Photo by Ashley Anklowitz

Bjorn Lomborg talking about his views on Global Warming on April 18th in the Davis Concert Hall

Last Thursday in the Davis Concert Hall Bjorn Lomborg offered a creative and renewable way to conquer the lingering winter cold—heated debate. Lomborg, the controversial Danish superstar, presented his analysis of the “real state of the world” to a packed crowd of campus and community members.

After a tense 15-minute delay (half the audience initially showed up across town after The News-miner printed the wrong venue) Lomborg—dressed in a purple polo shirt and jeans—set down his can of Coke on the podium and launched into his famous presentation. He organized his argument around four main, if admittedly simplistic, points:

1. Global warming is real and is man made.

2. The consequences of global warming are currently being drastically exaggerated.

3. We need smarter options.

4. There are many other global issues where we can do much more good.

Lomborg’s level-headedness and appeal to reason were compelling. He was convincing and casual, methodical and humorous. He coaxed laughter from the mixed audience, showing a picture of him shaking Al Gore’s hand in a crowded room.

“This must have been before he realized who I was—he’s still smiling,” he remarked.

Indeed the bulk of the presentation ended up being a direct response to Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth,” which Lomborg described as “technically true but dramatically misleading.” During the first 15 minutes of his PowerPoint, Lomborg emerged as a kind of assiduous anti-Gore, with a mission to mitigate the damage done by his opponent’s propaganda. Gore’s proposals to mitigate global warming were dismissed as wasteful, futile and ultimately ineffectual. The Kyoto Protocol was singled out as the major example of such countermeasures.

Instead, suggested Lomborg, we need to prioritize our efforts to address global humanitarian issues. With unlimited resources we would take on global warming, HIV/AIDS, malaria, and water quality issues simultaneously—“we would do everything.” However, since our pockets aren’t bottomless we need to conscientiously allocate available funds to get the biggest bang for our buck.

Lomborg pointed out that if we make our policy decisions under duress they are inevitably going to be sloppy. Alarmist threats of ecological “doomsday” need to be dismissed before progress in solving any global crises can be made. He blamed Gore for scaring us “witless” and facilitating ineffective and sometimes counterproductive policies.

After thoroughly lambasting Gore’s analysis, Lomborg singled out key contentions in Gore’s case and asked if limiting carbon emissions was the correct action to be taken. “Is climate the right knob to turn?” Lomborg’s invaluable question and subsequent cost-benefit analysis were largely reasonable. Air conditioners are a better weapon against heat-deaths, if we’re truly concerned about polar bear numbers maybe we should stop shooting them, and mosquitoes aren’t going to inundate the world with malaria even if the temperature does increase if we focus on economic development.

By making his presentation a line-by-line rebuttal of Gore’s exaggerated and emotional film, Lomborg limited himself to obscure specifics and skirted around the heart of concern over climate change—the unpredictability of nature (come on Bjorn, we learned that from “Jurassic Park”). By relying on computer models to project specific trends centuries into the future he exhibited a level of statistical arrogance impressive even for an economist. For example, using these models, he predicted that the combined effect of all the Kyoto Protocol mandates would result in a seven-day postponement in the rise of global temperature 150 years from now.

Ironically, Lomborg—who began his discourse by railing against Gore’s false dichotomy—leaves us with only one positive solution. That solution, Lomborg claimed, is the diversion of all carbon cutting efforts into investment in research and development of new technologies. Technology will stimulate economic growth and as a byproduct will solve global warming as well as the more important issues of our day.

In the arduous Q&A session following the presentation Lomborg was more explicit about the uncertainty of even his best models. He was also respectful and attentive to even the most convoluted questions.

Intellectual incest or “self pollination” is possible in any field. Lomborg’s infusion of economic insight into the science of climate change is important. Challenging the “litany” of environmental beliefs contributed a refreshing, if somewhat conflicted, perspective last Thursday.

In short, Gore insists that global warming should be our sole concern—carbon cuts or doomsday. Lomborg claims we’re selling our children into economic servitude if we lift a finger to cool the globe. Thankfully there are a multitude of possibilities between and beyond both Gore and Lomborg for addressing the great problems of our generation—I’m sticking with “Idol Gives Back.”