Lomborg debate passes off peacefully 03 November 04
On a somewhat lighter note, my confrontation with the noted anti-environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg at a conference in London last night was a rather gentlemanly affair. We shook hands, he made some quip about us having met before (I threw a pie in his face about three years ago) and after that we studiously ignored each other, except for our obvious disagreement during the debate itself. The green side won this hands down, for what it was worth (not a lot, given that it was an entirely self-selected audience) thanks largely to the articulacy and confidence of the three other speakers Tony Juniper (Friends of the Earth director), Prof Paul Ekins (Policy Studies Institute) and Emma Tompkins (Tyndall Centre). For my part, I got a bit carried away during my slideshow, banging on about how this was “personal” because I am going to become a father next March and my child will grow up in a devastated world if the likes of Lomborg (and Bush) win. Hell, it’s true – I’m not ashamed of the fact that I care!
Comments
Peter
November 4th, 2004 at 12:12 AM
Do you have the photos, apart from the thumbnails of the glacier pictures, online anywhere? What about the links in the back of the book?
November 4th, 2004 at 02:54 PM
I would enjoy reading your debate with Lomborg! I think all of us would benefit from this.
Peter Winters
November 5th, 2004 at 08:36 AM
Mark did a great job at the debate and I believe that the vast majority was with him (and most of the speakers) and against Lomborg.
Yet, Lomborg is a very influencial voice. Personally, I think many of the things he says are correct (and he would say that many of the things Mark says are correct). It is overall recommendations about what we should do which is wrong, in my opinion, by understating the importance of climate change. Also, he has a very unsympathetic way of value the Kyoto Treaty. As the last speaker from the floor put it – his analysis needs to connect his economic models with environmental models.
I think the main issue is that we need to think of ways to get his followers to take that point on-board. That is the biggest question I have in my mind.
Vicki Falde
November 6th, 2004 at 05:32 AM
What KIND of pie?? (HA HA HA)
Seriously, in such a polarized time as this, a calm debate does sound kind of refreshing. Too bad there’s so much at stake, or I might greet this news with more enthusiasm….
November 8th, 2004 at 08:34 PM
Is there anyway I can get a transcript of this debate? Is it on the Internet anywhere? I keep hearing about it.
Your reply is over my head in regards to the technical terms you used. However I am interested to learn more. You sound quite knowledgeable and objective.
I did get the message about not caring about developing countries. What a caustic remark by Lomborg! He sounds like he has an inner desire to be obnoxious and to incite good people.
Peter Winters
November 16th, 2004 at 10:47 AM
Good point, though I tend to think the prospects of all humanity would be fairly good if the environment was able to support us. I just think of the overall rise in life expectancy as a good marker for this. Whether this happens depends on the social contracts that we adopt between us all – and whether we are willing to allow less fortunate people to suffer extreme hardships etc.
But, you reminded me of an annoying comment that Lomborg made. I think he was quoting Voltaire when he responded to the comment “Life is Hard” by saying “Harder than what?”.
I wanted to say to Lomborg “Harder than your life, Lomborg!!”. Some people do have very tough lives, and I don’t think Lomborg is one of them.
November 16th, 2004 at 05:27 PM
Looks like this Lomborg fellow would make a great villain in the next Climate Change movie!
This movie would not show disastrous consequences. Villains like Lomborg would be defeated. The heroes would be people, like you Peter, who worked with others to change the course of future events saving the planet for all the future generations for the next 10,000 years.
This movie has a happy ending. Humans would become triumphant over the dark side of our nature. In the end, we found all the solutions necessary to prevent Climate Change. Lomborg becomes not a hero but a zero and just a mere footnote of the infamous whom would have the planet destroyed.
Nice to see you caught up enough with your work to make a short post. I have been busy as well. It is always nice to see a friendly face Peter (I say that to my best friends here sometimes when we haven’t seen each other in a long time).
I plan to make a few more posts soon that I think can be useful. One will include some specific ideas whereby the UK might be able to lend assistance to our efforts in the USA with what you folks in the UK are already doing which we can learn from and implement.
I just did a very quick and simple mathematical analysis a short while ago using both population and energy data from both your country and mine. I will post more detail later. But for now, I will share with you, my friend, the bottom line.
If the USA energy usage rate were the same on a per capita basis with the UK (average energy usage being the same per person in both countries), then the energy NOT used by the USA as a nation each year would be equivalent to all of the following:
5.5 times the entire annual electrical consumption of the UK
6.6 times the entire annual oil consumption of the UK
2.0 times the entire annual natural gas consumption of the UK
In other words, if the USA were to reduce emissions to become current with UK standards, then the added value would be the equivalent of the UK reducing to zero emissions multiplied many times over.
Add to these facts our population growth. For every UK citizen, we add 16 more citizens in the USA each year based on comparing the population growth between our 2 countries. This is 2.7 million more Americans each year from our increasing birthrate and from our immigration.
So, if the UK could show us better how you are currently getting it right and if we could incorporate these ideas into our culture and infrastructure, then this would have a greater effect than anything the entire UK could ever contribute with all your good efforts from just your country alone.
Maybe one day I will have the honor of meeting you Peter like others in the UK concerned about Climate Change. You guys stopped Nazi Germany cold at your borders and we woke up and later joined your efforts. Together with Russia we won.
The enemy this time is Climate Change. And the good people here are really up against it. You must already know that. We need all the help we can get to wake up the rest of America to this calling.
Our people who wish to influence positive changes are few in number, many are poorly trained, and we are up against the inertia of our own Superpower which is weighted down by the emotions of ignorance, apathy, and indifference.
The people here who become leaders by default are simple average every day people who truly care. They have to fight on in the face of discouragement and cannot allow the luxury of any despairing thought.
With respect to top leaders, during WWII, you had Winston Churchill and we had Franklin Roosevelt. With the threat of impending climate change, you have Tony Blair, and we have ….... Ok, I rest my case!
So, when you get the chance, please do read some of my posts I will write later and in particular the one I will write about in terms of what we can learn from the UK that can ultimately cut our emissions in half.
It is always nice to see your comments and our friendship is quite comforting when I think about what I must do next. I am only a blood and guts human being like anyone else but I feel the need to be much more than I am. I am still the student trying to learn all I can.
We all must be the light and I am using my little light the best way I know how. I am thankful you are there in the UK and that we can share our thoughts over this vast ocean that separates us.
Keep up the good work Peter and keep sharing your thoughts on Mark’s site when time permits! Good luck at work!
To be continued ..
Always the best, Dan