Bjørn Lomborg on Mooney show today

nilhg

Just wondering if anybody else heard Bjørn Lomborg on the Mooney show today, it was quite an interesting conversation (here at about 36 mins), Lomborg's basic idea, if I caught it correctly is that the cost of tackling global warming directly is unsustainable ecomomicaly and that it is detracting from the job of solving the other crisises in the world today, ie AIDS/HIV, Malaria, malnutrition, ect.

He believes we should tackle these problems and also spend on R&D to solve global warming in the future. Mooneys panel gave the (now) conventional reduce CO2 now anti global warming line.
It was a good debate worth a listen if you didn't hear it live.

ircoha

nilhg wrote: »

Just wondering if anybody else heard Bjørn Lomborg on the Mooney show today, it was quite an interesting conversation (here at about 36 mins), Lomborg's basic idea, if I caught it correctly is that the cost of tackling global warming directly is unsustainable ecomomicaly and that it is detracting from the job of solving the other crisises in the world today, ie AIDS/HIV, Malaria, malnutrition, ect.

He believes we should tackle these problems and also spend on R&D to solve global warming in the future. Mooneys panel gave the (now) conventional reduce CO2 now anti global warming line.
It was a good debate worth a listen if you didn't hear it live.

There is no money to be made by capitalists from solving the other crisis listed above and even if u do all it would do is increase even more the pressure on dwindling food and water resources.

All the mad spend on going green and saving the planet and all the other BS in this area is all about making massive current profits.

Humans will be largely extinct in 75 to 150 years, depending on the rate of meltdown of the two ice caps.

Capt'n Midnight

No the R&D is needed because without it China and India will accelerate the problem.

Yes the amounts need to eradicate TB and other diseases are peanuts compared to the cost of CO2 reduction.

It's a bit like all the money you'd save by getting rid of nuclear weapons, the MoD/Dept of Defence would just spend it on conventional weapons. Even here the €49 million saved by Revenue on line over the old system won't be used to help more people get broadband to avail of the service. Instead the smaller amount that was already reserved for that went on wood burning stoves, IIRC a lot of the pellets will have to be imported from Norway.


Name any part of the land apart from antartica where hunter-gatherers haven't survived ? And humans won't be extinct because unlike every other species on the planet we can utilise energy sources outside a local eco-system and so aren't constrained by the local eco-system.

AngryHippie

He does raise a good point, the anti global warming movement does seem to be a false economy as most of the efforts being made at the moment are either insufficient or a completely misguided moral conscience cleanser, should this continue then it may be better to divert the resources into fighting desertification and disease in Africa.. The Malaria problem will probably get worse with rising global temperatures, as the disease carriers will be able to reach new altitudes and new regions, spreading it to areas that have no precedent or resources to fight it. I'm gonna give it a listen. cheers.

nilhg

I posted this because I think that this debate (tackling GW v AIDS/Malaria/Poverty) will become much more heated if the global economy slow down or goes into recession as some economists predict.

The reality is that any sarcrafices made now to combat GW will have very little payback for the people making them and could indeed have heavy implications for some.

Celticfire

ircoha wrote: »

Humans will be largely extinct in 75 to 150 years, depending on the rate of meltdown of the two ice caps.

Would you care to elaborate on that statement? What evidence do you have to support your claim?

AngryHippie

who needs evidence, Al Gore said so.....