HumanProgress.org,
a libertarian group associated with the Cato Institute, just did a segment on
Bjorn Lomborg by Marian Tupy. He first notes that Lomborg’s 2001 book, The
Skeptical Environmentalist, which I have not read, got a lot of pushback from
the climate change establishment. Lomborg has focused on prioritizing human and
environmental problems. I did read his 2020 book False Alarm, about toning down
climate change catastrophism, and his excellent 2023 book Best Things First,
which was specifically about prioritizing sustainable development goals.
I summarized and reviewed that book on this
blog.
It was the more liberal
science groups, such as Scientific American and the Union of Concerned
Scientists, who criticized Lomborg’s earlier works, such as The Skeptical
Environmentalist. For a while, Lomborg was a sweetheart of the U.S. right-wing
pushback against prevailing catastrophic climate change narratives. Lomborg was
lambasted for challenging that narrative. He was branded as a climate change
denier and was said to be in line with fossil fuel interests. However, that was
never actually the case.
“The substance of Lomborg’s crime was simple. He took
the environmental litany of doom and gloom and checked it against long-run data
from the UN, the World Bank, and other official sources. He concluded that on
most indicators human welfare had improved, many environmental trends were not
as catastrophic as advertised, and that resources devoted to some flagship
green causes would save more lives if redirected to basic health, nutrition and
economic development. He accepted that global warming is real and largely
man-made but argued that the standard policy mix of aggressive near-term
emissions cuts was a poor investment compared with targeted adaptation,
innovation and poverty reduction.”
His branding as a “climate
crisis denier” is probably more apt, as I, too, agree that calling it the
climate crisis is not necessary. Much of his work, however, has been
vindicated. Climate change is a problem and is important to address, but there
are other, more pressing human issues also competing for funding that really
need to be addressed first. Tupy notes that Bill Gates’ recent memo on
deprioritizing climate change issues for more pressing problems utilizes
arguments very similar to those used by Lomborg. It is also true that Gates and
Lomborg have worked together in prioritizing human betterment issues.
Lomborg noted that other
human problems outweighed climate concerns, particularly in developing
countries where quality of life and access to needed basic services were
lacking. Tupy writes that Gates’ memo was right in line with Lomborg’s
analysis:
“The key line could have been lifted from a Copenhagen
Consensus report: “The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they
always have been,” and limited resources should go to interventions that
deliver the greatest gains for the most vulnerable. That is Lomborg’s central
thesis restated by one of the most influential philanthropists on the planet.”
Tupy also writes that Gates’
and Lomborg’s views are that “health and prosperity are the best defences
against a warmer world.” Lomborg argues that the focus for poor countries
should be on economic growth and adaptation to adverse climate and weather.
Tupy focuses on three ideas
that Lomborg’s opponents tried and failed to delegitimize. First is his
emphasis of longer-term trends over recent headlines in assessing and ranking
problems. Second, he considered climate change one problem among many, instead
of some overriding issue that deserves all the attention. Lomborg is always
focused on doing the most good with the lowest costs. Overly focusing on
climate change does not do that at all, he argued. Thirdly, Lomborg focused on
prioritization, specifically subjecting each human problem to cost-benefit
analysis, to show where we could do the most good at the least cost. Tupy calls
it putting analysis into a framework of applied welfare economics.
Tupy concludes:
“That is what it means to say that Lomborg was driven by
science rather than dogma or emotion. He did not deny problems. He asked how
big they are, how fast they are changing, and what works best if we care about
human flourishing. His opponents often responded not with better data but with
attempts to brand him as illegitimate, to sic committees on him, and to deter
others from asking similar questions.”
“There is a broader lesson. Modern societies claim to
revere science, but too often turn scientific disputes into moral battles in
which heretics must be shamed or silenced. Lomborg’s experience shows what
happens when a researcher challenges a powerful narrative with inconvenient
numbers. The attempt to punish him did not change the data. It only delayed a
necessary conversation about trade-offs, priorities and the best use of scarce
resources.”
Lomborg, like Gates, is
deeply involved in understanding and solving human problems, especially those
in the developing world, which are often dire and have life and death risks. He
favors the promotion of health, education, the reduction of corruption, the
development of durable institutions, and poverty reduction as human goals that
simply should outrank climate change.
References:
A
Vindication of Bjorn Lomborg: Lomborg’s experience shows what happens when a
researcher challenges a powerful narrative with inconvenient numbers. Marian L.
Tupy. HumanProgress.org. March 3, 2026. A
Vindication of Bjorn Lomborg - Human Progress
No comments:
Post a Comment