Listen: United States, Dr Bjorn Lomborg And Mitch Mcconnell discussed on The Drive Home with Jillian Barberie and John Phillips
"Was the beginning of the chance to fight against climate change on a global basis. It turns out that it's just a series of empty resolutions. And a weird press. Release put out by AO sees office that she then had to retract the green new deal is in fact, so unpopular in the United States when Mitch McConnell the Senate majority leader decided to put it up for a vote today to humiliate Democrats co-sponsor of the Bill said that Mitch McConnell was was doing something to stop the Bill which is insane. He brought it up for a vote. The cosponsor was like no don't bring it up for a vote. It's too humiliating. Joining us online is Dr Bjorn Lomborg. He's Danish author. He's president of the Copenhagen consensus censor former director of the Danish government's environmental assessment institute in Copenhagen, Dr lumber thanks so much for joining the Ben Shapiro show. Great to be sadaqa lumbergh. Let's start from the very beginning. How seriously should people in the west take the problem of climate change? What is your opinion of the IPC assessment? How much do we expect temperatures to rise over the next hundred years and how serious a problem is it? Well, we should listen to what the UN climate town. And they it's some significant issue will lead to temperature rises possibly up to seven degrees Fahrenheit. And that will probably cost in. In the end of the century of about two percent. Reduction in GDP growth. So remember we're going to be about three hundred two. Ten thousand. Warming. We will be untreatable. Off by the truth. And we otherwise would. And this is one of the major issues that that folks are refusing to acknowledge on the on the kind of pro action side is that even the current Nobel prize winners who have examined this issue. They suggest that there's a certain amount of warming. William Nordhausen suggested this there's a certain amount of warming that it just doesn't make any sense to try and prevent that. Number one. It's not preventable. And number two. Even if we were tried to to try to prevent it. We ended up doing significantly more economic harm over the course of the next century. Then if we just accepted a certain level of climate change exactly the point, of course, is to recognize nobody's admitting CO your tutor noyau core. See you to two minute as a byproduct of getting fossil fuels which provides pretty much everything we like about Martin civilization. It gives us keep cold electricity, food everything. And so trying to do this with less infected. We'll talk more will reduce economic group bit could it has real. And so we have to be careful to weigh those costs against the potential benefits of climate action. And that's that I want to ask you about the green new deal proposal put out by the Democrats. If you've had a chance to read the resolutions, I guess their goal. They say is to is to net zero emissions in the next ten years, which of course, is close to happening and say, it's certainly not going to happen in the United States. And what's weird about the proposal is that even if the United States were to get to net zero emissions what would the actual impact on the climate be over the next century? Yeah. Very little. So I had a chance of skimming. And again, it's borne by a willy has to do something about global warming, which I think is positive, but it's a humongous ineffective way to try to help global warming. First of all as you point out. It's almost inconceivable that it can actually achieve what it tries to do. Secondly, if you look at the cost of the proposal, so Bloomberg made a very first draft estimate of the cost, which the proposal is not seems to indicate the renewable would cost about four hundred billion dollars a year and retrofitting buildings would cost another probably one point seven trillion dollars a year almost the entire tax and take a big US just cover the cost of the part of the new green deal. And remember, even if everything tries to reduce temperature increases by the end of the century by less than zero point. Three degrees Fahrenheit. This is not meeting. This is the top cymbal climate model data lemberg what what is it that the media don't cover properly about this debate. Because there's a lot of talk about this being a climate crisis. The there's a lot of talk about immediate action. There's very little talk about the sort of estimates that the IPCC uses in other words, when I look at the IPCC reports, maybe I'm getting this wrong. And it's so love free to correct me. It seems like the more outsized the claims the less certain they are of them. So in other words, when they claim that there will be these massive spikes in temperature over the course of the next century that it will do trillions and trillions of dollars of damage, basically, the more extreme the prediction, the less certainty the IPC grants. The prediction itself. Yes. And and part of this, of course, has something to do with how media works. It's much much more interesting to talk about the really exciting outliers. Tell you. Oh my God. We're all gonna die kind of thing. But what the panel actually tells us take Christmas hurricane which is one of the biggest issues in in the climate conversation and also one of the huge potential costs climate change right now that you went on. We probably haven't seen a change in hurricanes despite everything you hear seventy to look at the actual number of hurricane sitting US all hurricanes an and strong or major hurricanes hitting the US. Here's down. Downward trend not an increasing tricks now over the long run, we probably will see what we've fewer hurricanes quaintly stronger hurricanes because warning. So there is an issue here. But it's crucial to emphasize right now, hurricanes cost the global community about zero point zero four percent of GDP so very much and even with strong global warming coming to the end of the century is estimated that by the end of the century that cost will have big blind two zero point zero two percent. So it's important to recognize this is not the end of the world. It's a fairly small problem. Secondly, it's actually be dealt with partially because we get richer and hence, more robust, more, resilient and tackle. Th there's on the other side of the issue. Some folks who I think confused the issue often when they talk about the climate freeze over the last fifteen years or the failures of computer modeling, I was wondering if you talk a little bit about climate skepticism, and what sort of skepticism is. Justified in what sort of skepticism isn't. Well, I think there's a lot of people out there who who sort of intuitively feels that the proposals late new green deal and ABC's arguments are leading down to wasting amounts of money. And hence, the global warming compensation must be wrong. And I think that's probably fail failed argument Israel, global warming is going to be a problem all other things equal. We've all built our our infrastructure tourist specific temperature and both of the increases or decreases. It's going to have cost. What we need to recognize this is perspective. Ballot. You need to recognize that we are very good at acting too many of these changes. So it will be a problem. But by no means the end of the world. And that of course, means we need to ask how much will propose policies costs and how much goodwill they do climate panel estimates that by the end of the century. If we don't do anything about global warming, the pasta global warming will be two to four percents. We talked about at the beginning of the segment we make policies will actually end up costing more than two to four percent global GDP we've actually spent more to try to fix the problem. Then the problem itself will that's a bad peel, and so it's all about making sure that we find cheap effective solutions that will partially solve the issue. And as you mentioned, that's the Nobel laureate in quantum economics, the north house, he says, we should do something. Against gold coin also, be careful to not do too much or thinking with Dr Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen consensus center, and he's an expert on climate change back the lumbergh. So what exactly are the sort of policies that you think it'd be reasonable to pursue? Because obviously, the AFC document that you put out and then Hadra tracks"