You are correct. I think this man is trying to use reason to convince people who choose to use Anthropogenic Global Warming to promote their ideology. I think: The AGW team is made up of ideologists and sheeple…. The ideologist cannot be swayed by reason and one cannot break down the sheeple without shock therapy.
Heard a few months ago that the leader of a non-profit in LA responsible for ending poverty is paid over half a million dollars a year to do just that. Is it any wonder why poverty in that city is stagnant and / or getting worse. I wouldn't want to solve poverty if I were that person. Maybe incrementally over the course of weeks and months, but never completely.
Yup. When have you ever seen a press conference where the leaders of a program have announced, "We can shut our agency down, because we have solved the problem"? Only the US military has ever received less funds as a result of accomplishing its mission, and the most recent examples are the Cold War and WWII.
Hi Bjorn, do you ever speak with the German government. They have shutdown their nuclear and are now closing their coal plants. From 2021 onwards they are using 10% less energy each year as their heavy industry closes down, due to high energy costs. It appears from the outside to be an act of self harm?
When I was around five years old I heard about acid rain, I thought it was literal acid that would melt my skin off if I was caught outside on a rainy day.
The challenge of trading with China, and indeed with all communist or totalitarian countries, lies in the fact that trade for these nations isn’t a straightforward voluntary exchange. Instead, it serves as a strategic tool wielded by the state. As a result, companies operating competing agaisnt these countries face significant artificial incentives that make impossible compete fairly. In my professional experience, I’ve witnessed this phenomenon firsthand-whether in industries like light bulbs, porcelain, or glassware, which are now entirely dominated by Chinese companies. However, we’re also observing a similar pattern emerging in the automotive industry, and soon enough, it will repeat itself in the semiconductor (chips) sector.
@PedroFigueiredo-ti7vu What does it mean for an industry to be dominated by a Chinese company? Can't the cheap products provided be used up or used as an input into something they don't produce? What does the ordinary Chinese citizen give up to produce what the state subsidizes to sell cheap to people of other nations? What do they not produce as they follow their leaders' schemes?
As more and more of it has been dominated by China the quality has turned to garbage. I don't know how many times I have heard they don't make things like they used to. In general, the auto industry is the exception imo atm, but EV may change that. But many other things from light bulbs, clothes, food to appliances most everyone thinks are crap now. Sometimes, it is blamed on the regulators due to the climate related regulations making it near impossible to make anything well and affordable. Sometimes it is blamed on inflation. But I am sure the change of location for production has had an impact in some cases. Cheap knock off have replaced the real thing in many cases in the made from China era and the made in the USA product as went extinct. It is sort of like the concept of marriage in the US. But even here in the US many just do not feel a pride in their work any longer. Maybe it's because manual lower paid jobs just aren't respected any longer. Only college grads are valued. It is express that if you don't have a degree your life is over to many kids. Perhaps we will have to ask the experts. Surely, they can tell us. In any case, quality in some industries are perhaps the worst I have seen in my lifetime here in the US. I am unsure if we aren't that different that China in some ways. When Thomas Sowell as asked if Obama was a socialist Sowell answer no because socialists believe means of production should be owned by the state. He said Obama is more of a fascist believing means of productions should be in private hands but controlled by the state. Thus, giving those in power a scapegoat if it doesn't go well. This provides a similar description of your stating trade is a tool wielded by the state but so is production in China as it seems it is here in the US now as well?
@ 35:00 I'll put it simply and crudely. This climate mania is big business that feeds off people's basic fears. Not just Ehlich, but Malthus, and countless Wall Street analysts calling for the demise of the market and economy, make a good living from this dribble. It is so refreshing to hear a realist and optimistic in one package like Bjorn.
Here's my issue with China (in terms of arguments against tarrifs): the Chinese aren't simply out-competing the U S. If they were, I would be against tarrifs on Chinese goods. But no, the CCP uses mass slave labor, and they centrally plan their economy to the point they can indefinitely undercut competitors in many of the global markets they trade in. That makes it virtually impossible to compete with them and gives the Chinese a monopoly on certain markets. (No wonder the quality of their goods is so often low. ) I have problems with these things morally, but I also have a problem with people who distort markets with false price signals for DECADES, because that's also destructive. Nothing is honest about the way the CCP handles its economy.
The same thing was said about the Soviet Union in its heyday. Their more efficient central planning would would outperform the waste of unplanned capitalism. That turned out well.
Peter, I think something that needs to be explored by the Hoover institution, and uncommon knowledge, is to talk to someone in corporate America about the new paradigm that denigrates " individual heroics". To me this is a very Marxist idea. It makes those of us who go above and beyond feel like we've done something wrong. And seems to celebrate or encourage mediocrity
Peter - This is an excellent conversation. Thank you. Please consider hosting a 2-hour version with not only Mr Lomborg, but other deep thinkers in which the discussion focuses on politics, climate change, economics, and security. Such a discussion might help pull people out of their silos and think more comprehensively about how to implement change.
I'm in my mid-70s and I'm tired of hearing/reading about "the poor." I've been hearing about "them" all of my life -- and PAYING for "them" all of my life. If it isn't the "starving kids in China" it's the "starving kids in India" or some other place. Enough. I've been required by non-elected clerks and bean counters to pay for telephone and electric service in Appalachia since well before I was even born; now, I have to pay for internet service in the same poor area. Again, enough. If we look at most poor areas and nations, they are poor because of two major reasons: 1.) Geography, and 2.) Culture/religion. Changing the latter can do amazing things to upgrade their poverty; certainly enough to arm them with the resources to change or escape the former. People need to stand on their own, rather than depending upon and demanding that other endlessly pick them up.
Yah. It was the religion of Wilberforce that did away with slavery in much of the world. Contrast that with the religions of Marx and Darwin and the result of people implementing their teaching. This raises the question as to where the most destructive religious concepts show up today. Isn't it in our WOKE institutions? How much longer can we afford to let this go on?
29:00 this is actually the only part of this entire discussion that I find fault with. We did not become wealthy because we only made what we were good at. We made everything we COULD and we CAN make automobiles, phones, PCs, transistors. We have in the past. Its only being made in China, because its cheaper for mega-corporations who want even more of the profit and its THOSE corporations that are the largest and richest in history. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia. Its not the people getting richer. This is the UNDOING of the last 300 years worth of lessons enriching the people.
Xi is destroying the Chinese economy. So it is time to return production to North America. But do any North American countries have governments favorable to industries?
Getting manufacturing outsourced to the Far East is a total con. I have run factories that competed head on with China et al, and we produced better quality product, more accurate, more ergonomic, and cheaper. The people who want to outsource our manufacturing are auditors, bankers and similar who have never made anything in their lives. Re Paul Ehrlich, what has he ever got right? He's wrong every time: note his bet with Julian Simon.
I think he's a tout for big oil and big money and this was a waste of time to listen to, all he said was "more money, more productivity, yah", without looking at how the poor people of the world consuming like the west, is not the way forward.
Respectfully disagrees on you opinions on trade , unintended consequences of cargo ship global warming, shipping of street drugs into our country, slave labor in China and building their threatening military. Prices didn't go down only profit margin when up and the real cost is our standing in the world.
Why is it if "we the people" are forced to "invest" $1 in X, when X returns $2, that gain isn't back to the people "investors" but those who sell the solutions?
First learned of Mr. Lomborg from and interview with Rush 20+ years ago, and I purchased The Skeptical Environmentalist. I'm glad he took the tack he did with this book: Here's how we can effectively spend money to help other and ourselves.
The UN or the US or some other state entity being the solution is a large part of the problem. As Bjorn said: "The UN surprisingly, not surprisingly ah decided to say oh my gosh (edited) we're failing on all these ???(couldn't understand this word) so give us much more money. Which is the standard approach of any bureaucracy." All the government spending is going to do is make more dependents upon it and create more power for it. Thomas Sowell has written much on this topic. There is no feedback loop for the elites in these institutions who are immune from the effects of their own decisions. You would make a much better case to appeal to the heart of the average person or to the teachings of Christ for Christians to lend the hand (or that of many other religions who teach to do so). I am guessing that is why you use the term philanthropy but for many average people that has become a dirty word. The world charity is more broadly appealing imo. But in either case, trying to mix that with an appeal to UN, US or some state or another will turn off many people for the above reason.
When looking at the US budget for percentages perhaps you should use a budget that was actually balanced. One that included paying DOWN the debt as well. I have no doubt the US could do a lot of good by simply borrowing more money but eventually the bubble will burst. Where will that leave the many ever-growing dependents? Will outcomes match intent? I can borrow a great deal to adopt many many children but eventually the money will run out. Where will that leave the children who would then depend on me?
I am wonder if they both eat gmo or non-gmo food? I do imagine though if you are starving something better than nothing. I do wonder as another commentor mentioned what the entire reality looks like pros and cons of doing so. What are the potential risks and future risks?
I so enjoy listening to Bjorn Lomborg. I’m not sure if the agricultural R&D which Bjorn is advocating, is contemplating GMO seed. I’m assuming so since he mentioned Monsanto and lab work. Here is my concern. The green revolution MK1 was guided by making food as cheap as possible to as many as possible. Specifically re patents and sterile seeding F1 hybrid (producing seed that grows into high producing plants which produce sterile seed. So the age old practice of holding back some of the grain as seed for next season is destroyed. Thus locking developing nations into perpetual dependency on mega GMO seed producers. If this sounds like SciFi conspiracy theory let’s just look back to C19 and vaccines and how that was abused. But at least with C19 the population had a ‘choice’ to vax, staple food isn’t a choice. Furthermore we know that cross pollination of these ‘castrated’ GMO plants can result in contamination of the heirloom parent plant populations… so farmers not wanting to use GMO seed, might still end up losing their heirloom stock do to GMO engineered mutations.
The US and the UK raise less in taxes than they spend annually and have done for some time. Both countries have high debt. The US has unimaginable debt. Neither country should be looking to spend a penny on anything that is not clearly in the national interest. Our politicians were elected to make our lives better, not to borrow money from our grandchildren (or simply default on the debt as I suspect the US will) to give it away to strangers.
The deficit and debt are not really all that important. The MUCH bigger factor is that the US (I have no idea about UK,) spends an extremely high % of GDP per year. I don't care about the deficit, or the national debt, I want the government spending constrained to a reasonable % of GDP.
“Climate change is not a threat for another 100 years” Meanwhile 1300 people dead from heatwave in a few days in Saudi Arabia Meanwhile southern Europe is turning into a desert in real time Meanwhile crops are failing everywhere because of either too little rain or too much Meanwhile multiple countries are in the verge of water wars In which world does this guy live?
@deaththekid3998 And what makes you believe that's accounted for by climate change? Does this variable dominate the other variables' impacts, e.g. arbitrary political borders, the El Nino-La Nina cycle, a totalitarian state controlling an economy with all its knowledge problems?
At 15.30 he leaves out that people could have all the money in the world but if the energy isn't there to increase productivity, then the money is worthless. We found the ability to turn air into fertiliser 80 years ago and we currently use more fossil fuel calories than food calories returned, give the poor people another five dollars a day and we have doubled their consumption. The poor people of the world increasing their productivity through tractors, diesel, fertilisers, basically doing what the west has done doesn't seem to be a plan and Bjorn seems to think as long as you have money, all the problems can go away, only feel 434% richer, on a warmer planet with micro climates about to go through dramatic changes...I would say never allow this person to be on again, I mean a carbon tax is going to hurt the poor more because they can afford it the least. I can't finish watching, he's basically a tout for fossil fuels and more govt debt and quicker destruction of the planet than doing any good, At 5c which we seem to be rushing towards, it will take 330 years for 10% of the ice to melt and from there around 2000 for all to go, 77 metres in that amount of time will mean pulse floods and it will mean existential threats for everybody's way of life and of course lives, why is the hoover institute saying " not even close" are they also climate deniers?
@antonyjh1234 On the contrary, he believes in a free market. A free market includes philantrophists though, so better to have good suggestions than harmful ones.
Peter is so in love with himself it is super cringe. He clearly thinks he is better than he is. He seems like the kind of guy who was beat up a lot as a kid by the cool kids at his prep school in the suburbs.
The point isn't to fix the problem.
The point is to *use* the problem ... and if you fix it, then you can no longer use it!
You are correct.
I think this man is trying to use reason to convince people who choose to use Anthropogenic Global Warming to promote their ideology.
I think: The AGW team is made up of ideologists and sheeple…. The ideologist cannot be swayed by reason and one cannot break down the sheeple without shock therapy.
Unless you are free and can operate in a free market.
Heard a few months ago that the leader of a non-profit in LA responsible for ending poverty is paid over half a million dollars a year to do just that. Is it any wonder why poverty in that city is stagnant and / or getting worse. I wouldn't want to solve poverty if I were that person. Maybe incrementally over the course of weeks and months, but never completely.
Yup. When have you ever seen a press conference where the leaders of a program have announced, "We can shut our agency down, because we have solved the problem"? Only the US military has ever received less funds as a result of accomplishing its mission, and the most recent examples are the Cold War and WWII.
Hi Bjorn, do you ever speak with the German government. They have shutdown their nuclear and are now closing their coal plants. From 2021 onwards they are using 10% less energy each year as their heavy industry closes down, due to high energy costs. It appears from the outside to be an act of self harm?
Please have Alex Epstein on. His clarity would augment this conversation considerably.
Very uplifting. Thanks!
Bjorn is right 7:50 Peter is definitely a 10. 😉
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ HOLY ZEUS i wish B L had more power ………. Let’s all go to Sugar rock Candy Mountain.
When I was around five years old I heard about acid rain, I thought it was literal acid that would melt my skin off if I was caught outside on a rainy day.
Is this actually a new interview? Survive seen this book covered on the channel before
Peter looks overdressed
The challenge of trading with China, and indeed with all communist or totalitarian countries, lies in the fact that trade for these nations isn’t a straightforward voluntary exchange. Instead, it serves as a strategic tool wielded by the state. As a result, companies operating competing agaisnt these countries face significant artificial incentives that make impossible compete fairly.
In my professional experience, I’ve witnessed this phenomenon firsthand-whether in industries like light bulbs, porcelain, or glassware, which are now entirely dominated by Chinese companies. However, we’re also observing a similar pattern emerging in the automotive industry, and soon enough, it will repeat itself in the semiconductor (chips) sector.
@PedroFigueiredo-ti7vu What does it mean for an industry to be dominated by a Chinese company? Can't the cheap products provided be used up or used as an input into something they don't produce? What does the ordinary Chinese citizen give up to produce what the state subsidizes to sell cheap to people of other nations? What do they not produce as they follow their leaders' schemes?
As more and more of it has been dominated by China the quality has turned to garbage. I don't know how many times I have heard they don't make things like they used to. In general, the auto industry is the exception imo atm, but EV may change that. But many other things from light bulbs, clothes, food to appliances most everyone thinks are crap now. Sometimes, it is blamed on the regulators due to the climate related regulations making it near impossible to make anything well and affordable. Sometimes it is blamed on inflation. But I am sure the change of location for production has had an impact in some cases. Cheap knock off have replaced the real thing in many cases in the made from China era and the made in the USA product as went extinct. It is sort of like the concept of marriage in the US.
But even here in the US many just do not feel a pride in their work any longer. Maybe it's because manual lower paid jobs just aren't respected any longer. Only college grads are valued. It is express that if you don't have a degree your life is over to many kids. Perhaps we will have to ask the experts. Surely, they can tell us. In any case, quality in some industries are perhaps the worst I have seen in my lifetime here in the US.
I am unsure if we aren't that different that China in some ways. When Thomas Sowell as asked if Obama was a socialist Sowell answer no because socialists believe means of production should be owned by the state. He said Obama is more of a fascist believing means of productions should be in private hands but controlled by the state. Thus, giving those in power a scapegoat if it doesn't go well. This provides a similar description of your stating trade is a tool wielded by the state but so is production in China as it seems it is here in the US now as well?
While a college education was important 10 years ago, I am hearing from some employers that they will no longer hire graduates of WOKE universities.
When was Paul Ehrlich ever right about anything….?
@ 35:00 I'll put it simply and crudely. This climate mania is big business that feeds off people's basic fears. Not just Ehlich, but Malthus, and countless Wall Street analysts calling for the demise of the market and economy, make a good living from this dribble. It is so refreshing to hear a realist and optimistic in one package like Bjorn.
Here's my issue with China (in terms of arguments against tarrifs): the Chinese aren't simply out-competing the U S. If they were, I would be against tarrifs on Chinese goods. But no, the CCP uses mass slave labor, and they centrally plan their economy to the point they can indefinitely undercut competitors in many of the global markets they trade in. That makes it virtually impossible to compete with them and gives the Chinese a monopoly on certain markets. (No wonder the quality of their goods is so often low. )
I have problems with these things morally, but I also have a problem with people who distort markets with false price signals for DECADES, because that's also destructive. Nothing is honest about the way the CCP handles its economy.
The same thing was said about the Soviet Union in its heyday. Their more efficient central planning would would outperform the waste of unplanned capitalism. That turned out well.
Get rid of ethanol. Quit using energy to turn corn into energy.
That may be more likely than ever before. Partly because Dems are now skipping corn states early in their primaries.
Well, when using it as an additive to gasoline. We who enjoy drinking depend on ethanol.
Shouldn't the "Inflation Reduction Act" actually be correctly called "The inflation PRODUCTION act"?
Peter, I think something that needs to be explored by the Hoover institution, and uncommon knowledge, is to talk to someone in corporate America about the new paradigm that denigrates " individual heroics". To me this is a very Marxist idea. It makes those of us who go above and beyond feel like we've done something wrong. And seems to celebrate or encourage mediocrity
Peter - This is an excellent conversation. Thank you. Please consider hosting a 2-hour version with not only Mr Lomborg, but other deep thinkers in which the discussion focuses on politics, climate change, economics, and security. Such a discussion might help pull people out of their silos and think more comprehensively about how to implement change.
But what do we do about the lawless warlords who keep poor populations in misery?
Thats what ”diversity, equity and inclusion” get you.. 😅
Great interview. Thanks
Great interview. Peter is such an amazing interviewer.
Nice tie peter
I'm in my mid-70s and I'm tired of hearing/reading about "the poor." I've been hearing about "them" all of my life -- and PAYING for "them" all of my life. If it isn't the "starving kids in China" it's the "starving kids in India" or some other place. Enough.
I've been required by non-elected clerks and bean counters to pay for telephone and electric service in Appalachia since well before I was even born; now, I have to pay for internet service in the same poor area. Again, enough.
If we look at most poor areas and nations, they are poor because of two major reasons: 1.) Geography, and 2.) Culture/religion. Changing the latter can do amazing things to upgrade their poverty; certainly enough to arm them with the resources to change or escape the former.
People need to stand on their own, rather than depending upon and demanding that other endlessly pick them up.
Yah. It was the religion of Wilberforce that did away with slavery in much of the world.
Contrast that with the religions of Marx and Darwin and the result of people implementing their teaching.
This raises the question as to where the most destructive religious concepts show up today.
Isn't it in our WOKE institutions? How much longer can we afford to let this go on?
29:00 this is actually the only part of this entire discussion that I find fault with.
We did not become wealthy because we only made what we were good at. We made everything we COULD and we CAN make automobiles, phones, PCs, transistors. We have in the past.
Its only being made in China, because its cheaper for mega-corporations who want even more of the profit and its THOSE corporations that are the largest and richest in history. Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia. Its not the people getting richer. This is the UNDOING of the last 300 years worth of lessons enriching the people.
Xi is destroying the Chinese economy. So it is time to return production to North America.
But do any North American countries have governments favorable to industries?
I do not deny that material wealth can be increased but it does not save us from the malnutrition of the immaterial.
"the malnutrition of the immaterial" ?
i am genuinely curious if you could expand upon that point?
"malnutrition of the immaterial" who cares? There's no evidence of the existence of anything immaterial.
Getting manufacturing outsourced to the Far East is a total con. I have run factories that competed head on with China et al, and we produced better quality product, more accurate, more ergonomic, and cheaper.
The people who want to outsource our manufacturing are auditors, bankers and similar who have never made anything in their lives.
Re Paul Ehrlich, what has he ever got right? He's wrong every time: note his bet with Julian Simon.
I like Björn
I think he's a tout for big oil and big money and this was a waste of time to listen to, all he said was "more money, more productivity, yah", without looking at how the poor people of the world consuming like the west, is not the way forward.
@@antonyjh1234 - Did you watch the video? Have you read Lomborg's book?
Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes to mind.
Respectfully disagrees on you opinions on trade , unintended consequences of cargo ship global warming, shipping of street drugs into our country, slave labor in China and building their threatening military. Prices didn't go down only profit margin when up and the real cost is our standing in the world.
Why is it if "we the people" are forced to "invest" $1 in X, when X returns $2, that gain isn't back to the people "investors" but those who sell the solutions?
Nobody wants solutions. They just want their intellectual opponents to be wrong. Grow up Bjorn!
First learned of Mr. Lomborg from and interview with Rush 20+ years ago, and I purchased The Skeptical Environmentalist. I'm glad he took the tack he did with this book: Here's how we can effectively spend money to help other and ourselves.
The UN or the US or some other state entity being the solution is a large part of the problem. As Bjorn said:
"The UN surprisingly, not surprisingly ah decided to say oh my gosh (edited) we're failing on all these ???(couldn't understand this word) so give us much more money. Which is the standard approach of any bureaucracy."
All the government spending is going to do is make more dependents upon it and create more power for it. Thomas Sowell has written much on this topic. There is no feedback loop for the elites in these institutions who are immune from the effects of their own decisions.
You would make a much better case to appeal to the heart of the average person or to the teachings of Christ for Christians to lend the hand (or that of many other religions who teach to do so). I am guessing that is why you use the term philanthropy but for many average people that has become a dirty word. The world charity is more broadly appealing imo. But in either case, trying to mix that with an appeal to UN, US or some state or another will turn off many people for the above reason.
When looking at the US budget for percentages perhaps you should use a budget that was actually balanced. One that included paying DOWN the debt as well. I have no doubt the US could do a lot of good by simply borrowing more money but eventually the bubble will burst. Where will that leave the many ever-growing dependents? Will outcomes match intent?
I can borrow a great deal to adopt many many children but eventually the money will run out. Where will that leave the children who would then depend on me?
Now to get governments to listen to Bjorn...
US is already in a huge debt crisis.
I am wonder if they both eat gmo or non-gmo food?
I do imagine though if you are starving something better than nothing. I do wonder as another commentor mentioned what the entire reality looks like pros and cons of doing so. What are the potential risks and future risks?
Awesome 👏
Clean water, sanitation, agriculture, public schools ect are in fact not simple and very expensive.
I so enjoy listening to Bjorn Lomborg. I’m not sure if the agricultural R&D which Bjorn is advocating, is contemplating GMO seed. I’m assuming so since he mentioned Monsanto and lab work.
Here is my concern. The green revolution MK1 was guided by making food as cheap as possible to as many as possible. Specifically re patents and sterile seeding F1 hybrid (producing seed that grows into high producing plants which produce sterile seed. So the age old practice of holding back some of the grain as seed for next season is destroyed. Thus locking developing nations into perpetual dependency on mega GMO seed producers.
If this sounds like SciFi conspiracy theory let’s just look back to C19 and vaccines and how that was abused. But at least with C19 the population had a ‘choice’ to vax, staple food isn’t a choice. Furthermore we know that cross pollination of these ‘castrated’ GMO plants can result in contamination of the heirloom parent plant populations… so farmers not wanting to use GMO seed, might still end up losing their heirloom stock do to GMO engineered mutations.
These are difficult problems to address if we are dealing with an immoral and irreligious people and managers.
Mahalo Hoover Institute 🤙🌴😎
The US and the UK raise less in taxes than they spend annually and have done for some time. Both countries have high debt. The US has unimaginable debt. Neither country should be looking to spend a penny on anything that is not clearly in the national interest. Our politicians were elected to make our lives better, not to borrow money from our grandchildren (or simply default on the debt as I suspect the US will) to give it away to strangers.
The deficit and debt are not really all that important. The MUCH bigger factor is that the US (I have no idea about UK,) spends an extremely high % of GDP per year. I don't care about the deficit, or the national debt, I want the government spending constrained to a reasonable % of GDP.
It's great to hear a credible alternative voice.
⭐
My school is ill
I" shattered the floors
Gulf Coast State college GCSC their the commadores not the goats
“Climate change is not a threat for another 100 years”
Meanwhile 1300 people dead from heatwave in a few days in Saudi Arabia
Meanwhile southern Europe is turning into a desert in real time
Meanwhile crops are failing everywhere because of either too little rain or too much
Meanwhile multiple countries are in the verge of water wars
In which world does this guy live?
@deaththekid3998 And what makes you believe that's accounted for by climate change? Does this variable dominate the other variables' impacts, e.g. arbitrary political borders, the El Nino-La Nina cycle, a totalitarian state controlling an economy with all its knowledge problems?
Elsewhere Bjorn has noted that additional CO2 has resulted in a 15% greener planet. It sounds as though some areas that were desserts are greening up.
At 15.30 he leaves out that people could have all the money in the world but if the energy isn't there to increase productivity, then the money is worthless. We found the ability to turn air into fertiliser 80 years ago and we currently use more fossil fuel calories than food calories returned, give the poor people another five dollars a day and we have doubled their consumption.
The poor people of the world increasing their productivity through tractors, diesel, fertilisers, basically doing what the west has done doesn't seem to be a plan and Bjorn seems to think as long as you have money, all the problems can go away, only feel 434% richer, on a warmer planet with micro climates about to go through dramatic changes...I would say never allow this person to be on again, I mean a carbon tax is going to hurt the poor more because they can afford it the least. I can't finish watching, he's basically a tout for fossil fuels and more govt debt and quicker destruction of the planet than doing any good,
At 5c which we seem to be rushing towards, it will take 330 years for 10% of the ice to melt and from there around 2000 for all to go, 77 metres in that amount of time will mean pulse floods and it will mean existential threats for everybody's way of life and of course lives, why is the hoover institute saying " not even close" are they also climate deniers?
@antonyjh1234 On the contrary, he believes in a free market. A free market includes philantrophists though, so better to have good suggestions than harmful ones.
Peter is so in love with himself it is super cringe. He clearly thinks he is better than he is. He seems like the kind of guy who was beat up a lot as a kid by the cool kids at his prep school in the suburbs.
Nah mate he’s fine and pretty modest.