I'm getting so bored with this Lomborg and his so called Copenhagen Consensus. It is all presented as a highly sophisticated and balanced review of how to solve the world's problems. Every once in a while he gets a few friends to sit down and they look at a bunch of serious global issues and come out with a list of priorities.
Sounds great, doesn't it?
The catch is the starting premise:
If the world would come together and be willing to spend, say, $50 billion over the next five years on improving the state of the world, which projects would yield the greatest net benefits?
I think it is an excellent question. However, this project has nothing to do with improving the state of the world. It has everything to do with an attempt to discredit any action towards greenhouse gas emissions. Every two years they produce a list and every time the Climate Change issue is near the bottom of the list.
It is simple. If you take a period of five years and $50Bn you would not spend it on climate change. Virtually every economist and environmentalist agrees that tackling the issue globally will take more than five years and $50Bn... So, if you list issues under this premise than you would have to give priority to many other issues. You don't need a Nobel prize winning economist for that. The starting point is nonsense. In the real world we are not limited to $50Bn or five years.
Unfortunately the press is not particularly complete in their reporting and so only the conclusion is widely reported. That is, action on global warming is not value for money. Of course the real problem is that most work on the issues featuring high on their list will be in vain if we do not tackle Climate Change.
If the real purpose of this little club was to take action on global issues Lomborg would be travelling the world talking abou the those high priority issues and not about Climate Change. Funny then, that he spends all his time talking about a "low priority" issue...
The new report commissioned by the UK government was dismissed by Lomborg:
"If the Stern review comes out and says we should do a little, then I think that's entirely in line with other economists. If it says we should do a lot now, then that would be surprising and, I would argue, wrong."
Lomborg does not need to read the report. Like all climate skeptics he knows everything already.
Prediction for this year's Copenhagen Consensus: Climate Change near the bottom of the list once again.