I like his thesis concept "spend where it will do the most good". I ear-mark my charity that way, and I try to be dispassionate. If I'm wrong, I pivot. Iterative wisdom.
Lomborg's major mistake is that (a) he doesn't really account for percentage risks (how do you calculate an '80% chance, things get worse; 20% chance things get terrible'?) and (b) he treats the game as a charity rather than a moral obligation. And (c) he continues to use the polar bear hunting as if it means something. That one really is problematic, because not only does he not recognize that it's dumb but also biases audiences away from how dumb it is.
The thesis itself isn't the worst. You can grow out of a crisis. If my credit card is 19% but I'm expecting a salary raise and benefits, it
might make sense to delay a dentist visit. The math won't be easy, but it really could be true. So, I do
not have the right to erode Bangledeshi shoreline with my emissions, but it is reasonable to offset that by helping them grow faster than the damage I cause. The problem is if I am not motivated, where I am somehow convinced that I'm allowed to kick the can down the road.
I really recommend everyone here listen to
Jordan Peterson's interview with Lomborg. Nor for any science aspect, but you
need to know what they're saying to each other. Peterson's bought Lomborg's story completely. It's 100 minutes of your time on a global crisis,
so do it. However, we still know that it's being used as a salve rather than a solution.
Everyone knows that the solution isn't 'poor people stay poor'. And we fight around this truth with different models but also with a ginormous bias towards self-interest and 'not losing what you have acclimated to'.
"Cheap energy is necessary for poor people to grow their economy"
- yes! now tell me how wealthy Westerners bidding up the price of energy to drive SUVs and to heat their homes to 'don't need socks' temperatures
helps. You'll note how rarely does 'Free Market Peterson' acknowledge that
demand brings up prices. He'll tell a room full of McMansion SUVs that 'there is a problem, but the liberals don't have a real solution'. But, he'll not motivate three Christian principles: self-denial, limiting harms, and aggressive charity. Turn down your thermostat if you know that poor people need cheap energy, it's the first obvious thing you can do with an immediate impact. After that, read about Jevon's Paradox. But after that, because you only get to help fix Jevon's Paradox if you're not bidding up the price keeping the poor, poor.
"The needed solution is technological innovation"
- yes! So,
if people actually believed this rather than having a salve they would have a pro-active platform to put money into this and be supporting it. There would be an R&D charity. There would be purchases that spurred R&D infrastructure. Conservatives would have real platforms on this concept. But they don't. It's because Lomborg doesn't actually motivate action on the
very front his thesis supports.
"You can grow out of the crisis"
- sure! And you can aggravate the crisis but not bear the consequences. If someone accepts the extremely conservative "I'm not allowed to erode Bangledeshi shoreline for my own pleasure", then step 2 is offsetting that damage.
If someone believed that simple truth, then calculate your externality cost roughly and fricken
donate to pro-growth Bangledeshi (or wherever!) efforts. If someone isn't, they don't believe the thesis, they're just allowing two talking heads talk them into doing nothing.
I was a 'libertarian' while I was learning about AGW and making all my money in the stock market. "Don't cause damage you can't recompense" and "deny yourself luxuries to compensate your victims" and "doing it personally will be better than waiting for the government to figure out how to bungle it" are all normal libertarian talking points. So, I use less energy than my peers and I ear-mark some of the profits from my fossil carbon production into offsetting my damage through pro-growth charities. And then I look to see if the mainstream conservative also understands offsetting negative externalities and assisting in macro-economic growth and "DoN't ShOoT pOlAaR bEaRs If YoU cArE!" is used an example of 'liberal illogic'
