I'm a "Lomborg skeptic". Bjorn Lomborg takes the IPCC predictions on Global Warming and shows that the costs of current proposed policies are likely to be much greater than their benefit in actual mitigated warming. He points out that much more good can be done if a fraction of the money currently earmarked to fight global warming instead went towards AIDS prevention, malaria reduction, and nutrition efforts in the third world.
Of course, it is not popular to discuss costs and benefits when discussing Global Warming. The kind of leftists who are the big green alarmists don't look kindly on economic arguments. However, I believe they are essential to making rational decisions. We should all have the goal of doing more good than harm.
Of course, it is not popular to discuss costs and benefits when discussing Global Warming. The kind of leftists who are the big green alarmists don't look kindly on economic arguments. However, I believe they are essential to making rational decisions. We should all have the goal of doing more good than harm.
Here's his TED talk on the subject.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global...