That you spend so that we actually damage instead of just feeling good . It cheating. I want to go through this in detail while were chatting. So this International Movement to do something about Climate Change is currently battling the resistance of Climate Change deniers. Conservative politicians in this clash a lot of law, but information is being spread and a little fear mongering is being done on the anti climate side as well. And were being scared into thinking our economies will collapse, scared into thinking that we are being scammed. Right. How does one navigate this stream of complete thing . Some of them having, you know, hidden agendas actually, well, i do some, im probably not so much it may jen that youre absolutely right. Look, theres a lot of people out there who will tell you Global Warming is not a problem at all. And i think thats just silly wrong. We know that thats not true, thats what gave us the International Data is telling us that theres a lot of people out there as you point out that telling you this is the end of the world. You know, youve got to do everything and the kitchen sink if youre ever going to manage to make sure that we tackle Global Warming. And they are unfortunately often also exaggerating. I would argue that the right way to think about this, and thats what i try to present in my book and elsewhere, is really to say, look, the u. N. Climate panel has come together for almost what 25 years or so to look at. What is the data on Natural Science . What they tell us is Global Warming is a real problem. Its caused by mankind, burning mostly fossil fuels that emit c, o 2 that causes temperatures rise overall in the long run. That will be a net negative for humanity. So there is a problem, we should to fix it. But we should also of course listen to the climate economists who are then looking at. So what can we actually do about it . And how much will it cost . We need to hear both of those conversations and we need to hear them without the denial of those who, you know, this is not happening at all. But also without the alarmists and that makes everything exaggerated. So you claim that mainstream doom and gloom projections, a lot of weights are planted in predawn after level warming are based on bad science. But the Scientific Community at large disagrees with you farai very strongly on your science and your academic background. It is not in a field of the climate research. Right. So why should i believe you . Im not a climate scientists. Oh, you know, you definitely should not believe me. You should believe what the un climate parents houses. So the un climate panel, as i point out, tells us they were warriors ruins a problem. But they also tell you, for instance, how big of a problem has it. So they assume they expect that by the 2075, lets say 2075. The net impact of Global Warming will be equivalent to each person being somewhere between 0. 2 and 2 percent less rich than he or she would otherwise be. Thats an important factor because what that tells you is its a real problem. But its by no means the end of the world. This is what the u. N. Climate panel tells us and id be abby show you that. Im sure we can tweet that afterwards. You know, from the quote in the u. N. Climate panel. So what it tells us is, its a moderate problem. Its not a new problem, but its certainly not the end of the world. Remember, last year a survey showed that almost half the worlds population now believes that Global Warming will lead to the extinction of this human race. Thats just not what were talking about by the 2075. Humankind will be much, much richer, so the average, you know, standard scenario through the u. N. Climate panel is that we will be 362 percent as rich as we are today. If the Global Warming would was left unattended to in 2075, instead of being traded at 62 percent as rich as well, today, we would only be 356 percent. Now thats a problem, but its by no means the end of the world. So your idea is that trade is like yoda or the Paris Agreement where they can postpone Global Warming for a maximum of 5 years. And i wonder if its so inefficient. Why are all these countries signing this agreement . And im sure they have some research on homework before going for it now. Well, look, theres a lot of reason why people sign up to a lot of us. Some of them are clearly virtuous signaling. Its a nice way to say, you know, look, the world is going to end vote for me. Itll help you politically and you know, typically it cost only arrive 510 or 20 years later. So you get to get all the apostle and somebody else have to pay. It also sounds nice. I want to help and save the planet. But the reality is, most of what we do right now have very little impact on our rate of period per article on whats the impact of the Paris Agreement by itself. And this is also what the us triple c. So the guys who organized the Paris Agreement tells us that paris bite self will cut about one percent of what is needed to get to 2 degrees centigrade, which is what everybody talks about. So fundamentally, itll do very little at very high cost. Remember, thats why its probably not a very effective target, actually. Some of my other research shows, and this is also what many climate scientists, sorry, climate economist any perhaps continually the only climate economist to win the nobel prize. William nordhaus back in 2018 tells us that the current approach is actually a parent weak, inefficient way of spending lots of money and achieving very little. And while disputing the mainstream opinion about Climate Change, you are saying that it is unnecessarily alarmists. Right . Why do worlds Climate Change researchers and policymakers need to be alarmist on his issue . I mean, what does anyone stand to gain from staring parekh . So i think theres a lot of things that cause it. Let me take one example, Sea Level Rise, which is an absolutely correct issue because temperatures rising sea levels, sorry, the sea will increase our temperature just like Everything Else when it gets warmer, it expands and thats why you see rice, a sea levels. So the typical simulation that you do will tell you all right, so youre seeing levels rise, lets say of the maximum and perhaps a meter by the end of the centric, close to a meter. How much will that matter . Well, the typical model will then just say, well, what is, what of the world has below one meter above Sea Level Rise, all of that will get flooded. So our standard estimate tells you 187000000 people will get flooded by the end of the century. That was the headline in the Washington Post and many, many other papers. But the problem of course is that assumes nobody does anything for the next 80 years. Nobody ever ranks any or increases the height of that guy. And thats just absolutely unlikely. You would not sit here and watch the waves lap up over your yard, knees and hips, and eventually youll drown or have to move. You actually adapt. And those very same researchers who say, if you just see a Sea Level Rise about a meter, you get a 187000000, people who have to move. Also show that if you assume realistic adaptation, you have not 187000000 people who have to flee. But about 300000, people that remember that its about half of the number of people that move out of california every year. So thats definitely something we can handle over the next 80 years. My point is that its very easy to make these simple simulations and they make good sense and i make academic argument, but obviously theyre not good information proposing makers. If you tell whats going to happen, if we do nothing because clearly had very low cost, we will do something. Well mainly adapt. And that leads to many, many fewer people actually being quite right. But the real question is where it stands today from the panic. So media loves bad news medias dan. Its just simply, you know, if you, if you wrote a story that says not much is going to happen with Climate Change, not many people would click on it. If you say were all going to die, a lot of people will click on it. So you know what i mean if it bleeds, it leads. But also of course, everyone whos pushing strong are good, strong policies on Climate Change will want you to Pay Attention and so they will always amplify the biggest signal. So if you read most of these press releases and stories, they typically have their, their littered with words like may and could, and she might kind of thing. And so you could argue it might lead to a 187000000 people, the flood. Thats true. If we do nothing but its not very good information, but obviously it helps make that particular point. Remember, if you talk to doctors for instance, they will typically tell you if we dont, you know, get more money for a good cup of it. Were going to get a catastrophe. If you talk to teachers, they will tell you, if we dont put in more money into our schools, we might stand, you know, with a catastrophe that we havent taught the next generation. Well, its in the nature of almost all people are caring for a particular case to overemphasise their argument. Im not saying thats wrong. Im simply saying we Decision Makers saying voters for what politicians should do should be a little skeptical of some post claims. So figures like reza founder say like theyre helping they share our, exacerbating more well, i have no doubt that granite feels very, very strongly about what shes talking about. And i think when you talk to a lot of young people, they feel genuinely scared. If you keep hearing those stories about 187000000, people being flooded, you think that theres a good chance. Theres no future left for you. Thats what she says about 20 a lot of young people say. So very clearly, if you think this is the end of the world, we should do everything to avoid that. So in some sense, i think greater tempered is a symptom of exacerbating an alarming everyone mindlessly. And unfortunately, what that means is we end up Picking Solutions that cost a lot, but actually do very little. Its just a kind of feel Good Solutions instead of the Actual Solutions that would fix Global Warming. So i guess my point here is not to say that this is not a problem. My point is to say we need to spend resources so that we fix this problem smartly. Not incompetently and very, very expensive, which yet i also like i, its hard to argue with your point about the fact that the panic usually leads nowhere or any results in bad decisions. In your opinion, what decisions about Climate Change have been particularly bad . So if you look at most of the solutions that we have right now, they are typically very small. That is theyll have very little impact, but theyre pretty expensive. So the best example is the electric car. For instance, the electric car sounds like a wonderful idea. You know, youve got your changeover from these gas guzzlers and you get to places where youll actually of 0 emissions and youll be able to run it right off on, you know, sun and wind. But the reality is that most of these cars, because they need battery, takes up much more energy to produce it so quickly thats produced in china. And because most of these cars are charged, at least partly with also kills, that actually cut fairly few tons of c o 2. So the International Energy agency estimates, but an average battery car will conserve about 10 tons of c o 2 across its lifetime. About a 3rd of its emissions. Thats nice. But remember most nations around the world, the byte would be Incoming Biden Administration is talking about spending upwards to 10000. 00 per car. Theyre spending an enormous amount of money to just cut 10 tons. Remember on the u. S. Emission trading systems, you could cut that for about somewhere. What is it about 50. 00 . So you could do this much, much cheaper, but were spending this enormous amount of money because it feels virtuous. You know, it feels like were doing something when youre, when youre seeing a tesla, but the reality is youre doing fairly little at very high cost. What we should be doing instead is get people to switch to hybrids, which is very, very much a say they dont have any of the, the other problems that actually cut just as much c o 2. And typically people are willing to do that now, or at least with very, very little incentive. So again, take the solutions that are not quite as sexy if you will, but actually end up doing a lot more could for every dollar of rupee spent there and talk of share a break right now when were back well continue talking to Bjorn Lomborg, president of the copenhagen consensus and setter a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and skeptical environmentalists stay with us. New gold rush is underway and thousands of ill equipped workers are flocking to the gold fields, hoping to strike it. Rich. As children are torn between gold from me was very poor. I thought i was doing my best to get back to school. Which side will have the strongest appeal guys are financial survival. When customers go by the reduced well reduced the lower thats undercutting whats good for food market bucket for the Global Economy seemed wrong. Just dont all get to shape out these days. Become educated and in the game. Because the trail when so many find themselves worlds apart, we choose to look for common ground. And were back with Bjorn Lomborg at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, skeptical environmentalist. Lets agree that the rise of temperature by 2 degrees, why . Humans, but temporizing, even a couple of critical for lets say, coral reefs and pick and thats all the marine life survives on fish. And that means that a decline diversity is actually the beginning. So there, theres a concern there, and i think its much, much harder to quantify because again, what you typically hear is you will have less product to pity and you will see, you know, people will show you these, these white areas that will be drought, drought, or be flooded, but actually, and i think this is important to recognize and this is totally accepted in all science. What we see is, remember c o 2 is also a plant new trend. Thats why, you know, most, most cream house growers will actually put in the extra c o 2 to get really big tomatoes for instance. And what weve seen over the last 30 years is actually a dramatic increase in the global biomass. So we were very unpublished, i mean its published, but its not very has not gotten a lot of press attention. It was in New York Times and all these other papers. But its certainly not getting as much attention as youd imagine. Well, the last 30 years, the world has seen most of it areas becoming much more creepy to the extent that they estimate its equivalent to adding to australias full of forests across the world or the last 30 years. Because youve got many more leaves because of much more searching. Again, my point here is not to say that Global Warming overall is not a net negative, but i think what we end up focusing on has parts of the story that are negative. And we should also look at those, but we forget that theres almost as much not quite as much because thats why its a problem, but almost as much of it, thats an improvement. And we need both in order to make good decisions. He also said that reach countries going Carbon Neutral is ineffective as long as poorer countries dont follow suit. And its better to invest time and money in Green Energy Research to make it cheaper. But do we have enough time to do that . I mean, the problem with switching the Carbon Neutral while investing in green energy do necessarily have to choose between one or the other. You know, so, so the fundamental problem i see with the current approaches, if youre scared witless, which is also a little bit the underlying part of your question, then you think weve got to do everything right now. So we end up with much of what the rich world and is doing right now. Namely saying the rich worlds gonna switch over to go Carbon Neutral by mid century. In any realistic scenario that is going to be phenomenally expensive and hence very unlikely to actually happen. Once you start seeing the cost roll in, you will get, you know, the kind of revolt that france ranks and saw. Remember, france saw a yellow vest revolt when president middle, sorry, i forgot the present president. Names are micron. Thank you. When he raced big gasoline tax life for euro cents per liter. Imagine what will happen when you have to raise some several euros per liter. Now people are just not going to sit still and accept that. What we see now is that cutting to 0 without dramatic technological innovation will cost us a fortune. So the only countries actually done this is new zealand. Part of their, you know, and much to their credit, they decided they were going to go Carbon Neutral by 2050. But they also asked their korea eminent and Economic Institute to say, how much will that cost . The answer is 16 percent of g. D. P. By 2050. And of course, for the rest of the century, thats an enormous cost plus more right now on what theyre paying for their entire government budget. Of course, theyre not going to accept that. My point here is simply to say, if you want a smarter way for look at how we solve problems in the past. When we were back in the 1960 s. And seventys, there wasnt enough food for everyone. And there was a lot of worry that you know, china, india, africa, would not be able to feed themselves. The answer was not to eat a little less in the rich world and then send some of the crew down there to the poor world. The answer was, and that was also what solve the problem, the green revolution. Now you actually had a technology that allowed the developing countries to grow much more food in every had tar, hence making it possible for india now to be the oh, were leading rice exporter. The point here is very same way we should focus on making sure that we get green energy to be so cheap that it will outcompete fossil fuels. Imagine frenchness, if we could make you know, your thermal energy. Theres a huge amount of potential juror thermal energy, right . Now its only really bible in iceland and a few other places, but with the new Drilling Technology that we have from fracking, theres a good chance we could actually make that competitive. If we could, you could get cheaper and even cheaper than fossil fuel. Permanents or 247, and it you from the ground. Im not arguing that this is whats going to solve the worlds problem to guess. I dont know. Theres lots of those kinds of solutions out there. What we have to do is to drive the innovation, so that one of these many technologies become cheaper because if that happens, everyone will switch not just rich, well, meaning countries a little bit, but also china, india, all about africa, latin america, everybody else. And thats of course, whats needed if youre actually going to solve this problem. Well, create energy. Everybody will switch to it, even poor countries. Read this logical thinking about it. It doesnt consider the fact that many economists presence russia, right, or a United States are straley out. And many other countries theyve been, are unfair, still fails. How do you go around that . Its little, its much harder for them actually. I think yes, yes. And look, thats part of a part of the challenges, of course, for many of the oil and coal and gas pretty in countries to realize that this is probably not going to go on. I think for most people, you know, theyre sort of suggesting, oh, you know, the changeover will come in a couple of decades. I think thats entirely unrealistic unless we get much better technology. But remember, you have in russia but also across the world. Certainly in the u. S. As well, well have to find out ways to make sure that you get rich off of fossil fuels. That what most of the west has done for the last 200 years. But then also get to the point where you can actually transition. Because clearly, if you could have very cheap energy, also in russia, yes, you would not get the same amount of dollars back in with exporting out of fossil fuels. But you would actually be able to have all of the rest of your technology, all the rest of your industry be powered much cheaper. So the point here is not to say that solving this problem is going to be cost more that its going to be on troublesome. Of course it is. But i think the only way were going to convince most people around the world to switch is when the alternative is much cheaper. Not by telling everyone. Im sorry you have to do with much less, much more expensive energy. But its not going to win over most people in the long run. Yet turning a colored related lockdowns to world has seen an unprecedented drop in Carbon Emissions everywhere. And we are, you know, were all thinking actually at the moment that this is probably the world will not want to have that he openly state that the, through these sale to emissions cuts where impressive they came as a tremendous economic and human costs. And now the economy needs to revive, are you suggesting that actually going back to business as usual, without changing our old that happened is our only way. Our only way out for now at least. No. I think theres 2 things were do you sort of have to stop or i think most people would definitely agree. This is a terrible, terrible way to cut Carbon Emissions. And its a very typical way. I mean, what weve seen in the past has the only really sure fire way of cutting Carbon Emissions is having a really good recession. We saw that, you know, certainly in russia and 1901, we saw that you 1008. Most of this is correlated with enormous human pain. So, you know, this is not a long term solution. Course we should take the positive things with us from a covert, you know, we were sitting and talking and soon thats probably going to be much more of the future. And thats wonderful. It means i dont have to get on a plane and go over and visit you, but we can still sit and talk almost us if were in the same room. Wonderful. So were going to keep some of those, but we should also be realistic about how much thats actually going to cut. Remember, the whole Airline Industry is less than 2 percent of global emissions. So this is not whats going to make a big difference. Yes, weve seen a dramatic drop. Most of this came from a dramatic drop in productivity, and most people want to get back to their lives. And hence were going to get back pretty much only trajectory that we had before. Id love for soon to become bigger, but honestly, i dont think most people will want to go on a suit for their holidays for us here and spend such a pleasure talking to you. Thank you very much for your interesting inside. I really hope that we all come together to understand a which way is the better way out for us and for our planet in the nearest future. Because it is in all our interests. I hope all the best in your future endeavors and helpless quicksort. Again, thank you very much. Thank you dr. Thank you. What can we expect from them by didnt ministration when it comes to russia . As things stand today, relations are brought down by these or maybe is replete with hardliners in neo cons. With a long record of Foreign Policy failure could relations continue to get worse. Is your media a reflection of reality . In the world transformed . What will make you feel safe from the isolation community . Are you going the right way or are you being that direct . What is true . What is faith . In a world corrupted, you need to descend to join us in the depths or a maybe in the shallowness it was always on the boombox list. Actually big city bright lights. You joke, but you knew jesus and many dangers to blow the lid to its also a city where up to 300. 00 sounds of crimes are committed every day for the last one, but it looks good. You must still think the result least one police officer, 200 residents in russias capital, lost on the english trip, that they were not going to exploit. It was already on the last top australian figures, including a former prime minister, condemn reports that the country soldiers tortured and murdered dozens of afghan civilians. Look at how the war on terror created its own form of terre haute french catholics rally against a ban on religious gatherings during the lock down and made a surge in public. He says, one worshipper pointed to a disturbing story, parallels in french history. This isnt the 1st time that going to mass has been considered illegal or the churches have been locked up. Or that going to mass could be considered a crime