Modern Wisdom - #617 - Dr Bjorn Lomborg - Climate Alarmists Are Getting It All Wrong

Episode Date: April 20, 2023

Dr Bjorn Lomborg is an environmental economist, Copenhagen Consensus Center president, public speaker and an author. Over the past two decades, the media has made some alarming predictions about the imminent end of the world due to global warming. But is this the priority that global efforts should be focussed on fixing? Does it have real world benefits, or are there better ways to improve human lives? Expect to learn why Greta Thunberg had to delete a tweet from half a decade ago, the reason why climate change is a favourite fear tactic in the media, the most cost-effective ways to make the world a better place, why sending kids to school doesn't necessarily mean they are educated, why cold weather is much more deadly than heat, just how inefficient it is to save lives through carbon reduction, how dangerous NetZero is as a policy and much more... Sponsors: Get 10% discount on all Gymshark’s products at https://bit.ly/sharkwisdom (use code: MW10) Get 15% discount on Bon Charge’s red light therapy devices at https://boncharge.com/modernwisdom (use code: MW15) Get $100 discount on the best water filter on earth from AquaTru at https://bit.ly/drinkwisdom (discount automatically applied) Extra Stuff: Buy False Alarm - https://amzn.to/43w6KKT  Check out Bjorn's website - https://www.lomborg.com/  Get my free Reading List of 100 books to read before you die → https://chriswillx.com/books/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom - Get in touch. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/modernwisdompodcast Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What's happening people? Welcome back to the show. My guest today is Bjorn Lombog, his environmental economist, Copenhagen consensus center president, public speaker, and an author. Over the past two decades, the media has made some alarming predictions about the imminent end of the world due to global warming, but is this the priority that global efforts should be focused on fixing? Does it have real world benefits, or are there better ways to improve human lives? Expect to learn why Greta Thumburg had to delete a tweet from half a decade ago. The reason why climate change

is a favorite fear tactic in the media, the most cost effective ways to make the world a better place. Why sending kids to school doesn't necessarily mean they are educated. Why cold weather is much more deadly than heat, just how inefficient it is to save lives through carbon reduction, how dangerous net zero is as a policy, and much more. Björn is very interesting, fascinating guy, incredibly well researched, super empathetic, very reasonable.

I loved this episode, it's everything that I enjoy learning about, upturning existing ideas and presumptions around what we should be focused on, genuine, practical, easily applied solutions that can give us something better, and a ton of stats and data and great stories to back it up. You're gonna love this one. Don't forget, you might be listening,

but not subscribed, and that is over 50% of you. If you want to support the show, if you want to help me get bigger and better guests every week and if you want to make me very happy, just navigate to Spotify or Apple Podcast and press the follow button in the middle of the page or the plus in the top right hand corner. It will ensure that you never miss episodes when it goes live

and it'll make me very happy. Thank you. In other news, this episode is brought to you by Jim Shark. If you need new kit for the Jim, the first place you should go is Gymshark. If you're a guy who's looking for a new pair of shorts to train in or to chill in their studio shorts in Dusty Maroon, Willow Green and Onyx Grey, I'm pretty much all that I live in. At the moment they're the perfect length, they're super lightweight, they wash and dry

really easily, they're sweatwicking, they've got a ton of pockets, they're crest hoodie in light grey and misty pink, are also the two things that I'm flying around in most. Incredibly comfortable, super soft, perfect fit, and their geosimless t-shirt in Bali green, white and navy fog blue. Also, three of my favourites that I'm training in pretty much every single day. Also, they have a 30 day returns policy with free returns, so you can buy it completely risk-free, and there is a 10% discount on everything sight-wide and worldwide if you go to bit.ly slash shark wisdom and use the code mw10. A check out. That's b-i-t dot y slash shark wisdom and mw10.

A check out. In other news, this episode is brought to you by Bon Charge. If you have heard about the benefits of Red Light Therapy not always being curious to try it for yourself, this is the best place to start. Red light therapy has been reviewed in over 4,000 peer reviewed studies, with 400 plus being double blind placebo trials. Not only these studies show that people have amazing health benefits, but not one person has ever shown any negative side effects.

It's really great if you're suffering with somersaults, poor sleep, wound healing, relaxation problems, low testosterone or scar tissue, and the thing that I really love about Boncharge is products. They both have near infrared light and red light as well, so from just 10 to 20 minutes each day you can have all of these benefits in one product. Also, they ship worldwide. There is a 12-month warranty on all of their devices. You get easy returns and exchanges. Plus, you can get a 15% discount if you go to boncharge.com-modern-wisdom and use the code mw15-a-checkout. That's b-o-n-c-h-a-r-g-e.com-modern-wisdom and mw15-a-checkout. And in final news, this episode is brought to you by AquaTru. If you're like me, you are increasingly becoming distrusting of your tap water.

Having safe clean water is the last thing that you want to worry about, but according to extensive research by Environmental Working Group, three out of four homes in America have harmful contaminants in its tap water. AquaTru is a four-stage reverse osmosis purification process, and their countertop purifies work with no installation or plumbing and remove 15 times more contaminants than ordinary picture filters. They have water purifies to fit every type of home from installation-free countertop purifies to high capacity, under-sync options. I love it. I've got one in both of the houses that me and Zach live in out here in Austin and it is made a massive difference.

It's better to drink, it's better to cook with, it's better to mix in a protein shake and it makes me feel confident that I am not putting toxins and poisons into my body that have leaked in from the local water supply. Also, you can head to bit.ly slash drink wisdom to receive $100 off any Akutru purifier plus a 30-day money back guarantee. That's b-i-t dot l-i slash drink wisdom for $100 off anywhere in America and a 30-day money back guarantee. But now ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Bjorn Lombog. 5 years ago, Greta Thunberg tweeted, climate change will wipe out all of humanity in 5 years. Now she's deleted it. What's going on?

Well, so Greta Tunberg is doing what I think most rational people should really be doing. She's listening to what the media is telling us and they're telling us, climate change is not just a problem. It's not just dangerous. It's actually likely to wipe us all out. And so, you know, she's scared, like many, many other people. But of course, it isn't actually a problem that's going to end humanity. Climate change is a problem, not the end of the world. If it's a problem, it's something that we should fix along with all the other problems in the world.

If it's the end of the world, of course, that's the only thing we should be focused on. So I understand why there's such a focus on making us believe this is really the end of the world, of course, that's the only thing we should be focused on. So I understand why there's such a focus on making us believe this is really the end of the world. There's a new survey of all the rich countries in the world, the OCD. It said 60% of all people now believe that it's likely global warming will lead to the end of mankind. That's terrifying because that's not what the UN climate panel is telling us. So problem, yes, not the end of the world.

And that's what Greta, she tweeted this, it was a bad tweet in the first place because it didn't actually reflect what the author said. And it just, it felt right, I'm sure, at the time. But of course, you can't actually get away with saying that. And then, you know, realizing five years later, we're still here. For the people who haven't been fully red-pilled on the X-risk definition and why climate change doesn't meet that criteria, what's the 30,000-foot view of that? I'm a little worried, I never remember whether it's the blue or the red pill. What is the red pill? The red pill is seeing why is climate change not a genuine existential risk?

So fundamentally, if you see temperatures rise or if you saw them drop for that matter, our societies will be ill-prepared. So look at, you live in Austin, right? And compare that to Boston. They're both well-adapted to where there are, sort of Boston, they're both well adapted to where there are. But if it got very much warmer or very much colder, both would be ill adapted. That's the main point that if you change the temperature of the world, it'll be a problem

for all humans. And of course, it'll also be problem for all other living things. So there's a real problem here. But the idea that somehow a few degrees of temperature within suddenly eradicate everything is just simply way outside of what anyone, the UN climate panel, anyone else is really telling us. There's a problem here. So the cost that you know, you will have to have more air conditioning cost. Of course, you'll have less heating costs, most places, and you know, many of those places it'll sort of weigh out each other, but some places one will outweigh the other dramatically.

So it will be local problems, it will have some problems globally. There's a lot of researchers, including a guy called William Northhouse, he's an economic professor at the University of Yale in New Haven, I believe. and he is the only climate economist to get the Nobel Prize in climate economics. And he estimates that if we do nothing about climate for the rest of the century, the impact will feel a little bit like we're 4% less well off

than we otherwise would be. Now that's a problem. Remember, 4% is not the end of the world. And also, if you think about it, the UN estimate that by the end of the century, the average person in the world will be about 450% as rich as he or she is today. So we'll be much much richer, but because of global warming, we'll be slightly less much richer. So instead of being 450% as rich, will only be 434% as rich. Yes, that's a problem. No, it's not the end of the world. Why use the metric of richness? Why is it that that's the outcome that's being optimized for here when it comes to climate? Oh, look, and this is a common misunderstanding that somehow economists and especially, you know, sort of welfare economists only care about money. You know, that's not what this is about.

It's just a convenient way of measuring a lot of different things. So it'll be, you know, losses of wetlands. It'll be that some people will die. Some people won't die. It'll be a lot of other things. So we do this routinely in many different ways. For instance, one, we decide whether to put up a traffic circle, or I believe it, roundabout in America.

Or if we put up highway protection in the median, or lots of other things do we hand out vaccines or make expensive operating procedures? Operations, sorry. We decide on that from a societal point of view, unsaying how much more good does it do, and that will typically be in saved lives, or if we're talking about nature and in preserved nature, compared to how many resources we spend. Economists tend to translate all of that into money because it's a convenient measure. But it's just one measure.

It's a fairly important one because that is what very often correlates very, very well with pretty much anything else. We know that if you have higher incomes, you also might likely to survive more, you'll likely to have more spare time, you'll likely to be better educated, you have lots and lots of other attributes that are similar in the sense of desirable, oh, you also have better environment typically. So the point here is it's just one measure in many of getting a sense of what is the size of this? When it comes to existential risk,

the proper definition of existential risk, permanent, unrecoverable collapse, right, of human civilization, It really does, it's been a pet irritant of mine ever since I started reading Nick Bostrom and Toby Ord that people see climate change as an actual existential risk. When I say existential risk, permanent, unrecoverable collapse, we are all paperclips, we are all gray goo, or we are basically permanently locked into being in the stone age and we can't get back out of it again. Almost all of the things that people focus their attention on, stuff like climate change, nuclear war, even nuclear war, every nuke goes off, not an existential risk. Now, unaligned super intelligent AGI,

big existential risk, nanotechnology, big existential risk, engineered pandemics, big existential risk. I am blown away by the fact that of all of the myriad of different X risks that we could be focused on, climate change is the one that's galvanized the most public attention, and Toby's book, The Press Space, which is great, says it's got a one in one thousand or a one in ten thousand chance over the next hundred years of being the end of human civilization, whereas I think AGI's one in ten, engineered pandemics of one in ten, natural pandemics of one in thirty. Basically, it seems like all of the attention is focused on something which doesn't require it or deserve it. Why? Welcome to the media age, right? This is this is fundamentally because climate change has all the great pictures. It also has some other things that are very desirable

like for instance you get to sell a lot of stuff. So last year we spent about $1.1 trillion on climate policy. A lot of people are making money off of this. So obviously they're pushing this when we had the big climate meeting in Denmark in 2009, where we were going to save the world as they always have to do in those meetings. Vestus, our big wind turbine producer, I believe still the world's biggest wind turbine producer, they blasted everywhere in Copenhagen with saying, get a great agreement, which, yeah, I'm sure

they're nice guys and they actually want that, but also it was a basic way of saying and make us lots and lots of money. So, there's a lot of reasons why with climate, you can basically turn every weather story into a climate catastrophe, a potential climate catastrophe. It's great for visuals. It's very, very hard to do that with gray goo, or with artificial intelligence. Or even if you think about it, back in 2019, virtually nobody

took a pandemic seriously. We knew it was going to happen. I mean, we're very lucky that COVID-19. Bill Gates warned us. Bill Gates warned us in what 2014, that favorite famous video. Yeah, yeah. And look, we saw it in 1918, right? So it's not like it's a surprise in the universe. Unprecedented. And yeah, we've seen this many times. And of course, asteroids is an obvious point. We know that they can basically kill everything in the universe. So, I think one of the points that I tried to do, and I guess that's also what you'd

like me on the show, is I tried to tell people, this is not about what looks best on TV or in this case, most scary on TV. It's about where we can actually do the most. Good for every dollar spent. Now, there's another thing, and that's where economists tend to get really annoying, as well as, of course, to say, some things we can fix fairly cheaply. Some things are incredibly hard to do something about. And so, again, I would tend to say, let's focus on the places where we can make

a huge impact at low cost first. Before we try, and that's unfortunately what climate is, we try to make a small impact in a long time from now at an incredibly high cost, which is not very effective. Yeah, so what you're trying to do is front load some of the gains that you can get because it's easy. We have probably the technology at the moment to be able to do it. There are some problems that you could foresee if you project out where technology is going that we may be more able to do it at a better price point in the future. Okay, you've been doing this research. You've got this new big chunk of research that you've spent an awfully long time doing, which is looking at the most cost effective ways to make the

world a better place. What did that involve? What have you discovered? What was surprising? So back in 2016, the world set targets for the world. They're called the sustainable development goals. You may have heard of them. The U.S. Sign-up, Britain has signed up every country in the world. They're called the sustainable development goals. You may have heard of them. The US sign up, Britain sign up,

every country in the world. That was something where there's 180 of them or something. 169 targets are goals. So we basically promised everything to everyone, everywhere, all the time. And the guys who did this in New York, these world UN ambassadors undoubtedly felt really cool about being able to say, hi

promises. Oh, and I also promise this and I promise, you know, we basically just promised around, promise to you, promise to you. But, but, you know, that's not how the world works. And so not surprisingly, we're actually failing on pretty much all of the promises. Now, they're all nice promises. So, they're, you know, stop poverty, stop hunger, stop climate change, stop corruption, stop war, stop, you know, anything you don't like and do everything you do like, make sure everybody has good jobs. And there's also some really odd ones in there. You know, we should recycle more and we should eat more organics and we should have more parks accessible for handicapped people. And it's not that these are not all good, although I would

argue that some of them are perhaps slightly different levels of attention. But what we tried to do back then was to basically tell them, please, some of these goals, some of these targets, some of these promises are incredibly effective. You can spend a few dollars and do an amazing amount of good. Some of them are going to be incredibly expensive and really hard to do. Like, you know, stop war, for instance. So maybe you should start focusing on the stuff that is really doable and effective first. And, no, they didn't listen.

I met with a lot of them and they loved this idea and they said, you know, this is all great. But the reality was, you know, when you meet with Brazill's ambassador I'm not pulling out Brazil for any good reason, right? But yeah, he would say but fundamentally I'm here to tell what Brazil's five points are and meet with no region ambassador And he wanted Norway's four points in there and that's how we ended up with 169 Tarkets so we tried to look across all these different areas and say, where can you do good? One of the things that everybody talks about is climate, obviously. But the problem is, you can spend trillions of dollars and literally trillions of dollars

and make no impact today. That's just how climate system works. Make a tiny change in 50 or 100 years. Now, that's not nothing. If we have infinite resources, we should also do that. climate system works, make a tiny change in 50 or 100 years. Now, that's not, nothing, you know, if we have infinite resources, we should also do that. But it's funny that people worry so very little about the fact that many people live terrible lives right now. You know, so about half the world's population live in low and low middle income countries,

so less than $11 a day. And these guys could use a lot of things that in the rich world we take for granted. So, you know, they die from easily curable infectious diseases, they don't have enough food, they have terrible education, they're all these problems there. So what we try to basically say is, shouldn't we take a look across all these different areas that we're promising and say, if we can't do it all, what should we do first? So that was a very, very long way of saying, this is why we've been doing this. So what we've tried to do is with lots of economists say, where can you spend a dollar or

yen or rupee or whatever your currency is and make the biggest bank? And it turns out that some things are incredibly effective, some things are not. Let me just tell you one. So we've found 12 great things. And obviously, we've set a cut off point in this sort of what's called benefit cost analysis. We look at what are all the costs,

not just the economic cost, but also social and environmental cost. And likewise, we look at what are all the benefits, so not just the economic, but also social and environmental cost. And likewise, we look at what all the benefits, so not just economic, but also social and environmental. And then we try to say, we're looking for the really good ones, the one that deliver at least $15 of good for every dollar you spend. This is not investment advice.

So you can't actually make your money back. You're doing good with your dollar. But what we found for it was education. So it's clearly a huge problem. So around the world, we have spent the last what 50 years getting people educated, getting them out of illiteracy. And that's great. We got most kids into school today. But unfortunately, there's a what the academic is called a learning crisis. Nobody's learning anything or very, very many don't learn anything. So they can technically read, but they can't understand the sentence.

So let me just give you one example. So we ask people around the world, not we, I don't do this. A lot of really smart people do this. I'm just accrucating all this stuff. But they ask, you know, 10 year olds to read the sentence, VJ has a red hat, a blue shirt, and yellow shoes. What color is the hat? This is not super complicated, right? I mean, the right answer is red. But unfortunately, 80% of all kids in the developing world in the low and lower middle income countries

can't answer this question. So they've learned technically to spell their way through these sentences, but they can't string the words together. And that's a terrible outcome because that means they're committed to poverty, even if we sort of get everything else right, they still can't be very productive. And so what we've tried to estimate is what would it take to make schools better? And there's a lot of knowledge about what doesn't and what does work. So one of the things is you want to make better schools. How do you do that? Well, you give teachers better pay. A lot of

people will argue that. They did that in, for instance, in Indonesia. Indonesia double teacher pay They did that in, for instance, Indonesia. Indonesia double teacher pay back in the, around 2010. And because they did it in different, districts in different times, we can actually estimate the impact on this, on kids learning outcomes. Turns out there was no learning outcome. The famous paper is called Double for Nothing. So, you know, fundamentally,

we spent twice as much money. It made the teachers much happier, not surprisingly, but it didn't have any measurable impact on the learning of kids. There's a lot of other studies that show what doesn't work. But here is the stuff that does work. The real problem in schools is that you put all the 12-year-olds together in one group, all the 13-year-olds and other group and so on. But these guys are vastly different in their outcome. Some are really smart and know a lot of stuff and are credibly bored and some have no clue what's going on and everywhere in between, right? What is the teacher going to do if you have like 30 or 60 kids in your class? You're sort of teaching to some middle ground and most kids are either incredibly bored or totally lost. Instead, what you should do is teach at the right level.

You should teach at their level. One way you can do that is by giving each of these kids a tablet. We're not actually going to give them a tablet because that's really expensive. They get to sit in front of a tablet one hour a day and then some other kids are going to be using for the other hours of the day. If you do that, then you have software that very quickly realize, you know, they'll know that, oh, it's Chris, he's back. And they'll know pretty much your level. And then they will start to teach you right from there. It turns out that that tablet one hour day can teach you so much that by the end of the year, you'll have learned three times as much as what you normally would have done.

You've learned three years of school in one year of schooling. And the cost is about $30 per kid. So that's for you need to have solar panels to recharge the, the, you need some lockers for the tablets, because otherwise they're going to get stolen and all that kind of stuff. But fundamentally, this is super cheap and could do an amazing amount of good. So there are some other solutions in there. We try to estimate what's the total cost of doing this for 90 percent.

So there's almost half a billion kids in the low and low middle income countries. Each year they need to get this education that's better. It's going to cost almost $10 billion. But you know what the benefit is? And we again calculate that in dollars. But the real benefit is that they will learn more, they'll go out and be productive when they're old enough, and they will help both build more wealth for themselves and for their societies. But the benefit of those $10 billion is $600 billion. We can make the world $600 billion richer. That's 60 back on each dollar.

How amazing is that? That's the kind of points that we're trying to make. So I'm sorry, I just, you know, talked for a way too long. But I think in some ways, this is the central point. This is not sexy, but it's incredibly useful. And those are the kinds of things that we should be focused on.

How close do you see this work that you're doing to the effective altruism movement? So effective altruism, I love those guys and they're a lot of fun to be with. It's very much the same spirit. So they are also very focused on saying what works and what doesn't. There's two things I think that sort of differentiate us. I think the main thing is that they tend to say the future is just as important as as the present. This is one of the reasons why they worry about existential race.

They worry about the fact that what about us, sort of running out of track in a million years as something? I think that's intellectually interesting, but it's just not how people react. Certainly not most people in the poor part of the world, but even in the rich part of the world. If you really thought the future was just as important as the present, all you would do was eat porridge every day and save all the rest to your descendants.

We don't. The honest answer is we actually spend most of the money on ourselves, on our immediate surroundings, then we spend some money on our descendants. We typically spend it through investment and infrastructure and in learning so that we're basically saying, here is a little bit more of wealth. Here's a lot more of information. Now go fend for yourself.

That's pretty much how we actually do it. And that makes for a very different sort of setup because the the effect of altruist, although they, you know, they will say they care a lot about people right now, they're sort of the way they think end up focusing a lot on the future. Likewise, they also like to focus on animals, for instance, where I guess I think they make some fascinating stories. I'm vegetarian because I don't want to kill animals. I love, I think they make some fascinating stories. I'm vegetarian because that I want to kill animals. I love the fact that they focus on animals. But again, I tend to see it as a professional economist, as a way of saying, it's about how much people

value these animals, not about the animals in and of themselves. And that's a very different sort of approach. So again, I tend to probably say it's a little more important to save humans. I see the similarities with regards to what is the best way to get a return on the money that we put in. That was what sort of aligned it for me. And I also, that's something that I hadn't considered.

William McCaskill's been on the show. I found him very compelling. I think he's a really lovely dude. Big fan of Toby Ords, big fan of Nick Bosterium and everybody coming out of that world. But you are right. In a perfect, himmetically sealed sandbox, you might be able to say, well look, we've got, you know, 14.5 trillion future human lives that will spread across the galaxy if we make these steps and get us there, but you need to account for human irrationality. You need to account

for human biases like hyperbolic discounting and, you know, self-serving bias and stuff like that. So you need to go, okay, I understand that that would be optimal, but I need to factor in the fact that all of the people around us are going to spend most of their money on themselves. They're not going to leave everything to future generations. They are going to inherently be selfish, even if they try to be selfless. So yeah, I think. And I would actually tend to go one step further because you're absolutely right. That's how people act. But I think that also tells us about what is our actual preference. So it's about this. So people will say, well, if you ask them, do you care about the future? Nobody's going to be annoying and say, no,

fuck them or whatever. You're just going to say, I really want us to focus on the future, but then when you vote, when you spend your money, you're very clearly saying, look, I care somewhat for the future, but I actually care a lot for right now and for the next year and that kind of thing. And I think we need to reflect that. And the second part is also, it makes just slightly more boring stories because it's fun to talk about, you know, us going out and colonizing the universe and all that stuff. And it's slightly more boring talking about how do we make better education in developing countries for six graders.

But this is what's actually going to fix a lot of the problems. And of course, also, what is going to get us to the star is quicker, if you will, because you know, I think there's something slightly wrong about us thinking about going to the star as well. A lot of people are still starving. And you know, more fundamentally, you know, if we actually get the whole world together, there's also a much greater chance that people are going to be saying, we should also fix gold warming, we should also fix lots of other things, because now we're so rich that we can actually afford

to care about the future. So education is one of the longest levers that you found. What is another one? You got, you managed to spend 10 billion and get 600 back, not bad. What is another very long lever that you discovered? So there's 12 all in all. Another one is maternal and newborn health. One of those things that I didn't know anything about really. So every year 300,000 moms die in close to childbirth from childbirth, and about 2.3 million kids die each year in the first 28 days of their life here on the planet. And most of these deaths are absolutely avoidable. used to die in rich countries. It was actually such that, you know, upper-class women died more

because they went to hospitals, you know, in the 1800s. And of course the doctor fresh from operating on somebody else came and helped her to deliver. It's not a good time. Yeah, bad idea, bad idea. So, so, but, you know, we fundamentally fixed this in the ritual, but every two minutes a mom die, nine kids die, and we could do something about this. So the simple, and these are really, you know, almost strikingly simple things, is something the World Health Organization called B-Monk. This is one of the reason why these sorts of solutions don't work, right? Then that's not fun, but it's basic obstetric and emergency maternal and newborn health care. See, I've just screwed it up.

Something along those lines. Anyway, so it's a, you know, it's a simple list of things that we should do. So it's for instance, make sure that you have clean operating environment. You're so like soap and disinfectant. Yeah, that's probably a good idea. But if you think about, you know, about a third of all these areas in low and low middle income countries, they don't have a clean water, they don't have clean sanitation, they often lack disinfectants. About a third of all the kids die from asphyxia, so they basically don't get to breathe. Again, I didn't know this, but if you take even just European kids, or rich, country kids, about 80% that come out of mom, they just start breathing right away.

About 15% of them need that shove in the back end to get them going. Okay, and then they start gasping, right? But the last 5% actually need a little mask, and then you pump air into their lungs, and then they start breathing, and they survive. This little bag, it costs what, $60 or something, and it can save 25 kids over a period of two or three years. Why don't we have this?

And there's part of the solution is, or part of the reason is, that this is not a high priority thing. If you talk to politicians everywhere, politicians typically being old, often also men, they'll want cancer hospitals or stuff that they and their wives and others die from. And maternal health is just far down the line. It's also, you know, this little back, that's not fun. If you've ever seen, if you haven't, you should, the machine that says, ping, do you remember that one from

the month of Python? It's a month of Python sketch where they're giving birth to, they're helping a woman give birth. But the doctors and the administrators only really focused on all the expensive machines they have. And especially this one machine that says, ping, and that's really, you know, there's something, oh, the woman. So, you know, doctors love, and I told you get that, right? They love, you know, the exciting stuff, and this mask thing is just not one of them. So what we're trying to say is you should invest in these cheap, simple things. It turns out that the total cost is about $4.9 billion. Two billion of that is women's time. So that's actually not money that we need to come up with, but of course, still a cost because we need to get women into facilities to give birth instead of giving it back home.

Because then they have that emergency opportunities in the hospital. But so for about 5 billion dollars a year, we could make benefits that would basically say 1.4 million lives. It's say to 166,000 women each year at say 1.2 million kids. How amazing is that? And the cost is so, or the benefit is so great, that each dollar will deliver $87 of social good. So, you know, those are the kinds of things that they're slightly boring. They're not things you usually knew about, but they're just incredibly effective. They're not climate change,

but there is something in some sense much, much better because they actually work right now. They'll help a huge chunk of people either getting better off as an education or just simply surviving, and they'll make life much better at very, very low cost. Let me do a little recap here to make sure that I've got my brain in order. So the first person that I learned about why climate change is such a powerful existential risk from is Mike Salana that writes pirate wise, the sub-stack. What he said was that he was talking about demographic collapse

and he was saying that there's no smoke in the sky, there's no plumes, there's no hurricane, there's no forest fires, nothing galvanizes people to get after it. What it seems like that you're saying here is there are lots of very boring, very unsexy, very kind of behind the scenes, no press release solutions that we can spend money on, which will do the thing that ostensibly a lot of climate activism is trying to do.

Presumably, the reason that people are doing climate activism is because they want to save human lives. People proselytize about the fact that they want to save human lives, specifically in the most poverty-stricken regions. You don't care about poor people's son and so forth. But my time with Alex Epstein taught me that a lot of the green policies that are being enacted hurt people from poverty significantly more than they do developed countries. So when you're doing this climate approach, when people are obsessing climate as the highest, the longest lever point in order to affect people from poverty, they are applying a salve to everything which actually

needs a slightly more targeted response. They are spending money in a way which doesn't benefit and cause positive changes in the now. It is an investment which takes a very long time to pay off, which may be benefited by technology advances in the now, it is an investment which takes a very long time to pay off, which may be better facilitated by technology advances in the future. There are more targeted solutions that we can do to people that are in these poverty-stricken areas, but because of the cultural hold, that climate alarmism and activism and green new deal and 169 different targets has taken hold of, it's very difficult to pull any one person out of this because you have a cohesive group where if one person decided to retract you'd say, you don't care about the climate, you don't care about poor people and you go, well, actually, no,

I'm doing a thing that cares more about poor people. It's more effective for poor people than what you're doing, but it doesn't seem that way, which means that they would then get lambasted, which is a disincentive for them to go and then do it. And all of this together gets rolled into how do we spend money to achieve the goal? And presumably, the goal is human well-being, human flourishing, an acceptable standard of living for as many people on planet as something like that, right? Whilst factoring in. Yeah, I would say the goal is a better world.

And that could be a lot of different things that could be that you're better off materially, it could be that you don't die and it could be that you have a better environment. And we try to balance all of those. It turns out that it's very much hard, you know, when you ask people, and it's not very surprising, they care a lot more about not dying when they care about having more wetlands. And so much of the effective stuff that we have is either getting people out of poverty or getting them out of death. So in this regard, I climbed. I loved your summary. And I'm at far off, was I wrong with much? No, no, no, I think that's great. And one more thing, you know, when people say, and this is absolutely true, climate change will affect the poorest the most.

That's absolutely true. But what you have to remember is everything bad affects poor people most. Yeah, so they're most affected by infectious diseases or bad environments or any kind of hurricane, whether it cost-pensive and in-reliable energy access? Absolutely. And so the main point is there's something slightly odd about the whole idea of us saying, you know what? I see you, you talk to some person who's really poor and you say, I really care about you. I want to help you. I'm not going to drive to work tomorrow. And oh, and sorry, and that will actually mean that I won't emit CO2, which will mean in a hundred years your descendants will be much warmer but slightly less much warmer. That's just, that just seems almost careless about these

people. The real point is that why wouldn't you want to help them now? And by making them better off, of course, you will also make the more resilient to climate and to all these other things that they're challenged with. So again, it's an efficiency conversation of saying, do you want to do a lot of good? Or do you just want to feel good? And I hope that a lot of people actually want to do good. But yes, you're absolutely right. It's really, really hard to have this conversation.

I think it's also important just take a little bit of a step away from climate change. It's not just climate change. It's also a lot of other things. People care about plastic straws and the ocean stuff. I think that's great. But again, let's get a sense and proportion here. One other solution. There is 1.4 million people that die from tuberculosis every year. Last year, tuberculosis was again the world's leading infectious disease killer.

COVID disrupted that in 2020 and 2021. But this has been a huge kill. It's killed a billion people over the last 200 years. Every fourth person that you, well, we didn't know them, but in the 1800s, a died, died from tuberculosis. And yet we fixed in the rich world, and then we sort of think, oh, it's fixed everywhere. No, it's not. And again, because we've fixed that we know very, very well how to fix this is about making sure that there's enough medication

that people keep taking. You have to take it for six months. So it's actually somewhat complicated. Most of us forget to take our pills after two weeks when we get better. Right? And then you need to overcome some of the stigma and you need to make sure that people actually get a found the people who are sick. There's about 11 million people who are sick every year, but we only identify about 6 million of them. That's what keeps the infection going because there's a lot of people who don't get diagnosed and hence either die or just pass on the tuberculosis. This again would cost in the order of $5 billion a year,

but the benefits in terms of saving, so over a long run, we'd save about a million people in the short run because you actually need to ramp it up. We'd save about 600,000 people. Yeah, that's still pretty damn good. And imagine we could do that for every dollar spent, would do $46 worth of good. So yeah, the point that we're trying to keep saying is that there's these amazing things

that we really make a huge difference. And that would also make people more concerned about all other things. You know, once you get out of poverty, you'll actually start caring about climate change. And of course, as you point out, also, reliable energy is incredibly important. It's one of the things that mean that we are not affected by incredible heat waves or incredible cold waves because we can cool and heat our homes.

And not surprisingly, most people, for instance, in Sub-Saharan Africa want that as well, not primarily because of global warming, but simply because it's really uncomfortable if it's very, very warm or very, very cold. And it's always been that way. Now we've made it a little more uncomfortably warm and a little less uncomfortably cold in Africa. Overall, it's still a big problem.

They would want most of the heating and cooling anyway. The point here is, if you get well off or if you at least get out of poverty, you're much more likely to actually have good life and be able to afford the stuff that will make it possible for you and your kids to start learning and doing better. I sort of tweet from you that said, cold kills much more than heat. Each year, heat kills half a million people, but cold kills 4.5 million people. How does that work? How is it in nine times more deaths from cold than there is from heat? So this is very well established. This is from the world's first estimate of a truly

global estimate. We have very bad data from many places in the world. We have lots of great data for rich countries, but we only have mediocre data for a lot of poor place in the world. This is from the Lancet magazine. And so what we know is that if you look across temperatures, if it's very cold, people die more. If it's very warm, people die more. And so what they're basically looking at is they say, where do you die the least? And it turns out that there's an optimal temperature almost everyone on the planet, it shifts so. So in England, it's what eight degrees in in India is perhaps why I don't know, 20 something degrees centigrade. And I'm totally lost

in Fahrenheit, but cold in England, and warm in India. And the point is, most of the time, we spend time below the optimal temperature. That is colder than the optimal temperature. That's why most people actually die from cold. Especially in the cold week, months of the year, people, especially old people, will stay inside if they're not really wealthy and typically old people, will stay inside if they're if they're not really wealthy and typically old people suffer more in this way. They can't afford to keep their home quite as heated as they'd like. And so what happens is when it's

cold, your body constricts the blood vessels to keep your inner core heat, but that drives up your blood pressure, so we know everyone has high blood pressure and winter time. And that means you have much higher chance of getting a stroke or a blood clot or many other complications that sometimes lead to a death. And because this happens for literally almost everyone on the planet, this makes for a lot of deaths. It's not, it's like smoking deaths. It's not something you take a smile and then you die, but it's something of a statistical

correlation. This is what all the people who've looked at, he and Colt S say, when it gets really hot, you die or you have a higher risk of dying, and when it gets cold, you have a higher risk of dying. Unfortunately, most of humanity spends way more time being a little too cold. So the amazing thing is, if you look at India, because they've done studies for India as well, India, you know, you'd imagine a lot of people die from heat, but actually, again, about seven times more people die from cold. And this is because it's very easy to die and very easy to see when you die from heat

because you die right after you die within the next 24 hours. That's why heat waves are great TV. But cold waves, you don't die the next day, you die over the next 30 days because you've constricted your blood vessels, you've increased your risk of heart attack, and then maybe 15 days down the line, you get this heart attack. But yeah, it doesn't show up on CNN. The problem here is, again, that we're guided by what we see on TV rather than what the evidence actually tells us.

Now, this doesn't mean global warings not a problem because global warring will mean we'll have more heatwaves and we'll have fewer cold waves. In the short term, it actually turns out that that's good for mankind overall because we'll see more heatwaves, that'll mean more dead, but we'll see fewer cold waves and because many more people die from cold, that'll actually be a benefit for mankind. Over the long run, of course, eventually we'll run out of cold deaths. And so it may turn out to be a problem. The other part is it's much, much easier to avoid heat death than it is cold death, because heat death, you really just need access to air conditioning for like, you know, 48 hours or so.

We know you can open up the malls, that kind of thing. There's a lot of ways that you can make sure people get more cooling for avoiding cold deaths. You need heating on for months on end, especially for poor people. And that's one of the reasons why not having access to an authenticie is actually really, really harmful. There's a wonderful study in the US that looked at what happened when you had fracking

the fracking revolution. Fracking revolution meant that gas prices dropped to about half as much. That matters because the vast amount of people in the US use gas for heating. And so they estimate it, what that mean, that gas became cheaper. Well, especially poor people kept their homes

better heated. And that, of course, means they die less. The net effect this study estimate is that every year 11,000 people didn't die in the US from cold deaths. You saved 11,000 deaths from cheaper gas. And so there's something weird about the way that we worry, but oh my goodness, the heat dome and 800 people died.

That's absolutely something we should be concerned about. But we should have sort of a sense of proportion that fracking probably saved 11,000 people every year, so about 20,000 people die from heat in the US, but 170,000 people die from coal. Why are we only talking about the heat deaths and not the cold deaths? You've run a couple of numbers previously to do with education, to do with tuberculosis, et cetera, et cetera.

What is the return on money when it gets spent on climate and green movement stuff? So it depends on how you spend it. So the best analyzed data is for the EU. They had a 2020 climate policy, and that has been sort of looked back at, and we've analyzed in a lot of different ways. And the simple answer and this is wrong in the sense that there's so much uncertainty that is zone in an order of magnitude estimate is that every dollar spent avoided about three cents of climate damage. It could actually have been 30 cents back on the dollar if we'd been really really lucky It could also have been even less

But it was not a good deal, right? Instead of spending a dollar and doing three cents of good mostly in poor countries in a long time from now You could just have given away the dollar and done, you know, 97 cents more good most climate policies are Very close to one or below one. So they do very poorly. And that's basically because politicians love to put a lot of restrictions on, no, no, no, you can't solve climate change with nuclear power plants, which would be somewhat cheaper or switch from cold to gas, which would often be a net positive for people.

That's something that people would actually want to do as the US did in the 2010s. Instead they said, no, no, you have to put up solar panels or wind turbines, which are often fairly expensive. So the estimate is that most climate policies is somewhere between 10 cents back on the dollar and maybe even a dollar, maybe a dollar and a half. So you can do pretty good policy, but typically you don't. There is one policy that's incredibly good. So we actually did a whole project just for climate, together with 50 of the world's top climate economists and three know-but-a-lorets to look at where can you spend a dollar and do the most good?

Just for climate. So not talking about, well, you could do something about tuberculosis or something else, just for climate. It turned out that the best long-term policy was investment in green energy, R&D. And this is not very surprising, really, because imagine if you could come up with innovations that would make green energy cheaper than fossil fuels. Not the cheaper that we're saying right now that still needs hundreds of billions dollars in subsidies from the inflation reduction act or something. And the reason why China and India and everywhere else is only taking up a little

bit of this. But actually cheaper, which of course would mean that people would just jump on it. You wouldn't need any big summits. People would just do it themselves because it was cheaper. If we had those kinds of breakthroughs, this could be fourth generation nuclear. Again, there's a lot of reasons why fourth generation might actually fail is at the end. But imagine if fourth generation was just vastly cheaper than anything else.

China, India, Africa, everybody would just buy it. And tons of it, and the world would decarbonize. It wouldn't be the complete solution because there's lots of other ways that we need to decarbonize apart from electricity, but it would be a big part of it. So the point is, this is the solution that we've always used. If you think that there's a good story back in the 1850s, the world was basically running out of whales. We were hunting whales almost to extinction because whales happened to have this wonderful whale blubber that burns really, really brightly.

So, most rich people in Western Europe and North America would keep their homes lit with this wonderful new whale blubber. It was much cleaner, much nicer, very much brighter. The solution to saving the whales wasn't to tell everyone, I'm sorry, could you go back to the dirty old stuff that doesn't burn as well? You couldn't convince people to do that. What you did convince them was that we found oil. And so we found oil first in

Pennsylvania, and then everybody else, everywhere else. And you could basically make the same clean burning oil product, but without having to go out in the middle of the ocean and kill whales and just get a little bit of blower, which was incredibly more inefficient. So fundamentally, innovation saved the whales. Instead of telling people, no, you have to do without. We came up with an innovation that was better. We've done that in many other ways, you know, back in the 1970s when everybody worried about there not being a food for people. The solution was not to tell, I mean, I'm sorry, could everyone just eat a little less and then we'll send it down to the poor people. The solution was the Green Revolution, the guy who actually got the Nobel Prize for this

in 1970, Norman Blolock. He was the leader of finding ways to make seeds more effective. And so he basically made these higher yield seeds. They would, you know, deliver two or three times as much rice or wheat or corn per acre or per hectare. And so you could basically give this to poor people and they could make more food themselves. This is what saved, for instance, India and many other countries, this is why India's gone from,

you know, basically a basket case in the 70s to now being the world's leading rice exporter because we innovate it. So it's not again about saying, oh, you know, be a little more hungry, then we'll save the world. No, it's about technology. And that's how we're going to save global warming. That's going to, how we're going to fix global warming by innovation. If we can come up with technologies that are cheaper and less carbon intensive, we've already done one, you know, fracking, which basically made a very cheap gas, which has meant that the US has switched over from coal to gas, gas emits about half as much. That's a great climate solution.

It's not the final climate solution because gas is still emitting CO2, and so we need to go further. But surely that's one of the first things we should do to get sure that Europe, that Africa, the India and the China starts fracking so that they can also switch away from coal and start using gas instead and become much cleaner and emit much less. So again, the point here is simply to say there are smart ways to do this and there are dumb ways. And unfortunately, we seem to be insistent and say, no, we're gonna do the dumb stuff,

which will be incredibly costly and actually not work. It's strange to think that the biggest point of contribution that you can make, as opposed to trying to wipe your finger, or get a Swedish girl to wipe her finger, and say, you should change. This is something that you should do. It's just offer up a solution that people are naturally going to want to do because the incentives end up being aligned. What you're trying to do is force people through shame or guilt or sad imagery to do something that they fundamentally don't want to do.

And, you know, incentives will as incentives do, basically. Like, people are going to end up aligning themselves with what it is that they want. You were talking there about the whales. I also saw a tweet from you that said, the polar bear population is increasing. Polar bears were intensely hunted, but in 1976, the world banned much hunting. The polar bear population recovered, and now is at its highest in six decades. Yeah. And again, this is to simply a question of a saying. This is not saying that overall climate change might actually be a problem in the long run for polar bears. I think the science is much less clear than what they want to tell us. But there is undoubtedly a problem, but that we are so focused on making

climate change the only problem. And so we're somehow thinking, no, no, no, I want to help save polar bears. So I'm going to, you know, not drive my car tomorrow, which is just like the weirdest kind of connection that, you know, in a hundred years, maybe I'll, I, and everybody else in the US will save a quarter of a polar bear. What wears, you know, if you actually cared about polar bears, we should stop shooting them. Yeah, the amazing thing is that every year, so there's about, you know, 26,000 polar bears in the world right now. Um, and every year, we shoot 700 polar bears.

If you worried about polar bears, stop shooting polar bears. Now, it's not rocket science. And so again, I simply try to point out what works and what doesn't. I actually forgot to say just on the research and development of green energy, we also do the cost benefit analysis and that.

And of course, it's very, very uncertain because you're basically making arguments about what's going to happen the far future. But what we estimated was with world's best minds was that every dollar spent will do 11 dollars of social goods. So essentially, by investing one dollar on green energy, R&D, you will help push forward the date when green energy will be so cheap that everybody will switch over, which will then reduce climate damages and long run about $11.

That's a great investment, it's not as great as some of these other things I'm arguing for, but it's still a great one, it's by far the best one we can do in climate. Also, there are, again, as we said before, you need to account for the fact that we have this desire to be seen as altruistic and empathetic and so on and so forth. You need to account for the biases that everybody's got at the moment. And one of them is we should be focusing on climate. So perhaps it's still within the realm of climate, but it's the highest leverage point of doing that might be a nice halfway house to get people to think a little bit more nuanced about this kind

of a problem. Yeah, and look, I really appreciate those thoughts. We've tried for a very long time to get people to think about stuff that's fundamentally boring, but incredibly good. And we've tried all of these different things. So what we're trying right now is simply to say, we made all these promises. We're gonna fail on pretty much all the promises.

If we can't do it all, shouldn't we do the smartest stuff first? So we're simply saying 12 amazing things. Just to give you a sense of proportion, if you add up all of these, it'll cost about $35 billion. There's another $6 billion in social cost. The mom's waiting, that kind of thing.

But we need $35 billion. $35 billion is basically couch money for the world. This is almost nothing. We spend what three times as much on cosmetics globally every year. So yes, we could probably afford $35 billion a year. The benefit would be that we would avoid 4.2 million deaths each and every year. We'd save 4.2 million lives. And we'd make the poor half of the world $1.1 trillion better off every year.

That's almost $1 per person per day in the poor half of the world. Are you not just screaming at the walls in your office every day with these figures in your hands and with these campaigns that everybody else is putting out? You must just be losing your, you must want to throw yourself off the roof. Like why? Why?

Clearly haven't. Yeah. Yeah. Well, there's no praise to your sanity for sticking up with it. I think, yes, we have a saying at the, in my think tank, the Copenhagen consensus that, you know, we would love for everyone to be incredibly rational, but we'd love for everyone to do the right thing, but actually we'll settle for just people doing it slightly less wrong. And there's a lot of reasons why we don't get it right.

A lot of it is just simply we're ecotistical creatures, right? I mean, fundamentally, so David Hume back from 1700, you know, he would describe how we, he would sit and reading the paper and read about a big earthquake in China that killed, you know, hundreds of thousands of people, and then he'd cut his thumb on the, on the paper, and you know, he'd be a lot more focused on it, and he's no different from the rest of us. Of course, that's how we, you know, we act. We just care a lot more about, you know, I just cut my thumb, but it doesn't mean we're uncaring people. It just means we're, you know, sort of limited caring people. And

so I just want to get our attention to at least saying, all right, look, you're going to spend most of the money on yourself and you're going to spend some of our really silly stuff and that's fine. That's how the world is. But when we're not, when we're actually saying, I want to do this because I want to do good in the world. That's as you pointed out, sometimes when people talk about climate change and many other things when they talk about plastic stores and everything else, when we really want to do good in the world, then let's really do good in the world and not just end up feeling good about

ourselves. And if I can push people a little bit to the smarter solutions, I would love us to do all 35 billion dollars, but I'll settle for Elon Musk saying, I'm going to do that one thing or whatever it takes. So we're throwing out these 12 amazing things and hoping some of it will stick. How dumb of a policy is net zero? It's an impossible policy. Well, in the long run, we'll probably get to net zero. I struggle to believe that we won't be net zero in a couple of centuries, but for 2050 or some of these states that are talking about it even before, it's just absolutely

bonkers for two reasons. One of them is we don't have the technology for at least half of it. And even if we had, it would be fantastically expensive, which of course is why most people talk about it, but most people don't actually want to do it. There was a wonderful story in Politico just today about Germany where they say most Germans would love to do all their climate goals, but they are somewhat skeptical about paying for all of that. And that's sort of the basic dilemma of most of these things that you talk about this stuff, but then if you actually realize how much it's going to cost, you can see that there's going to be nobody

saying yes to this. There's one study of how much it was from nature, how much it cost for the average American to reduce his or her or the US carbon emissions by 80%. And the cost would be, so pretty far from net zero, by 2050 would be more than $5,000 per person per year. So if you're a family of four, that's $20,000 for you every year. And if you wanna go all the way, or they couldn't actually get the model to do it all the way,

it would cost more than twice as much. So fundamentally, this is just not going to happen in any realistic sense. McKinsey did a study for what it's going to cost to go net zero. They estimated like many others have done. If we do really smartly, which we won't do, but even if we did, it would cost, you know, in the order of five to six trillion dollars a year, it would cost India about 9% of its GDP every year. Remember, the total budget intake in India is about 12%. So they'd have to spend almost their entire budget on net zero. Of course, they're not going to do that. Yeah, so we just got to get to grips with the fact that we're talking about these policies that are absolutely

fanciful and even if we did just remember if everyone in the rich world went net zero today and stayed that way for the rest of the century it would reduce temperatures by about half a degree centigrade or one degree Fahrenheit. So yes, it would be noticeable, but it wouldn't have fixed most of the problem. That's of course because the vast majority of emissions are going to come from China, India, and Africa, who are all places that want to get much richer. So again, we have no sense of proportion here. Nets here is both impossible and it's probably also a net

zero by 2050 or something is an incredibly ineffective way to help the world. It's a good idea to say we want to fix climate, but I think there's something long and saying we want to fix climate to the extent that we're just going to leave off a lot of the money that could have helped save a lot of other stuff. And it's also wrong to tell people we're going to go down a road that will eventually make every one of you yellow vest protesters because it's just going to be so expensive. So there's a limited amount of time, resources, money, energy, focus that can be spent on looking after the world. There are trade-offs between going green, stopping poverty, health, pollution, women's education, child mortality, etc., etc.

At the moment, the most widespread of these, whether it go to public campaigns, political campaigns, government talks, stavos conferences, the ability to click that button to offset your carbon when you fly on a plane, the ability to round up and donate money to greenpeace or whoever it might be, all of these different vectors could be pointing at places that were longer leavers, ones that would give you a better multiplier on all of these, given that we have you a better multiplier on all of these, given that we have what seems to be a culture of altruism, right? That's like one positive white-pilled way of looking at what's happening. You know, people want to make an impact. The problem is that the less sexy risks and the ones that galvanize them more poorly, what is a way that you foresee of trying to get people to buy into your 12 points?

So I think there's one thing and we've talked about that in several different ways. You need to get people off the ledge. If climate change is the end of the world, of course that's the only thing you should worry about. AOC said it very beautifully when she was talking about, there's only 12 years left. It's been a recurrent phrase, at least since 1972, when the UN first told us we'd just had 10 years left. But we only have 12 years left, she said, and you're worried about how we're going to pay for it? That makes perfect sense. If the road was really ending, this is the only thing you should be focused on. So it makes sense if you believe you're on the edge.

And so we need to first pull people back. And that's what I've been trying to do. You mentioned the polar bears, the fact that a lot more people die from cold and heat. I have another graph that I love, which is basically how many people die from climate-related disasters. So we have pretty good data at least for the last 100 years. And in the 1920s, on average, every year people die from climate-related disasters of cold and heat drought, storms, floods, and extreme temperatures, about half a million people died each year, a hundred years ago.

Now most people would certainly, when you look at the presentation, think that that had increased since then. It's actually dramatically decreased, such that in the last decade decade in the 2010s, it was 18,000. Last year, it was 11,000 people globally. And mind you, we've for droopled in size. So actually, the individual of risk has gone down even more. We have seen a decline of about 98% in total deaths from climate related disasters. This is nothing to do with climate. This is everything to do with the fact that when you're richer, you're more technologically advanced, you don't die as much. You're more resilient. We've just simply become much better at dealing

with whatever nature throws at you, which is one of the reasons why we should make sure that the rest of the world also gets out of poverty so they can get the same benefits that we're having. But the reality here is, once you pull people back from that ledge, you can then start talking about, now, all right, so what do you want to do? Do you want to not drive your car tomorrow and help a hapless guy in 100 years, and a tiny, tiny amount?

Or do you want to do something really, really effective right now? And once you point that out, once you've taken away the end of the work, I think it's a lot easier to get people to start realizing, oh wait, there's some really, really good stuff here. But what I'm trying to do with this particular thing, and that's because I, you know, this is what I've been saying for 20 years and failed. So what I'm trying right now is basically to say, look, whatever else you're doing, I'm simply saying, why don't we spend $35 billion?

Couch change, you know, spend on all the other stuff that you want, but let's just spend this tiny, tiny, tiny amount and make the world immensely much better. How about that? And I think even a lot of people, you know, even the AOCs of the world would also say, sure, I'd love to do that. And then let me go back and worry about climate change. And that's fine. That's sort of another way that I would probably

still disagree with her. But fundamentally, I want to get everybody on board with this boat. We've made all these problems. We're not actually going to deliver. Why don't we at least do the really smart stuff that's incredibly cheap first? Where should people go if they want to support these efforts and try and make some sort of

an impact themselves? So there's a number of different ways. First of all, I'm an academic, so I'm not, you know, we're not looking for money to do this. We're not the right guys to go out and actually fix tuberculosis. Then it's a stock TV or it's a red cross or many, many of these other organizations. It's also very much about getting your politicians to think about this. It's also just about getting that conversation going. So I'm really hoping that when people watch this, they'll simply start having these conversations

with their kids or their peers or grandparents around around the tables and say, why are we focused on these things? I'm coming out with a book next month. It's also available on our website, but it's still working on it. We're publishing this in 35 papers around the world so you can go to our website, it's called CopenhagenConsensus.com slash half time. And that's basically because we're at halftime, but nowhere near halfway, right?

So we're basically saying, let's do the smart stuff now. You can also follow me on Twitter. And obviously, I'm hoping to help give that sort of input that will make you better at pushing all the other people to become slightly more aware that this is how we should be spending our money. Because at the end of more aware that this is how we should be spending our money. Because at the end of the day, this is not going to happen unless also everybody, I live

in the same country as Greta Tonberg. I think she's a great girl. I really have a lot of respect for her because she's heard the message loud and clear, the world is ending, and it seems like nobody's doing enough. So I understand why she's doing what she's doing, but I would love her to then say, why aren't we doing the real stuff first? So if we could take away some of the fear,

I think a lot of people like Redutunberg could actually start saying, I want to do the real stuff. And then of course, we could actually get our politicians to do a little less of the dumb stuff and a little more of the smart stuff You know, I really appreciate you. I like the fact that you are very measured With the way that you put this stuff across I think that you need to be delicate when sort of Broaching this topic with people because you'll just trigger a response that's going to get them to dig their heels in and ignore

What you're saying I think it's definitely the right demeanor and the right sort of rhetoric to go about this stuff with very much looking forward to the book coming out. And yeah, I really hope that this has opened a lot of people's eyes. Every time that I speak to someone that's got a measured response when it comes to how we should be dealing with current problems facing the world, it does give me a glimmer of hope. So congratulations for doing that. Dude, I really appreciate you. Thank you for your time today. Thank you, Chris. Thank you very much for tuning in.

I hope that that has opened your eyes to some of the other ways that we could save both the planet and the people that live on it in a more evidence-based and science-grounded way. I really appreciate the work that Bjorn is doing and pushing back against some of the overreach that we are seeing. This doesn't mean that climate change isn't a problem, it just means that there are other ways that we could perhaps focus our time.

Anyway, thank you very much for listening, and I'll see you next time. you