How to fix climate change. But Smartly. | Bjorn Lomborg, Climate Policy Researcher
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 июл 2024
- Dr Bjorn Lomborg is the founder and President of the Copenhagen Consensus think tank, which researches the best ways to solve the world’s greatest challenges. Bjorn believes that huge sums of money we want to spend on the climate could be spent more effectively to improve human wellbeing.
Subscribe to the Channel to keep up-to-date with all the talks from the ARC Conference 2023. Make sure to leave your thoughts in the comments below.
The Alliance for Responsible Citizenship has also published several research papers that accompanied the 2023 Conference. If you’d like to go deeper into the ideas from the conference, please read our research papers here: www.arcforum.com/research-papers
Find out more about the ARC here and subscribe the our newsletter for our latest updates: www.arcforum.com/subscribe
-
ARC, the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, is a global community with a vision of a world where every citizen can prosper, contribute, and flourish.
Join us in building this narrative, rejecting the notion of inevitable decline. Instead, let's seek solutions that tap into humanity's highest virtues and remarkable capacity for innovation and ingenuity.
Follow us on:
X/Twitter - / arc_forum
Instagram - / arc_forum
Let's get this message into our schools, especially our high schools. Young people are being fed a steady diet of catastrophe, which is demoralising them. This gives them hope to move forward in their lives, knowing they have a future and one that can be abundant.
Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
Awesome. About the heading: announcing "fix climate change. But Smartly" 😅 and for new generations to understand that there is life beyond the beloved feet of German Saint Greta (KKisin jokes) is: there are changes, but smart!!! It gives an idea of how much misinformation they have 🤡managed to install, this note 50 years ago would be presumptuous and today it is fun and structurally necessary, and we all understand it. Let's see if the 25-year-old woke apprentices also discover the value of intelligence 😉and morality😃 together. A ⚜️ star of the 21st for the Christmas Tree 🎄 that ARC is showing before my golden-yellow human eyes!!😎♥️🦞
Agreed, we aim to tell a better story than the narratives of catastrophe, permacrisis, and inevitable decline that are demoralising, disempowering, and paralysing people, especially our children.
Climate cycles are a cosmic event.
Pollution of all kinds & sapiens' entitlement attitude & stupidity may be mitigable with
observation, information & learning...
@@arc_conference Yes absolutely we need to get rid of this storyline of negativity; and treat each according to their abilities, and each according to their needs..
The trouble is greedy people have seen 'climate change' as a way to come up with very lucrative 'solutions'.
That's the problem, and it's always accompanied by illegal migration into western nations on the grounds of climate catastrophies... If you could seperate multi culturalism from the climate nutters maybe people would be inclined to atleast listen
Duhh.. They've done that with all grassrootconcerns: they're all great to get The People riled up with, ready to throw away their money and their freedoms..
with a lopsided science....in fakery.
Also, those that want to throttle and kill off capitalism.
Resource and Land grabs, control of all wealth. ALL for them, surveillance and crickets for 😂🤣 I don't think so😅 Suveillance and crickets for them!!!
Totalitarianism is expensive.
Totally!
Yes it is.
Lie Big & Keep Repeating 'em
We can filter CARBON DIOXIDE and use THORIUM
In so many ways. That is in the nature of one way bets.
You go Bjorn! You tell them! I wish the ARC all the success as this world needs something that is more credible than organisations like the WEF.
You know how lòng Lomborgs' been telling his side of the story??
Decades?
@joseevaniersel7280 never too late! People are beginning to realise that Net Zero and the old message means a huge drop in standard of living, that'll filter through to the ballot box sooner than later.
Global warming of 4°C vs 2°C, will cost the global economy an extra $17 trillion every year by 2100. Source: Kompas et al. (2018) "The Effects of Climate Change on GDP by Country.."
@@joseevaniersel7280And yet nobody's talking about Abiotic nature of oil.
It's a very low bar set, easy to promote the next level of folly.
"i dont want you to hope, i want you to panic" Greta Thunberg. This says a lot about the plans of 'the environmentalists"
So people follow a mentally fragile school drop out
Because fear driven “ thought” is sooo much more effective than a calm evaluation of the facts…
If you ever beloved the climate sprou spruck , you have no logic.
ARC 2023 is a beacon of hope
Thank you for you encouragement! We are setting out to tell a hope-filled better story for the future that everyone can get behind 🙌🏼
Sadly if you check 'mainstream' media is is mostly ignored with some exceptions where some single talking points, the scrawlers really hate, are picked out. Unless you reach much more people i fear there is no beacon of hope.
@@arc_conference
Yeah, just burn more fossil fuel and everything will be hunky dory right?
Sorry that's the last century calling they want their ideas back!
@@balyboo5856From little acorns though.. and they have some very bright , influential and most importantly well meaning people on board, what they're saying even if we only take away that we could just be better to others is worth practicing 👍
The new one after all the other foolish ones contrasting themselves to what came before.
The biggest problem I see with individuals like Dr. Lomborg speaking with such logic and sense, is that the people who listen, the true humanitarians, have little power. Those who have benefitted from the tightening of our belts, time and time again, through their taxes, lobbying, laundering and polices simply value financial returns over human lives, period.
the gas lobby has money. they should stop fighting nuclear and instead support getting off coal and funding this message
Like Elon Musk said, "Eugenicists vs humanism."
This study outlines roadmaps for 139 countries to use 100% wind-water-solar in all energy sectors, avoiding 1.5°C global warming and millions of annual air-pollution deaths. It also reduces the cost of energy and creates 24.3 million net long-term jobs. Source: M. Jacobson et al. (2017) "100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World"
@garysarela4431 the drive for 100% renewable energy is working so well for Germany...
@@Facthunt4599It's worked extremely well for Germany and it's a lesson for all of us. Russia wasn't able to use their fossil fuels to blackmail Germany last winter. More renewable energy means greater energy security.
Canadians should watch this to have a better understanding of how stupid and damaging Trudeau's policies are.
eh. For the most part, talking big (and then doing nothing) is actually pretty cheap. A Carbon tax is also pretty cheap and relatively productive - it incentivizes more efficiency (although also sends manufacturing to other places with cheaper energy), and if the tax revenue is redistributed evenly, is also pretty fair. It's not going to get Canada anywhere near Net Zero though. A more intelligent policy would be to invest massively in Nuclear power to make electricity really cheap, abundant, and reliable, i.e. a better alternative than fossil fuels (especially when the price and availability depends on the whims of US politics and stability in Russia and the Middle East). Ontario (provincial government) is starting to move in that direction (more nuclear) after a lost decade wasting billions on solar and wind power, but that's not because of Trudeau. We can only hope that he and others learn from the Ontario experience though.
What have we learned from nuclear disasters around the world. You can't clean those up. People have very short memories.
@@mrsslim9029What we have learned is that a) the original Soviet design had some safety flaws, which have since been rectified in EVERY reactor running since then, including the remaining Chernobyl reactors, and b) If you're in a tsunami zone, don't put the backup generator within reach of the tidal wave. Ontario is safe.
Trudeau should watch this to have a better idea of how stupid and damaging his policies are.
Oh we're watching alright!
Just incredible. This is exactly the kind of news that we millenials need to hear so that we can get to work creating the future. Without these stories, we risk huddling and panicing and doing nothing.
Who's in a panic?
I'm not.
I see a future beyond fossil fuels.
A future where several different sources of energy (mostly different types of renewable energy) power a civilization that's moving forward.
We can't get to that future without ditching fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels will drag us down, and the unintended consequences of all that burning, will bury our civilization.
Humans will probably survive, but we'll be back in the stone age.
I don't want that for you or anyone else.
I want a future for you and your children, and grand children.
Just spend the money on green infrastructure, instead of shifting politics just moving them around all the time.
a pity that he’s giving millennials a false sense of hope 🤦🏽♂️
Hurray. it's OK to continue doing nothing. Innovators are going to solve the problem for us. Not sure when but it doesn't matter. There's no rush. Anytime over the next 10 - 20 - 100 - 1000 years will do.
@@robp2545exactly right. That will be the way to solve these issues.
Almost the first statement "climate change is not the end of the world". Brilliant, that is what the majority of us think, pass it on
One of my neices is in college working on a major in environmental studies. As a former biologist and ecosystems modeler, I have been trying to widen her vision to include at least some exposure to the other side of the climate debate. Dr. Lomborg has been my primary source. Whether or not she listens is another
But, hopefully you have at least exposed her to the contrary argument/facts !
far easier to look back and compare. once you start projecting the future, you're predictions become more inaccurate as your time span increases. there's no way to know how effiecent we can be year 2350. no idea how much. no clue. "models " are useless.
Dumb.
CO2/climate-change is the biggest fraud since communism.
(See Henrik Svensmark for the cosmic-ray/solar-activity/cloud-formation/climate relationship.)
CO2 is a ruse.
Climate change the "Greens" are talking about is caused by changes in the cosmic-rays/solar-activity relationship and cloud formation (See the work of Henrik Svensmark.)
Cloud formation by actual cosmic rays can be scene with the naked eye in Cloud Chamber demonstrations. RUclips has dozens of videos about them.,
Greed is behind all the mess we witness currently
Every person from a developing country knows this to be factually true. When prices and fuel supply in Syria were strained, people turned to cutting trees, burning wood and dung just for winter heating, let alone cooking or having a warm shower. Respiratory problems spiked. All the cutting caused massive deforestation, and the excessive burning caused whole mountain forests to burn. Due to expensive fuel, transportation almost shut down. The poor couldn't afford a 100km trip to see a good doctor or attend a highschool or even find work.
Of course this wasn't due to any climate policy, but the point is that those are the same results that inevitably follow a dramatic increase in energy prices. And every climate policy, especially net-zero, cause that to happen.
You're wrong on your generalization. Also: transport accounts for around 10% of the issue.
@@kreek22 What am I wrongly generalising?
Quite literally everything you do in your life relies on a source of energy. If this energy is too expensive, what follows is a cascade of shortages and difficulties that would be anything but helpful in raising you from poverty.
It’s just astonishing how little money spent in the correct way can have such a disproportionally positive outcome….you have to wonder why institutions want to spend all this money on EV’s and infrastructure….follow the money
Oh...nasty personal attack....and how do you know these institutions are more informed than me? Where is your evidence of such a claim, Mr. Fig Newton?? @@SigFigNewton
Not much has been spent on EVs. Who knows what infrastructure you're referring to?
I don't know what country you live in, but in my country, billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent to subsidize EV battery plants and mines for EV materials. With regards to the infrastructure I am referring to, why don't you just ask me?@@kreek22
@@SigFigNewton I recently noticed that a hybrid Corolla is about $1500 more than an ICE Corolla. Gas prices don't have to be very high to recover that differential.
@@SigFigNewton The power grid is the thing to worry about. It's not designed, especially at the most local level, the block level, to handle fast charging by a significant percentage of customers. They're beginning to face this problem is some affluent communities in California. IEEE Spectrum had an article about this last year: Can Power Grids Cope With Millions of EVs?
As to power production: building more natural gas plants is easy. Solar is increasing rapidly, which will eventually require a price incentive for people to recharge during peak insolation.
One reason I'm less concerned than some is that I don't believe the official predictions that 50% of cars sold in 2030 will be full electric. We're looking at 8% this year. 25% in 2030 seems more likely. High interest rates do not help electric car sales, since their upfront costs are higher than alternatives.
Bjorn and The Copenhagen Consensus are ridiculously genius.
"Ridiculously genius," is ridiculously genius. Well done you!
bjorn is a paid off shill
Just not wise.
I'm an economist who's delved pretty deep into the type of cost-benefit analysis on climate change and climate policies that he was talking about. What they usually don't emphasize is the enormous uncertainty that all such estimates involve. Anyone who shows you numbers, particularly on the expected climate damages, whether it is Lomborg trying to assure you that it'll all be fine or the alarmists going on about how we're all going to die, the truth is, they don't really know. There's so much uncertainty in the models, plus the issue of the discount rate you use to translate future damages into present costs, you end up with a ton of CO2 emission causing anywhere between 1$-1000$ damage. So we basically have to decide whether or not to spend huge amounts of money on emission reduction without reall knowing whether or not it's "worth it". And, depending on disposition, the uncertainty causes some to say "hey, we're not even sure it's going to be that bad so why spend all the money" and others will say "it could be much worse than we think so every expenditure is justified to avoid possible catastrophe". (But in reality, I don't think Bjorn & co need to worry too much because if you look at acual energy investments and policies, it doesn't look like anybody is taking their own net zero promises very seriously. Except maybe the EU - we might very well shoot ourselves in the foot economically while China & co make sure we will get to find out who's right about the future unmitigated climate damage estimates...)
But some past climate models proved to be quite accurate.
Did Bjorn's numbers seem accurate to you though for the cost of climate policies at $25 trillion per year through 2060 (est. $750 Trillion)?
Cost estimates from decarbonization studies ive read though for large developed countries range as a net value between $15-$25 trillion total per country. Granted most of my evaluation has been particular to energy, industrial, and manufacturing.
But $25 trillion per year seems exceptionally higher than any data ive read through even if you totaled the estimated annual spend by every country (plus that the source of this data wasnt really mentioned is kinda suspicious).
Uncertainty is the greatest certainty....I would say those who are labelled alarmist should really be referred to as the alarmed, the observed realities of those willing to engage are alarming.. thermal runaway is amazing, I've observed its exponential charms for many years...Next year will be hotter...
Growing food is soo much harder than almost everyone realises...
What's better, great accounting or food and water ?
great start to ARC..... Thankyou Jordan Peterson and all the others involved in bringing this alliance to the world. This (ARC) is what we desperately need. Genuine facts and leadership. Now it is up to us, the public, to do our part. Spread the word, help grow the "Alliance for Responsible Citizenship", and do YOUR part to help bring about a better more positive world for all of humanity. Put an end to the distopian vision offered by the elites of Davos and the WEF gang. Bring individual Freedom and responsibility back to the forefront of a free and prosperous society. Thankyou.
Cl8mate change is not a problem, it's a norm that's been harnessed to leverage feeble minded people for money and control.
yup
For him to speak about carbon emissions being a driver when the science that promotes that stance has been corrupted is disappointing to say the least.
I haven't been impressed by ARC so far.
@@trevorclapham5571 well... its still far better than WEF.
@@nicolaushanselhandoyo3949 that it is and they keep their forum open.
Facts!!
There is no "climate carbon crisis!" We are carbon, I have to wonder if we are the carbon they want eliminate. We do have a serious environmental pollution problem with microplastics and this is an urgent problem to be working on. However, putting recycled plastic bottles into our clothing is the stupidest idea and reality imaginable because it is cancer causing to the skin and with every wash load these microplastics escape into the waste water and out to our oceans and other environments right back to the vicious cycle again.
Getting a warmer climate is so good for us. Why should climate be constant, error in the assumptions.
I agree totally.
yup every spike in warm over the last 6k years or so has seen humans flourish, when it ended there was mass die off, the mes, roman and medieval warm periods were hotter today and humans flourish
@@SigFigNewton "Climate refugees"? Out of all the people pouring across the border, "because it got too hot" was never a reason I've heard.
Meanwhile, extinction more often caused by human activity, not the temperature. Why does all the money set aside for environmental causes go to this beast that doesn't even appear to work the way they think it does, when they could step right in and fix the issues like over-hunting, deforestation, chemical pollution, etc, that ACTUALLY have caused most of our extinction events?
You sound over-informed, another word for indoctrinated in one very narrow worldview.
@@bencoad8492
Agree. Spending money on getting a cooler climate is insane.
Energy bills will be reduced in all areas out of the tropics.
This guy is amazing!!!!
Alex Epstein 's "FOSSIL FUTURE" on sale now.The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels. HUMAN FLOURISHING
@@SigFigNewton Is he wrong?
He was initially amazing, nowadays he has become dumb
I've watched a couple of these ARC talks now, all differing subjects, and they've all been absolutely brilliant.
The Arc must generate local chapters.
End the narratives which destroy hope and create nightmares in our children.
The thing is, if you spend $5 trillion on something, it goes to someone or some company. It isn't just burned, so there are massive flow on effects such as inflationary effects and wealth distribution effects (if most money spent goes to major companies). These things need to be factored into as well.
I can't help but think that smart and powerful business people have already positioned themselves into companies that would be taking advantage of climate change spending. They also possibly have a role in encouraging the narrative towards these outcomes.
Always take a look at who benefits from every decision. Not many decisions are made out of altruism.
Cui bono?
CO2/climate-change is the biggest fraud since communism.
(See Henrik Svensmark for the cosmic-ray/solar-activity/cloud-formation/climate relationship.)
CO2 is a ruse.
Climate change the "Greens" are talking about is caused by changes in the cosmic-rays/solar-activity relationship and cloud formation (See the work of Henrik Svensmark.)
Cloud formation by actual cosmic rays can be scene with the naked eye in Cloud Chamber demonstrations. RUclips has dozens of videos about them.,
We know that it is not about climate change really, it is about power, rationality and common sense are out of place in this discussion.
I appreciate Bjorn and his valuable contributions, but I must admit that I found this speech to be somewhat lacking in quality. It seems that his response to the end-of-the-world narrative is leaning towards the "nothing-wrong" perspective. While I share the view that we should move away from constant doomsday scenarios, his alternative in this speech seems to consist of oversimplified statements and unelaborated graphs, with an excessive focus on human prosperity. It's unfortunate, as I believe he is capable of delivering more comprehensive and insightful analyses. Nevertheless, I'm thrilled to see him become a part of the ARC movement
There's clearly a time limit on these talks. I believe more substance can be found in longer podcasts with Bjorn, in his nòks and in publications from the Copenhagen Institute. We need some "soundbites" to counter those from Doomsday side, and this talk is providing some. With researchable references that people can explore further.
Get on board the Arc!
About time common sense came back to the front page.
Simple common sense!
@@SigFigNewton You have no less than 15 negative comments in this video, but not a single one where you make a fact-based argument. It's tempting to conclude you're a bot or propagandist yourself, but I'm guessing you're merely a True Believer. Why don't you stop wasting time here and go throw some soup at a painting or something?
@@SigFigNewton Propaganda is what you get from the Climate Industrial Complex groupthink.
Think differently World.
Amazing, thank you.
That was a very positive and uplifting presentation with plenty of actual facts and figures that matter to everyday folk, rich and poor alike ,and the massive push given to us on climate change by our respective collective governments is most definitely a push to prepare us for massive cost hikes they have planned in every day living ,especially us in the west.
Statistics are selected to fit the argument with data points selected to suit the outcome. Facts are raw data, not its statistical analysis. Life expectancy has increased due to vaccines against major killers before reaching adulthood. Poverty is a subjective measure whereas poverty relative to the expected lifestyle within the age has increased, especially that caused by rents increasing and mortgage servicing. Homes are overheated due to too much heat in most workplaces and transport, public and private, so fuel is wasted. Ridiculous reality TV and advertised lifestyles emulation must cease or decrease significantly so wasteful energy use ends. Conquer that and the energy needs, not wants, become more realistic goals.
Had quite heated discussion with my hubby last night about government of country where we live is planning to propose a flight travel tax in 2025, where people flying out of airports (with exception of transit flights) will need to pay flight tax to compensate carbon emitted from flying (amount varies depending on the distance). I mentioned Bjorn's ideas that there are better alternatives. I too feel many policies are not pro human (as in people in general, who live on paychecks to buy food, pay bills, etc.). The thing with the tax is not really about the amount but it is more about the principle, that it is being forced down on us by politicians. Incentives are the best way to motivate people and not yet another narrative about us, human, as the main source of problem and thus, we need to pay for our ''wrong deeds''.
Great message... I am actually writing my thesis on how to improve education and nutrition, 2 main pillars of our society!
on which no one cares. we have more fat people than ever. education? not gonna improve, we WANT factory people trained to obey...not educated masses
We need to listen more to people like Bjorn. He understands the situation completely and can articulate it . Read his books and challenge the thinking of people blindly following misguided environmentalists and governments.
"We need to listen more to people like Bjorn." No, we need to ignore people like him because he has been repeatedly debunked and is known to be spreading misinformation for pay.
Wow, is so refreshing somebody with common sense, common sense, a true objective analysis, presentation of our world, our problems, our future in 2023!!!So refreshing, there is still hope out there!!!There is still hope!!!
I love, listening to Bjorn and his common sense factual, scientific and humanitarian approach. That said, it does not match the autocratic world we live in as too many people in power have a different agenda to make themselves more powerful and rich, no matter what it does to human life or the planet. I wish people would wake up to what’s really going on here🙏
Climate Feedback is a worldwide network of scientists sorting fact from fiction in climate change media coverage. They determined Bjorn Lomborg's analysis has Low or Very Low scientific credibility.
Science is a debate within which one hypothesis reaches a majority supporting it and dominates till better one’s challenge it. Unfortunately Climate Change science fails to acknowledge that process claiming it’s irrefutable. That’s sheer lunacy and hubris. His competing hypothesis may be no better.
The variables are so huge, and one important one may be being omitted, that models aren’t predictive. The Climate Change supporters then claim it’s accelerating so fast the models are outdated. This is ludicrous. A supercomputer in the future may well tell us that it’s not us, it’s a cyclical phenomenon, but we’ve contributed to the size of it, not caused it in its entirety. We’ve given mankind the status of a God who has omnipotence over the planets state. Humility, a large dose, is required, before our solutions become tomorrow’s problems.
Should include discussions of geoengineering as the major true cause of climate hoax. Plus chemtrails.
How were the governments of the world able to fix the minor ice age of the 18th. century or the dust bole of the 1930s?
🤣
It's great to see fossil fuel companies getting behind these conferences, even if it's not publicly stated.
And the Zionist agenda. That’s rather more evident though explicitly not stated.
Awesome video Bjorn. Much needed!!
Read "Unsettled " by Dr Steven Koonin. There's no climate emergency.
Thank you for the hope you give us all.
I've been saying this for years...Put the monies and efforts we're wasting doing nothing for climate change into REAL global issues and maybe, just maybe, we'll actually help solve our real global issues as they arise.
Helping solve anything is not what the “Climate Change” agenda is about.
The real global issue is the goal to Westernise when its consequences in the West point to its abject failure. As the world becomes more Westernised in lifestyles all the issues created get bigger. The climate needs to change over our lifestyles which are unhealthy to humans and the planet. But collectives like ARC want more, not less, because their audience wants it all. Ultimately that’s impossible.
I like Bjorn. He has to say that CC is a problem so that he doesn’t get completely kicked out of polite circles. If the “Milankovich Cycle” theory comes out to be true, then it’s going to cool again. They need to consider this. It’s only 20 years before we find out.
already started 2020 but floods, storms, fires all being blamed on warming, not Milankovich early years.
_" It’s only 20 years before we find out."_
How so? The Milankovitch cycles have periods on the order of tens-of-thousands to hundreds-of-thousands of years. The cycles do not cause noticeable changes in Earth's climate on as small of a timespan as 20 years.
@@mvmlego1212 David Dilley and Katarina (Can’t recall last name) on Tom Nelson’s podcast think that we are within 30 years of a sharp cooling trend due to this.
CO2/climate-change is the biggest fraud since communism.
(See Henrik Svensmark for the cosmic-ray/solar-activity/cloud-formation/climate relationship.)
CO2 is a ruse.
Climate change the "Greens" are talking about is caused by changes in the cosmic-rays/solar-activity relationship and cloud formation (See the work of Henrik Svensmark.)
Cloud formation by actual cosmic rays can be scene with the naked eye in Cloud Chamber demonstrations. RUclips has dozens of videos about them.,
In Victoria, Australia gas has increased dramatically because the Gas and Fuel Corporation was sold off and the companies that took control of the gas fields sold it all off.
Yes, indeed. To foreign multinational companies. Same with electricity, pushing for all to only use electricity and all alternatives of producing it are an ecological disaster.
Big Business, where only a select few truly benefit!
Nice to know this goes like 4 in the morning
Finally!! A realistic and sensible presentation of climate change. Humans, and our forebears, had lived through several periods of extreme climate change, far more extreme than we are likely to experience anytime soon. The "fear of the end of mankind" that this 60% of the rich world have is actually the loss of their personal lifestyles and luxuries.
Humans have never experience rapid warming like we are seeing.
He thinks in English. He isn't internally translating. And he also isn't using an accumulation of sentences that occur in the collection public speech. And he creates entirely new and original grammatical errors.
But of course, there doesn't exist a mechanism by which Climate Change could cause extinction of humanity. Even in the absolutely worse case scenario, the most that can happen is that SOME people SOMEWHERE will experience some of the following:
Floods
Forest fires
Droughts
Excessive rain
Heat (in some places)
Cold (in some places)
In other words, there doesn't exist a mechanism by which weather or climate could exterminate any more than a few thousands of us.
On the other hand, if we follow the Globalist Agenda, millions of people (mostly in Africa) will die of starvation. You want to get rid of their cows and fertilizer? And stop cooking with fossil dung? And yet food security is number one on the list of the UN sustainability goals!
Get a grip! The sustainable goals are precisely designed to ensure we decrease in number.
You're unfamiliar with very long term climate fluctuations. You're also unfamiliar with epistemic humility.
@@kreek22
You are out of your league.
AT LAST! Someone with brains and data has laid out the climate change / energy reform value proposition.
Thank you, youtube for the disclaimer!! I’m going to trust youtube over Bjorn? No way. Keep up the clear dialogue and communication, Bjorn!! We need a clear message that addresses the climate rather than quick sound bites that bamboozle people.
Bjorn Lomborg’s credibility and research is in question. Lomborg is not a major player nor expert in climate change; he lacks a science degree, his findings have been categorically rejected by the Danish science institute. and he has been definitively exposed as a charlatan at best, and an outright egomaniacal liar at worst.
Great presentation
This man cracks me up.
A visionary plan with just one small hitch: it assumes surplus tax revenues and it assumes that those governments dont have it spent before it's collected.
A+ in theory.
F in economics.... politics.... finance ... the things required to get a job done.
As a practical note, there are global charities for each one of the initiatives he identifies. Work with them, and you might make some headway.
These key points will help me debate my "woke" college grad children who think panic and doom are the best way foreword.
In my experience, they are likely to categorize you as one of those in complete denial of an obvious reality, and thus one of those who callously contributed to this terrifying threat to humanity. How mindless and heartless can you be dad?
People lived into their 50s and 60s all the time before technology, but since childhood mortality was like 50%, the average is 32. If you took out childhood mortality, the average length of a persons life, who made it to adulthood, was 55-60. Please stop perpetuating this idea that everyone used to die at 35 years old. It's preposterous.
Exactly. Everyone make fun out of Germany for its energy policies, and I am here in Berlin must print every paper and use envelopes to submit/exchange documents. While emails exist and would make exchange instant and with no paper involved. Damn
Thank you ARC, hoping this message will have a wider impact to counteract the false alarmist version so heavily peddled to the populace.
Brilliant BRILLIANT BRILLIANT 👏 yes so positive & very REAL
A very valuable speech!
This is the message we should be telling our children and leaders (they are much the same at the moment). Its a common sense, positive, and aspirational message. Enough of the current thing message! Its backward, confrontational, negative and drives down peoples aspirations.
Great economic analysis. Many grades above the types of analyses used by legislators and climate change alarmists. Only a realistic approach is going to work; what's proposed now is not even physically possible.
Brilliant!
I am curious as to why climate change is being addressed. The models by which a catastrophic future is being predicted are simulations that don’t guarantee any certain outcome. It is only those who wish to interpret those simulations who decides upon which outcome we should prepare for if at all. Maybe ARC is only addressing it to curb the extreme misinformation we’ve been given. Either way, the information provided in this address is very refreshing as it reminds us of hope and what we truly have faced, endured and overcome with perseverance and innovation. Well said. Let’s get this message to the masses.
Some past climate models proved to be quite accurate.
Are you suggesting that there is no tangible value in evaluating projective simulations of data?
WhO treaty climate lockdowns
No one will debate this man.
They would be floored continually.
For good reason for that nowadays. Lomborg cherry picks from the papers of actual climate scientists--in order to distort them.
Dr. L did a very good job categorizing the impacts of Climate Change. The real future hazard is the exhaustion of fossil fuels. We had a preview of this in the early 1970s. Not good. The amount of all fossil fuels beneath the surface of the Earth is finite. It will end some day. When that happens if we have not transitioned to a cleaner more efficient energy source, we are in a world of hurt.
What rate of sea level rise are your climate figures based upon? What is your cost for relocating coastal cities?
U are always spot on with ur critique, that’s easy. What are ur solutions?
Wish I could have attended this conference!!
Bjorn acknowledges and "accepts" silly things like "net zero has some value" and "the Ukraine conflict is a factor in rising energy costs", not because they are true, but because of the audience he's trying to reach. The people who most need to hear his message are the same people who would reject his arguments and turn away, if he were to tell the complete truth about these things.
So I sympathize with his method, but am still irritated by the difficulty of simply discarding and fully discrediting false arguments and goals.
I agree that net zero is entirely harmful but am not convinced that he entirely understands that climate is totally cyclical and outside the effect of carbon dioxide.
What I will say is that some of the energy generation technology may not be wasted. When we go nuclear it will have to be in free world, stable states and these places will be able to use that power to send windmills and solar panels to third world for their intermediate benefit until better solutions perfected.
@@Pacdoc-oz I was nearly done with a reply to you, when the comments window disappeared. Either an errant keystroke or I bumped the mouse. Do you know of any way to recover what I had written?
This is great!
Thanks
Well said!
I like Lomborg and he’s right to be rational on the solution to this non problem.Its a shame 99.999% ,and this isn’t a direct criticism because it is an involved argument,don’t understand the physics of the greenhouse effect.Apparently this ignorance of the facts is also found in the “science” community, but there are many people who understand the physics that know this is not a catastrophic problem, and never will be.
"Profit = protecting and enriching the environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides to all of us".
I agree with Dr. Lomborg when he says that presently it is too expensive to fix the problems associated with man-made climate change; however, he doesn't realize that he has revealed
the core cause of man-made climate change. All of our profit, or actual gains, come to us from the environment. In light of this fact, it should seem extremely odd to all of us that our general
definition of "profit = income - expenses" not only fails to include the word "environment" but also defines the entire environment as nothing more than expenses. We are also mere expenses.
The only viable way to reverse man-made climate change is by changing what we mean by "economic expenses". The only way we can change what is meant by "economic expenses" is by
changing the definition of profit. "Profit = protecting and enriching the environment, and sharing the sustenance that it provides to all of us".
With this new profit model, we will be able, in fact required to create millions of new jobs that will come under the heading "Caretakers of the Environment". Caretakers will earn higher
wages than most other workers. There would probably be hundreds of thousands of subcategories of Caretakers, each dealing with specific aspects of protecting and enriching the environment.
(1) removing pollution that is already contaminating the environment
(2) collecting pollution before it contaminates the environment
(3) dealing with the waste in such ways that are good for the environment and or good for the production of products.
(4) regulating human population by economically incentivizing families with 2 or fewer children and economically punishing families with too many children.
The list goes on and on. Thanks! I hope my comment is helpful to you.
p.s. It may already be too late to correct the definition of profit, but it is never too late to try; besides, there is no other viable way to reverse man-made climate change and as an added
bonus virtually put an end to homelessness.
there is NO man-made global climate change
True. Problems are best faced by us being level-headed, not by being scared of it all the time.
While he is pointing out some important things, it merely shifts the folly to a more refined level. It ignores the cost of everybody being a king with many servants. Because it is an awful lot exactly like the analogy. Behind those machine servants we have are people slaving away in the system to make them. Progress preachers never want to look at the other half of the balance sheet; how spiritually empty that progress is if it is merely technological. Smart people understand that having more stuff is far from a guarantee of being happier and might even have the opposite effect. Machine servants are not service for free. It's not even just others who have to toil to make them, but you also have to toil to be able to buy them. So how long do you work in order to have a machine take over some tasks? And would those tasks be even relevant in a world where you didn't have that machine helper? - The machines are so you can become more effective in serving machines.
Same folly to talk about life expectancy but not life quality. People long ago worked less than we today in our fancy presumably luxurious world, and that only applies to the arrogant industry nations, not the slave nations who make it feasible in the first place.
Same technocratic hype shit again and again.
Also very selective timescales, just like the climate crooks. 200 years ago many people were poor? Well, a lot of mass poverty in the world was (and still is) created by capitalism. (And then there's also statistical shenanigans with the definition of poverty, by nature tweaked to serve the bullshitters.)
His angle is a smarter way to still fool people. A spiritual trap. Anything just to not have to look at the problem at the core and the solution from there.
The label "smart" everywhere. Indication of it all still being quite mental.
13:42 Ah, and there is the mandatory buy-my-book part.
_'get mothers into institutional care'_
_'make school kids more productive'_
_'we fixed tuberculosis through antibiotics'_
Can you hear it?
My understanding is that the increase in average lifespan of the modern day is primarily driven by a reduction of infant mortality, not that adults are living twice as long as they used to. I'm surprised that Dr Lomborg isn't aware of this.
for crying out loud - we can count them, take pictures of them, celebrate their birthdays and give congratulations from the palace when they turn 100 I am 80+ individual, not a pile of 10 year old kids!
There’s often a mix-up between average life expectancy and typical lifespan, the last one having doubled since 1800. Still quite impressive.
i have a solution. give me the 26 trillion and ill take care of it.
Words matter.
The "solutions" to the climate problem are much worth than the problem itself.
Thomas Sowell has taught us a profound insight: “There are no solutions, there are only trade-offs; and you try to get the best trade-off you can get, that's all you can hope for.” We cannot achieve a perfect outcome.
No, we can't achieve a perfect solution, but the longer we delay on decarbonizing the economy in a fair way that meets everyone's needs, the dimmer the future will be for eight billion species and the 5+ million species we share the planet with (and depend on).
Are you on drugs?@@karlwheatley1244
You can achieve nothing, you can make nothing, you can fix nothing, you know nothing of substance, the whole bunch of willfully ignorant gasbags..@@karlwheatley1244
Only point I disagree with is about institutionalized birth care. Midwifery care, meeting the moms where they are at, is a better, faster, more efficient way to address that problem.
I remember, here in Canada, when grade school children were given the day off from school to protest climate change. I'm not sure if every province participated, but many did. I argued that instead of protesting or marching for climate change, kids were exposed to the science and technology of alternative energy production, which could possible be a solution to reduce our reliance on 'fossil fuels'.
Basically put, instead of bitching about climate change, we get our children involved and interested in the research and development of new alternative energy solutions, so that they may, one day, actually solve this problem in the future. It's one thing to point out the problem, but wholly another to try to come up with solutions.
The kids were indoctrinated. That's bad. Trudeau praises Mao. Wokeness is stupid.
Everyone should see this.
Saving people's lives!!! I can just feel the WEF members cringing.
You fix nothing that isnt broken , they tell us its broken but dont tell us whats broken and how they know. They just tell us something is broken so give us all your money.
The "context" box has its work cut out for it now ;)
Truth
i love this man.
Good man
The low life expectancy average is not an indicator of how long people lived. The insanely high child&infant mortality rate pushed the "average" life expectancy down to unrealistic expectations. If you survived childhood, your chances to live to past your 60s were quite good.
Having all the electronic servants and conveniencies is not neccessarely a good thing. Luxury creates complacency and laziness. Conveniences lead to psychological slavery.
Calculating average wealth by how much currency people are earning is BS. If you want to know the increase in wealth, look at how much *same item* people can afford to buy on their monthly income (1kg bread, 1kg lamb, 1kg potatoes, etc...). Economic historians have a list of items that they consider constants and compare the monetary cost of throughout ages and cultures to estimate the value of everything in ancient economies These Constants include but are not limited to: cost of a loaf of bread, 1 hour wages of a carpenter, etc
How refreshing common sense at last! Thank you Jordan.
Great to have a positive approach!…and…some of this discussion seems pretty simplistic to me…there are many reasons to questions his rather convenient graphs, with perhaps the number one reason being that we are experiencing many of our climate related problems due to the world view of the West, which sees humans as separate to, and even above, Nature!…the reality is that we are a part of Nature…and until we can comprehend that simple fact we are headed down a very bumpy road…spending $$ on Green Energy R&D is very import tho’…as is assisting farmers begin to change their management practices to become far more Regenerative!…🤗…both of those expenditures would see us able to make massive strides in mitigation and adaptation….we also need to change our economic systems…perpetual growth on an already stressed and finite planet is problematic, to say the least!.,,
Thanks for your comment! You make some good points here. Of course, a 20 minute keynote is not enough time to explore everything we wanted to in depth. If you’re interested, you should read some of our research papers that accompanied the conference on the topic: www.arc-research.org/research-papers/geopolitics-of-net-zero
to the poor, babies are wealth and fragile and need to be numerous - increasing prosperity and security leads to far fewer babies per woman, far fewer infant deaths (observed and reported phenomenon)
@@arc_conference I cant help but notice that in your research paper there is no evaluation in the role that grid infrastructure, operations and management of energy in grid operations plays in the market of energy. This is a pretty massive red flag imo.....
If your evaluating renewables solely on the resource requirements to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines and batteries there's an entire sector of the energy industry thats not included in your calculations. Just in the US, the US Department of Energy estimates per 2020 Peer Reviewed Grid Modernization Assessment that $2.5 trillion would be needed in future grid infrastructure to sustain a 70% VRE net-zero portfolio.
I understand your trying to evaulate general trends from a global perspective, and certainly when you begin to get into the details of how electrical grids influence market rates for energy industries and portfolios this is more accurately evaluated on a country per country basis. However to not even talk about it at all is quite frankly unacceptable imo as you will inevitably miscalculate accurate costs for an energy transition. Some additional information I recommend to those who want to get their feet wet in this honestly extremely technically complex topic is LNL & ANL's (Lawrence Berkley National Lab, Argonne National Lab) "Impacts of Variable Renewable Energy on Bulk Power System Assets, Pricing, and Costs".
If we need to fix anything we need money.
Tell this to the COP summit now in Dec 2023! All that oil money spent on…
Word.
Past due technological infrastructure and logistics can thin out all large gatherings agencies & institutions.
20 years ago we could dismantled major cities established on industrial revolutionary needs of large gatherings.
Its no justifying reason to keep corporate colleges and not take it to the pupils. A single great professor can zoom every small class in your region plus a tudor.
Online coops can eliminate unions where each of us sub contract out skill and labor being our owner operators..
All office occupations, all small part manufacturing can be done at home or in organize small towns across the nation in any local area.
Energy vampires and unnecessary travel is ready to cut by 3/4 .
Irs accountants most of wall Street almost half of all beaucracy middle men agencies & institutions are antiquated and obsolete.
Any other industry wouldve already programmed it away without any delays
Can we get an AMEN!!!!
What kind of technologies does Dr. Lomborg expect that will help dealing with climate change later and cheaper?
Can you please provide the source for the costs vs benefits of going net-zero that was mentioned in the presentation by Mr. Lomborg?
He's great