much "real value" of a thing is? Value is inherently subjective, so to claim that there is such a thing as a "real value of things" is quite meaningless.
I see one major problems with this reasonning. The resolution of those big problems aren't independant. Perhaps the next question we should ask ourselves with is What impact each problem solving could have on the others? What are the effect of investing on the fight against malaria on world hunger? Investing on some problems may reduce the cost of others. In the other hand not investing on not solving some problems may increase the cost of others
I agree completely. He simply did not mention the correlation among the problems. If he did that, "population growth" might have been somewhere on the list. Slowing down the population growth will reduce sizes of almost all the problems. If a vast country like China can solve it, it should be solvable for other countries.
I agree. Helping climate change could involve cleaning up dirty standing water which breeds mosquitos that transmits malaria, whereas the other way may not help solve climate change.
Good thought
You are correct.
Samanmotlagh, could you please help up explaining the lack of philosophical inquiry in bjiorn´s discourse? i am from Colombia, i am writing a book about the sofistication of the mafia and i want to bring this up
Freedomainradio :)
Penn&Teller:Bullshit
Greta, how dare you not watch this?! HOW
DARE U!!!!
Points he brings up like malaria, that gets increased in a warmer, moister climate a la climate change. It's apples and oranges we don't need to solve climate change OR poverty. We need to solve both. The IPCC report 2013, with IPCC being intergovernmental panel on climate change funded, formed by and used by 192 countries of the world found humans are undoubtedly causing global warming, the last years have been warmest on records leading to record levels of extreme events like hurricanes due to warmer oceans, mass killing of ocean ecosystems therefore fish populations therefore people who rely on fishing are now struggling for food. As many people as are brought up with other diseases in this video that was flakey even at the time are dieing of climate change related events. Entire low lieing areas of land will be gone in the next 50-100 years. Arctic animals are dieing or moving to human habitats they pose a danger to due to crap levels of arctic sea ice and ecosystem disruption ruining their food supply. The main common thing linking climate skeptics today is they just really don't know wtf they are talking about. Every statement is just the same few lines repeated with no evidence. Good example is a response to ben shapiro saying "if your house is an area affected by sea level rise just sell your house" "TO WHO BEN AQUAMAN"
Sounds great, and very convincing. But after seeing Steven levits clipp on how worthles macroeconomical forecasting is, i wonder how accurate this clipp is.
The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The first billion the surface was a smoldering
mass. The earth cooled by raining for a million years. Now that's some climate change. Even before the SUV
john6hayes makes you wonder how much life was existing on earth in the first billion years? You know that climate change is not about earth but about our grand children, right?
***** I am also intolerant, xenophobic, Islamophobic, and bigoted.
Jeppe Lavsen Stop using fossil fuel, and your grand children will
live in a third world country.
‘The earth cooled by raining’!? Mmmmmm.....
Million years? That’s a long time.....
Non of that precludes the possibility of man made climate change
john6hayes stop using stone tools and your children will use iron tools.
Your thinking is very muddled. Must be American ....
Like the world has time to wait for the right time to invest on climate change!
James Mark I know these numbers and I agree with him
stop listening to Greenpeace.
Well it’s been 4 years. Have you diluted the koolaid out of your system?
Bjorn Lomborg’s book “False Alarm” is a MUST READ
This amazing list was done more than 110 years ago!! League of Nations for runner to U.N. Discussed all these issue
so I guess they are not good for getting anything done
What rank was AIDS in LoN's list?
@@reference2me identify problems, appropriate money to study solutions, but never do anything to actually solve the problem. After all your job depends on those things remaining problems...
The govt way in action.
All this talk about "prioritizing" he failed to mention the ridiculously large military budget.
I smell something fishy about this dude.
***** please tell me how im clueless? What do China and Iran have to do with this?
+Ismael Montoya He did mention it. Did you watch the video?
He doesn't take into account the enormous future costs of not acting on climate change.
+Carl Helander - I believe that he actually did take that into account. By stating that the official version of climate change reports that the net change is not as great as many alarmists fear. I'll have to go back and see at what point in the video he mentioned this and then update my post. Of course it could be the other video I watched.
can you make a case that our global decision making models can actually factor in those future costs though?
indeed
Also, I read that issue of SA. It was crap, obviously. Personal attacks, on the order of "he's not one of us".
Then, to permit him to respond, he got minuscule column space. They acted to silence him, not to refute him.
This talk is incredibly outdated right now, in 2016. In fact I find it even offensive to keep this talk still on TED. Climate change is number one priority in the world right now, because so much bad climate-induced things have happened since 2005 so now the alarm is very visible and a lot of institutions and politicians realized it already. There is no point to focus all efforts on smaller scale problems if a little bit later this century we all will burn in the climate chaos.
It is immoral to state publicly that one mustn't prioritize climate change.
(The whole thing looks like lobbying.)
This talk is as relevant today as it were in 2007, back then climate change was also considered the top problem. But in the light of the financial crises we have even less ressources to distribute, and thus looking at priorities is a rational thing to do. Also the temperature has not risen in 19 years which seriously undermine the man-made global Warming theory.
This talk is even more relevant than it was in 2007. There are too many brainwashed climateers with good intent, but like you, with absolutely no sense, especially economic sense.
Actually we have been certain since Lyndon Johnson in 1965. The climate sceptics are not climatologists and are the same group that created "doubt mongering" and questioning of clear empirical observable evidence regarding the effects of tobacco, acid rain and the depletion of the ozone layer. All they are, are supporters of laissez-faire economics and neo-liberal lack of regulation. They are insidious and dangerous.
If your offened over a 11 year old TED talk, when I think it's time for you to close your lungs for once. Less Carbon emissions. Just kidding;)
But still stop being offended over everything!
@@MikeLtheSoulChild That's incorrect, the temperature has risen.
Propaganda.
What?
very influential. a great idea.
Yep, I picked it up at an airport newsstand, which is almost always when I read SA. I was shocked at what I read. Out of curiosity, I decided to buy Lomborg's book, which is when I read what they were attacking.
1:04
4:43 -5:20ish
15:55 -16:15 ish
@H1PBS well, it does mean exactly that. However, since our glorious super spendy politicians have strong influence over the reserve banks they tell them to "print" more money, said money does not represent economic growth, it is inflation.
But, assuming that the reserve banks were indeed independent, more money means more resources indeed (technology, energy, etc etc...)
As the wiki says; the focus of S. Korea was on the industrial sector; not on primary production which other countries get locked into. Under the Stability category; it says that in the 80s "policies on imports and foreign investment were liberalized to promote competition" which implies that they were more restrictive during the initial phases. This protection is the opposite of free trade. "Seoul expanded investments in public projects" again is not an example of free trade.
@H1PBS Money is a representation of resources and technological capability.
Dear carRamRod04, Very good! Nostradamus forgot to mention Rock music, delicatessens, rollerblading and Australia. And as they say, "Where's my hover car!"
Sharing profit in public listed companies means share holder dividends This enables a company to grow as they can then raise capital from issuing more shares. If the company is rubbish no one will buy. In regards to wages: I own a hotel, I have to pay my workers a wage. My room rate is based on me turning a profit after overheads, but if my room rate is too high, the customers go else where. So it is a balancing act, very difficult as it is the market forces determining my rate as well as my OH
Why is this only avalible in 240p so I'm sad
Not saying that everyone does it. Most businesses don't have that luxury. But those who do, often decide to increase the earnings for the owners and managers, rather than regular workers. 100$ for 1000 people is 100.000 for one.
How far have we come now in 2020?
@playgrrrr lets add to that "we have more pressing issues than to save every human that we can."
I truly have never understood those that questioned whether we are largely responsible for the current trend of global warming. The debate is over. It's like they still think the world is flat.
I really love that guy
In BC Canada as a result of GW, we are not getting the extreme cold spells in the winter. These cold spells used to kill off a little beetle called the pine beetle. Now this little is devistating most of the forests. The dollar cost of this slite shift in climate is a large % of our economy.
Why not?
According to IPCC report if production of CO2 rise a sea level rise up to 5 meter in 2100 so Holland/Netherlands probably won't exist anymore but good show.
I do understand. But that very little can be indeed a huge difference in a long term. We should stop thinking that much in today and start thinking in tomorrow.
We kind of agree. A more efficient use of resources is certainly of extreme importance in the coming years. However, the scale of the ecological overshoot to come requires not only gains in efficiency but also rapid changes in “Western” lifestyle (in addition to world population stabilization efforts). What people living in the developed world can and should do NOW is take responsibility, strive for a less materialistic existence, and find ways to overcome their addiction to economic growth.
He is saying that Kyoto imposes a high cost and produces little benefit, and that the UN should focus on problems that impose a lower cost and are easier to solve. He never says that ignoring Kyoto would create more money for the UN.
@bannor99
I'd say we do both.
One of the reasons why a lot of people would rather do something about global warming instead of things like malaria and HIV/AIDS is that people will naturally be concerned with issues that affect or can affect them directly. Also, dealing with global warming is a much less messy and trendy issue to combat.
@DasKrabbe It is subjective but very often most people would agree that saving many people at a lower cost is better than the alternative. It would be interesting to know if you thought spending the money on saving species X is better than saving Y people dying from preventable illness Z. Subjective but it's up to you to answer.
Natural scientists will choose how to solve a problem, but it is the economists who should choose what problems to solve. The study of Economics is all about prioritizing the unlimited demands with limited resources.
This is very intuitive & obvious and happens everywhere from family budggets to corporations.
Tip: Read the last sentence of the 2nd to last paragraph, "We are unlikely to make the planet uninhabitable for life." That is all Lomborg is saying. Your own source agrees. Lomborg does not say 'do nothing.' He does not say 'let's wait and see.' He proposes dozens of solutions in "Cool It" that would be cheaper and more effective than cap and trade or carbon taxes.
Old TED, also add in there the adaptability of life. :)
He doesn't ignore them, he's just making the assumption that economic growth allowed to happen by addressing the wolds biggest problems today will help those people who stand to be worst affected by global warming help themselves by the time it actually poses a threat to human life.
An excellent example of positive feedback is the methane caves beneath the Siberian permafrost. As the climate warms, the permafrost (which has been frozen for centuries) begins to melt, and methane gas (a Greenhouse Gas) escapes. The amount of methane present beneath this permafrost is absolutely immense, and would dwarf a year's worth of human emissions by several times.
It is absolutely crucial that we mitigate climate change, and reduce our emission of CO2 before we hit this tipping point.
We have a climate crisis, it is time to act.
* Have a look at the PIOMAS September Arctic Sea Ice Volume. It declined by an alarming 75% in only 40 years from 1979 to 2019. (See fig 3)
* Greenland’s rate of ice loss accelerated from 25 billion tons per year in 1992 to 277 billion tons per year in 2020, a whopping 11 times increase in melt rate in just 28 years.
* The ANTARCTICA mass loss since 2002 has averaged 151 billion metric tons per year. (Data source: Ice mass measurement by NASA's GRACE satellites)
This was not caused by sunspots or volcanoes or Milankovitch cycles. It was cause by greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 and CH4.
U get it !
@chapulinaaa i'll agree with that
He does not say "do nothing." He literally says that the proposed solutions (of the KATO Protocol) are ineffective and that there are more effective solutions that are more cost effective that we should maybe consider. He has never said AGW is not a thing. Just to cool it with the sensationalism.
I think the argument was that we can actually deal with it more efficiently after getting some of the more obvious big problems of the world out of the way.
That is true. Though usually people or organizations who want to prevent the spread of HIV in developing nations promote either one or the other.
In BC Canada the pine beetle is destroying the very valuable interior forests. The beetle used to be killed off by extreme cold spells. We haven't had one of these cold spells for 10years. This little bug will cost us about 5% of our GDP. This is the reality of GW now.
He's not saying that all the worlds problems will be solved with 75 billion dollars. He is just citing a UN estimate which probably assumes we could automatically put the money in peoples pockets. His point is that money spent on aid could be spent much more efficiently/effectively. i.e. help more people at a lower cost.
He addresses this at 12:15-45