american official on the level of secretary and certainly secretary of state, which is the highest in america to come and visit, you know, a community, a settlement in the golan heights. so you know, it is, it is amazing. it is an amazing achievement for, for israel, the campaign for 2024 is already starting because what they're doing here 1st of all trump shows that he's not giving up the fight. he may say, you know, have to concede the election or realize that on january 20th, he's going to leave the presidency. but he's not giving up the fight and he keeps working for israel in the middle east, even in this lame duck period where he's not where he's on his way out. and what he does is he sets the stage. so once president biden comes in in january, he either has to reverse these things, or he keeps up. well, there's all the latest headlines, tara nazi international. if you'd like to find out more, we go to our website, www dot com. we're back in 30 minutes.

joined me. everything on the alex salmond show and i'll be speaking to a guest of the world of politics. sports business, i'm show business. i'll see you then we expect ministration when it comes to russia. relations is replete with hard liners. with

no welcome to me, sophie shevardnadze. global institutions are taking time. that is the climate change, but my guest today believes the panic is unnecessary or even groundless. a long board president of the copenhagen consensus visiting fellow at the hoover institution at stanford university. skeptical environmentalists joins me now. the president of the copenhagen consensus center of visiting fellow at the hoover institution, stanford university, and skeptical environmentalist. it's really great to have you with us today. bjorn, how do you like my last part of your presentation? skeptical environmentalist. well, that's what i have to say. it's great to be here, sir. so look, what i really try to do is to think about all the things you can worry about,

environmental areas, what are the things where you can actually make the most difference for every dollar or groupie that you spend. so that we do that instead of just feeling good at achieving almost nothing. i want to go through this in detail while we're chatting. so this international movement to do something about climate change is currently battling the resistance of climate change deniers. conservative politicians are 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 we're being scared into thinking our economies will collapse, scared into thinking that we are being scammed. right, how does one navigate this stream of complex thing? some of them having, you know, hidden agendas actually, well, i do some, i'm probably not so much it made gender. you're absolutely right. look, there's a lot of people out there who will tell you global warming is not

a problem at all. and i think that's a sickly wrong. we know that that's not true. that's what me. yes, international data is telling us, but there's a lot of people out there as you point out that telling you, this is the end of the world. you know, you've got to do everything and the kitchen sink. if you're 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 that's what i try to present in my dog 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 and it's 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 going to look

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. 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 for don 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 an assailed of the climate research. right. so why should i believe you? i'm not a climate scientists. oh, you know, you definitely should not believe me. you should believe what the u.n. climate parents houses. so the u.n. climate panel, as i point out, tells us the warriors ruins a problem. but they also tell you, for instance, how big of a problem is it? so they assume they expect that by the 2075. let's 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. that's an important factor because what that tells you is, it's a real problem. but it's by no means the end of the world. this is what the u.n. climate panel tells us and i'd be added to show you that i'm sure we can tweak that afterwards. you know, from the quote in the un climate panel. so what it tells us is, it's a moderate problem. it's not a new problem, but it's certainly not the end of the world. remember, last year a survey showed that almost half the world's population now believes that global warming will lead to the extinction of this human race. that's just not what we're talking about by the 2075. humankind will be much, much richer, so the average, you know, standard scenario through the un 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 362 percent as rich as where today we would only be 356 percent. now that's a problem, but it's 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 5 years. and i wonder if it's so inefficient. why are all these countries signing this agreement? and i'm sure they have some research on homework before going for it now. well, look, there's a lot of reason why people sign up to a lot of this is some of them are clearly signaling. it's a nice way to say, you know, look, the world is going to end vote for me. it'll 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 what's the impact of the paris agreement by itself. and this is also what the u.s. 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, it'll do very little at very high cost. remember, that's why it's probably not a very effective target, actually. some of my other research shows, and this is also what many climate scientists say 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 pair of 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? winer world's climate change researchers and policymakers need to be alarmist on as issue. i mean, what has anyone stand to gain from staring panic? so i think there's 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 or temperature just like everything else when it gets warmer, it expands and that's why you see rice, a sea levels. so the typical simulation that you do will tell you all right, so you're seeing levels rise, let's say of the maximum and perhaps 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 that's just absolutely unlikely. you would not sit here and watch the waves lap up over your knees and hips and eventually you'll drown. i 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 it's about half of the number of people that move out of california every year. so that's definitely something we can handle over the next 80 years. my point is that it's very easy to make these simple simulations and they

make good sense and i make academic argument, but obviously they're not good information proposing makers. if you tell what's going to happen, if we do nothing because clearly had very low cost, we will do something. we'll mainly adapt. and that leads to many, many fewer people actually being quite right. but the real question is, where is stands to gain from the panic? so, media loves bad news medias then it's 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 we're 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 who's pushing strong arctic 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,

they're littered with words like may and could and should, might kind of thing. and so you could argue it might lead to a 187000000, people being flooded. that's true. if we do nothing but it's 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 don't get more money for a good cup of it, we're going to get a catastrophe. if you talk to teachers, they will tell you, if we don't put in more money into our schools, we might stand, you know, with a catastrophe that we haven't taught the next generation. well, it's in the nature of almost all people are caring for a particular case to overemphasise their argument. i'm not saying that's wrong. i'm 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 say like they're

helping they share our, exacerbating more well, i have no doubt that granite feels very, very strongly about what she's 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 there's a good chance. there's no future left for you. that's 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. it's 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, it's hard to argue with your point about the fact that the panic usually leads nowhere. and it 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 they'll have very little impact, but they're pretty expensive. so the best example is the electric car. for instance, the electric car sounds like a wonderful idea. you know, you've got your changeover from these gas guzzlers and you get to places where you'll actually of 0 emissions and you'll 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 an article that's produced in china. and because most of these cars are charged, at least partly with also, 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. that's nice. but remember most nations around the world, the bite would be incoming biden administration is talking about spending upwards to $10000.00 per car. they're 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 we're spending this enormous amount of money because it feels virtuous. you know, it feels like we're doing something when you're, when you're seeing a tesla, but the reality is you're 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 don't 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 a short break right now when we're back we'll continue talking to bjorn lomborg, president of the company, hayden concession setter, a visiting fellow at the hoover institution at stanford university, and skeptical environmentalists stay with us during the vietnam war. u.s. forces, also there was a secret war. and for years, the american people did not know how much it is a country per capita, human history,

millions of unexploded bombs still in danger. lives in this small agricultural country, jordyn wieber. even today, kids in laos full victims of bombs dropped decades ago. is the u.s. making amends for the tragedy and what help to the people need in that little

and we're back with bjorn lomborg, copenhagen at the hoover institution, stanford university, skeptical environmentalist. let's agree that the rise of temperature by 2 degrees. why? human species potential rising for even a couple of critical for let's say coral reefs and play and that's all the marine life survives on for fish. and that means that a decline diversity is actually the beginning. so

there, there's a concern there, and i think it's 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. they 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. that's why, you know, most, most greenhouse growers will actually put in the extra c o 2 to get really big tomatoes, for instance. and what we've seen over the last 30 years is actually a dramatic increase in the global biomass. so we were very unpublished, i mean it's published, but it's not very has not gotten a lot of press attention. it was in new york times and all these other papers. but it's certainly not getting as much attention as you'd imagine when the last 30

years the world has seen. most of it areas becoming much more creepy to the extent that they estimate it's equivalent to adding to australia's full of forests across the world. or the last 30 years, because you've got many more leaves because of much more c o 2. 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 there's almost as much not quite as much it will. that's why it's a problem. but almost as much of it, that's 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 don't and it's 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 you're scared witless, which is also a little bit the underlying part of your question, then you think we've got to do everything right now. so we end up with much of what the rich world's and is doing right now. namely saying the rich world's 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 the president made our sorry, i forgot the president, president names are micron. thank you. when he raised that gasoline tax life for

euro cents per liter. imagine what will happen when you have to raise some several euro as per a leader. 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 economic institute to say, how much will that cost, yancey, 16 percent of g.d.p. by 2050. and of course, for the rest and century, that's an enormous cost plus more right now on what they're paying for their entire government budget. of course, they're 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 seventy's, there wasn't 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 crude down there to the core world. the answer was, and that was also what's all 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, we're 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. there's a huge amount of potential juror thermal energy, right? now it's only really bible in iceland and a few other places, but with the new drilling technology that we have from fracking, there's a good chance we could actually make that competitive. if we could, you could get cheaper and even cheaper than fossil fuel. permanent. so 247 and it

you from the ground. i'm not arguing that this is what's going to solve the world's problem to guess. i don't know. there's 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 that's of course, what's needed if you're actually going to solve this problem. well, eve create energy. everybody will switch to it, even poor countries. read this logical thinking about it, it doesn't consider the fact that many economists presence russia, right, or a united states are straley out. and many other countries they've been, are unfair, still fails. how do you go around that? i mean it's, you know, it's much harder for them actually i think, yes, yes, and look, that's part of a part of the challenges, of course,

for many of the oil and coal and gas pretty as in countries to realize that this is probably not going to go on, i think for most people, you know, they're sort of suggesting, oh, you know, the changeover will come in a couple of decades. i think that's 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, we'll have to find out ways to make sure that you get rich off of fossil fuels. that's 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 not 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 it's going to be on

troublesome. of course it is. but i think the only way we're going to convince most people around the world to switch is when the alternative is much cheaper. not by telling everyone. i'm sorry you have to do with much less, much more expensive energy. but it's not going to win over most people in the long run. yet turning a colored related lockdowns to world has seen an unprecedented stropping of carbon emissions everywhere. and we are, you know, we're all thinking actually at the moment that this is probably the world will not want to have that. he openly state that through these c o 2 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, no, no. i think there's 2 things we're 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 it's a very typical way, i mean, what we've seen in the past as 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 the 2008, 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 that's probably going to be much more of the future and that's wonderful. it means i don't have to get on a plane and go over and visit you. but we can still sit and talk almost us if we're in the same room. wonderful. so we're going to keep some of those, but we should also be realistic about how much that's actually going to cut. remember, the whole airline industry is less than 2 percent of global emissions. so this is

not what's going to make a big difference. yes, we've 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 we're going to get back pretty much only trajectory that we had before. i'd love for soon to become bigger. but honestly, i don't 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 understanding 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. i'm

going to pick a whole thanks guys or financial survival. when customers go buy your supplies well, reduce a lower that's undercutting, but what's good for market is very good for the global economy. during the vietnam war, u.s. forces also it was a secret war. and for years the american people did not know until our so much that is officially the most heavily bombed country, per capita. human history, millions of unexploded bombs still in danger. lives in this small agricultural

country. jordyn wieber going to happen. and then even today, kids in laos, fall victim to the bombs dropped decades ago. is the us making amends for their tragedy? and what help do the people need in that little land of mines unforgivable atrocities and utterly disgusting. how people are describing alleged ritual killings about gun civilians by a lead to australian troops with calls to fully bring the perpetrators to justice also. but the french catholics hit the streets against a ban on all religious gatherings during the lockdown. one worshiper told us the move raises disturbing historical parallels in french history. this isn't 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.