Products and services
From Copenhagen to ClimateGate, the context and controversy surrounding any discussion of global warming has proven a significant handicap. This week, a group of distinguished climate scientists, economists, and policy experts published The Hartwell Paper - the outcome of a meeting convened by The London School of Economics. Fundamentally re-framing climate policy, these experts argue for a radical change in approach, insisting that progress in confronting climate change is now possible because of the epic failure of international cooperation on policy in 2009. (Contributors to the Paper include the Press's own Professor Mike Hulme - who had been featured prominently in the coverage of the ClimateGate scandal and is author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change.) The Hartwell Paper proposes a three-pronged approach in objectives: ensuring energy access for all; ensuring that we develop in a manner that does not undermine the essential functioning of the Earth system; ensuring that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause may be. Learn more about their thesis on the LSE's homepage here. Delving into the discussion, Cambridge author Bjorn Lomborg aligns their findings with his own approach to climate change on The Project Syndicate. -------- TALKING SENSE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING Bjorn Lomborg LONDON - In February, 14 distinguished climate scientists, economists, and policy experts came together to discuss how to tackle global warming. This week, the London School of Economics and Oxford University are publishing their conclusions. They are worth considering.
Read More
Today marks the 40th anniversary of Earth Day – the birth of the modern environmental movement – and a great moment to reflect on how far we’ve come since 1970. In a year that witnessed the failed Copenhagen climate conference and steadily escalating conflicts between climate change skeptics and fervent environmental activists, it remains difficult to sort out answers amid the clamor. In USA TODAY, Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and editor of the forthcoming Smart Solutions to Climate Change (September 2010), gives his rather optimistic perspective: "Earth Day: Smile, don't shudder..." -------- Given all the talk of impending catastrophe, this may come as a surprise, but as we approach the 40th anniversary of the first Earth Day, people who care about the environment actually have a lot to celebrate. Of course, that's not how the organizers of Earth Day 2010 see it. In their view (to quote a recent online call to arms), "The world is in greater peril than ever." But consider this: In virtually every developed country, the air is more breathable and the water is more drinkable than it was in 1970. In most of the First World, deforestation has turned to reforestation. Moreover, the percentage of malnutrition has been reduced, and ever-more people have access to clean water and sanitation. Apocalyptic predictions from concerned environmental activists are nothing new. Until about 10 years ago, I took it for granted that these predictions were sound. Like many of us, I believed that the world was in a terrible state that was only getting worse with each passing day. My thinking changed only when, as a university lecturer, I set out with my students to disprove what I regarded at the time as the far-fetched notion that global environmental conditions were actually improving.
Read More
Bjorn Lomborg, author of the internationally acclaimed The Skeptical Environmentalist, talks about stumbling in the dark during EARTH HOUR. In March, nearly a billion people participated – switching off their lights for an hour to raise awareness of global warming. Though sweet and well-intentioned, Lomborg argues that this movement lacked power in more ways than one. Pun intended. -------- Via The Project Syndicate Stumbling in the dark Bjorn Lomborg - 2010-04-01 SAO PAULO - As well-intentioned gestures go, Earth Hour is hard to beat. At the stroke of 8:30 p.m. on Saturday, March 27, nearly a billion people in more than 120 countries demonstrated their desire to do something about global warming by switching off their lights for an hour. In a show of official solidarity, the lights also went out at many of the planet’s most iconic landmarks, from the Opera House in Sydney to the Great Pyramid at Giza, not to mention Beijing’s Forbidden City, New York’s Empire State Building, London’s Big Ben, Paris’s Eiffel Tower, and the skylines of both Hong Kong and Las Vegas. What ever else it may be, Earth Hour is surely one of the most successful publicity stunts ever dreamed up. First organized in Sydney, Australia, in 2007 by the local chapter of the World Wildlife Fund, its popularity and the level of participation (both individual and official) that generates has exploded in recent years – to the point that there is barely a corner of the earth that the campaign hasn’t touched. As Greg Bourne, CEO of World Wildlife Fund in Australia, put it: “We have everyone from Casablanca to the safari camps of Namibia and Tanzania taking part.” But has Earth Hour actually done anything to halt – or even slow – global warming? Not so much. The event’s popularity is not hard to fathom. Who but the most die-hard global-warming denier could resist the notion, as Earth Hour’s American website phrased it this year, that merely “by flipping off your lights on March 27 at 8:30 p.m. local time you will be making the switch to a cleaner, more secure nation”? Needless to say, this was not quite the case. The main thing that anyone accomplished by turning off the lights at nighttime for an hour was to make it harder to see. Keep reading at The Project Syndicate > > >
Read More
Writing in the Washington Post, Skeptical Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg on the lack of meaningful action on climate change: Even though no one should have been surprised by the outcome of last month's global climate summit in Copenhagen, the lack of any meaningful action unleashed a torrent of angry and disappointed rhetoric. "The outcome of Copenhagen doesn't at all match the needs . . . of mankind," complained Sweden's environment minister. "By delaying action, rich countries have condemned millions of the world's poorest people to hunger, suffering and loss of life," added Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International. And those were some of the milder comments. Critics, however, should calm down.
Read More
Writing for The Washington Post, skeptical environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg discusses likely impacts of any required carbon cuts, and, crucially, the huge cost of carbon cuts versus other means of reducing emissions.
Read MoreKeep up with the latest from Cambridge University Press on our social media accounts.
