Former Climate Sceptic now urging action to stop global warming
His new book “Smart Solutions to Climate Change,” published by Cambridge University Press, studies the costs and benefits of various options dealing with climate change……..
Lomborg Sees No U-Turn in Renewable Energy, Carbon Tax Support, Bloomberg, By Gelu Sulugiuc – Sep 20, 2010 Danish Social Scientist Bjoern Lomborg “We should be focusing on investing dramatically more in research and development in green-energy technology,” Lomborg, a professor who runs the Copenhagen Consensus Center, said. Bjoern Lomborg, the Danish social scientist known for his opposition to efforts to cut emissions, said taxing carbon dioxide and raising investments in renewable energy are the best ways to limit global warming.
The author of the best-seller, “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” in a new book advocated global spending on developing renewable-energy technologies of about $100 billion a year and new carbon taxes instead of cap-and-trade programs.
“We should be focusing on investing dramatically more in research and development in green-energy technology,” Lomborg, a professor who runs the Copenhagen Consensus Center, said in an interview in the Danish capital. “I’ve always said global warming is real, that it’s man-made and that it’s an important problem. But the current approach is just not working.”…..
His new book “Smart Solutions to Climate Change,” published by Cambridge University Press, studies the costs and benefits of various options dealing with climate change……..
The $100 billion for renewable research should be financed by a global carbon tax of $7 per metric ton of CO2 that should replace cap-and-trade systems such as the European Trading System, Lomborg said. “This is a theoretically beautiful point, but of course it’s not going to happen in real life.”
Lomborg Sees No U-Turn in Renewable Energy, Carbon Tax Support – Bloomberg
2 Comments »
Leave a Reply
1.This Month
Climate change – the global emergency – theme for August 2017
“………..VI. Perpetual War The violence baked into heat.
Climatologists are very careful when talking about Syria. They want you to know that while climate change did produce a drought that contributed to civil war, it is not exactly fair to say that the conflict is the result of warming; next door, for instance, Lebanon suffered the same crop failures. But researchers like Marshall Burke and Solomon Hsiang have managed to quantify some of the non-obvious relationships between temperature and violence: For every half-degree of warming, they say, societies will see between a 10 and 20 percent increase in the likelihood of armed conflict. In climate science, nothing is simple, but the arithmetic is harrowing: A planet five degrees warmer would have at least half again as many wars as we do today. Overall, social conflict could more than double this century.
This is one reason that, as nearly every climate scientist I spoke to pointed out, the U.S. military is obsessed with climate change: The drowning of all American Navy bases by sea-level rise is trouble enough, but being the world’s policeman is quite a bit harder when the crime rate doubles. Of course, it’s not just Syria where climate has contributed to conflict. Some speculate that the elevated level of strife across the Middle East over the past generation reflects the pressures of global warming — a hypothesis all the more cruel considering that warming began accelerating when the industrialized world extracted and then burned the region’s oil.
What accounts for the relationship between climate and conflict? Some of it comes down to agriculture and economics; a lot has to do with forced migration, already at a record high, with at least 65 million displaced people wandering the planet right now. But there is also the simple fact of individual irritability. Heat increases municipal crime rates, and swearing on social media, and the likelihood that a major-league pitcher, coming to the mound after his teammate has been hit by a pitch, will hit an opposing batter in retaliation. And the arrival of air-conditioning in the developed world, in the middle of the past century, did little to solve the problem of the summer crime wave…… http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html?utm_campaign=nym&utm_medium=s1&utm_source=fb
EVENTS
-
Archives
- August 2017 (390)
- July 2017 (511)
- June 2017 (490)
- May 2017 (517)
- April 2017 (453)
- March 2017 (563)
- February 2017 (459)
- January 2017 (507)
- December 2016 (462)
- November 2016 (436)
- October 2016 (490)
- September 2016 (496)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Fukushima 2017
- general
- global warming
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
I’m confused. This is an anti-nuclear site but Bjoern Lomborg in on record as supporting funding for nuclear plants, http://www.grist.org/article/2010-08-30-skeptical-environmentalist-bjrn-lomborg-reverses-his-climate-ske/, in addition to renewables.
Yeah – I’m a bit confused about this myself.
The thing is – originally the nuclear and coal lobbies were well aligned , as they saw “energy shortage” as an impetus for both. In this scenario, nuclear was gradually to take over as coal supplies lessened – or something like that.
So both were “climate sceptics”
More recently, the nuclear lobby has chosen Climate Change as its impetus. This is now, at last, causing a rift between the two lobbies. Best example of this is Australia’s BHP Billiton CEO, Marius Kloppers, coming out in favour of a carbon tax, (in order to promote BHP’s plans for a mega-sized uranium mine in South Australia)
You’re quite right. Bjorn Lomborg might be just jumping on the Climate Change bandwagon as “front” for his pro nuclear stance.
Or – he might be genuine, (which I suspect is the case). Either way, I believe that he is right to advocate “green” technologies. We wait for further info on what exactly does Bjorn Lomborg include as “green”