The best thing you can do for the environment is to generate wealth. Wealthy nations and prosperous citizens are vastly greater stewards of the environment. Poverty is the villain not warming.

Thank you for not blocking the comment section.

G'day from Australia many thanks for your insightful work and publications. 👍👍👍👍👍

Dyson Freeman said that CO2 makes the world Greener... and that you can see that from outer space...He says a lot more and that the whole world is getting greener by 15% it is also making all crops more productive - all plants more productive...

@Dreadnought16

6 ай бұрын

It’s also resulting in deserts shrinking (not by much but it’s the trend) plants are able live in more arid conditions because of the increased CO2. They said increasing CO2 would result in deserts increasing in size….just another thing they are wrong about.

I'm thinking this talk was given in 2017, or thereabouts -- i.e., five years ago -- not in November 30, 2022, the upload date.

@barry28907

9 ай бұрын

Yes! Can the date be corrected?

Excellent Info

@PurdueUniversity

8 ай бұрын

Thank you @Lou Stojanov!

@madArt1981

16 күн бұрын

It’s an oil industry paid advertisement for propagandistic purposes.

All Greenhouse gases except water vapor are less than 1% and 500ppm of our atmosphere. Water vapor is 5 ,000 ppm or ten times more of all other Greenhouse gases in 2023.

Really interesting to me as I am captivated by commercial aviation! Hopefully Purdue will be my home as a professional flight student! Boiler Up! 🚂🆙

I wonder if this was taken down and later reposted. For such a controversial topic, the comments are pretty light!

It sounds like the finite carrying capacity of the Earth doesn't factor into the speaker's equations. So let's improve life (= increase GDP?) for the next few generations. Discount the value of the quality of life beyond that.

This is powerful data. Thank you.

Originally I was under the impression that the problem that most people had with GMO was the Killer Tomato 🍅 scenario, or that something like that would get out of control and do weird stuff to the ecosystem, but after looking into it the actual problem with GMO is that most of the effort into GM organisms is to make them resistant to glyohosate (roundup), and glyphosate seems to be some pretty nasty stuff. Supposedly a lot of scientists say that it is not a problem, but I have told the farmer that leases my land not to use it, and I try to avoid GMO products as much as possible. (Not easy...) Time will tell, and it might be perfectly safe, but I'd rather not take the chance.

Is the temperature increasing in step with the rising CO2

Bjorn is 58 and looks about 30. How does he do it?

@Uriel-Septim.

6 ай бұрын

He keep an positive and optimistic world wide.

Kind of disregards some geopolitical effects of making certain changes, and some of these changes could take everything down the tube in very short order.

FYI: 2017

Cutting fossil fuel subsidies would make nuclear much more attractive! Marginal cost on nuke is extremely low, breeder reactors will burn used fuel and use most of the remaining Uranium and other Actinides (including Thorium) in used fuel wastes.

EVERYONE: This was SEVERAL YEARS AGO. Of course the discussion would be different today.

@waltercox4863

Жыл бұрын

Actually not much different today.

@alejandroamorin5618

8 ай бұрын

I don't think so. Changes in the atmosphere do not happen rapidly

Where can we do the most good for the people of the planet? Cheap and plentiful oil. CO2 is fertilizer, not a pollutant.

@Dreadnought16

6 ай бұрын

Amen!

with 500GigaEuro spent by Germany for failed energievende this country could have build some 50new modern, ultra safe nuclear reactors which would pump out some 75GW of clean, reliable electricity to replace natgas from electricity making, all the heating etc. This assumes modern ESBWR from GE-Hitachi and also that each reactor is expensive and no improvements in build on time and on budget are made (worst case scenario). No amount of money is more important than correct choice of technology based on reality (not fear spread by corrupt organisations and politicians for the benefit of mainly putin).

As he cites no source at 24:13, I just want to say that methodologically, he possibly didn't account for the impacts of the CO2 and aerosol emissions from gas on both climate and human health, the infrastructure costs and the cost of production of energy, but rather looked at the sell value of the gas. Meanwhile for EU wind and solar, he possibly didn't consider the price difference per energy unit and again the damages averted by emitting less CO2 and aerosols. Those are probably not a full list of possible biases but they should be considered.

Bjorn Peabody Energy Lomberg.

2023: Solar and wind are now cheaper than coal. So what's 21:20 all about then? The previous chart is used to engender hand-wringing about subsidies, but for some reason he doesn't show the not inconsiderable subsidies for carbon fuel extraction. A sin of omission?

@shiftyshooter9218

Жыл бұрын

Bjorn is talking about how expensive it is to subsidize clean energy. For the purpose of this graph carbon subsidies are irrelevant. He does discuss carbon fuel subsidies later. See the graph at 29:00

@thomasseptimius

6 ай бұрын

No it's not. LCOE is not measuring the actual cost only one the isolated sources. Sun and wind only works some of the time for obvious reasons which means you need backup. The price of sun and wind therefore is sun and wind + cost of backup. Now compare that to just running one of the individual backup sources and you will quickly realize it's not cheaper, in fact it makes the entire system more expensive because it's more complex.

@Dreadnought16

6 ай бұрын

Solar and wind are not cheaper if you are using them in a power grid. You have to have a gas, oil or coal back-up power system….building and running two systems is not cheaper to the end consumer than just have a fossil fuel powered grid….it’s just math…sorry.

@Dreadnought16

6 ай бұрын

@@thomasseptimiussorry I didn’t read your comment until after I wrote mine…but I did say almost the same thing as you.

So, if he's wrong about the accelerated trend towards clean energy -- if it actually goes beyond the Paris commitments that were at the time considered pretty abysmal and just the start of something much larger -- the projected outcomes will be quite different than what is shown at 18:00. It's almost like he's saying "if we don't do much (Paris), we won't get much benefit, so let's not bother. 4 degrees C by 2100 doesn't so bad, does it?". Except that number = a ruined planet. There's an awful lot of whataboutery based on faulty assumptions going on here, with all the IEA data presented from... 2016?

@tedzards509

Жыл бұрын

He seems to have ran the model on: - What would happen if after the Paris agreement ran out, we demolished everything and build the things we would have in business as usual - What would happen if after Paris we kept only the installed capacity and built everything else like business as usual Which, if I am correct, would be a rather misleading way to frame the Paris agreement. The 2.5° scenario he showed is a more realistic implementation of the Paris agreement as it shows how continued effort, of the same order as the Paris agreement, would impact emissions.

Only 10% in poverty? What about the people in South America, Africa and India and China?

@waltercox4863

Жыл бұрын

All these populations are included in the calculation. Here we are discussing an objective (not relative) definition of poverty.

At 31:29 a big priority with a relatively large bang-for-buck is.... wait for it.... "Halve coral reefs [sic] loss". Sure. But how do we achieve that in a world that doesn't have shallow coastal waters under the temperature threshold for viable large-scale corals? It's like he has gigantic blinders on. I have the impression that he knows the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

@xchopp

Жыл бұрын

Oh my goodness, he followed that up with "Reduce child malnutrition". Sure! But how do we achieve that on a planet that has reduced the land area suitable for growing crops*? Look at South Sudan, right now. Children a dying in their mother's arms because of the drought (and maybe conflict, though I think that's in Sudan proper, not S. Sudan). Look at crop losses from extreme weather on a planet where climate heating has only just started to impact agriculture. E.g. Pakistan. But also California's Central Valley. I just don't understand why he fails to connect these things, but I think it's motivated reasoning supporting the entire "grown-up economists see clearer" shtick. * wait, wait, don't tell me: we cut down more forest to plant crops. Yeah?

@shiftyshooter9218

Жыл бұрын

Born literally tells how to half coral reef damage after he brought it up. See 31:40 …. A lot of the damage is from dynamite fishing and cyanide fishing. Cheap and easy to change people habits sound alike his point. I think it’s quite the opposite, he doesn’t have blinders on, he’s looking for the most efficient way of getting good things done. Why spend billions trying to address a heating ocean when just as much damage is coming from some poverty stricken fisherman with some dynamite. He’s the only one WITHOUT blinders in!

@liamhickey359

Жыл бұрын

@@shiftyshooter9218 bullsh1t.

Oh, Purdue.

Don't humans admit co2

@anthonymorris5084

8 ай бұрын

Yup, and there are 8 times more of them since the 1800's.

The chart at 10:08 is rather misleading as many more recent events dont have their deaths recorded yet. Also many of the former deaths come from singular impactful events which occured ~once per decade. Looking at year by year or decadal median, the chart is not very convincing of his argument.

At 27:48 he's arguing that the ~10 million-strong public survey shows people didn't think action on climate change should be afforded high priority. By that was in 2015/2016. An awful lot has changed since then, not least extended droughts, gigantic wildfires, 1/3 of Pakistan -- a nuclear armed power -- under water, stronger storms, wilder weather, more floods (and this has taken place in a stretch of cooler La Niña; years' we're headed for an El Niño at the end of 2023). These climate impacts are no longer deemed "theoretical", or a problem in some far-off land in a far-off future. They are affecting people in large numbers, now. And they will make it even harder for nations to pull their people out of poverty.

Yet another climate denial lecture, Purdue was probably thinking "let him reassure students that they should stay on track and contribute the business as usual way of life"

@michelb9044

8 ай бұрын

@@anthonymorris5084 there are many ways to be in denial. I am judging the lecture, what he is or claims to be is not my business.

@michelb9044

8 ай бұрын

@@anthonymorris5084 It is not an accusation, just an assessment ;) Denial is a psychological state. For example an alcoholic who comes to the conclusion that he should prioritize going to the gym and eat more veggies over drinking less to solve his problem, is in denial. I am more referring to the state of denial of the audience that seeks confort into such lecture, this is very clear in the comments. He is just telling people what they want to hear "sure there is climate change, but trust me, I have asked a bunch of economists to fill excel spreadsheets with some numbers, and the conclusion is that it doesn't matter much, you better get vaccinated". What a joke.

@anthonymorris5084

8 ай бұрын

@@michelb9044 There is nothing whatsoever associated with "denial" in this lecture. Lomborg is simply putting hyperbolic rhetoric into rational perspective and proffering solutions. Your accusation ironically is pot calling kettle black. Climate activists are suggesting that due to the very large cut on our leg, we better amputate. Stubbornly suggesting that this cut will lead to our demise and that amputation is the only solution is actual denial. The simple truth is that ending fossil fuels will kill billions of people. You really want to see a Mad Max world? End fossil fuels. Even today poverty kills millions. Warming isn't killing anything which he proved, but all climate policies induce greater poverty. That is a certainty.

@sorenmollerchr26

Ай бұрын

​@@michelb9044 vauw. I thought he was using data from the IPCC? 😮

OPINION: His argument that we should invest in renewable R&D *exclusively* seems not really good hearted but rather like a delay strategy to not have climate friendly policy implemented. As I stated in another comment his figures on what the Paris agreement does impact-wise is very misleading (tldr assuming that after the Paris agreement runs out, no follow up climate policy will be made at all). It seems to me like he tries to set up all those false dichotomies (between climate policy and climate R&D // between acting on climate change and trying to fix poverty), whereas many of these points rather influence each other. For example if poor nations don't recieve or have the funds to develop climate resilience, they will be hit harder economically and also in terms of human health. Also many poor nations are located in areas in which agricultural land is prognosed to recede in a changing climate from global warming. On the other hand, research will be incentivised by more strictly climate friendly policy, therefore you'll need both funds for R&D as well as policies that direct the flow of technology into a more climate friendly future.

@doctorcrafts

7 ай бұрын

Buzz words

@tchai91

5 ай бұрын

He clearly states in this and other presentations (and his books) that proceeding with today’s ‘green’ energy technology is completely pointless, given its ineffectiveness, so R&D is the only way to make this dream anywhere near a reality, although he’s never advocated for a one-dimensional approach to improving the World. He also does strongly advocate for adverse weather protective strategies for developing countries, which are again far more effective at saving lives/livelihoods than blindly pressing on with pointless current green policies.

Around (11:39) the speaker claims "we still haven't found it"... referring to a way to end the use of fossil fuels,... obviously the speaker is unaware of Green Hydrogen. Potent, safe, available to everyone, and 100% non-toxic. Until the speaker does some homework about energy technology, I find this speaker guilty of Sophistry.

@shiftyshooter9218

Жыл бұрын

Bjorn’s entire presentation is about being cost effective. Are you suggesting that green hydrogen is a cheap alternative? From what I’ve heard it’s quite the opposite. I hope it gets the R&D funds it deserves I think Green Hydrogen has a lot of potential.

@waltercox4863

Жыл бұрын

Sophistry?...No. Hydrogen is incredibly expensive to produce, and only photovoltaics offer a green way to do so.