- The insane extremists are winning the debate about global warming. Whatever your view of global warming, you probably agree with me about that. You probably also think the crazy extremists are the people on the opposite side from yourself – the people on the left if you’re on the right, or the people on the right if you’re on the left.
What I’ve realized is that both the left and the right are dominated by crazy extremists who ignore facts and evidence so they can believe what they want to believe.
His observations on corporations sparked some lively dialog.
Also covered, police violence.
Do we still believe that groups of economists can provide reliably predictive estimates? These economists might be near correct, or their forecasts might be as useful as those made for Syria in 2009. Sea level rise is just one of the challenges that we are facing. Humans are adaptable, however we haven't been around very long, and for the short time we have, there is historical evidence for social collapse when we are forced to adapt quickly. Our desire for a cost-benefit analysis doesn't make one possible.Lomborg’s view is not just his personal opinion. It’s the outcome of the Copenhagen Consensus project. He gathers together leading economists, gives them assessments from experts on various plans for addressing different global problems, and has them apply cost-benefit analysis to the plans. The economists then rank the plans in terms of cost-effectiveness. This is all based on what subject-matter experts estimate to be the costs and the effects of the best plans that people have come up with for addressing global problems (including climate change and many other problems).
Can you propose an alternative way to make decisions that affect the future, if we forego cost-benefit analysis? The Copenhagen Consensus concluded that fighting global warming by researching low‐carbon energy technologies would be beneficial, and fighting malnutrition by giving children vitamin A and zinc would be beneficial. In a reality where resources are finite, using available resources to fight malnutrition was expected to produce more benefit. They might be wrong, but if you disagree wouldn't you be arguing that fighting global warming (with a given unit of budget) will produce greater benefit than fighting malnutrition? Or you could say we just don't know, but that doesn't help us decide what to do. It's natural to ask "Why can't we do both?" But the carbon R&D was ranked #14 out of 30 on the list of priorities, so this is like asking "Why can't we do everything possible to improve the world?" The answer, of course, is the cost.
I doubt any legislator anywhere is making a vitamin A vs. global warming mitigation decision. Outlining problems is a worthwhile effort, but saying "we have $75B to spend, how to spend it?" frames the circumstances in way that doesn't reflect reality. There are countless ways to address global warming which include, but aren't limited to, spending money.In a reality where resources are finite, using available resources to fight malnutrition was expected to produce more benefit.
There is finite funding for nutrition, there is finite funding for climate, the funding is not allocated at random. So no, there may not be a particular moment where one legislator decides to split a pot of money between those two causes, but the process of creating a budget requires many decisions about spending limited resources on individual programs. "The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think tank that researches the smartest solutions for the world's biggest problems, advising policy-makers and philanthropists how to spend their money most effectively." Spending money is not the only way to solve problems, but spending money can help, and it is certainly a way policy-makers and philanthropists can do good (or harm!) depending on how they act. Can you suggest any better alternative to cost-benefit analysis for these organizations to make better decisions? I'm curious as well to know what you have in mind as the non-financial approaches ... but on second reading you say "include, but aren't limited to, spending money" so you recognize that these countless ways do involve financial decisions. Spending money is a part, but not all, of most interventions. You seem skeptical of the Copenhagen Consensus but I don't understand why. If the ways to address global warming include spending money, how do you decide how to spend the money? Which of the "countless ways" will you prioritize? Can an additional airplane trip be balanced by using paper straws? You question whether economists can provide estimates, but the proposals were created by "acknowledged authorities in each area," not the economists. You point out that economists have made mistakes, but don't propose an alternative to economists.I doubt any legislator anywhere is making a vitamin A vs. global warming mitigation decision.
I propose they don't create such broad and assumptive yet comparative ROI fictions. It is not an honest reflection of what these economists can usefully predict.You point out that economists have made mistakes, but don't propose an alternative to economists.
Not doing the thing you object to is not much of an alternative, but as I favor the do-nothing approach I shouldn’t complain.