IN one of his first public policy statements as America's president-elect, Barack Obama focused on climate change, and clearly stated both his priorities and the facts on which these priorities rest. Unfortunately, both are weak, or even wrong.He points out that:
trying to reduce CO2 emissions would have done nothing to benefit the citizens of New Orleans, but that better building codes, evacuation procedures and wetland protection would have saved lives.
expensive climate control measures will do nothing to feed the world's hungry and in some cases [such as ethanol production] excaberate the problem, and money would be far better expended in increasing agricultural productivity.
rises in sea level are so small that they pose no threat to any human society and protective measures are far cheaper and more effectie than futile efforts to lower sea levels.
contrary to public perceptions storms are not getting more frequent or more destructive.
He concludes,
"Global warming should be tackled, but smartly through research and development of low-carbon alternatives" rather than through simplistic, ineffective, and expensive measures currently being advocated by Obama and many other world leaders.
Read it here.
Then check out one of Lomborg's recent presentations on smart alternatives to the Gore agenda.
[here]
