Abundant Energy Makes The World Better | Bjorn Lomborg
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ย. 2024
- Human ingenuity is the best climate policy.
Bjorn Lomborg seeks to bring a balanced and thoughtful view to the climate conversation, where alarmist narratives have created policies that do more harm than good.
As Bjorn says, “yes there are problems ahead, but we make more solutions than problems.” The results of one-sided storytelling are unrealistic ‘net-zero’ climate policies which drive up energy prices and carry costs that vastly outweigh their benefits.
We are simply, in Bjorn’s words, “making the lifeblood of civilisation more expensive.”
Bjorn’s call is for us to shift our focus away from making policies to appease the doomsday heralds and to instead fix our attention on energy innovation - the historic key that opened the door to our industrial revolution and brought us the prosperity we experience today.
--
Subscribe to our Channel to be the first to catch the latest from this ARC | Forum event:
/ @arc_forum
GO DEEPER:
- ‘The Green Gamble: The Geopolitics of Net Zero’ by Doug Stokes - www.arcforum.c...
---
Dr Bjorn Lomborg researches the smartest ways to do good. With his think tank, the Copenhagen Consensus, he has worked to find and promote the most effective solutions to the world’s greatest challenges, from disease and hunger to climate and education.
---
We are delighted to announce that the next ARC Conference will take place between 17-19 February 2025! Subscribe to our mailing list for updates and follow us on social media as we explore the better story:
ARC Mailing List: www.arcforum.c...
X/Twitter - / arc_forum
Instagram - / arc_forum
Facebook - / alliance.for.responsib...
LinkedIn - / alliance-for-responsib...
---
ARC, the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, is a global community with a vision of a world where every citizen can prosper, contribute, and flourish.
Join us in shaping this vision, as we draw on the best of our inheritance to build hope-filled future. Let's seek solutions to the problems we face that tap into humanity's highest virtues and remarkable capacity for innovation and ingenuity.
Learn more at www.arcforum.com
---
Thx Bjorn for giving me the data to prove what I feel is the truth for more than 10 years. Keep up the good work. Thx ARC for putting this out there.
is that sacrcasm? If so well done.
@@scribblescrabble3185 why would it be sarcasm? It's the truth eveh if you can't expect from all people to do research and data digging at this level.
@@andreipopescu5342 because of this line: "what I *feel* is the truth".
@@andreipopescu5342 Because of this line: "what I feel is the truth", but I guess nowadays feelings are enough for whatever you think is true. Just read the sources Lomborg offers and notice the parts where he doesn't offer any. What Lomborg is doing only works, if you do not read the sources (or look them up where he doesn't provide any). So do it diligently and with as much care as possible. Or is that feeling of truth enough for you?
The thing is how to interpret the data. What are the right conclusions. That is were most people including Bjorn go wrong. Sure heating up the world makes climate change , but it for sure hits some areas harder and in other areas there is a positive effect there is always to sides of a coin.
But if everyone becomes well-informed, how can they scare us into doing what they want???
Better to be a victim. Big rewards for that these days.
Ding ding ding!!!
Hit the nail on the head.
There is absolutely NO danger of the populace becoming well-informed. NONE. So don't worry about any disruption to the Deep Sleep of the Dimwitted Sheep.
lol wow
If everyone becomes informed any government looses the ability ask for that extra small amount of power they believe will solve what they feel is the next crisis on the horizon.
There IS a crisis of ignorance and that’s the real problem, people can’t think for themselves anymore
You are so right
100% correct
And thta is very much the way our educational system wants things to stay
We have to educate each other like this, because the woke mob captured the education system.
Cant agree more, especially here in Sweden.
I have followed this path and when I looked at how many died from "Obesity" 2022 to 2023 6,000,000. Then looked at the explosion of Obesity since the 1970s. Now there's a real hockey stick graph. Why the noise for Net Zero? The largest potential wealth transfer ever 9 Trillion $ annually. Challenging obesity will threaten corporate profit. same as defence / War. Thank you for bringing sense to the table.
You are so right, so many fat people and they are young
Nutrition science, climate science, two peas in a pod. "Consensus" in nutrition follows the money too, and people think scientists are incorruptible, what a pile of ****.
I believe you are 100% correct. They're in the business.
@@Leningrad_Underground That’s one reason the Democrat party is behind it.
The diesel tractor solved a lot more problems than it ever caused.
So did my diesel truck until it does a regeneration.
There would be no western civilization without fossil fuels!
Don't worry the problems are coming.
The diesel tractor feeds the world and will have to for many years to come
@@spotontheroad1 Without fossil fuels there would be no western civilization. Diesel engines have built advanced western civilization and infrastructure and will for decades 👍👍
On this day, when the news is a morass of Political sludge and much news is disheartening, to find something where I am informed, not propaganizied is refreshing. Thank You
you think this channel did not propagandized you? And you feel informed? Or is it more like you feel reassured that you are right all along?
If only we could get this message to the brainwashed wider public.
It doesn’t help that religion teaches you “You are going to burn 🔥 Hell yeah better than freezing
Who exactly are the brainwashed? See BJORN LOMBORG DEBUNKED
See EXPOSING BJORN LOMBORG'S CLIMATE CHANGE LIES
See BJORN LOMBORG CLIMATE DEATH GRAPH DEBUNKED
See FAKE CLIMATE SCIENTIST BJORN LOMBORG MOCKED BY EXPERTS
I've just been blocked by FB for using the word 'sheep'.
@@karenhopwood891How so? Please explain. I use this word constantly
I think people are so grossly ignorant of basic science that they can't understand energy or the need for it.
Dead right that "most people are grossly ignorant of basic science." So much so that people like Lomborg continue to pull the wool over their eyes. Sheep the lot of them!
Exactly. They also lack basic critical thinking skills.
How so folks?
We are not in a climate crisis!
@@johnbennett1464 As if on cue!
Imagine spending half a Trillion euros with nothing to show for it.
I actually have two responses to this. 1. imagine having half a trillion to spend. 2. It doesn't matter when it's someone else's money.
Oh these companies pushing the over-exaggeration have something to show for it! A trillion euros...
Loads of people have plenty of that money in the bank accounts to show for it.
I think that’s an underestimate…
Big government does this all the time.
If COLD is the biggest cause of death, we are heading for serious problems here in the UK this winter, given the policies that our goverment is enabling...
You guys in the UK are heading into serious problems for sure and the coming winter is way down the list.
A warning climate would be highly beneficial for a cold country like the UK. The UK is acting contrary to its own national interest by trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. It is totally daft.
I only have to look at the comments to confirm my worst fears. A total misunderstanding of climate change and its effects is evident.
@johngeier8692 even if CO2 is the culprit the Eco-Freeks make it out to be, the UK-istan is in trouble.
Dead right. Its going to get colder and we are destroying our energy options.
After all these years I’m shocked by how many people still trust the govt and MSM.
Much smarter to trust a shill for the oil industry who shows selective data to an audience looking for excuses to continue extracting and burning oil. PFAS chemicals, micro plastics, and melting glaciers causing the flooding of sea level cities are 3 subjects he didn’t bring up
People? You mean braindead zombies.
Yes.........the UK is effectively 1% of the problem but I must spend lots of money replacing my perfectly good car with a more expensive EV and replacing my perfectly good gas boiler with a much more expensive heat pump and putting solar on my roof that won't really be economically viable in the lifetime of the panels.......all this change and expense to less serviceable stuff that doesn't necessarily work as good as the old tech or brings new problems.......and if I complain I'm a "denier" because the Left are only inclusive of people who think the way they think.
The Uni-party is following the UN Agenda 21 SDGs.
Every teenage girl and young woman needs to see this video.
Why only teenage girls and women?
@@0909umcia Because they are the ones most frightened by climate alarmism and many have decided it is too dangerous to have children.
@@rg1876 And they need to be indoctrinated by this nonsense into believing that there is no danger - we can't allow the birth rate to fall, the baby-factory is important!
They are too brainwashed to believe this. They revel in their climate apocalypse fright.
Canada needs to arrest Trudeau and get our oil & natural gas on tge market.
If we unleashed oil and gas production, ended green subsidies, embraced free markets and balanced the books Canadians would be the wealthiest people on Earth.
And Germany scrapped all their nuclear facilities to restart their coal plants. Dumb move.
glenn: why-explain,because of the climate hoax,No One Is Coming to Save You-
not true
@@der-lotse ..and yet that is what actually happened.
@@somethingelse9535 No, the government did nit start coal plants. They used the remaining ones to compensate where necessary. Due to the successful growth of renewables, these (7twh) are replacing nuclear (4twh) already and are now replacing coal step by step until 0 twh is generated by coal. And they are on track. The only remaining problem is the heavy industry, which relies on gas. The temporary solution is hydrogen. But there will be better ones.
@@der-lotse "In the east of the country, LEAG is expected to bring blocks E and F of its Jaenschwalde lignite plant back online. The facilities were operational last winter, put on stand-by in July, and can now be fully reactivated until March 2024 the latest." That is called "restarting".
Where is the money coming from? Most places can't afford to mend the potholes in their roads.
Biden has it precisely backwards. Imagine my shock.
You might want to look into that a little. The source for Lomborgs claim is there. The source Biden used is not given, so it is difficult for you to compare the diffrent definitions they used. This narrative depends on you not checking the sources. Do you understand?
@@scribblescrabble3185 go ahead and prove Biden right. You can't.
@scribblescrabble3185 hilarious that out of the two, Lomborg and Biden, you only trust the one who DOESN'T cite a source. You're the one falling for a narrative; eagerly so .
@@Adrian-yi8fl what do you mean? Lomborg did not provide the source Biden used. That you are unwilling to look it up is not on me.
@@Adrian-yi8fl wdym? Biden gave a source (or the White House did, with the government agency NOAA to be precise). It is Lomborg that did not provide it in this comparison of claims insinuating, that his study is the only study that looks at weather related deaths. That you are unwilling to compensate this short comming and just trust Lomborg on it, is a decision you did, and is not on me.
Btw. you really might want to read the study Lomborg referenced. Maybe you understand something.
Excellent video. I love Bjorn.
See BJORN LOMBORG DEBUNKED
See EXPOSING BJORN LOMBORG'S CLIMATE CHANGE LIES
See BJORN LOMBORG CLIMATE DEATH GRAPH DEBUNKED
See FAKE CLIMATE SCIENTIST BJORN LOMBORG MOCKED BY EXPERTS
Create a crisis and take more control of the people. The Government.😅
The Native Indian tribes in north America used to set fires bi-yearly to the forest under growth in order to get rid of thick dry and dead vegetation so that in the event of lightning 🌩 started fires that there wouldn't be enough dry fuel for fire to feed on and thus would be short lived.
They may have set fires twice a year but the reason for this is just dreaming.
Just kept to facts and not fantasy.
Well how is the government going to push their "global boiling" narrative if we do sensible things like that?
It's purposeful.
There isn't a climate crisis.
What do you know, that those listed below, don’t?
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations
The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:
* Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
* Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
* Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
* Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
* Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
* Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
* Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
* Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
* Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
* Académie des Sciences, France
* Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
* Academy of Athens
* Academy of Science of Mozambique
* Academy of Science of South Africa
* Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy of Sciences of Moldova
* Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
* Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
* Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
* Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
* Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
* African Academy of Sciences
* Albanian Academy of Sciences
* Amazon Environmental Research Institute
* American Academy of Pediatrics
* American Anthropological Association
* American Association for the Advancement of Science
* American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
* American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
* American Astronomical Society
* American Chemical Society
* American College of Preventive Medicine
* American Fisheries Society
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Biological Sciences
* American Institute of Physics
* American Meteorological Society
* American Physical Society
* American Public Health Association
* American Quaternary Association
* American Society for Microbiology
* American Society of Agronomy
* American Society of Civil Engineers
* American Society of Plant Biologists
* American Statistical Association
* Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
* Australian Academy of Science
* Australian Bureau of Meteorology
* Australian Coral Reef Society
* Australian Institute of Marine Science
* Australian Institute of Physics
* Australian Marine Sciences Association
* Australian Medical Association
* Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
* Botanical Society of America
* Brazilian Academy of Sciences
* British Antarctic Survey
* Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
* California Academy of Sciences
* Cameroon Academy of Sciences
* Canadian Association of Physicists
* Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
* Canadian Geophysical Union
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
* Canadian Society of Soil Science
* Canadian Society of Zoologists
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
* Center for International Forestry Research
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
* Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
* Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
* Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
* Crop Science Society of America
* Cuban Academy of Sciences
* Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
* Ecological Society of America
* Ecological Society of Australia
* Environmental Protection Agency
* European Academy of Sciences and Arts
* European Federation of Geologists
* European Geosciences Union
* European Physical Society
* European Science Foundation
* Federation of American Scientists
* French Academy of Sciences
* Geological Society of America
* Geological Society of Australia
* Geological Society of London
* Georgian Academy of Sciences
* German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
* Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
* Indian National Science Academy
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
* Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
* Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
* Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
* InterAcademy Council
* International Alliance of Research Universities
* International Arctic Science Committee
* International Association for Great Lakes Research
* International Council for Science
* International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
* International Research Institute for Climate and Society
* International Union for Quaternary Research
* International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
* International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
* Islamic World Academy of Sciences
* Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
* Kenya National Academy of Sciences
* Korean Academy of Science and Technology
* Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
* l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
* Latin American Academy of Sciences
* Latvian Academy of Sciences
* Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
* Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
* Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
* Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
* National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
* National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
* National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
* National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
* National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
* National Aeronautics and Space Administration
* National Association of Geoscience Teachers
* National Association of State Foresters
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* National Council of Engineers Australia
* National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* National Research Council
* National Science Foundation
* Natural England
* Natural Environment Research Council, UK
* Natural Science Collections Alliance
* Network of African Science Academies
* New York Academy of Sciences
* Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
* Nigerian Academy of Sciences
* Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
* Oklahoma Climatological Survey
* Organization of Biological Field Stations
* Pakistan Academy of Sciences
* Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
* Pew Center on Global Climate Change
* Polish Academy of Sciences
* Romanian Academy
* Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
* Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
* Royal Astronomical Society, UK
* Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
* Royal Irish Academy
* Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
* Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
* Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
* Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
* Royal Society of Canada
* Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Science and Technology, Australia
* Science Council of Japan
* Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
* Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
* Scripps Institution of Oceanography
* Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
* Slovak Academy of Sciences
* Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
* Society for Ecological Restoration International
* Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
* Society of American Foresters
* Society of Biology (UK)
* Society of Systematic Biologists
* Soil Science Society of America
* Sudan Academy of Sciences
* Sudanese National Academy of Science
* Tanzania Academy of Sciences
* The Wildlife Society (international)
* Turkish Academy of Sciences
* Uganda National Academy of Sciences
* Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
* United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
* University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
* Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
* Woods Hole Research Center
* World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
* World Federation of Public Health Associations
* World Forestry Congress
* World Health Organization
* World Meteorological Organization
* Zambia Academy of Sciences
* Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
@GordonPavilion To add to that, more than 11000 scientists from 153 countries signed a declaration of climate emergency in 2019.
@@e75short14, paid to do so. Shameful.
@garywagner2466 Get real, you know what you said was nonsense.
@@garywagner2466 Time to take off the tin foil hat.
Buying a scientist doesn't get the buyer anything. Because the only thing a bought scientist will do differently from an honest one is produce science with errors and biases that the buyer requested. When it goes to peer review, the bought scientist's honest competitors will call out the errors and bias, and the crap paper doesn't get published. And if he or she manages to fool the anonymous reviewers, chosen defensively by the journal editor, then he or she gets published, and all his competitors and professional rivals who didn't get chosen as reviewers pounce. Science treats corruption the same way it treats honest errors. It corrects them.
It's worth bearing in mind that forest fires may be more common than 30 years ago because today there are 30% more trees than there were 30 years ago.
And I bet people forget to water the trees too...
According to the U.S. Forest Service, wildfire seasons have expanded by over a month in the last forty years. THAT's why we're seeing more fires. A longer heat season dries out leaf litter and tinder, making it much more likely to ignite and spread out of control.
@@swiftlytiltingplanet8481 Tell you what else can do that: disposable barbecues.
Most of the increase in Forest Fires is due to arson and carelessness .... So let's drop the Climate-Change-Ate-My-Homework narrative, eh.
80% of the fires happen in the African tropics (not only forest fires, but also savanna fires, as the sources used in this presentation show). Another 10% on the south-east asian islands and Australia. And these regions the fires indeed become less common, as the sources given in the presentation show, because of increase in population density and humidity. This reduction completly overshadows the increase elsewhere (NA, Europa, Sibiria, and Amazon). Kinda strange that he wouldn't include that, especially since on the next topic he focusses on Europe.
The climate has been changing for billions of years
and we accelerate it while relying on a finite energy source that took orders of magnitude longer to build than it is used up. Not to mention that direct health consequences, but its convenient to just ignore it because the dead dont speak
@@fetBHi Fet, climate is warming in some places. Where I live , there is a cooling trend with more rain.
I would prefer the heat.
@@m____w____6981 hence the term climate change.... Fortunately you're not the center of the universe though, and if you love warm place, then move there as those who like colder move where you are. Dont mind the increase in natural disasters as you do with everything else that is inconvenient
@@fetB You seem very angry. Sorry about that.
What's going on that is upsetting you so ?
@@m____w____6981 lol, no you're not and its ldiots like you who have voting rights
Finally a sane voice, Al Gore should be ashamed of himself
Al Gore has been laughing all the way to the bank.
When I was a kid, we had days of 100 degrees in the 60's and 70's. I haven't seen a 100 degree day now for years. Propaganda is just that, Lies!
Wonderful video! Thank you so much! :)
Thank you ARC for the incredible videos !!!
Absolutely bloody brilliant! Thanks Bjorn.
Great common sense 👍
A great presentation 👌👏👍
We should also consider the many substantial benefits of climate change.
I agree. Like reduced global population!
@@petewright4640 On the contrary! A warmer world with more atmospheric CO2 is bound to be more fertile, therefore producing more food for more people. We are seeing it already in the greening of the deserts, expansion of boreal forests, and in increased crop yields. There's more fish in the ocean too because there's more phytoplankton.
@@zdzislawmeglicki2262 Ocean acidification means less fish. Massive fires in the Boreal forests means less trees and crops don't grow at 50C or in salt polluted soil from sea level rise.
@@petewright4640 Ah, but there is no "ocean acidification" because phytoplankton feeds on CO2 dissolved in the upper layers of the ocean. Phytoplankton, you see, is plant life. It photosynthesizes, for which it needs CO2. And there are no "massive fires in Boreal forests" unless set by environmentalists. It is actually the case that the amount and intensity of wildfires has diminished over the century past. And don't worry about the other stuff. It's all fiction.
@zdzislawmeglicki2262 Generally rates of growth of phytoplankton are limited by availability of nutrients other than CO2, in particular iron and phosphate. So extra dissolved CO2 has little positive effect on the phytoplankton. In addition decreased ph, caused by CO2, reduces the availability of iron and phosphate so inhibiting phytoplankton growth. Increasing ocean temperatures are also detrimental. The decrease in fire activity is a global figure. Fires in Boreal forests are increasing. As for my point that crops don't do so well at very high temperatures, which are occuring more and more frequently in low latitude areas, isn't "fiction". Neither is sea level rise "fiction". You've been lied to.
Learning the hard way is the price the public will have to pay for ignorance and gullibility.
I don't think people here will ever realize the "told you so" moment
There is no man made climate crisis but getting that fact across to big business, and government is near impossible. Lomborg saying that 'it is man made' is not true at all as the historical statistical facts plainly show that C02 has been vastly higher than it is today and temperatures did not increase in response. The cyclical levels of climate change occur over thousands of years - sometimes taking longer and sometimes much shorter time and temperatures, like sea levels, go up and down for reasons well beyond any possible human interaction. Apart from this incorrect assumption the rest is well presented common sense although some might justifiably take issue with the notion of 'cherry picking' data to suit the argument.
Absolutely.
People miss the fact that the planet is still warming from the glacial period that ended barely 10k years ago... and getting greener as a result.
Yes 👍
Events in nature such as volcanic eruptions spew huge amounts of heat into our atmosphere. These events are rarely considered in any "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" model. Climate has always been changing. Our environments have always been evolving. And will continue to do so.
So you're suggesting humans and CO2 are not responsible for the rapid warming we are experiencing.
Whats wrong with voting for Trump? He's an energy realist.
Lomborg is pretty good at a lot of facts but when he says climate change is man made it reduces his credibility hugely. 😢
Perversely it's kind of true, ie the relentless sky spraying in the name of saving the planet is the main thing ruining the climate
All of this just to end with carbon tax is so disappointing. Frankly carbon credits are more scary than any climate natural disaster IMO.
Bjorn Lomborg has studies cited, you cite your opinion. Any evidence to back that up ?
Have you got evidence that it isn't so?
I'm pretty sure he was recommending innovation instead of the other options
Science doesn't happen when you find a scientist that agrees with you, it happens when the vast majority of scientists agree with each other.
Here was the first misleading statement. Associating reduced fires over time with climate change and giving no further details.
The decline in fires during the 20th century may be explained by multiple factors. In the late 1800s, widespread domestic livestock grazing reduced grassy fuel loads, compacted soils, and greatly reduced fire frequencies. By 1900 the western frontier had largely closed, and intentionally set fires probably declined due to changing attitudes and policies towards fire. In addition, landscape fragmentation from trail and road building limited the spread of fire. Furthermore, after the 1940s, fire suppression became highly effective, preventing the spread of many forest fires. However, ecological factors also played a role, as the number of young stands and aspen stands, which are resistant to burning, increased after logging and previous extensive burning.
This omission confuses coincidence with causality making the viewer assume that the two correlating conditions imply a cause. Statistics can be used to confuse as well as enlighten. Be cautious of everything. This data is being used to mislead.
Thanks for making the point. This guy just selects data as he sees fit to his story. And he claims that is what the scientific community does. Sad click bait.
@@christianu8023Maybe both sides cherry pick the data that supports their view, perhaps the "truth" is somewhere in between; it was refreshing though to hear someone with a positive outlook instead of doom and gloom
at least one got it
And you also have the outcome in your head, and looking for the arguments to support it.
Lomborg has some valid points.
You want to discredit him.
Which seems to be the way people debate.
@@benniewenniger2075 "Lomborg has some valid points." which one? I can't really say that any of them were valid.
"You want to discredit him." No need, he is doing that himself.
How many ppm CO2 were in Earth's atmosphere in the Jurassic era of megaflora and megafauna?
How many ppm CO2 do we currently have in our atmosphere?
People must do their own thinking.
We are in a CO2 drought as far as plant life is concerned, CO2 levels were much higher, up to ten times higher. If we invented a way of reducing our present levels of CO2 by half, plant life will die, along with us.
"How many ppm CO2 were in Earth's atmosphere in the Jurassic era of megaflora and megafauna?"
The jurassic was a 55 million year long period with CO2 concentrations dropping at the start fast from 2000 ppm down to around 800-900 ppm. In general there were probably few to non tropical rainforests or tundra, but instead deserts and a humid savanna-like biome with heat-adapted plants like cycads (no grasses or cacti at that time) up to 60° latitudes, followed by large fern forests and at the poles temperate forests with no arctic ice sheets how we know them today. Some cold dips may have caused extensive glaciers to form on higher mountain ranges near the poles.
"How many ppm CO2 do we currently have in our atmosphere?"
what was it 420.3 ppm? No, that was in 2022. It is at 426.6 ppm in 2024 (April). Since our Sun got a bit stronger since the Jurassic we would expect an even further expansion of the tropical zone if we ever manage to reach Jurassic level of CO2, albeit with a bit more rain forests and less ferns since the continents are more split apart today.
Oh Greta is not going to like this!
How dare you!
She's not going to "like it" because her generation is going to have to live with the consequences of the Age of Stupid".
Greta WHO?😅😅😅
@@Snerdlesyou a cultist?😅😅
Carbon dioxide is the most important molecule for life, equal to water. CO2 is the source of all the carbon in every plant and tree. Higher CO2 levels make the earth GREENER, and an areanthe size of the 48 states has been ADDED to the green ecosystems since 2000. It is helping us grow more food and more fiber for clothes and wood for homes and furniture.
Its not at all the most important molecule, but awaste product. We also dont need help growing food. We throw away billions of tons every year. We dont need wood to build homes either because there are much more long lasting and effective methods. We also dont need it for furniture, or at least not in a high rate. Furniture isnt subject to elements and can last decades. Whats really concerning is why you people are against better cheaper and sustainable energy, and just point out of carbon is the basis for life when we talk about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, where it does us no good. Burning fossiles for energy is just bad of a broad solution. Its good for freezig climate, because most of its eneryg is heat, but obviously thats not where most people live. Im mean, how do you expect to to go over well. Coal build over hundreds of years, burned in a few minutes that also releases a lot of toxins…
@@fetBActually, CO2 is literally plant food, so it's not exactly "waste"; but I agree that we shouldn't be pumping toxic chemicals into the air more than necessary; of course, if only we could get those pesky volcanoes to join a climate accord things would be a lot better! Just kidding, I'm for solar on every roof with battery storage so that we all become more energy independent and self sufficient; the grid is good but we need to take back our independence and self reliance; from this presentation it becomes obvious that our "leaders" are clueless and don't have a any idea about innovation, they only want to raise taxes or cost of living by making life more expensive and difficult; we need innovation and better ideas to solve our problems, just like has always worked
@@bryanhood9839 And thats the point. It is entirely unnecessary, but it has been defended by the same people that just call co2 plant food, like they didnt exist before industrialization. Also solar incentive hasnt been higher, prices never been lower, and innovation in solar is moving on as well, like finally changing the glue that made recycling of traditional panels a nightmare. So is battery development, which has seen a massive increase in use of common materials and overall energy density, with CATL being a big contributor and recently announcing another massive step. But of course thats a chinese company and therfore bad. And all because of the push that has been called for by the engineers since the oil crisis in the 70's, people like you argue against (instead of talking about solutions), and only happened after an eccentric billionair took it upon himself going against the gov and the whole lobby that kllled GM EV1
"Higher CO2 levels make the earth GREENER"
No, humidity and plantations do, actually. Also, you simply ignore the loss of arable land due to climate change which the higher latitudes can't compensate.
@@bryanhood9839 "CO2 is literally plant food"
Ah, the magic CO2, for one it is the most important molecule and literal plant food and the more the better, for the other it is so little and so little more that it has no effect ...
" those pesky volcanoes" are irrelevant for CO2 levels, but their aerosol emissions can have a short term cooling effect.
"from this presentation it becomes obvious that our "leaders" are clueless"
especially if they get advice from people like Lomborg.
"we need innovation"
we already have the innovations, waiting for more will be more expensive in the long run. You want a source for my claim? Why? You didn't need one from the presentation above.
@@fetB Yes lets talk about solutions and not taxation and and other means of making people poorer.
He studied politics and business. Not earth science.
You do not need to study to have common sense.
I lived every minute of this, up until the last few. Taxation as a way to help the greener initiative is NOT helping in Canada. It's just making our food and electricity prices go up. But, we also have a very corrupt Federal gov't under Trudeau.
What sucks in Canada is the carbon pricing systems provide a type of rebate” to firms in the form of subsidies based on how much they produce, and they never pass on the savings to the consumer.
Brings to mind that the surge in inflation we have seen since the pandemic has been experienced across almost all industrial countries, whether they had carbon pricing or not. The US had no carbon tax, and they experienced a higher bout of inflation than we did. Carbon tax has been baked in years before prices spiked. Carbon pricing is just an easy scapegoat for price gouging collectivley disguised as inflation.
Carbon tax has been too gradual over the years to cause the “inflation” we have seen for what is sold on the shelves in the 5 big grocer chains in Canada. One only has to look record-level profits which do not comport with inflation pressures due to rising costs. There are no lack of economists telling us big grocery retailers are being disingenuous with their facts and figures. Plus you rarely see anyone brining up the profits and financial gains they can hide with accounting schemes and gimmicks that gets offshored. Basically these big outfits already get their manufactured overhead and losses socialized at the tax payers’ expense and never pass on the savings to the consumer. Almost two year agos, the volume of sales in supermarkets was lower than it was before the covid pandemic hit yet record mass profits were reported; generated from a smaller volume of actual physical business; and that was only the profits they have to report.
Ever hear of compounded markup? It is where a parent company, more so a monopolistic outfit, inflates and manufactures overhead by means of using too many of its subsidiaries unnecessarily in order to inflate the price several times; a form of hidden price gouging. The most effected products of this is bottled water, baking products, and brand name drugs. Compound markup in not only confined to subsidiaries; we see it also in transport that affects prices on the shelves. Just one of the ways to collectively disguise price gouging as “inflation”.
Don't fret; Trudeau's days are numbered. Sad thing is many in the younger generations think if Poilievre becomes the next Prime Minister, their feeling that the economy is rigged against them will be a thing of the past.
Why the heck is the UK energy costs so much more than the rest of the world?
Because the grid and energy suoply were ignored for political gain. Vast amounts of money, and Billions made through subsidies, while delivering very little electricity.
privatization with little oversight
because we sanction Russia
Substandard outdated housing
CLIMATE CHANGES BECAUSE EVERYTHING CHANGES.
The only constant in life is change.
Floods, fires, heat, cold, we only know of these because of communication. LIFE HAPPENS.
Brilliant demonstration
Anyone seen any good debates between scientists on this subject? I haven’t found and it seems like the topic is not being discussed properly, which is ironic considering the people who believe this is an existential issue.
Still more likely to have better climate and less abuse from climate policy with Trump.
Really an instightfull presentation, working myself on new energy solutions the speach was inspiring
I live in California where we have all kinds of “Green Energy.” Electricity costs three times as much as other states. That’s because green energy isn’t reliable, so billions of dollars are spent getting energy from other states who have reliable electricity production. He touched on it briefly. What is needed is research and development for CHEAP electricity production because China and India and all over Africa that’s what people need. All the solar and wind projects are fine, but you still need RELIABLE, or you’re lost. The current technology to provide reliable energy without carbon emissions is nuclear. But research and development needs to be done to make it: small, modular, manufacturable, shippable, safe and inexpensive.
Agree
2:06 "People don't like stuff burning", yeah, especially close to their lifestock, fields or their houses. Which means with higher population density fire is less used as a tool in the regions where fire was used traditionally (the tropical savannas, mostly Africa and Australia) and the changing climate intensifies the precipitation brought by the monsoon into the Sahel (humider climate -> less fire). Some areas saw an increase of fires, mostly the tropical south american rainforests (mostly human causes) and the higher latitudes (natural causes and here is a causal connection with the changing climate). But since the vast majority of burned land happens in the tropics (~90%) the reduction there simply outperforms the increase in other areas. Here Lomborg could have gone a little more in-depth to give the audience a less one-dimensional picture, the sources certainly allow for that (btw. the first one is a model fitted to the data of the second source collected by two satellites (with MODIS)). The third source is an interesting read btw.
3:15 Heat kills, Cold kills, that sounds like they counted by cause of death, like heat stroke and hypothermia, right? ... yeah, if you pull up the study that reads a bit diffrent (doi:10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00023-2). I understand it like they correlated the temperatur with excess deaths. And those were counted by "observed daily counts of mortality for all causes or non-accidental causes" (depending on the data set) and "avoid(ed) the COVID-19 years" and "excluded data for August, 2003, ... because results were sensitive to the exceptional mortality effect related to the European heat wave". Do you remember how people rejected at the COVID death counts with the claim someone dying in a car accident would be counted as covid death? Yeah, this.
Also, a heat wave was removed from the data set? I mean, Lomborg made it out like the whole story of this study was about comparing "heat kills" to "cold kills", so why remove the data from a heat wave? Could it be, hold it, just a thought, that the purpose of the study was to look at something else than it was used here ... naa, Lomborg would never get that wrong, right? That would be just too convenient.
4:05 How to combat heat, yes, air conditioning, so easy. I mean, it costs a lot of energy, but who cares, right? (There was no need for the owners of that place to skim on their electricity bills.) And something like construction workers don't exist either. Against cold exposure you can protect yourself with an extra layer of clothing. Against heat, there is a limit what mammals can survive exposed to it, and the world is not only europe and NA. (and since ARC seems to be a christian influenced think tank (read PR-agency), yes, humans are mammals, and also animals)
4:45 And here is the pay-off. Biden talks about weather related deaths, the study above did not. But Lomborg prepared the audience for the take-down. Hook, line, and sinker. There is a discrepancy of definitions between the diffrent organisations and it seems like he picked the one that supports his story. I would have liked to see him illuminating the diffrence in definitions to completely inform his audience on the subject, but maybe that was just an oversight.
(Mind please, the number of weather related deaths as counted by the source the white house used is still small compared to other causes like car accidents, or the flu, and yes Covid)
6:00 I would have loved to see a few easy to follow footnotes here.
10:10 you all do realize that that is the average, not the median, right? Also, during the past crises, who did profit?
11:42 noone has the data for Germany? mmh, should I check? Naa, lets trust him. (I assure you, energy is more expensive in Germany, I feel it)
11:55 I have no in-depth knowledge of the energy price structure in the UK. But according to Ofgem the largest contributer is the wholesale cost, the price of the primary energy source. Also I found several articles that blame the price hike on privatization. Something I guess ARC would disagree with on principle.
14:50 The homebrew graph is nice and it really shows the sad lack of progress. But it also hides the fact, that energy generation by renewables increased drastically, and if Germany wouldn't have decommissioned its nuclear power plants it would even have shown in Lomborgs Graph. He could have shown us the development of the CO2 emmissions too, because those are the interesting numbers since emitted CO2 is disturbing the radiative balance, not the energy generation itself. Mmh, I think there is a pattern, did you notice it too?
17:20 lol, I see Lomborg doing that (if he had US-citizenship).
17:50 you really need to start to think about how you can make your sources a bit more available. Do you expect people just swallowing that? ... Oh, you do!? My bad.
But I agree. Yes, AWG won't be the end of the world, noone really expects the planet to break up into an asteroid field.
I got the impression this presentation was written by an economist, not a scientist. (why? no error bars)
Do I get shadow banned now?
Please send this to Ed Milliband.
Miliband should be glued to a chair and forced to watch it until he understands that his grand plans are utterly ludicrous. Starmer should be forced to watch it too then he could sack Miliband if he didn’t scrap the whole nonsense and focus on the key to prosperity: ENERGY SECURITY!
Ed Milliband is a wide eyed fanatic 😡
I'm looking out of the window here in Scotland today and seeing late Autumnal weather. I know this is anecdotal but it's also shite!
Well, they're not so lucky elsewhere this month. Deadly heatwaves in Japan, Greece, China, India, and I just saw this from Arizona today: "More than 300 suspected heat-related deaths under investigation in Phoenix area" (NBC News)
Some lovely AC would have helped in that situation no doubt?
@@ibt12EVER HEARD OF SUMMER?😅😅 How many illegals roam around Arizona?
well, that are bri'ish isles for you.
IMHO, the human part cannot be measured with any accuracy.
Those who are not blinkered by the “accepted science” would agree. There are many of us and growing in number.
Bjorn, once again you are a reasonable voice for reason itself on these politically charged issues. I loved your book Best Things First. We cannot solve real problems, like malaria and tuberculosis, as long as we are throwing away trillions of dollars on climate extremism. By the way, we moved from Alaska to Copenhagen and lived there for 5 years car free. My Alaska mountain bike was my "car". I was pretty assertive on my bike, like any good Dane should be. ;-) We loved our 5 years there.
Very interesting.. but I don't agree with most of what Bjorn Lomborg says. The real problem is ecological overshoot. We don't realize but having found fossil fuels is what has changed the way we live and consume in excess. Since fossil fuel reserves, uraniuam and all the we mine from cooper to lithium will be much harder to come by in the future... economic growth will halt and that is not a bad thing!... we have to work out some details on distribution. On the other hand it is true that emphasizing on climate change is as he says, wrong... greatly because we are not even sure it is caused by human activity... in any case for millennia climate has change without us. It surely can cause problems, no doubt, but we are fighting the wrong battle... it's ecological overshoot, dwindling fossil fuel reserves and extraction y the coming years.. within this century. We can't only bet on our ingenuity to come up with alternate energy solutions and keep on with business as usual. We will have to learn to live well with less and I believe the present trend on lower birth rates is actually very good news, since the world could sustainably insure our wellbeing and that of other species and nature in general if we are about a quarter of the population at present! (this will happen eventually, so we better plan for it and not wait for natural disasters to make decisions for us!)... by the way we depend on oil as fertilizer in order to have enough food. I'm sure new technology will spring up, but depending on solving all our energy and material needs with growth in my view is foolish).
"greatly because we are not even sure it is caused by human activity"
And there you are wrong.
Just because a politician tells us something - Biden, Trudeau, Macron, doesn't mean it's true. Actually, they are not to be believed.
Lomborg is a well known trivializer.
He does the show as always - mixing truth, cherry picking,....
So refreshing to hear someone like Bjorn who understands the science of climate change,
and who is not a climate catastrophe cultist.
His views on the subject are enlightening, you can only hope he will be speaking to a
growing audience going forward.
Are these slides available somewhere?
The press makes a living from people's misery.
Look at the history - it is not man made.
Just think the Sahara blistering hot during the day and can reach +50 °C in the night temperature can drop to -10 °C. How come since there is CO2 that should trap the energy escaping to the cold space? The opposite the Amazon during the day ± 35 °C and during the night drop slightly to 30 °C. The different of Sahara and the Amazon is, the Sahara there is no water-vapor and we got a desert. The Amazon there is an abundance of water-vapor therefore forest underneath.
We have max 4% water-vapor but in the arctic and deserts practically zero. We have now 430 ppm of CO2 and that is 0.043%, it mean we have 100X more water-vapor than CO2. Since water-vapor is 3X more potent than CO2, it just mean water-vapor can trap energy (heat) 300X more to evaporate to space. This is the explanation what happens to the Sahara and Amazon regarding their energy cycles. We can conclude CO2 is not the real greenhouse gas but water-vapor that trap energy 300X more than CO2.
Water vapour is the most powerful greenhouse gas of all, causes variations in atmospheric temperature variations, but water vapour is a feedback, not a primary forcing, to a very good first approximation, because it rains out. The arithmetic sign of that feedback is positive, which makes it an amplifier.
Water vapour amplifies the greenhouse effect but is a feedback, an amplifier because it precipitates rapidly out of the atmosphere.
CO2, the most prevalent non-condensing greenhouse gas, resides in the atmosphere far longer, and is the control. Moreover, CO2 levels have dramatically increased because of anthropogenic burning of carbon, whereas water vapour levels have been relatively constant over the same time period.
@@rps1689 As I wrote, the Sahara from blistering hot day to brutal cold in the night. It just mean CO2 CAN NOT hold the energy, it evaporate to space. Water vapour got always replenished because the sun evaporite it from the oceans and seas.
The Amazon with max of 40000 ppm water vapour compared to 420 ppm CO2 mean there is 100X more water vapour than CO2. Water vapour is also 3X more potent to hold energy compared to CO2 therefore water vapour can max hold 300x more energy than CO2.
Since water vapour totally and can max 300X trap energy (heat) and if the average temperature in the Amazon is ±30 °C, CO2 contribution holding that temperature is just 0.1 °C. When 1/3 of the CO2 is man responsibility we are only responsible of 0.08 °C of the Amazon average temperature.
My conclusion, there is NO feedback loop of CO2 because CO2 is contributing and doing nothing at all, nada, zero.
As the Dutch MET Office wrote: Without water vapour the average Earth temperature will drop to -33 °C. Thanks to water vapour we have liveable planet. CO2 is needed for plants more CO2 mean more life.
@@satyavan9631 If only we could demonstrate water vapour feedback (to the forcing by noncondensing GHGs) with a negative sign. We’d be famous and rich. Water vapour is a feedback; it amplifies the greenhouse effect.
@@rps1689 Just explain why the Sahara is hot during the day and dropping massively in the night because there is no water vapour. It proof the real greenhouse gas is water vapour and not CO2. Without CO2 the Amazon will be just as it is today.
ARC - the same financial interests, NGOs and philanthropy infrastructure as the UN-WEF. They also promote centralised, global citizenship.
Oh you poor darling. That obviously renders your ability to think down to zero?!!
What is centralised global citizenship?
Not saying that people haven't had an impact on climate, but I just don't buy into the idea that we are primary influence of that. Even looking the the (circumspect) data of the UN, the messaging of anthropomorphic climate change is based on "consensus" not evidence.
Do you only own a blue t-shirt?? :)
He has like 50. With the same colorcode.
History of humanity :
Warm climate periods : prosperity.
Cold climate periods : abject misery.
Those numbers, 150k deaths from moderate and extreme cold, aren't accurate. Considering that around 3 million people die annually in the US, this would represent 5%, which can't be true. Maybe the graph is about cold as a disease, not a temperature. I looked up deaths from extreme heat, and Google says there are about 1,300 annually.
Google?! Your source is fecking Google?! Try a ouija board next.
Here's how I understand it: globally there are something like 4-5 million extreme weather related deaths annually, reportedly only about half a million are due to excessive heat. Not that many people die from hypothermia or heatstroke, but rather from underlying conditions (think cardiovascular or respiratory especially) that are worsened by cold snap or heat wave (extreme ends of our comfort zone) and thus weather is more of a contributory factor . Also we humans have become more acclimated to warmer temperatures as we continue to come out of the recent ice age so warmer weather is less stressful on our bodies. My 2 cents.
@@seeglinesthat’s a good proposition
I dare say getting those numbers is a little more complex than those dying in cold or hot weather but the death symptoms can be attributed to being caused by heat and cold.
Dying by cold is common in winter as elderly try to spare on heating costs. The stats are alarming if you look them up. Goes back to the point about energy costs.
You are a hero. Thanks for doing what you do. People now just need to listen to you.
All of this is just a complete waste of time.
I’m curious, what about this is bad?
Really???
I think it's relevant and as factual as you can get in this nutty world we live in.
The current CO2 policies, agree. This presentation, absolutely not!!!
Easy fix! All the people who believe in climate change can immediately stop using fossil fuels and electricity that is produced by fossil fuels. There it’s fixed
I have been following the science for many years. That said. A logical argument won't beat an emotional one. There are two sources of News. 1. News for Sheeple, to ingratiate others 2. Scientific News for those who like facts.
Some forests in the rocky mountains were destroyed by fire fighting. The beetles that live under the bark, would regularly be kept in check by fire were allowed to expand and thus killed off the trees....
What just few people know is that the temperatures of the troposphere + the stratosphere are in equilibrium. There are less fires because there are about the same amount of less forests.
A thermal equilibrium or a radiative equilibrium? How would such a equilibrium react to an increase of IR-active gasses (such as CO2)? How would such a equilibrium react to a change in a gradiant of such gasses (like with H2O)?
So the best solution is to give enough money to scientists and engineers to innovate. The probability of this actually happening in the real world is even less than convincing Russia to pay a carbon dioxide emission tax. Be real - there is no actual lobby for science and thus money will never flow that way.
But there is a strong lobby that is funneling money into the direction of Lomborg and similar people working at the Heartland Institute, or Cato Institute, or Heritage Foundation, Prager U, EIKE, etc..
Thank you for sharing.
Why does the politicians make us do the opposite then? I mean, if money is to be saved, why do they enforce all these taxes and changes?
7:45 better transportation. Phones, smart phones, internet services, radio and weather forcasts. Trains, buses, car and pickup truck in almost every driveway. Horses ca go 25 miles a day, cars buses and modern transportation can move large populations 60mph allowing people to escape dangerous storms. My 1994 Ford Thunderbird can transport me in comfort and safety no king could ever dream of in 1924. My car would outrun almost any vehicle made in 1924, including aircraft. In 1900, any vehicle. Cars don't have to be fed when they're not in use. After the model T went into mass production you couldn't give a horse away.
Brillant, sensible, common sense ❤
Thank you for the info and data.
Stay informed. Listen to both sides of the room. No one side has the whole truth.
TH-cam felt the need to remind us of UN's propaganda on climate "crisis".. you know it's gonna be good
Thank you Bjorn that was refreshingly good to hear. It clearly shows how stupid it is for our present leadership to ignore facts that show present policy has completely got it wrong and will never fix anything.
Over 45 volcanos currently 'on fire' is the converse of your statement, belching out hot rock, gases and water vapour which our world has managed very well in the past.😎
Great video. My concern is the present renewables (solar, turbines etc) don't last long, approx 20-50 years before replacement. My second concern is, according to mining reports materials (iron, aluminum, copper etc) are dwindling. Who is doing the necessary science & engineering to ensure renewables last longer than our ability to mine? My third concern is trash, when will it be taken seriously? Has anyone explained how the human race will survive the next 1000 years & what steps need to be taken to ensure survival?
I can definitely tell you that the household electricity prices have gone up considerably in the USA in the past 4 years. I don't know where he got the data from for the USA, but I don't know anyone who isn't paying considerably more for our utilities than we used to
Very well said!
Like the COVID response... the cure is worse than the disease.
Wind, solar etc. are not making energy more expensive. Fuel energy is more expensive.
What is rising energy costs is the energy oligopolies profiterring of for-profit energy distribution of all kinds.
Competition is the answer.
So locally producing energy in personal and community scale will result in falling energy prices, once we get over this obstruction from the oligopolies.
(Sorry guys, Petroleum Fuel is one of these oligopolies which is rising energy costs. They need to be disrupted with personal and communtiy based energy production)
There's no free market in energy, and the biggest obstacle for change, is the network of oligopolies that administer energy plus their investors in fossil fuels, with trillions of dollars at stake. Every month they can delay rational public policy toward waste CO2 is worth billions of dollars. The half a billion or so they spend each year on "conservative think tanks" and related lobbying and public relations projects to undermine public confidence in science and the thwarting the progress of alternative energy sources is a good investment.
All energy industries are a network administered oligopolies. Nobody would put up with paying the full price of energy. Not the powers that be, not the consumers.
Gasoline prices follow oil prices to an extent, and the price of crude oil to a great extent is determined by global supply and demand, which is rigged at times in the case of limiting access to reserves in order to shore up stock prices, but fuel sold to the consumer; commercial and non commercial like diesel and gas including natural gas is all fabricated by algorithms that elude enforcement of pricing schemes. Next to nothing to do with how oil is traded or shipping costs. Of course any petroleum institute will tell you that the price of crude oil is the primary determinant of the price we pay at the pump, which is a lie. Taxes, marketing margin, and refiner margin play a bigger role.
What is interesting is crude oil is purchased in long term contracts. Some folk think it is the spot price we all get quoted in the media. When the spot price rises, the pump price jumps fast, and when the spot price falls, we know what usually happens ; ) Note this happens in unison among brands, but of course the government says they can't prove price fixing or gouging, which is a lie, because the price is arbitrary and not based on shipping costs and other costs. Such is the reality when oil majors having economies the size of nations.
I assume that less fires actually lead to faster heating as well since smoke, ash, and particulate matter in the air act as a cooling agent.
Excellent information
A positive and correct message in the end, from a presentation full of terrible data - known bad, disproven data. E.g. the EIA's projections are extremely well known to be hideously incorrect as they just tend to predict the future by drawing a straight, flat line, which - every year - is completely blown away. This has been the case for a very long time, never look at the EIA's projections unless you want to be proven wrong within months.
I like Bjorn. Just a thought. If we are going to be so much richer, surely we will be able to afford spending large then even if it is doesn’t make much economic sense?
Brilliant lecture, mostly what I was thinking. We cannot rush this, its just a bad idea.
Drill baby, burn oil baby and finally 40 years later, enough money to retire
Wife just refuse use washing machine and heating when it is sunny and windy only as well as microwave oven , very troubling.
this should me be made compulsory in schools and Uni's it would make so many people happy and want to innovate in producing cheap power while reducing atmospheric pollution.
Don't you see that a multiplication by 4,5 times is not the same as an increase of 450%? A multiple of 4,5 times equals an increase of 350%.
The point remains the same
"Point remains same"... The more so, because whether 350% or 450%, this projection is essentially ARBITRARY based on assumptions which are as unlikely to come to bear as the net-zero scenarios. Bjorn Lomborg is right: A rapid and happy transition to a low carbon energy system is not happening, but he too is wrong: a prosperous future where global GDP has increased four-fold and the effects of climate change are a rounding error is just as ludicrous (irrespective of Nordhaus' Nobel prize... )
He doesn't mention how global warming could shut down the gulf stream and cause an ice age. Or how small temperature rises could disrupt our ecosystem killing off our food supply. Or how sea levels could rise and flood our main population centres... every major coastal city is building flood defences. Finally he doesn't mention how small temperature rises are melting the permafrost, releasing massive amounts of methane THAT WILL lead to run away warming.
Adding energy to the atmosphere destabilizes the atmosphere and can cause upper air currents to swing wildly off course and affects the Gulf Stream. We know how the Gulf Stream helps keep summers from getting too hot and winters from getting too cold and that a weaker Gulf Stream will eventually change the weather pattern humans have been used to for agriculture.
There is the possibility of Northern Europe cooling off if the Gulf Stream slows down even more. Canada is likely to get warmer with longer growing season, but at the cost of more flooding and droughts.
He neglected to mention this reduction in global area burned was a result of significant fire reduction in cropland, grassland, and savanna ecosystems with many of these areas experiencing desertification. According to the World Resources Institute (WRI), 2021 was one of the worst years for forest fires since the turn of the century, with 9.3 million hectares of tree cover lost globally. Forest fire numbers are trending up. All his other charts and graphs only will hold true if we do not reach the tipping points which will send the climate into a world humans have never experienced causing a global food shortage and decimate ocean fisheries.
This should be shown in all the schools,some common sense
It would be a good exercise to study the misinformation in it.
One could start with his book "False Alarm" by starting to point out the cherry picking. Look up “Beyond 2020 - Strategies and Costs for Transforming the European Energy System” then look at how he misapplies his misinterpretation of the findings in his book. He claims that that paper found that “the average estimated cost of the EU 80 percent greenhouse gas emissions reduction by 2050 is a loss of 5.14 percent of GDP as estimated by seven regional models”. Which that percentage figure is invented by him, as nowhere does it appear in the paper. What Bjorn ignored in that paper is: “Nearly all the models can achieve the long-term target of reducing [greenhouse gas] emissions by 80%, with only a moderate reduction in GDP (less than 0.7% by 2030 and below 2.3% by 2040). However, in some models, costs increase considerably after 2040, while others show costs increasing in a linear manner.”
For example the weather-maps on TV i sweden has all been colored red now days when the temperature is like ordinary 25 degrees Celsius.
And media is reporting more wood fires, and stormy weathers. That's why they say the frequency of this things has increased!!