Listen: United States, Dr Bjorn Lomborg And IPCC discussed on The Savage Nation
"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 office, but 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 vote today to humiliate Democrats. He 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 vote the co-sponsors like no don't bring it up for a vote. It's too humiliating threatening us online is Dr Bjorn Lomborg. He's Danish author. He's president of the Copenhagen consensus her former director of the Danish government's environmental assessment institute in Copenhagen doctrine Olympic. Thanks for joining the Ben Shapiro show. It's great to be here. 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 IPCC assessment? How much we expect temperatures rise over the next hundred years and how serious a problem is it. Well, we should listen to what the UN climate. And they tell us it's significant issue. It will lead to temperature rises possibly up to maybe seven degrees Fahrenheit, and that will probably how call in. In the end of the century of about four percent reduction in GDP growth. So remember we're going to be about three hundred two. But becomes global warming. We will be triple off by the end of the century than we otherwise. 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 north houses suggested 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 to your tutor Noyon court to meet it as a byproduct of getting fossil fuels, which provides pretty much everything we like about boggy civilization. It gives us keep cold 'electricity food everything. And so trying to do this with less effective. We'll talk more reduce economic growth bit. Could it has real? And so we have to be careful to weigh those costs against the potential benefits climate action. And Dr lumbergh I won't ask you about the green new deal proposal put out by the Democrats had enough. 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 where to get to net zero emissions what would the actual impact on the climate be over the next century very little? So I I had a chance of skin, and again, it's boring by a willy has to do something about global warming, which I think is positive, but it's a humongous ineffective ways 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 second grade. 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 that renewable. It cost about four hundred billion dollars a year and retrofitting buildings would cost another probably one point seven trillion dollars a year that almost the entire tax and take a big US just cover the cost of the part of the new Greenville. And remember, even if it been achieved everything that tries to reduce temperature increases by the end of the century by less than zero point three degrees Fahrenheit. This is not meeting this. This is the top cymbal climate. 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 IPC uses in other words, when I look at the IPCC reports, maybe I'm getting this wrong. And if so 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 certain TV, IPCC 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 climate panel actually tells us as hurricane which is one of the biggest issues in the climate conversation are also one of the huge potential. Change right now that you went on we probably haven't seen a change hurricanes despite everything you hear certainly if you look at the actual number of hurricane sitting US phone all hurricanes an and strong or major hurricanes hitting the US. There's a slight downward trend not increasing tricks. Over the long run. We probably will see what we've fewer hurricanes twenty stronger hurricanes because worn so there is an issue here, but it's crucial design 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 declined to zero point zero two percent important to recognize this is not the end of the world. It's a fairly small problem. Secondly, it's actually be partially because we get richer and hence more robust more resilient lumber. 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 aren't there. We sort of intuitively feels that the new green deal and AOC's arguments are leading down to wasting amounts of money and the global warming compensation must be wrong. And I think that's probably fail failed. Hartman Israel, global warming. Getting to be a problem all other things equal. We've all our our infrastructure to specific temperature and both increases repeat creases. It's going to have cost what we need to recognize perspectives is ballot. Need to recognize that we are very good at it tapping too many of these changes so global warming 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 and how much goodwill they do the UN climate panel has made by the end of the century. If we don't do anything about global warming the cost of global warming will be two to four percent. We talked about at the beginning of the segment we 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 come back 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 the Nobel laureate in economics. The north house. He says we should do something against gold coin would also be careful to not do too much for speaking with Dr Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen consensus center, and he's an expert on climate change that the lumbergh. So what exactly are these sort of policies that you think would be reasonable to pursue? Because obviously, the AFC document that you put out and then Hadra tracks had insane policies like getting rid of air travel, and she had a reference too farting cows and presumably the genocide of farting cows, which I think would be too bad for a lot of cows. What sort of policies though, are reasonable? I tend to think of innovative policies as as the ones that we ought to pursue best considering that the United States has actually been the world's leader in declining emissions over the last couple of years, thanks to technological innovations. Thanks to fracking, thanks to the use of natural gas as opposed to oil and coal. What do you think are some of the solutions that should be on the table? Well, Ben, as you mentioned, Frankie muse, a great example of how technology can help drive down emissions in the US house. Our twenty world leader on cutting carbon emissions, exactly. Because of that. Basically fracking allowed the US to get richer and get energy that was cheaper than coal now that matters because gas emits about half"