THE VINE AUGUST 30, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Now this is a pretty striking about-face:
The world's most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.
Bjørn Lomborg, the self-styled "sceptical environmentalist" once compared to Adolf Hitler by the UN's climate chief, is famous for attacking climate scientists, campaigners, the media and others for exaggerating the rate of global warming and its effects on humans, and the costly waste of policies to stop the problem.
But in a new book to be published next month, Lomborg will call for tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change. "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century," the book concludes.
What gives? Did Lomborg genuinely have a change of heart? Or is he just trying to figure out a new way to sell books? After all, now that the prospects for a global effort to tackle climate change look dim, the green position is ripe ground for self-styled contrarians.
5 comments
I suppose we will have to read the book to find out which -- presumably he explains himself. (If not, then the new way to sell books must be it). If it is not certain which, it might be best to read the book review first!
- JEFF FREY
August 30, 2010 at 9:38pm
"Now this is a pretty striking about-face:" Not a very informative link, there, is it?
- jaltcoh.blogspot.com
August 31, 2010 at 3:47pm
Egads, fixed.
- Bradford Plumer
August 31, 2010 at 5:28pm
Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentist did not deny global warming; instead (1) he argued in the near term other problems (notably poverty in India and China) were more urgent. As long as sovereign countries like India and China held that view, unilateral sacrifices by the West would prove ineffective and wasteful. (2) He favored research to develop cost-effective remedies for the medium and longer term, when the actual threat from global warming would be more important. Will his new book actually repudiate that view? Or is it merely a tweaking?
- hcunn
September 1, 2010 at 2:18pm
As I suspected, Lomborg's outlook is unchanged: global warming is real, but it is a medium and long-term problem requiring intensive research and development, not an immediate problem requiring the smothering of Western economies. The reporter who claimed an "about-face" by Lomborg had not read his original work. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703376504575491643716526782.html OPINION SEPTEMBER 15, 2010, Wednesday. U-Turn On Global Warming? Hardly. Being skeptical of Al Gore's solution doesn't make me a 'denier.' By BJORN LOMBORG
- hcunn
September 15, 2010 at 9:11pm