..by keeping calm. Bjorn Lomborg says, once again, cool it:
When you look at these issues properly, the results are surprising. Climate change, for example, has had a net benefit for the world. From 1900 to 2025, it has increased global welfare by up to 1.5 per cent of GDP per year. Why? Because it has mixed effects – and when warming is moderate, the benefits prevail (even if they are unevenly distributed between nations).
Increased levels of atmospheric CO2 have improved agriculture, because the gas works as a fertiliser; we have avoided more deaths from cold than have been caused by extra heat; and we have saved more from lower heating bills than we have lost to an increased need for air conditioning.
But that doesn’t give the socialists the control over our lives that they continue to crave.
As temperatures rise, the costs will rise and the benefits decline – and the balance will tip sooner in some places than others. From 2070, global warming will become a net cost to the world, justifying cost-effective climate action now and in the decades to come.
Let’s have some cost-effective climate action now, and in the decades to come.
No thanks. The proposed “solutions” are just as faulty as the religiosity from AGW alarmists.
Let’s have some cost-effective climate action now, and in the decades to come.
Because we’ll all feel so much better about ourselves. And after all, that’s what really matters.
No, to avert the net cost to the world that Lomberg cites.
The most cost effective climate action is no climate action.
Which is handy since none is required.
rand says
“Climate change, for example, has had a net benefit for the world. From 1900 to 2025, it has increased global welfare by up to 1.5 per cent of GDP per year. ”
So does this mean you endorse the concept the global climate is changing?
There has never been a time in the history of the planet, since it had a climate, that it has not been changing.
Are you a moron?