Global Warming on Free Republic
Posted on 09/05/2010 9:56:17 PM PDT by Libloather
Sceptical green urges smart billions to fight warming
By Slim Allagui
Posted Sun Sep 5, 2010 2:25pm PDT
COPENHAGEN (AFP) - Bjoern Lomborg, the bad boy of the climate debate who has rejected for years "alarmist" prophecies from environmentalists, stresses in a new book the need to invest billions to fight global warming.
In "Smart Solutions to Climate Change," Lomborg lashes out at current policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions but also highlights the need to spend 100 billion dollars a year on intelligent research and green technologies.
By spending billions in a smart way, the world could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century, insists Lomborg, who edited the new book containing proposals from 28 economists -- including three Nobel laureates -- gathered ahead of last year's climate summit in Copenhagen.
This may seem like an about-turn by the self-proclaimed sceptical environmentalist who had earlier said reducing greenhouse gas emissions should not be a priority as long as there are problems like poverty and famine.
But the 45-year-old Dane, with his mop of blond hair and boyish grin, insists he has not shifted positions.
"I am saying what I have always said: that the climate is a real and important, man-made problem, but that we are handling it badly," he told AFP.
Lomborg insists he has never been opposed to fighting climate change, but only to narrowly focused, inefficient projects aimed at lowering carbon dioxide emissions.
So why the sudden increased emphasis on the need for investment?
"Now that the international community has decided to invest massive amounts of money in the fight against climate change -- much more than in the past. I have to take a position in this new situation," he says.
(Excerpt) Read more at green.yahoo.com ...
get rich scheme. Sell a book that cater to the alarmist. Don’t really need to believe it yourself, like Al Gore
If you read his books, you will see he is definitely a socialist.
He just wants to lead the pack, and is resentful of phonies like Al Gore. So he had to knock them off their pedestal.
But he still wants to use “global warming” as an excuse to tax businesses and the rich and redistribute the wealth.
A really smart, really stupid man.
Not one cent for their green crap!
“Smart” billions. It is always smart or do it smarter. Kerry and Gore said this sh*t all the time with Hillary and Obama. We will do it smart. These people are such evil liars,
This is the correct direction.
A made up boogie man is not necessary nor productive. It only enriches and empowers it's promoters and keeps the world from benefiting from technology.
Those that promote a return to the natural world always exclude themselves from that return, nor do they realize there is a very good reason for no longer utilizing the 'old ways'.
Global Warming on Free Republic
I fear the day that folks like you learn your lesson of hubris the hard way as regards soil productivity and coastal marine productivity. You have no idea how infantile our "high technology" is on those topics, nor how much damage we are doing long term on a scale so grand as to approach irreversibility. Don't the terms, "single-point failure" and "structurally astable" mean anything to you? There really are serious problems out there and best you learn before they grow too big to reverse. (Here's a clue: they aren't the things the greenies wail about; indeed, they make them worse.)
That meant, among several other options, finding a way to economically build (yeah, right...) a system of dikes in coastal regions to block the purported sea-level rise.
It should surprise nobody that a 21st-century Scandinavian would support massive public project investments.
Now he's Kerryesquely straddling the fence to sell a bunch of books while trying not to look like a Goregasming useful idiot. Nice try, Bjorn, but no thanks.
I was refering to the folks, mostly celebs, that promote hut living, manual labor organic farming as superior to modern day agriculture, yet wouldn’t be caught dead living in a hut, or tilling the ground by hand, horse and plow, or even with a tractor. Then in their next sentence attack slash and burn as destroying the ‘lungs of the world’ or some other such rubbish as they drive to the airport in their SUV, to fly to their next appearance, or from one mansion to another before flying to their 3rd mansion -all via their private jet.
Everywhere they look they see only problems, not the ways that the problems can be, or already have been overcome. All they do is make a buck at the expense of everyone, waste resources, and tell everyone else how to reduce carbon footprints.
The environment isn’t our enemy. Socialism is. Fight Socialism, not global warming, carbon dioxide, greenhouse gasses, etc. etc., etc.
The guy has not changed positions. I recall clearly that his ideas were simply DIFFERENT that the AGW crowd. And because they were different, Anti-warmers were quick to call him one of their own. But he never really was, he is definitely his own man. Always was.
Look, I'm a techie too and I hate the weed patches organic farms have become, but believe me, it isn't hard to see what is happening when the chemical farmer forgets to lay down the ammonia in a certain patch, or watch his soil dry into a cracking sandy cake bereft of organic matter.
What would you say if I could show you how using animals to consume stubble or trample fields, not only introduces nitrogen fixing inocula deep into the soil without screwing up the beneficial critters therein, but it preserves fruit crops and nucleates raindrops? Is that "sophisticated" enough for you? Do you know how to use animals to maintain native bees without need of keepers?
If somebody wiped out all elecrtonic devices by EMP attack, would we have sufficient animals to provide food, till the land, or move goods? My point there is that there are definable benefits of "low tech" currently unrecognized in the marketplace because we have socialized those risks. Markets that trade contracts for the use of those assets in such a way as to mitigate the risks. That is what real civil defense looks like. What if I told you that the design of that risk mitigation system was Biblical, and has been totally misunderstood for 3,000 years, until now?
Thanks for the ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
