Would you accept 4 cents on the dollar?

If so, you might think it makes sense to fight global warming instead of adapting to it. The cost-benefit ratio of policies to fight global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions is, indeed, roughly 25 to 1. Bjørn Lomborg emphasized this in a September 30 article in Times Online (the online version of the Times of London).

Lomborg and other economists estimate that every dollar spent to reduce global warming by adopting renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels would yield about 4 cents of benefits. "To make a simple comparison," Lomborg writes, "the UN estimates that for about £40 billion ($70 billion) annually, we could solve all major basic problems in the world - we could give clean drinking water, sanitation, basic education and healthcare to every person in the world. But instead we are spending a fortune achieving almost nothing."

For additional information on prioritizing spending to achieve the greatest good, see the Copenhagen Consensus Center’s 2008 report (http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/).

______

This content was produced by The WeGetIt.org campaign team.

Sensible Environmental Protection

Here’s a link to a grassroots movement that is advancing a biblical agenda for caring for the environment and the poor, based on solid facts, without all the hysteria.

We-get-it.org is sponsored by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

BBC caves to threats

Here’s an expose about how the BBC completely changed a story after “feeling the heat” from a global warming activist.

Weather Channel Founder Doesn’t Buy the Hype

Global Warming: Don’t Believe The Hype

Thomas Malthus continues influencing world history despite the fact he has been dead for over 170 years. Besides giving rationale for the rise of Communism and Darwinism, his ideas continue to be used by today’s political elite to arouse hysteria of worldwide cataclysmic scenarios in order to justify the advance of their radical, socialistic agendas.

When we forget history, we inevitably repeat it:

Malthus continues to have considerable influence to this day. One famous recent example of this is Paul R. Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb. Ehrlich predicted, in the late 1960s, that hundreds of millions would die from a coming overpopulation crisis in the 1970s, and that by 1980 life expectancy in the United States would be only 42 years. Other famous examples are the 1972 book The Limits to Growth from the self-styled Club of Rome, and the Global 2000 report to the then President of the United States of America Jimmy Carter. Science fiction author Isaac Asimov issued many appeals for population control reflecting the perspective articulated by people from Thomas Malthus through Paul R. Ehrlich.

As someone who has creditials in this field, let me tell you that so-called Global Warming is just the latest hysteria that simply serves as a Trojan Horse to fulfill a leftist, socialist agenda in this country and around the world. You know the saying, “If you burn me once, shame on you, if you burn me twice, shame on me." This goes for you too. So, don’t believe the hype!

Clear-thinking on global warming

As someone who holds a degree in Environmental Policy & Analysis with a minor in Economics, I believe I can speak authoritatively on the costs and benefits associated with global warming. Having said that, I think George Will offers a well-balanced, and levelheaded approach to how we should think about this highly controversial issue. Read the story here.