Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg is a voice of sanity in the global warming debate. In an op-ed last week he correctly points out that expensive efforts like Kyoto have achieved nearly nothing, and that the cost of adapting to global warming would be much less than the cost of preventing it.
But Bjorn is an admitted Lefty and so it's no surprise that he wants government to spend more:
Investing about $100 billion annually in noncarbon based energy research could result in essentially stopping global warming within a century or so.
A technology-led effort would have a much greater chance of actually tackling climate change.
Why? Government has a lousy record at choosing which promising technologies deserve research money (remember Synfuels?) A tax on emissions would be better, because that gives private companies an extra reason to work on alternative energy research.
But we don’t yet know enough to have justification for such a tax. The science isn't settled, as I've reported before.
- Pre-October 2009