Lomborg Interview: The Economist Caught Between Climate Deniers and Alarmists
Nehmen Sie sich 8 Minuten Zeit...
Lomborg has the merit of addressing clearly issues that others keep mixed up.
His Copenhagen Consensus Method requires an overall approach to development priorities that politicians hate to have to sort out (there exist no priorities when everything is a first priority). Usually, in such exercises he makes around the World, climate issues don't reach the top of the list, if at all. This is probably why he is not often cited in the popular press and in the media.
Regarding the climate, he accepts all the findings of speculative models to claim that it is a big issue, mostly caused by humans; and that if something spectacular does not happen in our consuming habits, the warmer climate may lead to catastrophic consequences. In short, he accepts the challenge of limiting the warming to 2 °C. I can't understand this blind belief when all the speculations rest on very thin ice, namely invalid models promoted by climate-activists within the not so scientific community.
If I understand him well, he would be very happy to see a world cooking and driving at once with something else than fossil fuels. But he knows that it is a practical impossibility as long as alternative energy sources are not attractive enough,
He is a stark critic of the Paris agreement. Not because of its objective, but because of ill-fated measures that will cost a lot, waste a lot, and deliver almost nothing.
Nevertheless he asks for action, innovation, cheap energy substitute, and for the mean time, build-up of resilience and adaptation.
Basically he believes that we are responsible for the vagaries of the climate, and therefore that we can and must fix it.
I don't make that leap of faith.
Vielen Dank, Michel, für diese Präzisierungen, die ich durchaus teile. Ich sehe aber die wichtige und richtige Aussage Lomborgs hier in der Sandwichpositionen der Ökonomen, die sich wohl am besten auf ihre eigenen Kenntnisse um Umgang mir Unsicherheiten zurückbesinnen würden.Denken in realen Optionen.