Twitter | Search | |
Bjorn Lomborg
Author of 'False Alarm', 'Cool It' and 'Skeptical Environmentalist', president Copenhagen Consensus think tank: smart solutions through economic prioritization
9,988
Tweets
125
Following
69,334
Followers
Tweets
Bjorn Lomborg retweeted
Mike Shellenberger Sep 18
Replying to @ShellenbergerMD
In 2018, a town of 2,500 people asked for permission to thin surrounding forests California's environment regulators sat on the request for 2 years Then, on Sept 8, a fire ripped through the town, killing 10 people, and destroying most of the homes SMH
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg retweeted
Roger Pielke Jr. Sep 18
For "The UN Secretary General António Guterres’s call for India to give up coal immediately and reduce emissions by 45% by 2030 is a call to de-industrialise the country and abandon the population to a permanent low-development trap"
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg retweeted
Max Roser 7h
In countries that achieved strong economic growth over the last decades, governments have vastly larger budgets. In the poorest countries only about $20 are spent per person per year. The governments of the richest countries spend up to 1,000-times(!) more per person.
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg retweeted
Matt Ridley Sep 18
"Climate policy is increasingly shaped by emotive, alarmist and sometimes misleading messages [that] are not just depressing the public and prompting neuroses in the young [but] leading developed nations to make duff choices about remedial action."
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg retweeted
Max Roser 8h
One thing we can learn from this: even if we electrify the whole world's road transport – and transition to fully decarbonized electricity – we‘d only reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 11.9%. Emissions come from many sectors: we need many solutions to decarbonize.
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg retweeted
Hannah Ritchie Sep 18
Sector-by-sector: where do global greenhouse emissions come from? To reduce emissions we need to know where to direct our efforts. I've always found it hard to find a clear picture of this. Here is my shot, with descriptions of what each category means.
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg retweeted
Richard Tol Sep 18
It's not just that CO2 emissions from China are very large. Uncertainty about these emissions is very large too. About as large as emissions from the European Union. See
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg retweeted
Matt Ridley Sep 17
Environmentalists say they are not against innovation. Yet the mask slips quite often:
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg retweeted
Max Roser Sep 18
If the media would report what is actually important then this would be front page news around the world. There’d be experts on TV that would explain how it was possible. And we all would debate how we can make more progress. Instead I hardly find any reporting of it anywhere?
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg Sep 18
⚠️False Alarm: Scaring us senseless. Since “climate change” doesn’t sound dangerous enough they rename it “climate breakdown” or “climate emergency” Climate change is a real challenge and we should fix it. But smartly. Learn how in my new book:
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg retweeted
Richard Tol Sep 17
Distributional impact of climate change
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg retweeted
Alex Trembath Sep 17
"Transport, industry, buildings, electricity, all of those things—and agriculture—contribute to emissions. For many of these sources of emissions, we have no solutions.” -
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg retweeted
Copenhagen Consensus Sep 17
📂➡️🖥To study the digitisation of revenue collection in Ghana’s municipalities, our researchers for the Ghana Priorities have analysed the implementation of a software called District Local Revenue to manage property rate collection. 👉 Learn more :
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg retweeted
Richard Tol Sep 17
Mark Lynas was briefly included in the climate denial club. Extinction Rebellion is something else.
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg retweeted
Lee Crawfurd Sep 17
New open access paper in special issue with We find being taught by a better grade 5 teacher has persistent measurable effects on learning 5 years later
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg Sep 17
Replying to @BjornLomborg
Break-even only changes with discount rate: If you value the future more compared to the present (lower discount), benefits first outweigh costs after 2100, because you'll do so much climate policy Reverse if higher discount
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg Sep 17
Replying to @BjornLomborg
Climate policy only becomes net-benefit after 2080, irrespective of climate costs or climate policy costs doubling or halving (if climate is worse than expected, we'll do more climate policy, hence pay more, hence break-even still in 2080)
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg Sep 17
Replying to @BjornLomborg
Climate policy leads to net-costs until 2080 New paper shows how climate policy costs come soon, whereas benefits mostly accrue much later In total, the optimal policy is still worth having, but it shows why doing climate policy is so difficult
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg Sep 17
Only people born *after* 2050 will experience net benefits from climate policy Costs come soon, benefits much later Optimal policy still worth having, but shows why climate policy so difficult: Convincing people to pay, *none of whom will net benefit*
Reply Retweet Like
Bjorn Lomborg Sep 17
Gavin Newsom is right that climate plays a part [in California's wildfires]. It does create a more favorable fire environment. But experts estimate this plays a minor role. ➡️ Learn why in my latest oped for the New York Post:
Reply Retweet Like