Bjorn Lomborg: Global priorities bigger than climate change

Bjorn Lomborg: Global priorities bigger than climate change
Danny Hutson

100 thoughts on “Bjorn Lomborg: Global priorities bigger than climate change

  1. There is no short term profit in dealing with climate change. Bean counters aren't concerned with fifty or a hundred years down the line. So there is no "economical" solution to global warming. The near extinction of the human species cannot be prevented because there is no short-term profit in it.

  2. If we don't solve global warming soon, many more people will starve along with the compounding of all the other problems mentioned in Bjorn's lecture. Climate change IS the biggest problem facing the Human Race.

  3. The prediction that the average standard of living in 2100 will be similar to that of westerners today is pretty optimistic, to say the least. Taking into account population growth, this means the world needs 7 to 8 times as much energy by the end of the century (compare GDP/capita in the USA to the world average). Can this even be achieved without far reaching innovations in energy harvesting and usage? And if you could dig up the oil/NG you need, what would this mean for climate change?

    The underlying assumption of this talk is that we have limited funds to improve the world. It does not consider whether this approach will be sufficient to save the planet. It is time to realize we need more funds.

  4. Stupid talk… The whole proposition is false, we don`t necesseraly have to choose between research/action in respect to climate change and other problems.
    All his scientific ideas have been either debunked or it has been shown, that he missrepresents the scientific knowledge (through `quote mining` and `cherry-picking`).
    This trash should really be beneath TED`s standards…

  5. Even when the money isn't yours, he helps add a little responsibility  atop the shoulders of those trying to avoid it at any personal costl.

  6. Prioritize this:  You're only in it for the money, the Koch Brothers money.

  7. This guy is the new climate change advisor for the Abbott government. What a slap in the face to the science community.

  8. this guy is nothing but an absolute scam artist pandering to right wing governments and fossil fuel corporations around the world. i bet he's got many shares in bp, sHell, and halliburton. the ted channel is nothing but a joke these days with it's propaganda-_-

  9. my only issue with this is that the data appears to consider human lives saved as the only measure of good. climate change was the only issue that majorly affected the environment, resources and animals so it should be valued much higher

  10. It seems a bit superficial to imply that becoming a "rich dutch man" is every Bangladeshi's goal and to assume that cost-benefit and economists are best placed to do this "prioritising". He also doesn't address underlying issues of distribution of wealth. The truth is there is not a scarcity of financial resources in the World, just inequity in their distribution.

  11. Once you drink the kool aid, than anything that contradicts that must be the Koch brothers — it is so cliche and worn out; especially when there are 20+ liberals that contribute more $$ to Democrats… so grow up and simply consider that what he says may make sense and if you disagree… why? Is it fear? There ARE better things to worry about than the natural fluctuation of the sun cycle

  12. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. The first billion the surface was a smoldering 
    mass. The earth cooled by raining for a million years. Now that's some climate change. Even before the SUV

  13. All this talk about "prioritizing" he failed to mention the ridiculously large military budget.
    I smell something fishy about this dude.

  14. strange that reducing malaria wasn't #1 as it affects roughly a thousand times as many people as hiv/aids per year and costs only half as much to halve the problem in each case.

  15. I kind of get what he is saying. For example if I have two children, one of them has down syndrome and the other not, I'll just spend more time and caring in the second child, because it's easier, cheaper and has better opportunities of success in adulthood 🙂

  16. Climate chaneg is a "bad project" according to economists. Um. No. Not really. I subscribe to Elon Musk's argument: This is a single planet. The one and only planet we have. Sure, climate change is not going to be TOO bad over the course of the next 100 years. But a thousand year, 2,0000, 10,000 year from now? This planet could go completely extinct. The other option, is to leave this planet. Or at least, a significant portion of the population to leave. That would probably take at least 2 – 3 more centuries.

    I know. I get it. He is referring to a cost-benefit analysis regarding the CURRENT situation, in the short-run. In the long-run, this is backasswards and wrong.

  17. This talk is incredibly outdated right now, in 2016. In fact I find it even offensive to keep this talk still on TED. Climate change is number one priority in the world right now, because so much bad climate-induced things have happened since 2005 so now the alarm is very visible and a lot of institutions and politicians realized it already. There is no point to focus all efforts on smaller scale problems if a little bit later this century we all will burn in the climate chaos.
    It is immoral to state publicly that one mustn't prioritize climate change.
    (The whole thing looks like lobbying.)

  18. You plebeians are completely missing his point. He is not saying that Climate change is not an issue. In fact it is a big problem, and at no point is he denying that.

    He is simply saying that every dollar spent on HIV/AIDS will be much more effective at reducing the incidence of HIV/AIDS than every dollar spent battling climate change will be effective at battling climate change.

    So if we only have a limited amount of money to spend solving global issues, then it would make the most sense to spend it where it will be the most effective.

    Really. It's that simple.

  19. Suppose you have the opportunity to make an investment that is very safe and which will give you the very best return on your capital, enough to make you as much money as you have ever dreamt of. But then you also have cancer. The treatment is very expensive, and there is no guarantee it will work, among other inconveniences. If you don't possess enough resources to spend on both, you'll have to make a choice. For the great majority of people, that's an easy one. Isn't climate change like the world has cancer? Also, maybe the treatment being offered is not good enough.

  20. Funny to see about 10 years later now after this talk and this guy is 100% right since we now know human caused climate change/global warming is total bullshit and the warming we are having is NOT in any way a crisis or unnatural or anything to worry about…. SO LETS CURE AIDS!
    Can you imagine lives saved by all those wasted global warming carbon tax enviro scam dollars we wasted on this faulty science?? Ugh.. Gross. Humans are stupid and gross.

  21. 13 billion to cure malaria worldwide. Thats like 0.1 percent of the US millitary budget. The beneficts would be 10x times that. Both in trade and in people you dont have to shoot.

  22. I see one major problems with this reasonning. The resolution of those big problems aren't independant. Perhaps the next question we should ask ourselves with is What impact each problem solving could have on the others? What are the effect of investing on the fight against malaria on world hunger? Investing on some problems may reduce the cost of others. In the other hand not investing on not solving some problems may increase the cost of others

  23. Ok, what if we just decided to concentrate on the first most important priority as Lomborg suggested but we still didn't find enough money to solve it. My point is that it is not about the lack of money but mere fact that our governments don't give world problems any serious attention. And this is why we always wouldn't have enough money to solve anyting no matter how shortened our problems list becomes.
    US alone spends more than 650 billion $ ayear on its DOD. The world spends more than 1400 billion $ ayear on defence. We don't lack money, we lack GOOD governments.

  24. I understand that at no point is Lomborg denying that climate change is a problem, and he does address that cherry-picking issues to focus on is a "disgusting approach". However I disagree with his analysis of the importance of the issue of anthropogenic climate change in the sense that he only considers the impact on humans in the immediate future, not how its impacts are projected to increase exponentially and affect other species in addition to humans.

    Also, our "inability to efficiently address climate change" is a direct product of empirical and present neglect of conservation-focused institutions and personnel. This is becoming even more of a problem in recent years, and will continue to be central to our struggle to address the global threats of sea level rise and habitat destruction. Imagine what could be achieved if environmental scientists had the resources to expand the scope of their studies and physically mitigate the environmental threats that their research incontrovertibly identifies.

  25. The interesting thing is that most of the global warming advocates are fooled by the belief that it is about the climate when it is all about a redistribution of wealth.

  26. MANBEARPIG!!!! Commies love to fan fear over fake enemies like "climate change" so people ignore real threats like Islam.

  27. If you don't solve climate change, we're talking near human extinction in the future. We simply MUST solve it eventually. Humanity will survive past AIDS and hunger but not environmental catastrophe.

  28. Let's give priority to maintaining an unsustainable population until the Arctic is ice-free. Then tell the kids you did not know about non-linear positive feedbacks from global warming. It's 2018 and we are about to cross that tipping point.
    Economics is easy to get wrong when you don't add the cost of damaging the environment. It's not a hard science.

  29. Mike Morrison,

    I doubt the reason climate change falls so low on his list is due to short term vs long term thinking. I think it is because, as you say, he is doing a cost benefit analysis. That is, he is calculating the return on spending directed to solve the climate change problem. He is not accounting for ways to combat climate change other than with spending, which leaves out a great deal. In fact, a lot of behaviors that would combat climate change are the opposite of spending. Make what you have last, rather than buy new. Commute on a bicycle when possible rather than relying on combustion engines. Cut waste, cut consumption. Turn off your lights when not in use, take shorter showers, eat less, etc.

    It is not necessarily an unimportant problem, just not one that lends itself to easy solution by spending.

  30. It's pretty sad that most of the replies to this video are people saying "No, climate change is totally an imminent catastrophe that demands immediate and full attention (coughmoneycough) or else the entire planet will go extinct." Guys, those models asserted that the climate has a positive feedback loop that was thrown out of balance. There's no such thing as a stable positive feedback loop. If the climate really was such a loop, then the Earth would've spiraled out of control irreparably long before mankind could do anything.

    It's called scaremongering. The primary goal of climate change research is to secure funding for climate change research, and the second goal is to garner admiration.

  31. I´m sorry I have to write this on a TED video, but you shouldn´t listen to anything this guy has to say. He´s a complete fraud. I haven´t watched this video, but if you´re interested in the topic, find someone else to watch.

  32. No, you don't solve them all. You solve those that are an existential threat, i.e. climate change. And positing $50 billion for the world's major challenges is just silly. It's a tiny amount in the whole world. By the way, climate change makes things like malaria worse, as mosquitoes that used to live at elevations below where humans choose to live (to avoid those mosquitoes) move upslope as it becomes warmer. Bjorn has always been extremely selective in his presentations.

  33. He is impliing that all of the problems could be solved by the mean of investing money and that it is the only possible solution, but doesn't reflect the fact that the so praised economical growth, which is just another word for overproduction, is also a source of many of those problems (environmental issues, exploitation of global south and land grabing and thus economical inequality, lot of conflicts, and all of this often leads to migration and so on). We have enough money to for example provide food sources for all those 800 mil. starving people, we just don't do that for some reason. So making even more money will not solve the problem either. He is basicly just saying: "Let's stop to care about nature, we will make more money that way" but doesn't state any arguments that such a behavior would lead to solving of any global problem.

  34. He is impliing that all of the problems could be solved by the mean of investing money and that it is the only possible solution, but doesn't reflect the fact that the so praised economical growth, which is just another word for overproduction, is also a source of many of those problems (environmental issues, exploitation of global south and land grabing and thus economical inequality, lot of conflicts, and all of this often leads to migration and so on). We have enough money to for example provide food sources for all those 800 mil. starving people, we just don't do that for some reason. So making even more money will not solve the problem either. He is basicly just saying: "Let's stop to care about nature, we will make more money that way" but doesn't state any arguments that such a behavior would lead to solving of any global problem.

  35. Things may have moved on since this talk, including the sad death of Hans Rosling, but my cents-worth is to put empowerment of women at the top (mainly relevant outside the liberal-democratic world). As for climate change, I thought (someone said) energy = money. If so, avoiding climate change, which at present means using less energy, should save money not cost a lot of it as he says. Ah, but things are not that simple …

  36. 1. Eliminate bureaucratic parasitical corporate "govern-ments" "mind governors"
    Multinational Corporate monopolization. Stop centralising power, to then steal and missuse.

    2. Eliminate injustuce in the
    so called man made biassed and self interested "justice/Injustice" system.

    3. Eliminate Central Banks and their undue influence in,
    every other so called "administrators/administrating entity what they, never produce," without hearing those who produce it.
    Therefore Eliminate "USUARY" and "TYRRANNI"



    4. Prosecute false media and science for proganda manipulative ends.

    5. Bring back full direct accountability to all, Civil Servant positions, eliminate inmunity for all crimes committed by State and Church.

    Leaving out three years of writting solutions.
    However, who will decide If the parasites live off of, our misery
    as History proves. "them"
    Which is why nothing ever gets better, except the bribes for the birbeable…..

    There is a technical solution for every human need today. The impeding factor is without a doubt, special interest multinational industries that work hard, hogging all resources from everyone else alive, to
    themselves without oversight of the greator good.

    Parasitical disease
    ultimate end Is,
    weakenning and
    killing the hosts.




    Votes today could be cast from any cellphone securily. But no….
    If voting worked "they" would remove ot, and "they" the few
    have, as "they" care not what we say as visible everywhere for centuries now folks.
    Nice speach, almost everyone agrees, except the greedy self serving rulers, WE ALLOW INMUNITY when the people suffer.

    There can be no peace if, there is no justice.

  37. only an accountant would decide that saving the entire world is too expensive. the love of money is the root of all evil

  38. Really HIV came in as first? That is all wrong. Why not invest in cancer which kills way more people. I dont think he is thinking about future generations and climate change. Take some of that money from foolish military spending and put it into climate change. Solar in third world countries now would do worlds of good. How does he know people will be rich in 2100? What a joke this guy is.

  39. Money and greed is the root of all evil. He seems to think money and satiety is the best thing. He was only trying to tell people how to get more money.

  40. An enormous asteroid will hit the earth before our future generations start thinking about what we should have done and what we shouldn't have done. I don't believe in man-made global warming but I consider that today's society is accelerating the destruction of earth.
    If we are to look at it from a cheap sci -fi perspective, people will adapt to climate change so there will be no problem worrying about.
    One thing that Bjorn Lomborg and other climate deniers don't consider is the fact that if we invest more in renewable energy, we would prevent the problem of climate change and natural disasters that lead to other problems such as migration, lack of clean water and resource depletion!
    The poor people or those living in developing countries are mainly affected by climate change, if the rivers flowing from the Himalayas dry then Chinese cannot support themselves by growing food and so on, which in turn leads to migration!
    The simple solution to all problems in the world is to prevent them from getting worse and hit even more, let us ignore the number of people who starve today, focus on those who will starve if we don't take care of the planet, overpopulation, martial disasters, mass death and so on. There are many different solutions, but if you really care about other problems in the world, you should prevent the whole thing instead of solving them the short-term if you do not help people in developing countries to switch to renewable energy and give them money and help their finances instead their production of carbon dioxide will affect us people in the western world.
    ¤Think a little and analyze it all before you go into the details¤

  41. Lomborg is a science denying payed shrill to big energy companies. Don’t listen to anything he has to say. He’s a professional lier with a fat agenda.
    Lomborg “the narrative that the world’s climate is changing from bad to worse is unhelpful alarmism”.

  42. No one can ever be effected by a non-existent problem, i.e. 'climate change'. Over 31 thousand scientists ( over 9,000 hold doctorates) signed a document refuting the claims by the 16 contributors (7 of whom are still students with NO degree) to the IPCC statements, the latest of which has so many in total panic. They are the ones purporting that (you pearl clutching, hand-wringing believers in this nonsense) are seeing the end of life if we don't hurry and agree to ruin the world economy, hurling mankind once again into abject poverty. We do need to address world poverty and education. To do so we must maintain the Constitutional Republic founded to prevent tyranny and mob rule which all the big money news services seem to be determined to foist on us all. Democracy is like two wolves and one sheep voting on whats for dinner. Only the wolves don't understand that they, too, are sheep.

  43. 1) 'In 2016, global GDP amounted to about 75.4 trillion U.S. dollars', so 50 billion is 0.06% of global GDP. In other words, 50 billion is NOT a lot of money. It's peanuts.
    2) if we don't deal with climate change, it won't matter if we solve the other problems or not. Think global nuclear war. Climate change is the same thing.
    3) There is money to fix all those problems. We don't have to choose. Of course, rich people, corporations and corrupt/useless politicians do not care about us.
    4) We're screwed.

  44. Good thinking. Nevertheless, still believing in the myth of climate change? Take a few hours to check the science.

  45. He is giving his resume speech for a gov job where he gets a nice paycheck! Then he can get cloths that fit and are appropriate.

  46. This amazing list was done more than 110 years ago!! League of Nations for runner to U.N. Discussed all these issue

  47. Global warming is a crock and Al Gore might yet end up in prison. Two things. You can't take a few areas in the world and say, see? that's caused by Global warming. You have to take the average mean temperature of the world, which has risen . .8 of a degree in the last 100 yrs. Watch the video Global Warming 31,487 scientists say NO CAUSE FOR ALARM, and explain why. Another crock is that we need oil for energy. The whole world should gang up on the US Military Industrial Complex who have the means of producing free. clean, renewable energy and refuse to share it with the rest of the world. A cubed centimetre of normal air could power the whole of America for a year. But vested parties continue to get richer out of the world's citizens using oil for energy, and keeping us poor. 3 trillion dollars could solve all the world's problems, global warming not being one of those. This money would pay off all debt, provide food and clean water & proper sanitation as well as solve health problems in developing countries. How ever, there is precious little humanitarianism among the super rich.

  48. My questions is WHY we do not. the answer, formed over dedicated is that it is political. in the USA, we have an on-going debate over abortion. medicine and science give us the EXACT answer. Politicians could use the since, create a law and both sides would claim both victory and defeat. but the issue would be settled with science. in the late 1990's that question was asked. the answer shocked me. it is because it is such a strong motivator to get people to vote for their candidates.
    Global Warming based on CO2 has now been proven false, but the politicians cannot let the facts out and want to keep it as a campaign issue.
    if, in 1990, the politicians wanted to DO SOMETHING, they could have created regulations that all new buildings are super insulated. the cost would be less than 5% of a building, but over only 1 decade, the cost to heat and cool would pay that off. and less fuels would be needed. after 30 years, we would have seen a reduction in fuel use, lower CO2 emissions and a benefit to Mankind. but, it is such a great issue for getting votes, this action will never take place.
    Here is the kicker. it is the politician YOU VOTED FOR, not the 'other side' you are voting in the wrong people to get results. when we stand together and say if you do not ACT, we will vote you out. only then will they listen. but they are expert in lying to you, and you know that. but you vote party line and nothing gets done.

  49. 12 years into the future and this giddy idiot is exposed as a liar and a fraud. And also a clueless fucking moron.

  50. this economic thinking got us into most of this mess the first place – climatechange is totally out of control – economics shouldnt even be called "Science"

  51. So now they have consolidated the wealth for climate change, we can now spend it on socialism – which was the plan all along!

    @t wanted to stop deadly geoengineering but was probably threatened – people must learn and SUPPORT HIM FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR OWN LIFE) MUST START RESCUING YOUR KIDS TODAY.


  53. His logic is akin to saying we should spend $500 to fix the air conditioner in our car instead of spending twice as much to fix the brakes, because it will make everyone more comfortable. Of course, not fixing the brakes will likely end up with everyone in the car dying…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *